Talk:South Armagh Sniper (1990–1997)

message: The article seems to have a number of thinly veiled attempts at portraying the Provisional IRA sniping teams as ineffective (e.g., comments on the number of misses between 1990 and 1992) and cowardly (e.g., the comment about firing from under 300 metres despite the weapon having a range of 1000m).  I realize that the Republican campaign is still a very emotive issue, but this doesn't seem a neutral point of view to me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.15.170 (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, ALL the data are based, point by point, on Toby Harnden's Bandit Country, so the statistics and facts are well documented according to Wikipedia guidelines. The misses reflect no PoV against the IRA; in any case, they suggest inexperience in the use of long range rifles (the volunteers were more familiar with Armalites or AK-47) and a bit of bad luck (one soldier had his helmet piercing by a .50 round and survived). I can't post it to the narrative because Wikipedia rules against original research. In the case of the shooting range, you seem to be somewhat confused; contrary to your claim, what Harnden want to say is that the IRA guys took much more risk than an usual sniper by firing from a shorter distance. If you like, I can quote a British official (cited by Harnden) making an explicit statement against the charges of "cowardly" made by some politicians on the sniper teams in South Armagh. Frankly, the template is utterly unjustified. DagosNavy 2:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Firing from behind cover is just common sense, not cowardice.  Like wearing body armour, it doesn't mean you're a coward, it means you don't want a small piece of metal to pass through your body at several thousand feet per second.  The firing range was probably dictated more by the environment than anything else (speculation on my part).  I think any bias in the article is not really the fault of the editors working on it, it's because out of 20-odd references, about 75% of them come from Harnden's book.  The article just needs a few more citations from a wider range of sources. Geoff B (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: February 2008 posts

message: Would this article not be improved by inclusion of a photo (or even a png if you have no free photos) of the iconic roadsign? Sarah777 (talk) 08:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Sarah. Pic already added by John. Thanks to him.DagosNavy 4:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sniper at work

message: Harnden's opinions after interviewing a few soldiers are being presented as fact, while ignoring the official report into Operation Banner (which certainly isn't biased against the IRA) says "Most of the effectiveness of sniping is psychological, but there is no concrete evidence of ‘sniping’ reducing the effectiveness of Army operations in South Armagh". One Night In Hackney303 07:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are free to include it in the section as a counter-balance.--Darius (talk) 07:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A counter-balance?! It's not a counter-balance, it proves the entire section is utter nonsense. Read the OB report in full, it shows how wrong Harnden and co are. One Night In Hackney303 07:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Harnden is not a reliable source for you, then.--Darius (talk) 08:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read the OB report in full? If so, what does it say? If not, come back when you have. One Night In Hackney303 08:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Harnden is more reliable than Paddy Hayes...--Darius (talk) 09:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: POV section

message: Since the editor who added the text unsupported by references refuses to allow the  tags to remain, I have removed the text in its entirety. One Night In Hackney303 09:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I never suggested that was a major problem, however I consider it to be a good illustrative example which is the reason I brought it up, and it was already fixed by that point anyway. If the source says "estate car, van or jeep", why put van in the first place? "I don't honestly think that it's improving an article by removing a chunk of sourced text" - perhaps because the text isn't sourced? Putting a reference next to something doesn't make the text necessarily sourced does it? I've got Taylor, I've got Harnden, I've got many, many other books including Taylor's other books from the Provos/Loyalists/Brits trilogy the latter of which deals with the IRA's post-1996 tactics in more detail, and none of them source the text that's in the article, it's all conjecture. Even ignoring the synthesis, we'll take Harnden for example, a quote of "After the Docklands bomb brought the ceasefire to an end, there were remarkably few IRA attacks in South Armagh" is being used to source "Indeed, the period after the ceasefire shows a decline of IRA activity in South Armagh". The post-ceasefire period doesn't show a decline, as for example in 1993 the sniping team killed seven members of the security forces. In 1994 (ceasefire came into place at the end of August 1994) the only people killed by the IRA in South Armagh were a suspected informer killed in April, a soldier killed by a bomb in May, and a post office worker shot during a robbery in November. Therefore while the 1996-1997 activity was low for South Armagh standards, to say it had declined post-ceasefire ignores the fact that during the eight months in the run-up to the ceasefire they were hardly active. And under some circumstances I could have reworded it, but rewording isn't appropriate on this occasion. Harnden doesn't state why the IRA activity was so low, so why draw that conclusion in the article based on what Taylor purportedly said (but didn't actually) about Northern Ireland in general? What Taylor says in Brits is most relevant - "The IRA knew it was vital not to alienate Sinn Fein's growing political support that was the launch pad for the next phase of 'the struggle'.....'New' Sinn Fein voters would probably accept IRA attacks on military installations in the North and economic targets in Great Britain but would not be supportive of operations that resulted in civilian deaths". The IRA's activity in South Armagh itself was overwhelmingly directed at the security forces themselves or their bases, so the idea that the IRA's post-ceasefire "rules of engagement" (for want of a better term) somehow restricted the sniping campaign is dubious, and not directly or even undirectly supported by any source. One Night In Hackney303 11:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've introduced some changes in the Caraher team arrested section of the article. I re-shaped the potential OR statements (synthesis of two different sources), by replacing Taylor for two cites from Harnden. I also added quotes (without removing the tags) about the smuggling of the rifles. I hope it will be the start of some kind of compromise about this hard-debated issue. Re-shaping of narrative text to match note # 32 (37 by 29 March) of the current version also done.--Darius (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Text removed

message: I propose that we do a switch and place the Sniper at Work sign in the infobox. What do other editors think?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Gestur (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead image