Talk:Provisional IRA South Armagh Brigade

message: I was about to revert the changes made by Weggie on October 25, but I think that the supposed blatant PoV he claims is something to be discussed here. 
There are some questions to be made about:
*Was the full demilitarization of South Armagh a major Republican objective or not?
*Was the IRA brigade there effectively wiped out or defeated in any way by the British Army?
*Was the control of roads achieved by the British security forces at any time of the conflict in S.A.? (They were forced to resupply their bases by helicopter).
*How can anybody consider "successful" an army retreating from a conflict zone, with an unbeaten enemy still lurking there?
Thanks.
DagosNavy
:: The British Army remained unbeaten as well - the peace process alone led to the withdraw (not complete as yet) as the troops are not needed. The army didn't retreat, it was withdrwan after the politics of murder were abandoned by the republican mvt in favour of negociation. The watch tower policy was highly successful as was the helicopter resupplies in keeping a solid military presence in a republican heartland - which is another POV as yours is a POV.Weggie 18:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also worth pointing out that there are no 'winners' in Northern Ireland only the grieving relatives. The reason that the British Army didn't wipe out the S.Armagh 'ra was public policy - Slab Murphy head of the IRA lived next door to the British Army for years in their watchtower and the local members of the IRA were named under parliamentary privilige. This was a counter-insurgency/policing mission to back up the RUC/PSNI not a mission to 'wipe out' anyone.Weggie 09:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The demilitarisation of South Armagh was the aim of both the UK Govt. and the provos. The British Army was sent to support the RUC/PSNI - the reason they are leaving is the improved security situation brought on by the GFA. I should point out that the PSNI will still have an active presence in South Armagh, so the British state will still be represented in many of the bases that the British Army was stationed. Don't forget that the army shared the RUC/PSNI bases (the BA was in support of the police). The SAS arrested far more people that they killed, an example in South Armagh is the Caraher sniper squad. Your comment about self-restraint is POV, the facts do not support your assessment, the British Army showed massive restraint in South Armagh under the circumstances - nearly all the provos were known to intelligence, British state policy dictated that this was a policing operation where normal legal rules applied. The provos were treated as common criminals not an army to be wiiped out, that's why so many of them ended up in prison and not 6ft under Weggie 17:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The SA provos achieved nothing - the GFA started the process of demilitarization as per the Patton recommendations after the security situation improved to which is why the material was removed. No GFA, no troop withdrawls from South Armagh 19:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: British withdrawal from South Armagh

message: :Image:XmaglenSniper.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 19:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:XmaglenSniper.jpg

message: I would like to hear your opinion about the top photo in the article. It's a fair-use one, if you have any objections, please, left your comments here.--Darius (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a fair use violation unless the actual incident is talked about in the article. One Night In Hackney303 23:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I will added some comments about the 9 October 1975 incident as soon as I can. On the contrary, I will remove the pic.--Darius (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A little truce to talk about the pic on the top

message: I think there are some jobs to do to improve the narrative:
1)A brief summary about the Warrenpoint ambush.
2)A brief summary about the sniping activity.
3)A brief summary about the Docklands bombing, an entirely SA Brigade operation. 
4)If possible, free images in order to illustrate some points.
DagosNavy 12:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your list, point 2. is being discussed above, point 3. the Dockland bomb may have been prepared in South Armagh, but the operation would have been carried by the IRAs' English Department who where responsible for all operations outside of Ireland, including England and mainland Europe, this department was under the responsibility of the IRA GHQ, not to any brigade.--Padraig (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Padraig. Yes, point 2 is already treated in the proper place. For point 3, we have this Harnden's textual citation: "Never before had an IRA vehicle bomb been fully assembled in Ireland and driven to its destination in England without using any of the sleeper units or the logistical support network in place." (page 22 of the 2000 edition) In the next pages, Harnden describes how McArdle drove the truck bomb right to London, along with an escort of two scouting vehicles ahead of him. Thus, this was clearly a full SA Brigade operation. Your comments about the other points?.DagosNavy 16:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: More misinterpretation of sources. Members of the South Armagh Brigade were members of the England Department, simply because other members of the England Department weren't used doesn't make it a South Armagh Brigade operation. Harnden doesn't say that at all, yet again you're making false assumptions and drawing erroneous conclusions from source material. One Night In Hackney303 16:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and all of them were part of the IRA, they weren't?. As usual this is your own personal interpretation (about this issue, at least).DagosNavy 17:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As demonstrated above, the person who puts their own personal interpretations into articles is you. Try reading Harnden properly, he talks in depth about the South Armagh/England Department relationship. One Night In Hackney303 18:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

text: DagosNavy, Yes they where all members of the IRA, but the English Department members where seperate from the Brigade and come under the command of the GHQ, in the manner as the Engineering and other departments, if you don't understand the structure which the IRA operated under then don't make personal assumptions.  As for the sniper article, if I removed everything out of that article that was irrelevent to the topic the article would be nothing more then a stub, so the issue is not resolved.--Padraig (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Padraig I agree with you on point 3, the Docklands bomb was made in South Armagh, but  making it is the only involvment they had in it. Which is actually very different to their first bombings in London in March 1973, where two car bombs exploded, one at Whitehall that injured 40 people, and the Old Bailey bombing which injured 180 & killed 1 man. But unlike the Docklands this was carried out from start to finish by the Belfast Brigade, from recruiting for the operation to parkingthe primed car at it's target. I think they came up with the idea  of an English department after all the bombers were caught except for 1. TommySocialist 23:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: TommySocialist, just as an FYI, unfortunately Padraig passed away about 11 years ago and this is an old conversation you're responding to. If you'd like to bring up any new points for the article, please start a new section and conversation. Canterbury Tail talk 12:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Things to do in the article

message: What I suggest is the following:
# Suspend the merger proposal and remove the tags. This is a temporary step.
# Concentrate on the SA sniper article to get it reflecting sources and consensus. (Not a huge amount of work involved in doing this but it does require cooperation all round.)
# Revisit the merger once SA sniper is stable and fixed so that sourcing issues don't muddy the water. With them out of the way, it will be much easier to find consensus.
For clarity, I don't have strong views on the merger either way. My interest is purely in high quality Wikipedia articles. I also assume that other editors would prefer to channel their efforts and knowledge productively into the nitty-gritty of article improvement, each in their own way, rather than spending time bickering.
--ROGER DAVIES talk 19:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think the review of the disputed sources by a "neutral" part is the first step; I propose the latter in order to avoid disruptive changes or removals of materials in order to advance a position or another. The key then will be what remains in place in the sniper article once the things are fixed.--Darius (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree completely. The most important thing to do is get an accurate, reliably sourced version of the sniper article added to this article. Then it will become clear that the other article is redundant, and filled with off-topic filler. There is no need for reviewal of disputed sources by "neutrals", if you really insist on me proving how wrong you are I'll put word for word exactly what any source says and how your interpretation of those sources is a policy violation. One Night In Hackney303 10:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is, of course, no reason why this article shouldn't have a South Armagh sniper section. I suggested that a couple of days ago. Whether it renders the other article redundant remains to be seen :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree that that is how it appears but would like to see more transparent evidence of WP:OR - which is not an invitation to bombard me with examples :) - before acting. I will, in the meantime, warn them about the necessity for accurate sourcing. --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, and you might also point out to ONIH that his opinions don't constitute reality. He has particular difficulty with the concept of unanimity. Sarah777 (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sarah, that comment is not only inappropriate and contentious, but it is unsupported by facts.  I would like you, if you would, please, to provide one example of a situation in which Hack imposed his opinion, POV, "view of reality," whatever you may choose to call it, over and above the facts.  I dare say that you will be unable to do so.  Rather, I would suggest that you retract the statement you made above.  Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say WP:Kettle to the charge of "inappropriate and contentious"; except that I am serious. If you'll check ONIH's "thoughts" on the concept of "unanimity" here you'll find that I'm 100% correct. You may now feel free join ONIH in a double apology/retraction. Sarah777 (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "100% correct"?  I hardly think so.  You've not made your case at all.  Now as far your WP:Kettle remark is concerned, am I to understand that you are implying that I have made accusations that are "inappropriate and contentious"?  If so, please do specify.  As things stand, neither an apology nor a retraction are necessary on my part nor will either be forthcoming. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh...how can I put this in really simple terms? ONIH called a decision "unanimous". A significant minority of those involved opposed the decision. Therefore, (still following this?) it wasn't unanimous. Because, "unanimous" means  everybody involved agrees. Everybody involved didn't agree. What ONIH thinks of the arguments is utterly irrelevant. Everybody didn't agree, QED - not unanimous. As all this is pretty obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of English I must assume that you (1) have poor English comprehension or (2) are not being honest. Which is it? Sarah777 (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving forward

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Provisional IRA South Armagh Brigade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070928205026/http://www.uup.org/media/media_19_08_05_kennedy.htm to http://www.uup.org/media/media_19_08_05_kennedy.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Provisional IRA South Armagh Brigade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131016233843/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0135/S.0135.199304290006.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0135/S.0135.199304290006.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060509073456/http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/ulster/article350380.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/ulster/article350380.ece
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified