Talk:Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade

message: 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)
replies: text: The IRA has never been a proscribed terrorist organisation in the Republic of Ireland. Also please see WP:TERRORIST and WP:NPOV. It's quite a common thing now, for example the BBC and Reuters have similar editorial policies, unfortunately for British people who think The Sun is a bastion of neutrality. 15 cans of Stella303 16:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

text: under U.S. law, an attack against a military target does not meet the legal definition of terrorism[18] (see: 22 USC § 2656f(d)(2)).--Conor Fallon (talk) 03:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What does the U.S. have to do with anything? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 15:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not up to day on UK laws, I gave this as an example how attacks on military targets are often not considered terrorist attacks.--Conor Fallon (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Guerilla" or "Terrorist" 

message: Intercept To stop, deflect, or interrupt the progress or intended course of  e.g. the unit was intercepted as they carried out an unlawful attack on a police station. 
 Niraqsback 16:50, 14 August 2008 (GMT)
Ambush is distinctly POV. Intercepted in the correct military term. 
 Niraqsback 19:52, 01 August 2008 (GMT)
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: PoV

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

message: Please merge any relevant content from these articles, per their AFDs:
* [ Gerry O'Callaghan] per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerry O'Callaghan
* [ Patrick Kelly] per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Kelly
* [ Eugene Kelly (Irish republican)] per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene Kelly (Irish republican)
* [ Seamus Donnelly] per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seamus Donnelly
* [ Declan Arthurs] per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Declan Arthurs
* [ Tony Gormley] per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Gormley
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge from members 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Aaahhhhh... I recall that event.  Well, regardless, what has that to do with this article? ---Charles 22:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mountain lodge? 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:FintonaMortarAttack.jpg

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Tony-Gormley.jpg

message: The Loughgall Ambush should really have its own article, yeah? Stu ’Bout ye! 15:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I agree. BigDunc 15:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I agree also. Irvine22 (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

text: This place goes more to the dogs each day. You'd expect someone who has forked an article to know what the problem is, and not have to ask random people. You'd also expect that anyone planning to fork an article might have bothered to read WP:CFORK before they had forked an article, unless they were totally ignorant of its existence in the first place of course. Now that you know where it is, have a quick read of it and you should be able to figure out why you ballsed it up first time round. There is a consensus for Loughgall to be forked, but that would involve it complying with the global consensus on how articles should be forked. So you either fix the mess you created on this article which is against global consensus, which takes precedence over any local consensus, or I am merging it back until such time as you fix it. 2 lines of K303 14:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate article 

message: An anonymous user made some clearly unhelpful rewording edits recently, was reverted, and then was backed up by a "mate" "with similar interests, outlooks & values," as he put it.  I, in turn, reverted the, er, "mate."  This is a clear matter, though.  "Brigade" is a simple factual term used by the sources, whereas "gang" isn't a factual term at all but a POV label supposedly deriving from sources that have not been provided. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. "Brigade" is a division of the IRA that is recognised by most sources that have written about the IRA. "Group" could mean anything, if we are talking about brigade then say brigade. It is a factual label used by sources. O Fenian (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Kitlingra's gone shopping for support from the usual suspects, so I'll keep an eye on the page in case any reverts are needed.  Is there a resident admin here? Throwaway85 (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Resident admin here? One would hope so? --Domer48'fenian' 00:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really want to disturb Rd232 on his wikisemibreak, so let's hold off until problems arise that require admin intervention. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding recent edits 

message: That the editor who proposed merging several articles back into this one hasn't actually bothered to do the merge, and in fact attempted to redirect the articles without merging. This is despite there being merged versions of the articles in the history of this one. So is anyone actually going to do the merge? 2 lines of K303 15:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See User talk:Valenciano#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Declan Arthurs (2nd nomination). I'm going to take a look at this in the next few days. As per the link, I was discussing how much should be merged to the "Membership of the Loughgall Unit" section. For example I think this would be sufficient for Arthurs:
Declan Arthurs was a volunteer from the townland of Galbally in Tyrone, who became involved in the republican movement after attending the funeral of hunger striker Martin Hurson. Prior to the Loughgall ambush, Arthurs had been interned on three occassions. 
Mini biographies for each isn't required, just what's relevant. Maybe mention Arthurs' brother as well. What do you think? Stu ’Bout ye! 15:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Odd....

message: The use of scare quotes around the word "retaliated" does not seem appropriate. The UDA perceived the murders of Protestants as a sectarian attack and carried out their own sectarian murders as was their disgusting habit, but there's no reason to believe it was anything but a retaliation, so the punctuation is not necessary.--FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 02:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Retaliated' 

message: QS, will you restore those refs? Gob Lofa (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs