Talk:Operation Banner

message: How can something like this be openly edited? People are reading this and believing it as gospel. Military history of any kind should be banned from Wikipedia; too susceptible to nationalistic bias.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.185.188 (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Open Editing

message: I've removed text from the article that purports to summarise the material but looks like selective use of materials to support a individual conclusion which = WP:Original Research. The report should only be used for reference directly or reliable third party analysis on the contents. Kernel Saunters (talk) 12:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Operation Banner Report

message: I guess this exceeds the scope of WP, but it would be interesting for the article to determine if van Creveld comments are quoted directly by the report or the paragraph is just an analysis of General Jackson about undisclosed van Creveld's conclusions. The only secondary source available (for now) is the (in)famous BBC release, whose concise interpretation left this question open. I hope we could find a second (reliable) opinion about the report in the near future.--Darius (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The actual report is one of the article's references, so it is possible to check. It seems that it doesn't quote him directly. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the clarification.--Darius (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Martin van Creveld: is this a quote or an analysis of his comments?

message: MFIreland is removing a OR tag from this section. It was added to highlight the OR nature of the last paragraph which is 1/3 of the section. This material needs sorting out or removing by a neutral editor Kernel Saunters (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs two citations. I don't think a drastic measure such as the removal of text needs to be applied in this case.  I'll see what I can do as I consider myself a neutral editor as regards Troubles articles.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, the first two sentences accurately describe what took place at Derry on 30 January 1972 when the Paras opened fire on demonstrators, killing 13. That's not OR. The Cameron quote requires a citation as do the final sentences in the paragraph. That makes a total of three citaions needed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Troubles started in 1968 see The Troubles. Remember just because you can dig out a quote don't make it useful material for a summary. It needs rewriting. You might want to remove "murders" see WP:BLP - This is defamatory. Kernel Saunters (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm aware the Troubles began in 1968, but you'll agree Bloody Sunday led to a massive recruitment to the ranks of the IRA not to mention a rapid escalation in the violence. Which part of the paragraph needs rewriting?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To quote directly "It is widely acknowledged that Bloody Sunday was the beginning of The Troubles as we know it" Kernel Saunters (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that might be better phrased "Bloody Sunday was a signifiant event in the Troubles....." or something to that effect with of course a RS to back it up.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Defo along with the formation of the PIRA in 1971 dedicated to armed conflict Kernel Saunters (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Catholic reception section

message: there is no mention of Ulsterisation in the article. It also needs to point out that the UDR was a regiment of the British Army - in fact, its largest regiment.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Ulsterisation

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Operation Banner's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named ":0":
From Glenanne barracks bombing: Potter, p. 351
From Labour Party (Ireland): 
From Ulster Defence Regiment: Potter, p376
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Operation Banner]] 

message: Just a wee word to inform everyone - this never happened.  Try and substantiate the information on Google and you'll come up with the same thing as I did - just a reference to Tim Pat Coogan.  I like Coogan's style but he's got it wrong this time; probably fooled by the way the UDA used to walk alongside army patrols for press pictures in the days when the army was told not to interfere with them unless they became violent.  There's plenty of evidence to show that the UDA offered this facility to the army and were turned down.  I believe CAIN have a reference to it.  Without proper evidence however you can't put it in the article and to edit in a line which says "the UDA offered to patrol with the army" is a waste of time, unless you're doing an article on the UDA. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joint patrols - Army/UDR 

message: Anyone using quotes from this needs to be aware that a lot of it is speculation, which is noted in the document's own introduction, so unless it states that something is absolute fact, like the figures for weapons stolen, then treat it as a document written by a person or persons not in possession of the full facts. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Subversion in the UDR report 

message: I've softened this section and removed a lot of POV as well as images which were just there to reinforce the Catholic/nationalist/republican viewpoint.  I still don't think it's short enough to be an overview and it still contains no Protestant views or incidents but I'll leave that to someone else who has the necessary interest. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship with the community 

message: What's the rationale for the removal of the RUC from the Belligerents list? No-one is disputing that Banner was primarily a BA operation. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's because Banner was a military operation, separate from the police, and the police didn't take orders or direction from the army.--Flexdream (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that, but the police were their main ally. They worked hand-in-glove, often sharing bases. Gob Lofa (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  RUC 

message: I have again reverted an IP who insists on adding members who died of natural causes, suicide and "other" to the number killed during the campaign. Mo ainm~Talk 20:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed killed to died as the IP insists on reverting and someone is not killed if they die of natural causes which the source the IP is using clearly states. Mo ainm~Talk 11:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number killed Operation Banner 

message: At the bottom of the second section, where it says "The role of the armed forces in their support role to the police was defined by the Army in the following terms:", are those sentences direct quotes? If so, that needs to be clearer. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role of the armed forces 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Operation Banner. 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/20110426121606/http://www.patfinucanecentre.org/sarmagh/sarmagh.html to http://www.patfinucanecentre.org/sarmagh/sarmagh.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610153435/http://www.madden-finucane.com/patfinucane/archive/pat_finucane/2003-04-17_stevens_report.pdf to http://www.madden-finucane.com/patfinucane/archive/pat_finucane/2003-04-17_stevens_report.pdf
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) 22:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Do we really need the citations that have been added to the lede? All of the statistics in that section are sourced at Operation Banner#Controversies or Operation Banner#Casualties, plus those casualty figures that are listed in the infobox are cited there too. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations in lede 

message: I've just been doing some spot-checks on the figures in the infobox, and I can't work out where the 127 Republican deaths figure comes from. Selecting organisation and status summary for the crosstabs gives a figure of 126 Republican paramilitaries killed by the British Army, so that's one short. Perhaps the UDR should be included, but they are listed as killing two, so that would make 128. , can you remember how you got to 127? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, given that we list the RUC amongst the belligerents, shouldn't people they killed be included in the casualty figures? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

text: And I'm also confused how the 305 deaths caused by the British military figure at Operation Banner#Casualties was arrived at. The crosstab says that the British Army killed 297, the UDR eight and the RAF one. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, so maybe the Republican deaths figure should be 128, which would make the total 306, which would tally with the BA+UDR+RAF total. I think the difference is one PIRA member, because when I look at the detailed status crosstab, the BA killed 97 IRA, 12 IRA Youth Section, and the UDR two IRA, which makes 111, not the 110 given in the casualties section. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Although looking at the civilian death figures, there's 149 by the BA and five by the UDR, so where does the 156 figure in the article come from? Perhaps the Ulster Special Constabulary? But that one would take the total to 307. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The organisation summary tab gives a figure of 363 deaths caused by the British security forces. The detailed organisation tab shows 55 RUC and one British Police, so that would indeed leave 307 by the BA, UDR, RAF and USC. Maybe that's our answer. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox casualty figures 

message: this is all lies the army was brought in to protect the Catholics  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.135.112 (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  lies  

message: IRA and UDR UDA membership figures tagged as dubious, for obvious reasons. FDW777 (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed them for now. Dormskirk (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious figures