ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion to Talk:The Troubles/Archive 3. (BOT) |
→The Troubles and the Easter Rising: now a request for clarification from arbcom |
||
Line 234: | Line 234: | ||
Please see my question regarding whether the [[Easter Rising]] falls within a reasonable interpretation of "The Troubles broadly interpreted" (regarding Discretionary Sanctions purposes) at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Great Famine (Ireland), Irish nationalism and discretionary sanctions]]. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 19:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC) |
Please see my question regarding whether the [[Easter Rising]] falls within a reasonable interpretation of "The Troubles broadly interpreted" (regarding Discretionary Sanctions purposes) at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Great Famine (Ireland), Irish nationalism and discretionary sanctions]]. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 19:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC) |
||
:I have now initiated an arbitration clarification request related to this: Please review the request at ]]Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: The Troubles]] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 17:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:21, 15 January 2019
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Adding additional supporters of the Paramilitaries
As sourced on the groups' pages - their support is broader than was previousuly construed by the infobox. Simon Levchenko (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- The source does not back up what you claim. Nor the Winter Hill Gang, nor NORAID/Irish Northern Aid Committee, nor the Norwegian Criminal Gang are mentioned in the source. The Banner talk 21:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Which sources did you check?
-Iran paid millions to fund IRA Adrian Levy and Anna Pukas. The Times , 21 Aug 1994 -Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, The Mitrokhin Archive pp492 - 503 -Mitrokhin, Vasili (2000). The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB. Basic Books. p. 384. ISBN 0-465-00312-5. [KGB SUPPORT] -"Report". U.S. House of Representatives House International Relations Committee. 24 April 2002. Archived from the original on 28 February 2007. Retrieved 17 March 2007. [FARC dealings] -Mallie, Bishop, p. 308 [ETA SUPPORT] -"Inside The Ira - Weapons & Technology - The Ira & Sinn Fein - FRONTLINE - PBS". Retrieved 3 October 2014. [ETA SUPPORT]
-Support from FARC/PLO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTxIPFRv22U
"Inside The Ira - Weapons & Technology - The Ira & Sinn Fein - FRONTLINE - PBS". Retrieved 3 October 2014. [PLO]
NORAID
Bandit Country: Toby Harnden, ISBN 0-340-71737-8. "Decommissioning in the summer - Ahern". BBC News. 1998-04-12. Retrieved 27 September 2008. Duffy, Jonathan (2001-09-26). "Rich friends in New York". BBC News. Retrieved 27 September 2008. "Passing the Hat for the Provos". Time. 1979-11-26. Retrieved 27 September 2008.
McDonald, Henry (2 July 2000). "English fascists to join loyalists at Drumcree". London: The Observer. Retrieved 30 December 2010. - C18
Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas. Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity. NYU Press, 2003. Page 45.LINKS TO COMBAT 18/BNSM
Wood, Ian S. Crimes of Loyalty: A History of the UDA. Edinburgh University Press, 2006. Page 339-40. Other Fascist groups
- So every group that delivered or tried to deliver weapons is now suddenly a real, active participant in The Troubles? What about the companies that supplied weapons to the British Army? Why are you only focusing on the IRA and not on the Protestant side? Did you read WP:RS? Why do you keep coming back with that PBS source, while that is not backing up your claims? The Banner talk 17:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- How am I only focusing on the IRA? I clearly added supporters and references for both. Who are not active combatants, they are under the support column. Under your logic - both Libya and Apartheid South Africa should be removed from the infobox. PBS is a reliable source - their articles on the subject and others are written by local and international experts. The reporter who wrote the list about PIRA decommissioning has a track record of reporting on terror cells in Ireland. They likewise source the work of Jane's Intelligence Review. Simon Levchenko (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Then why mention any supporting parties in the first place.Simon Levchenko (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- See Years of Lead (Italy). Simon Levchenko (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Every article is judged on its own merits. So that link has no relevance at all. The Banner talk 20:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- See Years of Lead (Italy). Simon Levchenko (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Point in case; why mention some supporters only to obscure others? Simon Levchenko (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Why mention groups that had no serious influence on the fighting? The Banner talk 22:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Point in case; why mention some supporters only to obscure others? Simon Levchenko (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Around half of all firearms used by the PIRA were imported from the United States via NORAID, the Harrison Network, and the Irish Mafia (through James Bulger). I would consider that significant support. Likewise, IRA members were trained in bomb making and other "specialties" by Libya and the PLO. The Unionists had only 1 shipment come from South Africa - their support came from elsewhere, too. This could be added to an expandable list.Simon Levchenko (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- https://books.google.com/books?id=ommRmaG8Q4wC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false Page 247 Simon Levchenko (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- "George Harrison, a leading IRA operative in the United States who worked with local Mafioso, procured perhaps 2,500 guns while active, as well as a million rounds of ammunition." Simon Levchenko (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- And? The Banner talk 20:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- "George Harrison, a leading IRA operative in the United States who worked with local Mafioso, procured perhaps 2,500 guns while active, as well as a million rounds of ammunition." Simon Levchenko (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- And this proves the significance of their support to the PIRA. Which received only around 1,000-1,100 firearms from Libya. Which - was listed as a supporter. Simon Levchenko (talk) 00:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- It still doe s not make him a belligerent or participant. Or can you prove that he went over to Northern Ireland and joined the fight? The Banner talk 02:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- And this proves the significance of their support to the PIRA. Which received only around 1,000-1,100 firearms from Libya. Which - was listed as a supporter. Simon Levchenko (talk) 00:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- He worked with several accomplices- e.g., the Harrison Network. So, you are saying if they played no role in combat they should not be mentioned? Per that logic then, the page shall stay as it is; not listing any material supporters. Simon Levchenko (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Neither Libya nor S.A. were belligerents or participants in The Troubles and the sources don't support inclusion. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think Libya should definitely be counted as a supporter, especially after the 1986 bombing of Libya. NORAID also should be there as raising money. Neither were actual belligerents. I don't think the PLO, Basque or FARC were of any consequence though they expressed support for each other. The rest of them were either directly working for the IRA or were just criminals working as gun runners for money, they weren't public organisations. The stuff under the Loyalist column is equally silly. So yes overall I agree with Banner. I think the whole supported by stuff should just be removed from the infobox as too remote from the actual happenings and only covered in the text. Dmcq (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@The Banner: Please be more careful in your choice of words: Why are you only focusing on the IRA and not on the Protestant side?
- Considering the IRA are proud to boast of any Protestant member's they had so they don't look sectarian, and the fact there are Catholics who have supported or are loyalists, such a statement is inaccurate and wrong. Rather you mean "on the loyalist side".
On topic, whilst you could argue that they were involved in the conflict by aiding and abetting, they weren't directly involved. Otherwise why didn't the UK take military action against Libya or the such considering it was basically state sponsorship of the IRA by Libya? So I would oppose the addition to the infobox of participants of such entities. Mabuska (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The importation was not known until several shipments were intercepted. Likewise, talks resumed in the early 90s - Maggie was out of office. Simon Levchenko (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
No real difference between the new version and the previous version
I have taken the liberty of removing duplicate fields to make things obvious. First is the version as of 06:07, 19 June 2018, secondly is the "new" version. I am sure everyone can see the only supposed difference is the change of "Supported by:" to "Armament supply:" and the removal of "arms shipments". There is no real difference at all, so the objections are still valid. 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:D802:80A1:3B7D:C884 (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- Why is this place such a kindergarten? Did those entities supply weapons or not? As is practice in e.g. List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War, there is an obvious distinction between the label 'Allied armed groups' covering heavy military commitment, versus the label 'Armament supply' strangely enough covering non-involvement except for arms supply. Substantiating such drivel as there being "no real difference" between aforementioned revisions with "everyone can see it" is invalid. There needs to be some level of consistency between related articles to prevent ownership sentiment among certain users, as is the case here. --131.164.141.250 (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- Could you please stop your POV-pushing? The Banner talk 18:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- I have no intention to promote any side of the conflict. An expression of desire for an 'Armament supply' section - in line with various conflict infoboxes - is not in any way "POV-pushing". Are you done with your name calling and care to stay on topic? --131.164.141.250 (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- Quite funny to see you complain about "name calling" when that is exactly what you are doing. The Banner talk 19:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- Tu quoque fallacy. I now recognize your aversion to discuss substance over form. Moving on.
- You claim in your user page that you're "not afraid of being wrong" and yap yap. Fuck you for possessing the audacity to hijack my dear time with your rubbish. You're despicable human scum, worse than a dog. You filthy heap of canine dung. You're worth less than a tick and rectal itch. --131.164.141.250 (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- Quite funny to see you complain about "name calling" when that is exactly what you are doing. The Banner talk 19:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- I have no intention to promote any side of the conflict. An expression of desire for an 'Armament supply' section - in line with various conflict infoboxes - is not in any way "POV-pushing". Are you done with your name calling and care to stay on topic? --131.164.141.250 (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Infobox content is not dictated by the content of infoboxes on other articles. You may wish to familiarise yourself with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, specifically:
When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance
Therefore any inclusion should be based on the significance of the addition to this specific article, not because an article on a vaguely related subject may include information in the infobox because it may be more significant to that article. The additions made to this infobox are not key facts, a single(?) importation of arms from South Africa is hardly a key fact is it? 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:DD5E:EDE:3F38:6174 (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- Determining what are 'key' facts is subjective and thus requires consensus. For an IMO careful inclusion barrier, I would at least consider Libya-IRA arms shipments politically significant enough to pass, but I don't imagine making agreement with such a bunch of dumbasses. Other articles have less strict inclusion criteria than being proposed here, but let's not widen the scope because .. um .. guidelines. --131.164.141.250 (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1989/08/28/international-arms-merchants-stock-both-sides-in-n-ireland/6a8e61de-2eee-463e-b416-810936eba8dd/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b6a38f9519f6
- ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1989/08/28/international-arms-merchants-stock-both-sides-in-n-ireland/6a8e61de-2eee-463e-b416-810936eba8dd/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b6a38f9519f6
Contradictions in lead, infobox and article body
- Lead - The conflict began in the late 1960s and is usually deemed to have ended with the Good Friday Agreement of 1998
- Infobox - 1968–1998
- Body part 1 - "The Troubles" refers to the three-decade (1969–1997)
- Body part 2 - There is little agreement on the exact date of the start of the Troubles. Different writers have suggested different dates. These include the formation of the modern Ulster Volunteer Force in 1966, the civil rights march in Derry on 5 October 1968, the beginning of the 'Battle of the Bogside' on 12 August 1969 or the deployment of British troops on 14 August 1969
My preference would be to remove "(1969–1997)" from "Body part 1", and amend the infobox from 1968 to late 1960s to match the lead and the CAIN source. Any objections? 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:34D6:349F:F6D0:68A3 (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
'Two other helicopters...were shot down by improvised mortar fire in 1994'
Does anyone have details on these incidents, and references for the text?
Were the helicopters taking off or landing at the time? Hitting helicopters with mortar fire would seem to be a hard undertaking.
Am not questioning whether these incidents occurred - I'm just interested in the details.
Regards to all Notreallydavid (talk) 12:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
The Troubles and the Easter Rising
Please see my question regarding whether the Easter Rising falls within a reasonable interpretation of "The Troubles broadly interpreted" (regarding Discretionary Sanctions purposes) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Great Famine (Ireland), Irish nationalism and discretionary sanctions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- I have now initiated an arbitration clarification request related to this: Please review the request at ]]Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: The Troubles]] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use. Thryduulf (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)