Jump to content

Talk:Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconIrish republicanism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Irish republicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish republicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish republicanismIrish Republicanism articles
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Guerilla" or "Terrorist"

[edit]

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)[reply]

[niraqsback]:

I changed it back to terrorist - yet again. This article is politically impregnated. Volunteer is a term the organisation gives its own 'people'. The IRA is a proscribed terrorist organisation under the laws of the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Its members have attacked and killed civilians with intention in addition to attacking and destroying civilian property against the laws of both states. Its members are correctly described as 'terrorists' The fact that the same coiterie of 'editors' keep changing the nomenclature to 'volunteers' shows up this article for what it is; web-propaganda administered by individuals with a clearly defined political allegiance and bias. You only have to visit the respective 'pages' of the same editors in question to see this!

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)[reply]

[niraqsback]:

Incorrect. The IRA is and as been - for several decades - an illegal organisation in the Republic of Ireland. It has committed illegal acts of terrorism - as described by An Garda Siochana and the Irish Government - against unarmed civilians - e.g. The Enniskillen atrocity on Nov 8th 1987 in which eleven people were killed and 63 injured, nine of them seriously.

Furthermore members of the Irish Defence Forces (Óglaigh na hÉireann) and An Garda Siochana have been murdered by the IRA down the years. Under the laws of the Republic of Ireland, membership of the self-styled IRA is an offence.

Not sure what your the diatribe about the SUN etc. has to do with this article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army.

18.24, 01 August 2008 (GMT)

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)[reply]
What does the U.S. have to do with anything? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 15:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

PoV

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Politics

[edit]

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)[reply]

East Tyrone, the area in question were skeptical of the ceasefires and peace process but there wasn't widespread defections. (Irish Republican 05:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'll add something to it soon--Vintagekits 19:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from members

[edit]

Please merge any relevant content from these articles, per their AFDs:

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)[reply]
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).[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Mountain lodge?

[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Aaahhhhh... I recall that event. Well, regardless, what has that to do with this article? ---Charles 22:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

PoV

[edit]

I think 'ambush' is hopelessly POV, throughout. I'm well aware that 'martyr' is in there due to a certain folk tradition recognising the attackers, but it's a bit rich to keep reverting to 'ambush' when a more neutral stance is 'incident'. Hugorudd 19:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incident is POV and weasel wording, and it's described as an ambush in plenty of sources. One Night In Hackney303 20:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Loughgall Ambush - [1] [2] [3] [4], and that's ignoring the number of books it can easily be sourced from. Also given your attempt to change Derry to Londonderry on the Bloody Sunday article, your motivation for the POV and weasel wording is apparent. One Night In Hackney303 20:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to fully nail this down, you changed "were ambushed and killed by the" to "were killed in an Op/React mission by the" in this edit. Big Boys' Rules by Mark Urban has this to say regarding OP/React missions on page 164:

During the 1980s the term 'ambush' was replaced in SAS orders in Northern Ireland by 'OP/React', short for 'Observation Post/Reactive', according to an SAS man who served there. He says an OP/React order is 'to all intents and purposes an ambush' and believes it was a cosmetic change prompted by RUC sensitivity over the word 'ambush'.

So your use of the rather vague term of "Op/React mission" only serves to confuse the reader. Furthermore let's see what Urban says about the number of troops involved on page 228:

Commanders decided that the twenty-four SAS soldiers resident in Ulster were insufficient for this task, so 22 SAS headquarters in Herford was alerted. A troop of about fifteen soldiers belonging to G Squadron was flown over from Britain to boost the forces in Ulster....In addition the Provisionals would be shadowed by Army surveillance experts and those of the Special Branch's E4A. It is also believed that members of the RUC's highly trained HMSU were deployed in the area. At least fifty of the Army's and the RUC's troops most highly trained in surveillance techniques and the use of firearms were committeed to the immediate operation, and several companies of UDR and regular Army soldiers as well as mobile police squads were to be available to cordon off the Armagh/Dungannon area after the operation. Loughgall was to be an operation involving hundreds of soldiers and police.

Furthermore SAS soldiers were specifically placed inside the station, so that any attempted attack on the station would have allowed any soldier to instantly open fire on those responsible, therefore acting within the terms of the Army Yellow Card. So let's not beat about the bush with weasel or POV wording like OP/React or incident. The security forces had advance knowledge of the operation, and acted upon that information to ambush those responsible. It wasn't some chance encounter where soldiers just happened to be out on patrol, it was a clear and premeditated ambush, all sources agree on that. One Night In Hackney303 03:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Successful

[edit]

What is a successful attack? One murder? 100 murders?Traditional unionist 10:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The SAS set out to ambuse the Volunteers, in that they were successful. Dose that answer your question? Could I also remind you that we use the discussion page to improve articles, and not as a soap box. --Domer48 11:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made an edit. It was reverted, I am asking for the rational. What is a successful attack?Traditional unionist 11:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The opposite of an unsuccessful attack. The previous two were successful, Loughgall was not, so there needs to be a distinction. One Night In Hackney303 11:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The bomb went off didn't it? Surely that is success by those standards?Traditional unionist 11:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DFTT. One Night In Hackney303 11:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was provocative and unnecessary to link to DFTT. Please respond to reasonable discussion reasonably. I've removed "successful" per WP:WEASEL: obviously if they carried out bomb attacks they were "successful". Otherwise the wording would have been different, e.g. "they attempted to carry out..." or some such. We state the facts and let the reader make the interpretation. Tyrenius 14:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, it was wholly necessary. He's well aware of the history of the IRA and in particular Loughgall. He referred to an operation where eight members of the IRA were unlawfully killed by the SAS as a success for the IRA. That's provocative trolling. One Night In Hackney303 16:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? The dispute is about the two earlier attacks, which you called successful,[5] and he previously and subsequently reverted. Tyrenius 17:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At 11:36 I said the "previous two [attacks] were successful, and Loughgall was not". He responded at 11:37 saying "The bomb went off didn't it? Surely that is success by those standards?". Yes the bomb went off, but all eight IRA members were killed and it was the IRA's biggest single loss of life since the 1920s. Now do you see why it's provocative? One Night In Hackney303 17:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)(edit conflict) Oh, I see, you're referring to the post in this thread. It's not trolling, just inappropriate argument, as the whole of this argument is inappropriate, since it's editors putting forward their own evaluation of events, divorced from any sources. Tyrenius 17:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't consider that deliberately provocative? And unlike most editors on this page I have a copy of the major source used in this article, and most of the minor ones too. One Night In Hackney303 17:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF requires you to assume the editor is acting properly, unless you can prove otherwise. You can't prove otherwise: you are conjecturing as to motive. In the context of the conversation, which is about what constitutes "successful" it is valid to point out that this term is open to different interpretations, and that Loughgall could itself be called that, in as much as the objective was achieved. There are plenty of attacks that are deemed successful for that reason despite the assailants perishing in accomplishing their task. This is why editors shouldn't evaluate information, but should state facts and let the reader decide. If you stick to the argument(s) presented and refrain from making personal comments about editors, you will be on much safer ground. Tyrenius 17:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[6] [7] [8] [9] . One Night In Hackney303 17:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a point, and, if there is, is it anything that wouldn't be better addressed in ArbCom? Tyrenius 18:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[10] [11] [12] and [13] is relevant too. I'm sure those diffs and plenty more besides will end up at ArbCom, however they are also relevant here and now. One Night In Hackney303 18:09, 17 September 2007 (UT)
How? Tyrenius 18:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From previous discussions with Traditional unionist on both the Orange Institution and Bobby Sands's Article the description outlined in WP:DFTT would I consider to be good advice. Both discussions resulted in opinion used as evidence, and references being ignored. It is somewhat gratifying that they now place citation tags, and they have been addressed by One Night In Hackney303. If you look at Traditional unionist opening comment on this discussion, improving the content of the article is not what was being sought, therefore their intent was...? --Domer48 18:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am right now not looking at other discussions. I'm looking at this one. The issue was all about whether attacks should be labelled "successful" or not. This was the point Traditional Unionist was validly addressing at the beginning of the thread. Tyrenius 18:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's a moot point, as "successful" is now "spectacular". I bet TU wishes he hadn't started this now.... One Night In Hackney303 18:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That just comes across as an attempt at point-scoring and doesn't do you any credit. Please try to work collegiately with other editors. WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground. Tyrenius 18:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do realise you're referring to the editor who has repeatedly described me and other editors in good standing as "nationalist vandals" don't you? And that was after you issued him repeated warnings about attacking other editors and after it was brought to your attention your actions were wholly inconsistent. If people want to know why I'm not staying post ArbCom, look no further. One Night In Hackney303 12:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing inconsistent. He acted inappropriately and was warned. You acted inappropriately and were warned. The fact that someone else does something wrong doesn't entitle you to also. That is a well-established principle on wikipedia. Tyrenius 18:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:FintonaMortarAttack.jpg

[edit]

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)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Tony-Gormley.jpg

[edit]

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)[reply]

Recent Edits

[edit]

It's called the "Loughgall Ambush" and all sources agree they were ambushed, it is not called the "Loughgall Interception". Please seek consensus for your changes, rather than continually making the same disputed and incorrect edits. BigDuncTalk 12:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about the Kilmichael Interception? As an example? Its called the "Loughgall Ambush."--Domer48'fenian' 08:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again you are reverting without coming near the talk page a quick google search throws up al big fat zero for "Loughgall Interception" so could you please explain your edits thanks. BigDuncTalk 16:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dunc that is highly disingenious. This content dispute is not about what it is called, it;s about NPOV language in the article. I'm inclined to agree with whoever is doing the editing. Ambush is a loaded word that does lead to a POV.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, Traditional unionist, it is you who is being disingenuous. The user who has made these changes has offered no explanation, nor has he quoted a source for his choice of language. The sources quoted call it an ambush, so, whether you call it NPOV or not, it is accurate and appropriate. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. Traditional unionist is right. The ira "unit" were intercepted as they carried out an attack. This is clear and correct factual English.
Niraqsback 16:50, 14 August 2008 (GMT)
I am just about sick and tired of your tone. No one has expressed any doubt as to the meaning of the word intercept, so we do not need your little vocabulary lesson. If you cannot find a source that says "intercept" instead of "ambush," you have no business changing the article. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My commentary suggests no tone. Sorry to hear you are tired and unwell.
Niraqsback 17:07, 14 August 2008 (GMT)
"Intercepted" is problematic, as it carries connotations of whatever is doing the interception being mobile in a changing situation, i.e. getting "ahead" of the target, whereas Loughgall was a static ambush in a foreseen location. In addition, Urban's Big Boys' Rules specifically deals with the military concept of an "ambush" in understanding what happened at Loughgall and elsewhere. Some may consider the word POV, but it has a precise military meaning that reflects its use here. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how a word in the English language can be deemed "problematic". The SAS knew their opponents were intent on carrying out an attack. Their opponents did so and were intercepted i.e. "nabbed", intercepted, caught in the act of carrying out a specific action. Intercepted is therefore an appropriate and accurate term. As you quite correctly have indicated, "some" may consider "ambush" a word which, in "Wikipedia" parlance could be considered "POV". Intercepted is therfore a more appropriate choice of word as it is free of such ambiguity or bias.
Niraqsback 17:57, 14 August 2008 (GMT)
Well, my dictionary defines "intercept" as "Seize, catch, stop (person, message, vehicle, etc.) on the way from place to place" i.e. en route. The SAS didn't ambush the ASU on its way to Loughgall, or indeed on its way back from Loughgall, but at Loughgall itself. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Separate article

[edit]

The Loughgall Ambush should really have its own article, yeah? Stu ’Bout ye! 15:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I agree. BigDunc 15:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree also. Irvine22 (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I may agree that there should be a separate article, I see it has been done in a totally clueless and incorrect way. Since I can't be bothered spending hours fixing other people's messes any more, either this article is fixed by the person responsible or it's being merged back here. 2 lines of K303 13:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Regarding recent edits

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Resident admin here? One would hope so? --Domer48'fenian' 00:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Odd....

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

'Retaliated'

[edit]

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)

Agreed. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

[edit]

QS, will you restore those refs? Gob Lofa (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Provisional_IRA_East_Tyrone_Brigade&oldid=1255444502"