Jump to content

Talk:Glenanne gang

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Leader of the Glenanne gang

[edit]

Some newspaper articles state that Robin Jackson was the leader of the Glenanne gang as the commander of the Mid-Ulster UVF. While the UVF were certainly carrying out the Glenanne attacks under the leadership of Jackson, the gang clearly took it's orders from people higher up, especially in light of the fact that Weir named him as an RUC and Military Intelligence agent. Colin Wallace also affirmed that he worked for the security forces. The line between the Mid-Uster UVF and the Glenanne gang is admittedly thin.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While it's very informative, I have a problem with this article in that it is a name that seems to have developed a momentum all of its own - based, admittedly, on the Barron Report - as if the gang was an organised cell of the UVF, which it wasn't. I think the lead should say, clearly, something like: "The Glenanne Gang" is a name given, since 2003, to a loose alliance of NI loyalist extremists etc ..." You need to make it clear, though, that it wasn't part of any larger entity or group but was an ad hoc grouping of people who cooperated against Catholic and nationalist targets. To its discredit, the Pat Finucande Centre has jumped in this GG bandwagon, using a name that was never in use until recent times - unlike the "North Armagh Triangle" or "Murder Mile" (in Belfast). The article quotes Joe Tiernan extensively, a most unreliable source and someone careless with language. For instance, he mixes up the two names I have used to come up with "Murder Triangle"! And the infobox needs to be amended to say that it included the UDA - as you have two alleged members of the UDA in it. Hope I'm being contructive, regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have since reworded the lead per your suggestion. UDA have also been added to the infobox. Thanks for your input.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Layout

[edit]

I think the lead and "Glenanne farm" sections are a bit too long. I suggest we add more subheadings and make sure each section focuses on a specific thing. However, I'm not sure what new subheadings should be added. Any ideas? ~Asarlaí 16:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me go have a look now.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking better. I think it might be worth making a shortish section solely about the alleged gang members. We'd just need to move a few lines from other sections and reword them a bit. Three or four lines about each member would be enough I'd say. ~Asarlaí 21:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea! Actually I was thinking about adding a section on the members last night. Let's see, we'd need to include Robin Jackson (who has his own article), Billy McCaughey, who also has his own article. Then there were John Weir, Laurence McLure, Robert McConnell, Billy Hanna, who has his own article, and Robert Nairac. The farm's owner was James Mitchell and Lily Shields, his housekeeper. Where do you think the section should be?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be best at the start, since their names will be mentioned throughout the article. Also, I found this while reading through the Cassel Report: "Weir identifies at least the following British security officers and agents as among the alleged participants or accomplices in one or more murders or attempted murders organized from the Glenanne farm: RUC officers Weir, James Mitchell, Ian Mitchell, Johnny Mitchell, Laurence McClure, Gary Armstrong and William McCaughey; RUC Special Branch agent Robin Jackson; UDR officers Captain John Irwin and Captain Billy Hanna, and UDR soldier Robert McConnell". ~Asarlaí 07:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so it should be before the attacks section?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say so. It'll mean that, when we mention Person X further down, we need only give their name as readers will know who we're talking about. ~Asarlaí 08:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a tentative start. How does it look before I proceed further? I'll collect the info on Weir from his own statement.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry it's looking good so far :-) ~Asarlaí 21:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chart

[edit]

Appendix C in the Cassel Report has a very good chart linking the attacks to a number of weapons. Could something similar be added to this article?--MFIreland • Talk 20:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theres a table on p66 (linking weapons to attacks) and a chart at the end (linking attacks, weapons and people). We could reproduce the table but I think the chart is much too big and detailed for this article (plus we'd be repeating ourselves). ~Asarlaí 21:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a start on a table on my user page linking weapons to attacks. I will add it to the article when its finished.--MFIreland • Talk 22:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Below is the table I made of the weapons linking the attacks. It was quite large so I had to make it collapsible. I dont know what title to add so I left it out for now. If you think it would add to the article you can add it to the article, if not just forget about it. Also feel free to edit it to make improvements.--MFIreland • Talk 12:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be added to the article. The title of the section could read perhaps: List of weapons used.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Add title here
Attack Date .455 Webley revolver (1) 9 mm Luger pistol Serial No. U 4 (1) 9mm Luger pistol (2) .38 ACP pistol .455 Webley revolver (2) 9 mm Sterling SMG (1) 9 mm Sterling SMG (2) 9 mm SMG (3) 9mm SMG (4) Star pistol 9 mm Emra SMG .45 ACP Colt pistol
Patrick Turley 10 Mar 1973 X
Loughgall shooting 24 Mar 1973 X
Argory shooting 13 Jun 1973 X
McAliskey family 4 Aug 1973
Mullan family 5 Aug 1973 X
Boyle’s Bar 17 Jan 1974 X
Devlin family 7 May 1974 X X
T.J. Chambers 3 Sep 1974 X X
Shooting incident 3 Sep 1974 X
Falls Bar 20 Nov 1974 X
Newtownhamilton shooting 8 Dec 1974 X X
John Francis Green 10 Jan 1975 X X X
Trainor family 1 Apr 1975 X
Owen Boyle 11 Apr 1975 X
Glenside Bar 7 May 1975 X
Miami Showband 31 Jul 1975 X X X
Altnamacken shooting 2 Aug 1975 X
McCartney/Farmer 24 Aug 1975 X X X
Denis Mullan 1 Sep 1975 X
McKearney family 23 Oct 1975 X X X
Donnelly’s Bar 19 Dec 1975 X
O’Dowd family 4 Jan 1976 X
Reavey family 4 Jan 1976 X X X X
Eagle Bar 15 May 1976 X
Rock Bar 5 Jun 1976 X X
Patrick McNeice 25 Jul 1976 X
William Strathern 19 Apr 1977 X
Ahoghill shooting 23 Jun 1977 X
Brendan McLaughlin 29 Feb 1980 X

I added the table. Feel free to edit, move, rename and improve it.--MFIreland • Talk 17:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good, but it needs to be sourced.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of attacks

[edit]

MFIreland, I see you've added a lot more attacks that aren't noted in the Cassel Report or by the Finucane Centre. What are your sources? ~Asarlaí 02:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Im getting it all from the Cassel Report.--MFIreland • Talk 02:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would the McAliskey family which was attacked in Coalisland in 1973 be that of Bernadette McAliskey? If so, it should be specified.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. I was only looking at the 25 or so they investigated. ~Asarlaí 12:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of members

[edit]

All of the people recently added will need to be reliably sourced; especially as some may be living.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have since added refs for all the alleged members apart from Trevor Barnard whom I cannot locate.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Cassel Report mentions Trevor Barnard and his crimes.--MFIreland • Talk 16:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please ref it with the page number? Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. It was on page 112 in the blue box.--MFIreland • Talk 17:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I never saw it! Some of these people may be living so we need refs on each individual person whom we are alleging was a gang member. I think we have enough people listed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What way is the "members" section currently organized? It might help to add subhedings. We could split the list in three: RUC officers, UDR soldiers, and those who wern't in the security forces. Alternativly, we could split it in two: the "main men" at the top and all the others below them.
Thoughts? ~Asarlaí 01:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer your latter suggestion. The problem with your former proposal is that so many members such as Billy Hanna and Harris Boyle were both UDR soldiers and UVF members. How about Key members for the first subheading?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand. See...everyone in the gang was either a loyalist paramilitary member or sympathizer, but not everyone was an RUC officer or UDR soldier. I gess I should hav explaind it better :-p ~Asarlaí 17:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I organised the members under the proper subheadings, based on their own roles within the gang. How does it look now?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking better. ~Asarlaí 17:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Jeanne - as requested, I note that a number of the alleged members named are still alive and therefore naming them appears to be very problematic with regards to wikipedia BLP rules. I suggest that those named who are still alive should be deleted asap, as was the case in the Kingsmills Massacre perpetrators section in the past few days. Many thanks Guineapig333. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guineapig333 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of the living members have been properly sourced. In the case of John Weir, he has signed an affidavit confirming all of his allegations which was accepted by an Irish judicial inquiry. I don't think we have problems with BLP here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jeanne. Would I be right in thinking you would accept a police (HET) report on the Kingsmills Massacre to be of equal standing to the Barron report? Both named suspects though we are having problems publishing the Kingsmills suspects (who were convicted IRA members). The HET report was a criminal investigation by duly appointed authorities (police) in its own jurisdication. If you do not see the HET report as of equal standing to the Baron report I would be grateful if you could explain why please. many thanks Guineapig333. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guineapig333 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Jeanne - some time has elapsed and there has been no response to my query. I would request a clear response please. Guineapig333 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guineapig333 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I have just commented over at the Kingsmill Talk page, I am not the head buck cat around the joint. My word carries no more weight than that of any other editor. I would consider the HET report of equal standing to the Barron as well the Cassel Report, but as I said before you must convince the others as well, not just moi.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MFIreland

[edit]

It would appear MFIreland isn't on the verge of breaching 3RR. I have just noticed i mispelt "fact" as "face" hence why the tags weren't working. There should be no reason for their removal now unless a source is provided for the claims.

Secondly i added a dubious tags (two now) in relation to the "Glenanne gang" as the source provided and the new source provided by MFIreland do not once state "Glenanne gang". They mention "gang", they mention the "Glenanne" area in one - but no "Glenanne gang" - this it would appear to be original research which is faux pas on Wikipedia. The reliability of the source must also be called into question - can it be proved it is a reliable and unbiased organisation and that its claim are thoroughly researched?

I'm sure there is some reliable and verifiable sources that can be trusted as being unbiased in relation to the naming of this gang and its alleged links to these attacks. One source from a suspect organisatiom doesn't equate to 100% reliability.

Mabuska (talk) 13:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is not the Barron Report reliable enough? Or the Cassel Report? The Pat Finucane Centre commissioned an international panel of inquiry into the allegations of collusion between some rogue members of the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries. This group was termed the Glenanne gang or Glenanne group. It derived from James Mitchell's farm which was used as UVF arms dump and bomb-making site. There was no original research involved and the article has well over a hundred citations. I suggest you check out both reports. The Pat Finucane Centre is a reliable source as it bases its findings primarily on the Cassel Report as well as John Weir's affadavit which was published by Supreme Court Justice Henry Barron in his 2003 report into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. Mabuska, I'm disappointed in your hostility towards MFIreland who has been working very hard on this article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As regards the article's title, the Sunday Tribune on 2 January 2011 referred to them as the Glenanne gang as does the PFC and the Guardian: [1]; however, there are many reports which call them the Glenanne group. Mabuska, if you feel that strongly about the article's name, make a request here on the talk page to change the title to Glenanne group, and if there's consensus to change it, it'll be moved. As I have said before, the article is well-sourced with over 100 in-line citations.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another two reliable sources have since been added to the article calling the group the Glenanne gang, so this name can no longer be challenged as OR.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jeanne re-read everything said again and look at the edits. There is no problem with the article title and if you looked at my edits and what i said i'm on about problems with a couple of statements/entences being backed up by sources that didn't contain what was being claimed. I don't doubt the Glenanne gang's existence, i questioned the sources being used for two sentences that didn't even make mention of "Glenanne gang" but just "gang". Its original research and synthesis to assume that they are on about the "Glenanne gang" when they don't make mention of it. Thats why proper sources were needed. They have since been added which fixes the problem.
The article can be sourced with a million citations, but it still has no bearing on those statements with no sources or dubious sources provided. Mabuska (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad the problem has been resolved. We have sought to make this a factual, unbiased, well-sourced article about a real group of extremists. I believe it is written from a NPOV.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record on the Pat Finucane website - statements on pages used as sources that state "We believe" etc. doesn't exactly equate to reliable information based on those Barron or Cassel reports, with such parts of the website coming across as possible conjecture and synthesis and hence unreliability. That was, and is to a degree still a concern. I will also state that a lot of hard work has gone into this article - my hard pushing on those sources further improves it. Mabuska (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Pat Finucane Centre is a legitimate, human rights group based in Northern Ireland. It is a reliable source. As is John Weir's affadavit. Besides, the article uses the words: allege, allegation, claimed, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it is legitimate and a human rights organisation doesn't make it automatically reliable. The words allege, allegation etc. should definately be used for some statements, especially when nothing else more concrete has been provided in backing it up - and especially when the source doesn't provide any sources of its own at the end of its article to back some of its statements up. Also when the Pat Finucane Centre article states it as a "nationalist" organisation that deals primarily with nationalist and republican complaints it must be treated with some degree of potential bias. You wouldn't automatically assume that FAIR is unbiased.
On that i did include the word claimed for a statement in the intro which MFIreland removed for no reason. This one to be exact: The gang included members of the British Army, Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR), the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) and the Mid-Ulster Brigade of the illegal paramilitary Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF). I had it stating something like The gang is claimed to have included. Mabuska (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Pat Finucane Centre asked the Cassel panel of Inquiry to investigate the allegations and the panel came up positive. John Weir's affadavit is also used as reference for many of the allegations made against the gang. Which allegations made by the PFC do you feel are dubious so we can back them up with statements from the Cassel Report, Barron Report and Weir's statement. If you feel the PFC is being biased about some of the claims, list them here so we can go over them one by one and discuss.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For everyones aid i will highlight choice words to further highlight what i am actually saying as it apepars there is misundersdtanding about what i am saying.

I said must be treated with potential for bias, it doesn't mean i say there is bias - but that it is a possibility. I've not said that i find things said by the PFC are dubious but that there is a possibility of unreliability. Any statements that i have so far found dubious in this article i have already marked out and they have since been sourced. If words like alleged and claimed are used in this article (as they have been) then there is no need to go through everything one by one. Though for thoroughness i will go through the entire article piece by piece to ensure. Mabuska (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One huge problem in this article is - is there online versions of the Barron and Cassel reports so that statements attributed to it can be checked? Mabuska (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have since found an online version of the Barron report, but only in relation to Seamus Ludrow. Mabuska (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The full Barron Report can be read here (table of contents is on page 35) and the full Cassel Report can be read here. ~Asarlaí 14:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So far...

[edit]

Alright so far i've largely fixed the hash that was the references section and also added columns to it to decrease its size. There is a lot of bad sentence spacing as many sentences appear to be only seperated by a citation instead of a citation and then a space.

I've also removed at least one instance so far of biased weasel-wording, i.e. "IRA volunteer" replaced with the less controversial and neutrally accepted term "IRA member". I also added a couple more citation needed tags for setnences/statements without one, or in the case of Miami Showband section a section tag to save the tedious and messy "citation needed" tags.

Quite amazed how this article got a B rating with these errors and problems. Mabuska (talk) 12:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mabuska, you are the only editor, so far, who appears to have a problem with the article. I appreciate your help in cleaning up the refs section; however to deprecate the article's rating and the work three editors have put into this, is a bit of a kick up the ar.e. I consulted numerous sources when I created the article including the ponderous Barron Report. Now I must ask you again, what errors does this article contain or are the errors confined solely to bad sentence spacing? Mabuska, I recall you and I collaborated before on the Larne Gunrunning article. I really do not understand your antagonism here. I have been editing at Wikipedia for nearly three years, I would like you to point out just one occassion in which I displayed bias and veered from a NPOV. The use of IRA volunteer appears to be standard use at Wikipedia-it is certainly not my POV.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I pointed out above at the start of this talk section where i've so far encountered errors Jeanne so why do you ask what errors when i already pointed them out?? These errors shouldn't have gotten this article a B rating as simple as that no matter how much substance and hard-work is put in. Its not an attack on your or anyone elses efforts. I only got a B rating on an article i was working heavily on (which required more work than this article) once i had addressed all the requirements, requirements which seemed to have been partially glossed over here when it was being rated.
There have been heated discussions in the past about the use of "volunteer" and as far as i can remember it was concensus not the use it due to its deep and many problems. No doubt it has been used by some editors elsewhere despite this and there are instances where it has slipped under the radar. The term is POV loaded and biased and should be avoided unless its part of a quote. Unless i am wrong, which could be a case.
Don't mistake my comments for antagonism by me Jeanne, but as a very harsh critique on this article. It will only improve it as it already has done so. Mabuska (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an online version of the Cassel report on the internet so i can check out all of the citations used? Adding direct quotes from the reports into some of the citations could also improve the references section. Reason being does the source you've added to the opening sentence in the article refer to the Irish nationanlist bit or the loyalist extrmeist bit or all of it? Mabuska (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Cassel Report can be read here - it starts going through the attacks one-by-one starting on page 42. ~Asarlaí 14:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Already found it thanks to Jeanne, but thanks anyways. What about the Barron report, or maybe i've overlooked it in the sources. Mabuska (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's there in the first ref to the Barron Report.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to update, the article, especially after all the sourcing and Asarlai's recent fixes, meets the B rating requirements and is on the way to getting a higher rating. Mabuska (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's very gratifying after so much work has been put into this article by various editors. It's an example of how collaboration between editors nets a positive result.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do apologise if i did come across at the start as someone on a crusade condemning anything i could, but the article had a B rating that it needed to meet the requirements of, and that alone can be hard to achieve. I'm still miffed how Larne gun-running only got a C rating. Mabuska (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miami Showband section

[edit]

Mabuska, you'll need to highlight where to put the citations. I haven't a clue where you believe they should be added.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that contains a claim or claims as this section does that needs verifiability.
On 31 July 1975, four days after Hanna's shooting and Jackson's assumption of leadership of the Mid-Ulster brigade, the Miami Showband's minibus was flagged-down outside Newry by UVF men wearing Army uniforms at a bogus military checkpoint.<here> Two UVF men loaded a time delay bomb on the minibus but it exploded prematurely and killed them.<here> The remaining UVF men then opened-fire on the bandmembers, killing three (Brian McCoy, Tony Geraghty and Fran O'Toole) and wounding two (Stephen Travers and Des McAlea).<here> The three men convicted of the killings and sentenced to life imprisonment were serving members of the UDR.[69] The Luger pistol used in the attack was found to be the same one used to kill Provisional IRA member John Francis Green in January 1975 and was also used in the O'Dowd killings of January 1976.[52][69] The following May, the security forces found Jackson's fingerprints on insulating tape wrapped around a home-made silencer attached to a Luger.<here> Although charged, Jackson avoided conviction.<here> A Sterling 9mm submachine gun was also used in the Miami Showband killings.<here> The Barron Report suggests that the guns were taken from the stockpile of weapons at the Glenanne farm.<here>
Liaison officer Captain Robert Nairac has been linked to the Miami Showband massacre and the killing of John Francis Green.<here> Miami Showband survivors Stephen Travers and Des McAlea both testified in court that a man with a "crisp English accent, and wearing a different uniform and beret" had been at the scene of the explosion and subsequent shootings.[70]
The last one i've pointed out is in the source provided for the next sentence so it could be overlooked if desired, or added to it for completeness. Mabuska (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All of those statements are sourced on the main article so it's just a case of moving them over. ~Asarlaí 14:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough, Jeanne already has done so for most of them. Each article must be able to stand on its own source wise. Mabuska (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Reavey

[edit]

According to the autopsy report, Anthony died of a brain hemorrage which was unrelated to the shootings. He had been shot in the legs. This info comes from Reavey vs the United Kingdom in the case at the European Court of Human Rights. We cannot include Anthony as a victim.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Cassell report"

[edit]

Reading this article for the first time it occurred to me that there are some VERY strong allegations made here. I noticed they were referenced, but I had never heard of this "Cassell report". Having done some research, this report was commissioned by the Finucane Centre, which is by no means a reliable source for such matters. The report was also rejected by the PSNI and not paid attention to by the Government. So while it is detailed, it is not definitive on any of these matters, and must be cavaeted. I therefore suggest that there must be cavaets placed on the more outlandish claims, including that the entire operation was some sort of cover name for elements of the UDR and RUC.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of al, let me point out that this article is not an atack on the UDR nor RUC, but rather rogue elemnts who served with them such as John Weir (RUC) and Robert McConnell (UDR). The Cassell Report is a report of the International Panel of Inquiry headed by Douglass Cassell into collussion into sectarian attacks in Northern reland. Here is the link: Cassel Report--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the report and who wrote it. I am also aware that it has been given no weight by anyone other than the body which commissioned it, which is not a reliable source of fact. That is not to say that this report is wholly biased, but it cannot be said to be unflinchingly objective and has been given massive undue weight in this article. There is little balance to it and takes as gospel one report which is not widely known or cited elsewhere.Traditional unionist (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article also cites The Barron Report which is as I'm sure you know the results of an Irish judiciary inquiry by an Irish Supreme Court judge. As for the Cassel Report,; it was published by the Human Rights Centre at the Notre Dame University. That the PSNI reject it does not come as a surprise to me.I do agree, however, that this fact should be in the article to give it proper balance. As I have said before, I write from a NPOV. I amnot seeking to demonise the entire RUC or UDR. The article is careful to mention that the gang allegedly consisted of rogue members of the security forces in alliance with the Mid-Ulster UVF.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protestant victims

[edit]

The lead states of the gang's victims: 'all but one of whom were "upwardly mobile" Catholic civilians'. Weren't some of the Monaghan bomb victims Protestant? Gob Lofa (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not to my knowledge. Only one victim of the Dublin & Monaghan bombings was not Catholic; a Jewish woman killed in Dublin named Simone Chetrit. But this speaks more to demographics than intent as bombs do not discriminate. Quis separabit? 02:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source? Gob Lofa (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

::::: CAIN (cain.ulst.ac.uk), common sense. Quis separabit? 14:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The 40th Anniversary Of the Dublin and Monaghan Bombings events included the annual wreath-laying ceremony in Dublin on the 17th of May 2014, which was followed by an Anniversary Mass in St. Mary's Pro-Cathedral, Dublin." I saw no mention of any services for any non-Catholics. (The Jewish woman killed was a native of Israel.)
CAIN doesn't denote religion the other side of the border, and common sense tells you a bomb planted at a Protestant bar can only kill Catholics? Keep it coming. Gob Lofa (talk) 22:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What Protestant bar in Monaghan? Are we talking about Dublin and Monaghan or something else? Anyway if you know otherwise and I am wrong, then spill the beans and I will acknowledge I was wrong, otherwise I believe I am right. Quis separabit? 23:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalists

[edit]

Mabuska, all Irish republicans are Irish nationalists. That's a bit more than a connection. Gob Lofa (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but are all Irish nationalists republicans? That's a tad more tricky. The SDLP is a republican party -- it is not the equivalent of the Irish Parliamentary Party as some seem to think -- but SDLP members do not appear to overuse such wording because of what the term "Irish republicanism" has come to signify in English lingua franca, with its implied violence and subversiveness. Quis separabit? 14:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not all Irish nationalists are republicans. You can be an Irish nationalist in the broader meaning of the term whilst still advocating a monarchy such as the Irish Volunteers of the 18th century who were strongly nationalist in tone (against English interference) however where loyal to the British monarch and British connection. Also Irish republicanism at present equates to violence and terrorist groups whilst nationalism is still linked to peaceful constitutional change. Mabuska (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, basically to be a nationalist -- to answer my own question --- is to be a republican, although not in the simple-minded way that might sound. I understand that the former does not have to equate with violence as opposed to the latter, which instantly does equate, at least in the head of anyone who knows anything about the issue. However nationalist now does equal republican as there was/is nowhere else to go since seceding from the Commonwealth. That's a fact. Even had the Easter Rising never occurred under what circumstances does anyone imagine that the Parnellite vision would still hold a century later? The SDLP is a republican party. Its members don't usually call themselves "Irish republicans" (although on occasion they do) I suppose due to the connotations that term evokes but the SDLP is a republican party, albeit one dedicated to non-violence, which I certainly respect. Therefore, if both main nationalist parties are republican in nature, then Irish nationalism = Irish republicanism. There is no real halfway house -- aside from the Alliance Party, whose fortunes, sadly, do not appear to be going well, electorally (Naomi Long having lost the East Belfast seat at Westminster, possibly in part to her leading Alliance when its members cast the deciding votes to remove the Union Jack from Belfast City Hall, which, interestingly, has had only one Unionist Lord Mayor in the last six years) and is not a major player -- between unionist and nationalist, since the demise of the IPP and the collapse of NICRA, which in my opinion and most Unionists (and Lord Cameron) was a republican Trojan Horse, even if some of its own members were too stupid to realise it, same as the Irish Volunteers did not realise they had been infiltrated by the IRB and wound up with the tail wagging the dog. The last installment of the Troubles was not about getting Home Rule, obviously. Feels good to get this stuff off my chest. Quis separabit? 19:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Was Sinn Fein when it was founded a nationalist and republican party? No it was not. It was nationalist, pro-Home Rule, however played with notions of advocacy for a dual-monarchy. Mabuska (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. Griffiths had been a Parnell supporter. Griffiths compared Ireland to Hungary (as in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, with the Hungarians getting short shrift from dominating and domineering Austria). However, Griffiths' party, which came into being in late 1905, would have simply maintained the monarchy while cutting all other imperial ties, as opposed to the IPP, so let's not nostalgise too much. And even that would be dropped after the Rising and SF became a completely separatist party, a dozen or so years after coming into existence. And it only got 48% of the vote in the December 1918 elections, yet almost all the seats outside Ulster. Interesting ballot counting at gunpoint in the hinterlands I guess. Quis separabit? 19:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't confuse the Irish Volunteers of the 18th century with the Irish Volunteers of the 20th century. Two entirely different entities, one being predominantly Protestant and strongest in Ulster, the other being predominantly Catholic and strongest outside Ulster. The 18th century Volunteers, Irish Patriot Party, and Grattan were all strongly nationalist yet still favoured retaining the Crown. 20th century nationalism is a different matter but it proves a point that nationalism and republicanism in a broader Irish sense are not one and the same. Mabuska (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I spoke of being infiltrated by the IRB, you knew exactly which one I meant. Come on, now. Quis separabit? 21:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't too sure to be honest. Mabuska (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what Gof lofa seems to think, there is no concensus anywhere in this 3 editor discussion and Wikipedia isn't a democracy. Fact remains not all nationalists are republicans regardless if they both desire a united island as a republic, considering the differences in what Irish republican now means in colloquial English. I do also now notice Quis Seperabit's long post above which contradicts my recent edit summary somewhat, yet that doesn't mean that Gob lofa now has carte blanche to enforce his view when there is opposition to it and no concensus. Open a RfC or the like if you wish Gob and get more input. Mabuska (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mabuska -- not sure what you're referring to -- something between you and @Gob lofa, I guess. Nonetheless, it goes without saying that the commentary I left above is just my own analysis and I known anyone/everyone is free to disagree. Quis separabit? 17:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Fact remains not all nationalists are republicans" - I agree wholeheartedly, Mabuska. My point is that all Irish republicans are Irish nationalists. Gob Lofa (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My point, which is clear above, is that there is a difference in the two terms and what they mean when said these days. Open a RfC. Mabuska (talk) 10:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that republicans are nationalists, but in regards to Northern Ireland there is a distinction between the two terms, for example: "A similar narrowing of the term to denote the more transigent or potentially violent forms of nationalism is evident in the contemporary Northern Ireland use of `republican` to describe Sinn Fein and the IRA, as distinct from the `nationalist` Social Democractic and Labour Party." - S.J. Connolly, Oxford Companion to Irish History, page 508. Oxford University Press, 2002. ISBN 978-0-19-923483-7. By removing "republican" from the specific part of the article I feel removes the fact some of the targets may have been because they where involved in or backed militant republicanism as opposed to those who backed constitutional change, in other words your proposed change makes it look like the targets where simply ordinary people rather than including people possibly engaged with or supporting terrorism. If all the targets and victims where ordinary nationalists (as opposed to republicans) I could agree but we don't know if they where or not. Mabuska (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They killed one republican, out of more than a hundred victims. Gob Lofa (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have long known that Irish republicans are much better at targeting and killing than loyalists, who were lazy and usually just targeted Catholic civilians. Loyalist weaponry (especially explosives), bomb-making ability, and intelligence are minute compared to those of republicans, not to mention loyalists' non-existent diaspora, aid societies, and propaganda mills. Need I inform/remind you guys that 60% of all the victims of the last installment of the Troubles were killed by republicans, 30% by loyalists and 10% by security forces? (I think the tabulations at CAIN actually show that republicans killed more Catholics than loyalists, but that's another matter.) Let's just put it this way, when nationalists talk about the unfair advantage of one side over the other, and the "Dirty War" and the "securocrats", ostensibly referring to the some alleged purported loyalist/security apparatus advantage, rest assured that they know (or should know), that it's the other side that has had the momentum and home-court advantage for almost the entire 20th century. Quis separabit? 01:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way @Gob Lofa, in re "They killed one republican, out of more than a hundred victims", could you clarify the "what" and "when" (I know the "whom") you are referring to? I don't necessarily doubt your statistics but you aren't giving any references. More than 3500 people were killed in the last (and hopefully final) installment of the Troubles, so if you could be a little clearer as to what you are referencing, I'd appreciate it. Yours, Quis separabit? 01:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Considering Gob Lofa's lack of citations in most of his edits the figure may well have been pulled out of the air. Just because according to Gob only one was a republican, it cannot be asserted that none of the rest were or were not. We can only speculate which goes into the realm of WP:OR. Mabuska (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The gang killed John Francis Green [2] and an estimated 120+ civilians; if you know of any other republican paramilitaries they killed, it would be quite the scoop. Gob Lofa (talk) 23:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I know what you are referring to. I already established (see above) that "Irish republicans are much better at targeting and killing than loyalists, who were lazy and usually just targeted Catholic civilians." However, that said, anything that has to do with the Pat Finucance Center (PFC) is at best unreliable and at worst republican propaganda, as far as I am concerned. When the PFC starts outing republicans and solving some unsolved crimes, including murders, committed by republicans, then I will give them some credibility. Quis separabit? 00:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree about the PFC in regards to its blatant republican bias and unreliability. Mabuska (talk) 00:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Inherent to the work of the PFC is our core belief that;
the conflict has produced a legacy that will prove destablising and destructive to any efforts at peace building and reconciliation unless that legacy is faced openly and honestly;
the criminal justice system is wholly inappropriate to the task of truth recovery, restorative justice and reconciliation in respect of the legacy of the conflict.
As part of our strategy to address point 1 a central focus of our work has been (and will continue to be) to research and document individual cases of conflict related loss of life following a specific request from a relative." [3]
If you have evidence that the PFC has refused to work on behalf of families of victims of republicans, that would be another great scoop. You're being unfair to loyalist paramilitaries; when the RUC and UDR has taken the best of the unionists willing to take up the gun against militant Irish nationalism, there isn't a lot of good material left. Gob Lofa (talk) 00:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look, now we are devolving into our own tribalism. No one believes the PFC -- in whose mantras you seem to put far too much reliance because words are words and actions are actions -- is anything other than Irish republican in nature. I suggest we close this colloquy as we have reached the point where we are not analysing objective facts but merely (re)stating our own POVs. Quis separabit? 00:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tribalism? Speak for yourself, old chap. I like the timing of your suggestion, though; you have had a good run. As a matter of interest, if you reckon the PFC's figure is biased, how many people do you believe the gang killed? Gob Lofa (talk) 08:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since you have thrown down the gauntlet I guess we cannot dissolve this thread gracefully. I usually speak for myself, but with regards to tribalism I am unafraid of being contradicted when I say that everyone on this thread is affected by that particular "ism". As far as the number of victims, I go by CAIN, btw, and I have read the tabulations and know what percentage of victims, civilian and otherwise, were killed by republicans, loyalists and security forces. I just don't trust the PFC, it is an Irish republican entity, as you well know. Quis separabit? 21:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Such a twister. What is disputed is the claims on the background of the victims, not the number. You know that Gob Lofa and you attempts to weasel around issues with endless convolution is petty and tiresome. Provide something of note to back up your case or cease and desist. Mabuska (talk) 11:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer my question QS, and you didn't mention if CAIN had an answer for it either. Mabuska, no-one except maybe Willie Frazer has ever accused any of the Glenanne gang's victims of involvement with republican paramilitarism, with the obvious and sole exception of JFG. An excellent example of weaselling is your insinuation that some of them might have been, "we don't know if they where or not". Worthy of an IRA apologist insinuating that innocent Protestant victims of the IRA might have been involved in unionist militarism ("we don't know") and so deserved what they got. Well done. Gob Lofa (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"What is disputed is the claims on the background of the victims" -- not so, not by me. I have already acknowledged that most victims of the loyalists were Catholic civilians. (Why are we focusing on 120 deaths out of almost 3600, btw?) Some, if not many, were IRA supporters but that does not justify their murders. The reasons for the Troubles date back centuries. Daniel O'Connell created the sectarian paradigm of Catholic Nationalist and Protestant Unionist that remains to this very day (ever heard of The Catholic Association?), while Michael Collins' subversive tactics made it impossible for many, if not most, northern Protestants and Unionists to trust their Catholic neighbors. (Hell, I can sense that all the way from New York, and I have never stepped foot in Northern Ireland or the ROI.) O'Connell extorted concessions based on intimidatory majoritarianism while threatening that unless he got he wanted there would be violence. Collins loosed the dogs of war, rarely bothering with threats or demanding concessions beforehand. O'Connell's Irish Parliamentary Party (IPP) would ultimately destroy Protestant hegemony over most of Ireland and Collins' Sinn Féin Party would destroy the IPP. Two sides of the same twisted coin.
Perhaps, @Gob Lofa, you should read more of Tim Pat Coogan's writings. While increasingly repugnantly triumphalist in nature, the details he provides about IRA operations over the 20th century should explain just why the sectarian tensions exist in Northern Ireland, even if Coogan hypocritically straddles both sides of the argument while making his own loyalties perfectly clear. Quis separabit? 00:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because those 120 were killed by the Glenanne gang, and this is the talk page for that article. I'm not going to indulge you for long because you're going way off-topic here, but while you're right about O'Connell increasing sectarianism, he had his chance to use the numbers at his disposal to defy the British. Any threat of violence from that direction was always going to be treated with the scorn it deserved. Yes, Collins was a ruthless nationalist - no different in that regard from the ruthless British nationalists he opposed. This is not a great summation of the causes of sectarianism in Ulster QS, and TPC definitely wouldn't be my first choice for learning more. Try Susan McKay. Gob Lofa (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
" Any threat of violence from that direction was always going to be treated with the scorn it deserved." -- er, from which direction and whose scorn? Quis separabit? 01:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From a bluffer like O'Connell; British scorn. Gob Lofa (talk) 08:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe late in O'Connell's life as his power and influence waned. But history attests the British took O'Connell very seriously, until he folded like a cheap suit over holding one of his "monster rallies" due to a threat of proscription by the British that was more likely to have been the "bluff" or, at least, a disaster in the making. Quis separabit? 11:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"- no different in that regard from the ruthless British nationalists he opposed." -- er, who? Edward Carson? Lloyd George? Churchill? Quis separabit? 01:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who else? Gob Lofa (talk) 08:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except that Collins elected to initiate hostilities, forcing the others to react. There's no comparison between a murderous thug (Collins) whose actions, as I posited above, are largely responsible for the sectarian mistrust in Northern Ireland, and those empowered by law to repulse terrorism. It's like comparing the 9/11 hijackers to TSA air marshals. Sorry if that offends but that's the way it was. And don't tell me about elections, Sinn Féin only received 48% of the vote in 1918. Quis separabit? 11:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Tipperary IRA initiated hostilities; Collins did what power-seekers do best, which is follow and look like leading. There's a lot not to like about Collins, but your description is risible; in both murderousness and thuggishness, he was a rank amateur compared to his opponents. Your belief that Collins' actions are "largely responsible for the sectarian mistrust in Northern Ireland" is breathtaking; your description of terrorists as "those empowered by law to repulse terrorism" betrays strong indoctrination. Don't worry, I wasn't about to tell you about elections, I assure you. I see you're not impressed with the vagaries of the British first-past-the-post system (you wouldn't be the first); when added to the clear run SF had in a lot of seats in '18, you see how winning so many seats is possible with 48%. None of it offends me, I assure you, but I expected better from you. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a forum for general chit-chat and off-topic discussion. Mabuska (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Back to basics - this weaseling: "By removing "republican" from the specific part of the article I feel removes the fact some of the targets may have been because they where involved in or backed militant republicanism as opposed to those who backed constitutional change, in other words your proposed change makes it look like the targets where simply ordinary people rather than including people possibly engaged with or supporting terrorism. If all the targets and victims where ordinary nationalists (as opposed to republicans) I could agree but we don't know if they where or not." cannot stand. Gob Lofa (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Glenanne gang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Glenanne gang. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glenanne gang. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glenanne_gang&oldid=1252377017"