Jump to content

Talk:Military Reaction Force

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

a little more information

[edit]

Martin Dillon cites a number of other incidents in Belfast in 1972 that may have been linked to the MRF: [1]

emacsuser (talk) 11:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Military_Reaction_Force

Nemesis File: The True Story of an Execution Squad?

[edit]

Is this book an appropriate reference source for this article? I remember reading about the laundry service and civilian drive-by-shootings almost two decades ago in the Nemesis File (1995) (amazon, independent). At that time, author Paul Bruce was discredited and the RUC apparently arrested Mr. Bruce and then stated the book was a work of fiction. Given the subsequent allegations and the claims of Panorama, I wonder where Mr Bruce got his story from? His 1995 "fiction" of the laundry service and assassinations seems to match what others are now saying happened with an uncanny accuracy. Though obviously if the book is accepted as fiction then it shouldn't be used as a reference source. What is the verdict? Barry McGuiness (talk) 09:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Needs revision. Very biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.63.250.251 (talk) 10:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Four Square Laundry story can be found in many less dubious accounts of the early troubles, so the body of the article is likely okay as far as the relevant section is concerned. The book has been discredited though (for unrelated reasons), and people shouldn't source facts from it. I've switched it for a reference from Dillon, at the small cost of losing the name of the massage parlour. --80.195.251.78 (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Succeeded by the FRU?

[edit]

I don't agree with this particular sentence

The MRF was succeeded by the SRU (or 14 Intelligence Company) and, later, by the FRU.

Was the FRU really a successor to the MRF? The MRF and SRU/14 Intelligence Company had a similar modus operandi and 14 Int Co. was created in the wake of the MRF disbanding, so that's seems fairly straightforward, but the FRU seems to have had a different role from either (it seems to have been a central place where intelligence was managed, rather than a bunch of spies gathering intelligence). Also the FRU was created in 1980, and seems to have operated contemporaneously with 14 Intelligence Company for a number of years. 80.195.251.78 (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Factual?

[edit]

"The unit has been alleged to have been involved in the murder of Irish Catholic civilians in false-flag attacks in order to inflame the conflict in Northern Ireland."

- Removed because of no citation. This is a strong claim that needs supporting evidence and until there is some it has no place in this article. The bigger the claim made, the more evidence that is required to support it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carefulact (talk • contribs) 23:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


"They are also alleged to have colluded with loyalist paramilitaries"

- The reference does not support this claim. The allegations of collusion come later.

Fine enough here, there is a lot of bias in these articles. Mabuska (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Military Reaction Force. 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) 23:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added attacks on civilians to introduction

[edit]

I added this to the introduction section: "In several incidents, the MRF indiscriminately fired at groups of unarmed Catholic civilians. An MRF member stated in 1978 that the British Army intended one fatal attack by the MRF on civilians to look like an attack by loyalist paramilitaries, thus provoking sectarian conflict and "taking the heat off the Army".[3]"

I'm open to the idea I've badly phrased this. However, I think it's vital we mention in the introduction that they didn't just kill paramilitaries but also civilians, and the motivation given for of those attacks.--88.81.124.1 (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing it for the time being on the premise that it needs verifiable sourcing and that it implies all incidents were intentional. Mabuska (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It already has many sources - the largest section of the article is called "attacks on civilians" and is full of sources. It's common to not repeat these sources in the introduction because there is no need. But because you've insisted I've copied one of the sources.
The introduction is supposed to give an appropriate amount of time to each section, but this one currently ignores the largest section, attacks on civilians. I have re-added the two sentences, this time with a Telegraph article summarizing how the group killed Catholic civilians. I do not believe the second sentence implies every attack was a false flag: it specifically says one. If you think it does, how would you reword it while preserving the information?--88.81.124.1 (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to not have them is whitewashingApollo The Logician (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please respect the Wikipedia WP:BRD guideline. The edit was challenged and reverted so please discuss it and wait for consensus before restoring it. The source you added does not back up the sentence you added. The source uses the word "alleged" quite a lot especially in regards to alleged members of this group (never confirmed) and indeed the claims are all allegations that are not proven, your statement however states it as if it is absolute fact. If the article body is similarly giving this impression then it needs amended to actually match what the sources state. Apollo's view contributes nothing to the discussion considering their personal bias in regards to this issue. Mabuska (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And even if there was only one "false flag" incident, you are giving it undue weight putting it in such a prominent position in the lede when it is not merited. If false flag incidents formed a bulk of what the MRF allegedly did then maybe it would merit mention in the lede if worded properly, but as you say it is only one and only an allegation at that. Indeed I could easily arrange an interview with a Telegraph correspondent and claim to be a former member of the MRF and refute all the claims made by the alleged former member. No evidence either way. Mabuska (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The allegations haven't been proven in a court, but the consensus among historians is that they are credible. A bit like Gerry Adams being in the IRA; he has never been proven guilty in court, but historians know he was. Nevertheless, you are correct that "alleged" should have been included. I have inserted a new proposed wording, this time including "alleged". I think this version of the first sentence is worth keeping.
How much time the MRF spent doing different actions has no influence on this article's structure. What does have an influence is coverage in sources. 99.9% of sources emphasize and spend most of their time discussing the MRF's killing of civilians, even though the MRF spent most of its time not killing civilians. The false flag attack is covered very prominently in all of the accounts, for example the Panorama program.--88.81.124.1 (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What do you not understand about WP:BRD? Discuss and get consensus before doing an edit on the issue. Please self-revert as all Troubles related articles are subject to 1 revert in 24hrs which you have now violated and can be banned for without warning. Without explicit sources stating such then you only have original research, opinion, and synthesis, all of which do not merit somethings inclusion. Mabuska (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Each of the two sentences are sourced. Where did you get the idea either of them is OR or synthesis from?--88.81.124.1 (talk) 14:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First off just because 2 editors agree and 1 opposes doesn't mean you can put your edit in. Wikipedia is NOT a democracy, it works with consensus and there is no consensus here. Apollo's agreement is neither here nor there as it doesn't elaborate on anything or give any real rationale to it.
You must seek talk page consensus first and foremost before restoring challenged edits, even if you have altered them a very small bit. Having just done a revert I can't perform another one even a partial one of my own (I assume) until 24 hours has elapsed. However looking more at it I can agree to the first sentences' inclusion. The second one however is giving far too much undue weight to a single incident out of many and is best detailed in the body of the article as it is. Mabuska (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Military Reaction Force. 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) 05:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Military_Reaction_Force&oldid=1209064399"