Jump to content

Talk:Warrenpoint ambush/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Inclusion in Category:People_killed_by_IRA

Until and unless we can include the names of all 18 people killed in this incident, I think this article should remain categorised as above since to do otherwise might seem to belittle the relevance of their deaths.

The difficulty with that approach is, of course, that each individual may not pass the notability test. ...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 18:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC) The notability test refers to the article itself not the contents of the article. Therefore the names should be allowed as they add to the article.

If there was an individual article about an individual the was killed then this category would apply.--Vintagekits 18:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The category is now a sub-cat of Category:Provisional IRA actions, which should solve the problem. One Night In Hackney303 18:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that is a topological impossibility, Sir.
No references have been provided in the article to substantiate that this was one of the Category:Provisional IRA actions and even if they were, Category:Provisional IRA actions should be a sub-category of Category:Republican actions. WP advice is that it is not wrong to have overlapping and simultaneous categorisation.
In line with WP policy I have added this article to the categorisation Category:British Army since their units indubitably took part. If we can not find a reference substantiating IRA involvement then I would suggest adding this article to two new super categories: Category:Republican killings and Category:Loyalist killings (since one British civilian was killed by forces loyal to the crown). W. Frank 14:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The IRA involvement is referenced, by the footnote at the end of the paragraph. There's ample more references available for it as well. Category:Provisional IRA actions should not be a sub-category of Category:Republican killings, at it currently includes actions where people did not die. One Night In Hackney303 14:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there a sub category of Category:British Army with Category:British Army killings?--Vintagekits 14:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Name

I added an 'also known as' for "Warrenpoint massacre" -- this is what the BBC refers to it as -- even if I don't necessarily agree. If someone finds it inappropriate, be my guest and remove it. - Francis Tyers · 22:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the word massacre, as the BBC where POV during the Troubles, viewing only the conflict through only one side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seamus2602 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Articles must reflect all mainstream views on the subject, this is not negociable. The referenced material has been restored. Kernel Saunters (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Use of ROI national flag to represent PIRA

Discussion here. Mooretwin (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Names Of British Dead

Should the names of the British dead be included here? I ask as user O Fenian keeps deleting them. I suspect for political reasons as user O Fenian has a history of 3RR warnings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.26.13 (talk) 10:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The only -and enough- reason for not including the names of the British soldiers killed here is WP:NOTMEMORIAL.--Darius (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The list has no value in encyclopedic terms. If people want to fawn over a list of dead, then get the MOD to build a memorial. O Fenian (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

We need some consistency here. It is notable that Irish-republican editors have removed the names of the dead from this article, but not from other articles, e.g. they are content for them to remain in Ballymurphy Massacre and Bloody Sunday (1972). WP:Memorial says that "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others". I'm not sure how the names of the dead in any of the above-mentioned articles falls within that definition. Mooretwin (talk) 09:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

In the articles you outline, each of the dead were killed individually or in clusters and there are references and descriptions of how the each individually died, which adds to the article content. As Darius said WP:NOTMEMORIAL clears the issue up.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I've posted notices on the Ireland and NI projects for input: hopefully from unbiased editors. Mooretwin (talk) 09:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You won't get it resolved at those projects. There have been many such debates in the past on individual article pages and a small bit of centralised discussion over the meaning of WP:NOTMEMORIAL (which, to me, means don't use the place to build a Myspace-like memorial page). The argument is that by including victims in a "timeline" (e.g., "Seán Victim got shot at noon, then around the corner Michael Victim was shot from behind"), encyclopedic information is being added - whereas if they all died in a bomblast, no encyclopedic information can be gleaned. Go figure. Especially when there are also "List of victims of..." articles around. Getting this changed would need a large, centralised discussion. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
(e/c)Right, I think I'm reasonably impartial so I'll add my £0.02/€0.03. I'm sure you must agree, Mooretwin, that this diff is not acceptable in terms of tone. If the names were to be included it would have to be in a less tabloid style, or included as an external link as we do with aircraft-disaster passenger lists. Bloody Sunday is a little bit different than most singular events in the troubles; each death was the subject of meticulous scrutiny by inquiries, academic papers, books and the media for over 30 years. Every detail has been poured over and thoroughly documented. As for the Ballymurphy article, some of the people were killed in controversial circumstances worthy of mention, but the list could do with a trim and the inclusion of ages is certainly verging on WP:MEMORIAL. Fribbler (talk) 09:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree entirely on Bloody Sunday. Ironically, though, I've seen the exact opposite mentioned in other debates as regards including ages... the argument then went along the lines of "If there's no other information apart from their name, then it's a memorial, you'd need at the least to have ages and occupations to make it encyclopedic." Again, go figure. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Fribber, where did ya get dat exchange rate? I've been on the look out for a few thousand yoyo's meself and the best I can find is 1:1.145.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I had to round up the yoyo-cents to get the desired effect. £0.02/€0.02 just doesn't seem the same. Fribbler (talk) 09:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Bastun, I agree with most of that - I usually go down the line of "if it was one incidient and it a list then it is probably WP:MEM.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Bastun is saying that WP:MEM means don't create MySpace-like memorial pages, and that it doesn't mean don't mention the names of atrocity victims in articles about atrocities. Mooretwin (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I know exactly wat he meant - I dont need de likes a you spellin it out ta me!--Vintagekits (talk) 10:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
So, when you say you agree with most of what Bastun is saying, does that include his view that WP:MEM means don't create a Myspace-like memorial page? Mooretwin (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This again! This debate has been going on forever. It always runs in more or less the same direction: Some one adds a list of names of people killed in an incident to an article on the Troubles, usually but not always a bombing by the IRA or their splinters. It is removed and WP:NOTMEMORIAL is quoted. It is then pointed out that 1) NOTMEMORIAL does not in fact cover this kind of situation at all: the relevant passage says: "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements." This is irrelevant to the discussion because the names on the list are not a deceased acquiantance, it is not a memorial (as long as NPOV is properly followed) and the names are not the subject of the article. It is also pointed out that many other articles, including FAs, use similar lists without controversy: e.g. Virginia Tech massacre. The argument then goes round and round in circles until everyone collapses in exhaustion. This problem will never be solved until there is a proper, project-wide discussion on the correct interpretation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL - until that happens these debates are pointless.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Where's the best place for such a discussion? Mooretwin (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Start at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Clarification for this issue is long overdue.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion begun here. Mooretwin (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw the note at WT:NOT. My opinion: The names of the British dead be included iff there is an independent reputable secondary source that has previously listed the names of the British dead. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:7 July 2005 London bombings#List shows it is not just "Irish republican" editors removing such lists, but editors wishing to have encyclopedic articles free of low value information. O Fenian (talk) 10:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Tricolour

The Tricolour represents the Republican desire for a United Ireland, and predates the Irish Republic, please don't remove it from the infobox.--Padraig (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, Padraig. DagosNavy 23:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Use_of_flags_in_articles#Overbroad_use_of_flags_with_politicized_connotations? James —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.166.75 (talk) 07:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Warrenpoint Ambush Ryhme

The ryhme included at the end of the article is not factual, informative or helpful. It also strays near the border against neutrality. For that reason, I am removing it. Microphotographer 18:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Well done. --John 18:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I am a Republican supporter, but I agree that there is some degree of bias in the rhyme. Best regards. DagosNavy 19:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree, not needed. Stu ’Bout ye! 08:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely not.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Average age of soldiers killed

I think the article should mention that the average age of the victims was 19. It's not POV to do so, as other Troubles-related articles mention the average age of the typical victim in various incidents such as the Omagh bombing, Bloody Sunday, etc. What do other editors think?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sligo connection

It may be a planned affair that it happened during the "unfortunate death" of Lord Mountbatten. Was this planned, or would the amount of incidents (on that day) be greater? In short: coincidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.28.194 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we can reasonably conclude that both events were carefully planned to occur on the same day with the purpose being to inflict a double blow to Britain. And as I mentioned before, could you please sign your name after posting. Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This article stinks

The IRA/Noraid supporters who edited this garbage have to face one thing: the IRA were not a legitimate force in international law and are therefore not accorded protection under the Geneva Convention. They were not the representatives of a legally elected government, they were not in uniform or controlled by an international-recognised leader. They are by definition terrorists.

Just because they said they were fighting a "war" does not mean anything, this is just another attempt to legitimise their activities. They were terrorists. (Same as the ones that blew Pam Am 103 or flew planes into the World Trade center - maybe they should have military infobox too?) BTW the editors who stuck a military infobox on this article and called it an "IRA victory" only shows the mindset behind three murderous decades. It was an IED that killed unsuspecting uniformed troops, and then a second bomb killed the medical team that went to help the first victims.

That is a terrorist attack. Maybe using that sick logic why not stick a military infobox tag on the Omagh Bombing then? They were all bombs set up by Republicans in a "war" so why discriminate? Using the same jaundiced view of history, this could mean that bombing of Germany in WWII was a military conflict but the bombing of Hiroshima was an act of terrorism.

Besides the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are just that: wars!! IEDs in those conflicts are part of a wider global conflict but the Troubles in N.Ireland were perpetuated by a minority of people carrying out of acts of terrorism. Get over it! There was no glory or honor in a campaign that targeted civilians, civil authorities or legitimate members of a sovereign states armed forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.17.96 (talk) 10:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Your rant is little more than British point-of-view in my opinion, whereas we write from a neutral point-of-view. If you have any constructive suggestions please make them without inflammatory rhetoric. O Fenian (talk) 10:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No, i think the term "Victory" is misplaced considering the context. I fail to see how anyone, from whatever 'side' can consider any loss of life as a victory. Revert my edits if you wish, but justify your actions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.70.51 (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue exceeds the scope of this article, so I think you could raise your concerns on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism.--Darius (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Consistency

I agree with the above. Its funny how "SAS Victory" is missing from this page : Loughgall Ambush

In the interests of a reliable Wiki, surely one of them is wrong? Your reasons why we should not adopt a similat template? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.207.67 (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Same case of the thread above. Try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism. And (at least from my point of view) a "British Army victory" on Loughgall Ambush wouldn't be so out of order--Darius (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this article positioned on opinion?

The info box represents this article as a military battle (e.g. Ypres), identifying Belligerents, Commanders, Strength, Casualties & Losses. How is this act more like Ypres rather than the attack on the USS Cole by Al-Qaeda that is described as a "suicide attack" in an article titled "USS Cole bombing"? In both the Cole and Warrenpont actions, attackers used IEDs, did not wear uniforms, and attacked uniformed soldiers with whom they claimed to be at war without any formal declaration by a recognised state. Perhaps the USS Cole article should be re-written to reflect a battle rather than a terrorist act? I doubt it. Are there clear Wiki definitions differentiating acts of War and Terrorism? Or is the decision up to the contributors to decide… in which case are we are missing the point of Wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.213.130.74 (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Try this template about the war in Afghanistan. There are lot of articles there with military infoboxes, despite the categorization of Taliban and Al Qaeda as terrorist groups.--Darius (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

List_of_designated_terrorist_organizations —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woogle72 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Dubious tag

Can anyone provide a quote that states the British Army was denied road travel as a result of Warrenpoint? I should point out the County Armagh and County Down are different places. Kernel Saunters (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way of finding out who referenced that to a source that doesn't substantiate the claim? It casts doubt on every edit they make. Traditional unionist (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I have the book, but could either of you provide a quote from it? It would provide us the oppertunity to decide weather the source doesn't substantiate the claim? Here is the diff TU you were looking for, it seems fine, but without a qoute from the book its hard to tell? --Domer48'fenian' 15:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a copy in front of me - Page 19 states (in a section specifically about South Armagh) "Since the mid-1970s virtually all military movement has been by helicopter to avoid casualties from landmines planted under the road". Note the date mid-70's (not 1979) and makes no reference to Warrenpoint. Kernel Saunters (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, helicopter transport had been the procedure in 1976 when the SAS arrested Peter Cleary at Forkhill.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Re-hashing of Flag discussion

Ok have qouted MOSFLAG [[1]] . It was taken that military acticles could use flags , they can . It was pointed out that flags should be avoided in the info box . It also indicates "Beware of political pitfalls, and listen to concerns raised by other editors. Some flags are (sometimes or always) political statements and can associate a person with their political significance, sometimes misleadingly. In other cases, a flag may have limited and highly specific official uses, and an application outside that context can have political (e.g. nationalist or anti-nationalist) implications " and "If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen." So anybody who wants to insert a Tricolour here I will ask a question , as I have before what would the flag icons be used here if they were to be used [[2]]?Murry1975 (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If you can't address the issue raised here in this discussion why re-hash it on this talk page?--Domer48'fenian' 17:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Resolved and removed , please revert your edit , as per MOS:FLAG , or discuss why you edit POV usage of the flag in .Murry1975 (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I will discuss it on any page where I find it . You could help instead of being obstructive .Murry1975 (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
MOSFLAG is not mandatory, is a guideline, and as any WP guideline it is a set "of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Far from being 'obstructive' Domer48 has only reflected previous consensus. 'Legal' or 'illegal' doesn't matter here, since we have reliable sources cited in that discussion that support the use of the Tricolour as the flag of Irish republicanism. Additionally, a much more specific guideline actually allows the use of the Irish flag for groups other than the RoI. WP:IRISH FLAGS reads: "At this time, neither the island of Ireland nor Northern Ireland has a universally recognised flag. In those instances, if an organisation uses a flag or banner to represent the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland, use that flag or banner to represent teams, bodies or people under its aegis.".--Darius (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Which is talking about sports teams. The file in use - - is labelled in the image name as 'Flag of Ireland' and described on the file page as Flag of Ireland (referring to the state. Using that file to represent a paramilitary organisation proscribed in that state is misleading for readers. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, the statement mentions not just teams, but "organisations", "bodies or people under its aegis." However, I am thinking of a proposal to avoid the use of the Tricolour.--Darius (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Alternative PIRA symbol?

I was thinking of an alternative symbol for the PIRA...I spent some time trying to remember...and I found this, this and this.

Yes, the very symbol of the Provisional IRA is the Phoenix. Although it dates back to the XIX century as republican icon, the Phoenix gained momentum during the first Civil Marches in Derry and the 1969 riots. I guess this bird is our opportunity to avoid further complaints about the use of the Tricolour and future edit wars. Here I found a nice svg file... any suggestions about? If it doesn't upset another people, :)) (just a joke), can an agreement be reached?. Your opinions, please.--Darius (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The phoenix symbol would work, I think. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it works and is pretty cool.Beefcake6412 (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The Phoenix would be a good solution to stop the ambiguity , the svg file could be linked back to the PIRA article adding further clarification .Murry1975 (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Change performed on most articles. Still pending link to the PIRA article.--Darius (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I also support the use of The Phoenix.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The image is a random picture of a phoenix and unless it's sourced it's not an accurate depiction and shouldn't be used. Now the tri-colour is the flag used by the IRA, and its removal is simple POV unless all flags are removed.--Domer48'fenian' 10:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The Phoenix looks good . Should be used on all PIRA articles , if that could be agreed . It losses the ambiguity and clearly is defined as a flag AND icon PIRA use . Well done Darius .Murry1975 (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Although the IRA use the tricolour, the use of it on PIRA-related articles implies that the organisation is a legitimate branch of the military forces of the Republic of Ireland, therefore should not be displayed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I would have to agree regarding the random nature of the image. You can't just pick some image of a phoenix and start adding to to articles claiming that particular image represents the IRA. And as before, you can either remove all flags from an infobox if you want to remove the tricolor, or you can leave all flags. 2 lines of K303 13:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

How about this one: ? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, it looks like the 'republican' phoenix I came upon...although aesthetically I prefer the former one...but we still need to reach consensus...--Darius (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • My feelings on flags is that they shouldn't be in the infobox at all, having said that making up a symbol for entry is original research so I would be against using it if we have reliable sources for the addition of the Flag of Ireland then if we are going to ignore the MOS then that is what we go with. Mo ainm~Talk 13:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me make clear one thing, strange as it can sound; I actually support the use of the Tricolour on IRA-related infoboxes, and even if my Phoenix idea is rejected, I will feel satisfied if the Green, White and Orange remains. But this is my own PoV (shared with other users and supported by sources). The proposal of the Phoenix is an attempt to find common ground among editors and to avoid the usual complaints and edit wars resulting from this. The use of the Phoenix by the Provisional IRA is not arbitrary, not original research; it is cited by several reliable authors like these [3] [4][5] and [6].

I think that we should, however, ask three questions regarding the PIRA.

  1. Is the Tricolour the main flag used by the PIRA?

Yes, the provisionals use the flag, not as a symbol of the organisation itself but as the flag of a united, republican Ireland.

  1. Can the PIRA claim "ownership" over the Tricolour inside Northern Ireland?

No, because the flag represents the whole nationalist community; from common people (many of whom doesn't sympathise with the provisionals) to other organisations like the OIRA, the CIRA, the INLA (besides its use of the Starry Plough) and the IPLO, not to mention the post-Troubles ones (RIRA, Oglaigh na Eireen).

  1. There is a symbol which we can identify as exclusive of the provisional movement?

Yes, and this is the Phoenix per at least four reliable, published sources.

I think the worst option is to blank the entries; first of all, it's misleading because gives the reader a watered-down version of a 30-year old armed conflict, and second because it breeches NPOV policies because indirectly supports the vision of the PIRA as a pure terrorist or criminal group.--Darius (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely disagree with your last paragraph - using the is misleading because it gives the reader a totally incorrect version of an armed conflict that didn't involve Ireland, and second because it breaches NPOV policies by indirectly supporting the claim of the PIRA to be the legitimate army of Ireland.
Therefore, my preferred solution is 1) no flags, per WP:MOSFLAG; 2) if we must use symbols, then the phoenix for the PIRA. I presume an svg can be made that reflects the image linked to above from the SF website. 3) Using the Irish tricolour to represent the IRA is a totally unsuitable option for the reasons you've outlined yourself, above. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think we have enough sources to consider the use of the Phoenix. A military infobox without flags looks more like a civilian conflict infobox, giving a misleading view of what actually happened in NI. Remember that WP:MOSFLAG is a guideline, not a policy.--Darius (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
What does consenseus mean ? 7 editors commenting 5 backing it one more backing it with edits , 2 against yet the 2 have the article misleading .Murry1975 (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
That's in relation to the phoenix? Agreed. In relation to the tricolour, I think Darius is the only person absolutely in favour of inclusion, as I think I've seen ONiH cite MOSFLAG elsewhere and Domer will accept all flags beng removed. As mentioned, including the Flag of Ireland is my least favourite option. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I would also prefer all flags to be removed. They are inappropriate in articles about an armed conflict involving non-state actors such as PIRA, who were not acting on behalf of any recognised state. Flags are also just a wee bit childish. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

To point blankly state my opinion , my objection is the misleading use of the tricolour . I have no objection to the removal of all flags . If a flag is to be used for the PIRA I would back the work and research done by Darius . I will put this forward to try and find full consensus and please state your preference

  1. No flags used between non-recognised state (from here PIRA as an example) and state (from here British forces as an example) (para)militaries or between such in Troubles articles
  2. Use of Tricolour for PIRA and Union Flag for British forces
  3. Use of Pheonix for PIRA and Union Flag for British forces
  4. Use of no flag for PIRA and Union Flag for British forces

-- Murry1975 (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

  • I prefer no flags but if a flag must go in I would support Tricolor, the phoenix is something we are making up here the sources listed above don't show the image of the Phoenix that was used to symbolise the PIRA and a quick google search throws up a myriad of different images for the phoenix is it a case of pick the one we like the best? As i said it is OR to do that. Also don't the British Army have their own flag? Mo ainm~Talk 21:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Option 1 preferred, will settle for option 3 or 4, option 2 not acceptable for reasons already stated. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I have already proposed option 3, although I am open to discuss option 1. I reject 4 and give up my preferences for 2 in order to reach some consensus.--Darius (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The problem with the tricolour - well, you've summed it up nicely with your second numbered point, above. The tricolour is most associated with Ireland, even if other organisations/groupings use it, and many in Northern Ireland do. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Option 1 preferred here. (Although 4 would be strictly accurate per WP:MOSFLAG, as British forces were acting on behalf of a nation state, while PIRA obviously wasn't. It seems to me that the relevant part of the guidance on appropriate use is "flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality - such as military units). Ivor Stoughton (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I see no OR in the use of the Phoenix; since this is a generic icon, we could agree on the 'right one' (may be an svg based on this WP file). I want also to comment that WP:MOSFLAG doesn't forbid the use of flags in military infoboxes; to the contrary, cites them as "acceptable exceptions": "Examples of acceptable exceptions would be military battle infoboxes templates and infoboxes that include international competitions". The suggestion regarding the use of "unclear, ambiguous or controversial" flags is actually a subsection of "Use of flags for sportspersons". Therefore the removal of flags is not mandatory in our particular case.--Darius (talk) 12:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The problem with that is that per WP:MOSFLAG PIRA clearly should not be represented by the tricolour, the national flag of the Republic of Ireland, as PIRA does not "actually represent that country, government or nationality". Ivor Stoughton (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Partially agreed, I only mentioned my preference for the Tricolour as a personal opinion, but I acknowlegde that the inclusion here is problematic for the reasons I have summed up above, and not per WP:MOSFLAG. The flag, however, does indeed represent the nationality of the PIRA, since they are an Irish nationalist organisation, but they are neihter the whole Irish nationalist community, nor part of the ROI, thus the use of this flag here would be equivocal.--Darius (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
If you read the guidance, it's not enough that the flag represents the nationality of PIRA (and given PIRA's traditional stance towards the Republic of Ireland that itself is highly questionable). Per WP:MOSFLAG, in order to be appropriately reprsented by the flag of a nation, the subject itself must in fact "actually represent that nationality", as, say, a national sports team would do. No one suggests tha PIRA ever actually represented the Republic of Ireland, do they? Ivor Stoughton (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Certainly not the RoI, but the PIRA undoubtedly represents a part of the Irish nationalism, whose use of the Tricolour predates the official use by the Irish state. We should distinguish between "state" and "nation". While the PIRA questioned (at least until 1985) the legality of the Irish state, they identifies themselves as members of the Irish nation in a verifiable way, per WP standars. WP:IRISH FLAGS states that "At this time, neither the island of Ireland nor Northern Ireland has a universally recognised flag. In those instances, if an organisation uses a flag or banner to represent the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland, use that flag or banner to represent teams, bodies or people under its aegis."
Let me make clear, however, that we actually agree about this issue, but for different reasons. What I want to note is that WP:MOSFLAG is neither mandatory nor accurate regarding the use of flags, at least for this specific case. The Irish flag, however, IMHO, should not be used to represent the PIRA, as I explained a couple of days ago, when I proposed the use of the Phoenix as an alternative according to reliable sources.--Darius (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Darius, do I really have to list the reasons why removing the tricolour isn't POV and is within policy? Inaccurate, misleading for the reader, unsourced... You even say yourself "the provisionals use the flag, not as a symbol of the organisation itself but as the flag of a united, republican Ireland." Including it is more POV than removing it. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Bastun, first of all, there is nothing personal on this; what I want to stress is that we must follow WP policies rather than political correctness. Neither WP:MOSFLAG, nor consensus can overcome WP:NPOV; shocking descriptions of deaths, graphic images, nazi flags, Bin Laden statements are on display in Wikipedia not because we endorse them, but because there are reliable sources which back their inclusion, no matter how repulsive this things may be. The removal of the Tricolour on the basis that one, some or many users find its use by a republican group offensive clearly represents a PoV. And for the reasons to remove it....
Is the use of the green, white and orange by the PIRA unsourced as you claim? No, there are indeed plenty of sources which attest the use of the Tricolour by the PIRA in parades, funerals, memorials...even we have at least two reliable sources which asserts that the Irish flag is also the flag of the IRA: [7] (p. 24) and [8] (You know that I personally disagree with this, however).
Is the use of the Irish flag to identify the PIRA misleading for the reader? Well, I guess the first thing the reader come upon after the infobox's icon is the name of the group which uses that flag...How many readers could confuse the Provisional IRA with the Army of the Republic?? How many readers interested in a Troubles-related article could be unaware of the use of the Irish banner by republican groups, specially the PIRA?? Aren't words clear enough for example in this article to distinguish between "pro-Treaty" and "anti-Treaty" forces in spite that both used the same flag?? We should follow WP:MNA which states that "There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial."
Is the use of the Irish flag to identify the PIRA inaccurate? Certainly, it is. You did already mention what I wrote above: "the provisionals use the flag, not as a symbol of the organisation itself but as the flag of a united, republican Ireland." The use of the flag by the PIRA is undisputed, but the flag also represented the RoI and other Irish republican groups which support Irish unity...to deal with this, I've cited a number of authors who asserts that the specific symbol of the provisionals is the Phoenix...but there is a problem, as another user(s) noted...WP:NOR. We failed to find the 'right' Phoenix, and the display of a generic image on the infobox would be deemed as Original Research...there is another issue...WP:UNDUE...while some published sources identify a Phoenix as the PIRA's icon, we have myriads of sources which show how the provisionals feel represented by the flag, as I have mentioned in the second paragraph.--Darius (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

RFC

So - with regard to an RFC on using the Flag of Ireland to represent the IRA - WP:IMOS, or WP:MOS? I'd prefer the former but no objection to the latter. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There would be a better feed back from WP:MOS , it would give us the view from people who maybe are seeing it for the first time and have not yet got an opinion on it , an open mind clear of any preconceived ideas about the subjects in the matter .Murry1975 (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Agreed with Murry1975, WP:MOS is the better choice if we seek a neutral opinion. We should, however, mention the previous discussions, in particular this one, where the use of an alternative file with the Irish colours and a rationale explaning its use by republican groups was apparently agreed.--Darius (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I came across an edit who mainly does Military History on here so I asked him about the Tricolour usage ,here. I will try to find more out read other articles . I still would prefer the pheonix , but I cant see how .Murry1975 (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Murry1975. First of all, thank you for letting me to know Marcus' opinion. As you surely imagine, I heartily agree with him, particulary regarding his mention of WP:CENSOR. On the other hand, note that I've replaced the files which link to the national flag of the Republic for this scaled-down banner (still the tricolour, however) on all the infoboxes dealing with the Provisional IRA, in line withwas agreed back in 2009. Best regards.--Darius (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your help on this. I still think it could cause confusion but I dont think there is anything that could be done about it now . Once again thanks for your help . Murry1975 (talk) 11:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to you, cheers!.--Darius (talk) 11:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Dubious

I was just passing, but was surprised to read the lurid descriptions of the explosives effects on those killed and injured.
I don’t know what the purpose was of adding it, but it seems unencyclopaedic; in fact, it looks like gloating. It hasn't been here long, and it's been deleted and restored once already [9]: As it’s referenced, that's quite correct, so I’m starting a discussion on whether it should be removed (or toned down). What does anybody else think? Xyl 54 (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored Mo ainm~Talk 23:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Irrelevant - "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article". Can you show me any other encyclopedia that includes such tabloid style descriptions of injuries? I note the majority on Troubles articles have been added by a single editor. 2 lines of K303 05:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I didn’t say the content was offensive (though it probably is) I said it was unencyclopaedic. So what is the argument for keeping it in?
And WP not being censored doesn't give anyone the licence to be gratuitously offensive. We are required to act in a civil manner while we are here. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
How is adding information about an incident acting uncivil?!!!! And seeing as you insult me by suggesting that I was being gratuitiously offensive why don't you drop General Sir Mike Jackson a line accusing him of harbouring the same sentiments seeing as I got the information from HIS book!!!! He was one of those at the scene of the double attack and witnessed events first-hand. Jesus, this place buggers belief sometimes.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
"Buggers belief"? You’re probably right at that; I haven’t heard it expressed that way before...
As to my last comment, it was a general reply to Mo ainm‘s point: If something is seen as offensive, it isn’t much of a defence to point out there’s no censorship if the offense was intended. We’re enjoined to “treat each other with consideration and respect”, which (I’d have thought) means at least not going out of our way to be offensive to each other. But if you were offended by what I said, that wasn’t my intention.
As far as the stuff in the article goes, I suggested it was unencyclopaedic, and I’d ask what was the purpose of putting it in. The comments made by Mike Jackson in the Telegraph article are in the context of how distressing it was for him to lose friends and colleagues; the “ugly pictures” he still has in his head. Is that what is being conveyed here? The quote from the Belfast Newsletter by contrast is describing what it calls an “atrocity”: Again, is that the purpose here? Because it doesn’t say that. Left as it is it looks like it is celebrating the damage caused; gloating, in fact.
So, what is the purpose of adding it to the article? Xyl 54 (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I added the description of the devastation wrought upon the victims to convey the absolute horror of the attack in human terms,it certainly wasn't to "gloat" or "celebrate" as I have never "gloated" over a bombing. In fact the mere suggestion of it is extremely offensive to me and I resent the implication that I added it for that reason. I wonder why the Jack the Ripper article contains images and explicit descriptions of the murders? To "gloat" or convey information about the killings to the readers? We are supposed to AGF here you know.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Well if that was your intent, I would suggest you add some context to make that clear, because that isn’t the way it comes over at present. Otherwise it’d be better taken out. This is the second misunderstanding that's cropped up in two months; and it is (as has been pointed out) a bit tabloidy as it stands. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I removed the parts that I added. The rest was already there. For me, the debate is over. I'm out of here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Result edit

I have attempted to reword it in the most neutral way possible. "Success" is too POV in my opinion. Largest casualty toll inflicted by the IRA is both accurate and encylopaedic. Happy to discuss Irondome (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. "Success" reads as if the article is gloating over the number of soldiers killed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I certainly understand the objection, but I'd say we're making a value judgement on "success". Saying a military operation, guerilla or otherwise, is a success is not gloating; it's indicating it met its intended objectives. Perhaps a better way to say it would be to say it was successful in achieving its intended objectives. But it was, regardless of one's stance, successfull. Jbower47 (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It is a very difficult problem to capture neutrality with total accuracy. I totally understand your point. For now, I would say that the infobox with the "Results" summary, casualty details, together with the powerful article content, speaks volumes without "success" having to be used. Just my impression.
  • I must say, after re- reading the sequence of events and the evident IRA plan, deliberately and knowingly targeting a medical relief unit (which appears to have been the secondary teams primary function) the IRA actions that day amount to a War crime against the Geneva Convention. I have no political axe to grind, but this is how it appears to a knowledgable but neutral reader. Irondome (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
If the second lorry was transporting a medical relief unit, this fact should be in the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Michael Hudson or Bill Hudson?

Barry Hudson was one of the civilians killed, but the article mentions his cousin as "Michael" Hudson or "William (Bill)" Hudson. Which is correct? 137.205.170.98 (talk) 12:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Warrenpoint ambush. 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) 05:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The Hudsons

In the text it's stated as established fact that the men were shot by the Army, but shortly afterwards the possibility of their having been shot by members of the IRA is then raised.

I make no judgement regarding the different positions - I just think that there's an inconsistency in the way they're presented here. Perhaps some formula such as 'It is generally accepted that...' needs to preface the summary account of British soldiers shooting the two men.

Regards to all. Notreallydavid (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Barry and Bill Hudson were presumably shot, and Bill killed, by the IRA gang, who machine-gunned the area after the second explosion. Mark Urban, Big Boys' Rules, Faber, London, 1992, ISBN 0-571-16809-4, p.86, says, 'The IRA members opened fire as dazed paratroopers tried to disentangle mutilated comrades from the twisted metal. A passer-by was also killed on the road.' Numerous other sources confirm that the IRA gang machine-gunned the area. There is no record that the army ever opened fire at all. Barry Hudson, whose interview is cited in the notes, said that he and his cousin ignored warnings that there might be shooting and that, when bullets started hitting the road, he thought it was fragments from the (second) bomb. If you have ever been anywhere near an IRA bomb going off, you will know that you just 'go dumb' for a while and the army cannot possibly have been firing at that point. The IRA have, of course, engaged in disinformation on the subject ever since. (In contrast, it has never been denied that the SAS mistakenly shot Anthony and Oliver Hughes, killing Anthony, at Loughgall in 1987.) Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

In view of the above, I've tagged this article with a "neutrality dispute" note. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Unless reliable references that dispute who killed William Hudson are provided, I propose to remove the note unless there are objections. Khamba Tendal's book with vague wording is irrelevant. William (also called Michael by various sources) was not on the road where the explosion happened, he was across the border in the Republic. Thus he wasn't shot by the IRA (and Urban certainly doesn't say so), and no sources that I can find claim this. References for the location of the Hudsons:
I could keep going with many more sources but hopefully the point has been hammered home by now, Michael Hudson was not on the road where the explosion happened and was shot by British troops.
In relation to Notreallydavid's original point, I believe the paragraph is potentially misleading. It deals with the possibility the IRA did not open fire at all, and that the British troops mistook exploding ammunition for sniper fire. This is then counter-pointed by the fact the IRA members arrested had traces of gunsmoke residue on their hands. Harden is not raising the point that the IRA potentially shot the Hudsons. Does anyone have any suggestions on how the paragraph can be re-ordered or re-written to avoid this ambiguity? My suggestion would be to move the last two sentences of the paragraph forward, and move the shooting of the Hudsons to the end of the paragraph. FDW777 (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Warrenpoint_ambush/Archive_1&oldid=1137309074"