This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DIREKTOR(talk | contribs) at 00:54, 17 October 2018(Historically-accurate colours throughout the use of this flag, sourced from the Southern African Vexillological Association. (GlobalReplace v0.6.5)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:54, 17 October 2018 by DIREKTOR(talk | contribs)(Historically-accurate colours throughout the use of this flag, sourced from the Southern African Vexillological Association. (GlobalReplace v0.6.5))
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish Republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Irish RepublicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish RepublicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish RepublicanismIrish Republicanism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Unionism in Ireland, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Unionism in IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Unionism in IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Unionism in IrelandUnionism in Ireland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Neutrality: All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.
Editors who do not deign to provide edit summaries (as a matter of their general practice and custom) and ask supercilious questions in lieu do not garner the most patient of responses, particularly when the edit is an unexplained Undo which in itself is extremely disruptive editing behaviour. Hence, I do not think this was an appropriate case to dither in the Talk universe; action in the real world was both appropriate and necessary to support a well-intentioned, well-conceived contribution. But I do support the principle entirely, as a general rule. Thanks. sirlanz15:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That map had been there for a long time and it was changed only recently. And frankly, someone seeking to replace something that had been there for a long time has to turn to the talk page. The map was replaced without consensus. Placing pictures of bombings, etc. perpetrated by one party of the conflict violates the neutrality of this article.Ernio48 (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That bombing doesn't obviously show who did it so I see no neutrality issue there. But exactly why would showing only the damage caused by one side or the other fail neutrality? Do you think there should be a balance or pictures or none at all? Dmcq (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. The perpetrator is not identified. No threat to POV whatsoever. If an editor thinks it would contribute to balance, he/she can put forward an image of something committed by the other side but, frankly, given this one does not provide such identity, little would be achieved. sirlanz23:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is however not anywhere near specific enough to the Troubles. Bombed houses occur in all sorts of conflicts. Dmcq (talk) 08:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate, neither of you had the right to edit-war without starting a discussion on the talk page. Now let's discuss. Scolaire (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just reiterating is not adequate. If anything is said on WP it ought to be said with reasoning. If you insist a Talk shop was required in the circumstances, then you must insist with a response to the substantive points made by me, particularly that the so-called "war" began with the editor undoing a contribution with no substantive reason at all and with the absurd suggestion that editors require permission before editing. Those are pertinent circumstances to be taken into account when considering the appropriateness of reversion. If every disruptive, rude and belligerent edit requires a discussion before reversion, time for WP to close up shop - and I mean that genuinely, because it would simple grind to a halt. sirlanz23:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Bold edits are fine. A reversion is fine but it should say why one prefers the old version rather than just that it has been there for a long time. Edit warring is bad. As to the edit I think the bomb picture is better than the map but it isn't all that specific. I think possibly a mural showing a paramilitary would be better. Dmcq (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Terrorist incidents map of the United Kingdom 1970-2015 The previous map is not a great infobox image - if you want a map this one (which could be cropped) gives a very telling overview (though it's a pity the date range is too long) as well as showing north & south for those who don't know. The bombing image is low res but better than the plain map. Johnbod (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would have to be more specific. That shows terrorism in the UK unrelated to the Troubles and it gives the impression that there was no terrorist activity in the Republic. Never mind some stuff elsewhere. Plus the causes of it all mattered as well as all the killing. That's why I thought a mural would be more informative showing how it was a general conflict and not just terrorist organizations. Dmcq (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't see any in commons that looked like anything but walls. How about something dreary or there's also a map specific to the troubles. . Dmcq (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dmcq's map. Snowded's would be a dismal climb down by WP. It's vital that any illustration is not just an outright avoidance of the significance of the period of intense conflict, i.e. violence. That's what made it newsworthy and the source of enormous concern worldwide throughout all those decades. If it were not for all the bombings, it simply would never have been anything like it was on the world stage. So, yes, I support a map such as the one now suggested. If we shy away from depicting the dismal horror of the subject, we utterly betray Wikipedia's commitment to truth. sirlanz10:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are trying to make a point here rather than satisfy our obligations as a encyclopaedia. The article more than adequately covers the violence and we are now in the post Good Friday period so something a little more neutral is order. You still haven't self-reverted your latest edit which breaks Arbcom sanctions on Troubles articles by the way. The fact you haven't indicates the point making again -----SnowdedTALK10:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A few observations:
Slagging those who disagree with you, or questioning their motivation, is not conducive to a productive discussion.
Unfortunately, I have had to nominate this image for deletion, as it turns out it was not a free image.
The Troubles were a terrible period in Irish history. Images of a wall containing paintings of happy people, or generic graffiti, does not illustrate them very well. This image of a peace line might work better. On the other hand, it or the watch tower image might look strange to the first time reader. We have to bear in mind that the purpose of the image is to to give an immediate impression of the article topic.
The "Deaths in the Troubles" map is extremely ugly. It's okay where it is, down in the Casualties section, but I wouldn't like to see it at the top. Sorry to be so negative.
At least we have a consensus that the blank map of Ireland should be replaced. Let's keep thinking about the best thing to replace it with.
The lead paragraphs are very populated by sources - 18 in the first one alone. Per WP:LEAD and WP:LEADCITE we should not have any references in the leads (or at least, keep it to a minimum). I might try move the citations to sections below if I can. --Gateshead001 (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adding additional supporters of the Paramilitaries
The source does not back up what you claim. Nor the Winter Hill Gang, nor NORAID/Irish Northern Aid Committee, nor the Norwegian Criminal Gang are mentioned in the source. The Bannertalk21:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources did you check?
-Iran paid millions to fund IRA Adrian Levy and Anna Pukas. The Times , 21 Aug 1994
-Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, The Mitrokhin Archive pp492 - 503
-Mitrokhin, Vasili (2000). The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB. Basic Books. p. 384. ISBN 0-465-00312-5. [KGB SUPPORT]
-"Report". U.S. House of Representatives House International Relations Committee. 24 April 2002. Archived from the original on 28 February 2007. Retrieved 17 March 2007. [FARC dealings]
-Mallie, Bishop, p. 308 [ETA SUPPORT]
-"Inside The Ira - Weapons & Technology - The Ira & Sinn Fein - FRONTLINE - PBS". Retrieved 3 October 2014. [ETA SUPPORT]
"Inside The Ira - Weapons & Technology - The Ira & Sinn Fein - FRONTLINE - PBS". Retrieved 3 October 2014. [PLO]
NORAID
Bandit Country: Toby Harnden, ISBN 0-340-71737-8.
"Decommissioning in the summer - Ahern". BBC News. 1998-04-12. Retrieved 27 September 2008.
Duffy, Jonathan (2001-09-26). "Rich friends in New York". BBC News. Retrieved 27 September 2008.
"Passing the Hat for the Provos". Time. 1979-11-26. Retrieved 27 September 2008.
McDonald, Henry (2 July 2000). "English fascists to join loyalists at Drumcree". London: The Observer. Retrieved 30 December 2010. - C18
Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas. Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity. NYU Press, 2003. Page 45.LINKS TO COMBAT 18/BNSM
Wood, Ian S. Crimes of Loyalty: A History of the UDA. Edinburgh University Press, 2006. Page 339-40. Other Fascist groups
So every group that delivered or tried to deliver weapons is now suddenly a real, active participant in The Troubles? What about the companies that supplied weapons to the British Army? Why are you only focusing on the IRA and not on the Protestant side? Did you read WP:RS? Why do you keep coming back with that PBS source, while that is not backing up your claims? The Bannertalk17:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How am I only focusing on the IRA? I clearly added supporters and references for both. Who are not active combatants, they are under the support column. Under your logic - both Libya and Apartheid South Africa should be removed from the infobox. PBS is a reliable source - their articles on the subject and others are written by local and international experts. The reporter who wrote the list about PIRA decommissioning has a track record of reporting on terror cells in Ireland. They likewise source the work of Jane's Intelligence Review. Simon Levchenko (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Around half of all firearms used by the PIRA were imported from the United States via NORAID, the Harrison Network, and the Irish Mafia (through James Bulger). I would consider that significant support. Likewise, IRA members were trained in bomb making and other "specialties" by Libya and the PLO. The Unionists had only 1 shipment come from South Africa - their support came from elsewhere, too. This could be added to an expandable list.Simon Levchenko (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"George Harrison, a leading IRA operative in the United States who worked with local Mafioso, procured perhaps 2,500 guns while active, as well as a million rounds of ammunition."Simon Levchenko (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And this proves the significance of their support to the PIRA. Which received only around 1,000-1,100 firearms from Libya. Which - was listed as a supporter. Simon Levchenko (talk) 00:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It still doe s not make him a belligerent or participant. Or can you prove that he went over to Northern Ireland and joined the fight? The Bannertalk02:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He worked with several accomplices- e.g., the Harrison Network. So, you are saying if they played no role in combat they should not be mentioned? Per that logic then, the page shall stay as it is; not listing any material supporters. Simon Levchenko (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think Libya should definitely be counted as a supporter, especially after the 1986 bombing of Libya. NORAID also should be there as raising money. Neither were actual belligerents. I don't think the PLO, Basque or FARC were of any consequence though they expressed support for each other. The rest of them were either directly working for the IRA or were just criminals working as gun runners for money, they weren't public organisations. The stuff under the Loyalist column is equally silly. So yes overall I agree with Banner. I think the whole supported by stuff should just be removed from the infobox as too remote from the actual happenings and only covered in the text. Dmcq (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Banner: Please be more careful in your choice of words: Why are you only focusing on the IRA and not on the Protestant side? - Considering the IRA are proud to boast of any Protestant member's they had so they don't look sectarian, and the fact there are Catholics who have supported or are loyalists, such a statement is inaccurate and wrong. Rather you mean "on the loyalist side".
On topic, whilst you could argue that they were involved in the conflict by aiding and abetting, they weren't directly involved. Otherwise why didn't the UK take military action against Libya or the such considering it was basically state sponsorship of the IRA by Libya? So I would oppose the addition to the infobox of participants of such entities. Mabuska(talk)11:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The importation was not known until several shipments were intercepted. Likewise, talks resumed in the early 90s - Maggie was out of office. Simon Levchenko (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No real difference between the new version and the previous version
I have taken the liberty of removing duplicate fields to make things obvious. First is the version as of 06:07, 19 June 2018, secondly is the "new" version. I am sure everyone can see the only supposed difference is the change of "Supported by:" to "Armament supply:" and the removal of "arms shipments". There is no real difference at all, so the objections are still valid. 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:D802:80A1:3B7D:C884 (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this place such a kindergarten? Did those entities supply weapons or not? As is practice in e.g. List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War, there is an obvious distinction between the label 'Allied armed groups' covering heavy military commitment, versus the label 'Armament supply' strangely enough covering non-involvement except for arms supply. Substantiating such drivel as there being "no real difference" between aforementioned revisions with "everyone can see it" is invalid. There needs to be some level of consistency between related articles to prevent ownership sentiment among certain users, as is the case here. --131.164.141.250 (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention to promote any side of the conflict. An expression of desire for an 'Armament supply' section - in line with various conflict infoboxes - is not in any way "POV-pushing". Are you done with your name calling and care to stay on topic? --131.164.141.250 (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tu quoque fallacy. I now recognize your aversion to discuss substance over form. Moving on.
You claim in your user page that you're "not afraid of being wrong" and yap yap. Fuck you for possessing the audacity to hijack my dear time with your rubbish. You're despicable human scum, worse than a dog. You filthy heap of canine dung. You're worth less than a tick and rectal itch. --131.164.141.250 (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow - seriously? Props to The Banner for template notifying the IP user of incivility, but this is a pattern of behavior which needs to be mentioned at ANI. Edaham (talk) 05:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox content is not dictated by the content of infoboxes on other articles. You may wish to familiarise yourself with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, specifically:
When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance
Therefore any inclusion should be based on the significance of the addition to this specific article, not because an article on a vaguely related subject may include information in the infobox because it may be more significant to that article. The additions made to this infobox are not key facts, a single(?) importation of arms from South Africa is hardly a key fact is it? 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:DD5E:EDE:3F38:6174 (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Determining what are 'key' facts is subjective and thus requires consensus. For an IMO careful inclusion barrier, I would at least consider Libya-IRA arms shipments politically significant enough to pass, but I don't imagine making agreement with such a bunch of dumbasses. Other articles have less strict inclusion criteria than being proposed here, but let's not widen the scope because .. um .. guidelines. --131.164.141.250 (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Talking about dogs I get a whiff of sockpuppetry from the very long IP of very limited contributions to this site. Maybe I'm wrong but there's something fishy going on here. Also the shorter IP should be reported for that outburst. Mabuska(talk)08:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Contradictions in lead, infobox and article body
Lead - The conflict began in the late 1960s and is usually deemed to have ended with the Good Friday Agreement of 1998
Infobox - 1968–1998
Body part 1 - "The Troubles" refers to the three-decade (1969–1997)
Body part 2 - There is little agreement on the exact date of the start of the Troubles. Different writers have suggested different dates. These include the formation of the modern Ulster Volunteer Force in 1966, the civil rights march in Derry on 5 October 1968, the beginning of the 'Battle of the Bogside' on 12 August 1969 or the deployment of British troops on 14 August 1969