Talk:South Armagh Republican Action Force

	Northern Ireland portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Irish Republicanism Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Warning: active arbitration remedies

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 repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Tullyvallen

CAIN says:

Five Protestant civilians died and seven were injured as a result of an attack on an Orange Hall in Newtownhamilton, County Armagh. Responsibility for the attack was claimed by a group called the South Armagh Republican Action force (SARAF) which was considered by many commentators to be a covername for members of the Irish Republican Army (IRA).

Added back. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well John McCooey, 22, from Cullyhanna, was convicted in connection with the Tullyvallen Orange Hall massacre, as well as being convicted for being a member of the IRA. So if the SARAF claimed the attack and one of the guys arrested and convicted for it was also convicted for being a a member of the IRA, then you have to assume that the SARAF was a covername for the IRA not possibly.

Or state that John McCooey was convicted for it and being an IRA member which gives credence to claims the SARAF was a covername for the IRA. How about that then? Mabuska 22:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact as CAIN states the group claimed the attack, then i'm adding that into the statement. Mabuska 22:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors shouldn't make assumptions, they should go with what the sources say. What's your source for the John McCooey claim? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now going by the source you provided, which i've included as a reference into the article. Mabuska 22:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no mention of John McCooey on that page. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never said he was on that page. I meant the last edit i made to the article was based on the link you provided. Mabuska 22:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Killing or murdered?

I've already had discussion with DerryBoi on this matter months ago and he failed to give me the convention he claimed that stated murders during the Troubles must be stated as killings, forcing him to give up on the agenda. It was left to me and gaillimh to come to an agreement which resulted in the use of the word murder. Why? Here is why:

Murder means unlawful killing. Terrorists from both sdies in Northern Ireland who where tried for taking someones life where done for committing murder, just as ones where done for attempted murder. I've never heard of anyone done for attempted killing etc.

All deaths by terrorist organisations are murder. Just because a side may view murders committed by them as lawful does not make them so. All deaths at the hands of loyalists and republicans were unlawful which means murder.

The use of the words killed/killing aim to justify the deaths, however thats only in a war. The only people who believed that there was a war where the paramilitaries, everyone else believed they where just terrorists and murderers.

So i'm changing it back to murder, which i hope you don't revert unless you can first provide me the convention that says it must be killed, as murder is the appropriate term for deaths by paramilitary terrorists. I'm gonna have to see about this matter on loyalist massacres as well. Mabuska 22:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. There's an ongoing ArbCom case about it right at this moment. See in particular [1] and [2]. Killed is fact, murdered is POV. You just stated that yourself with your comment of "The only people who believed that there was a war where the paramilitaries, everyone else believed they where just terrorists and murderers" - don't present opinion as fact. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Killed is also a POV. Murder is recognised as meaning unlawful killing, see here: [3] - each definition is the same and is from a source that has nothing to do with the Troubles. Thanks for providing me those two pages. Mabuska 23:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Killed is not POV, it is entirely factual. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the Killing vs Murder II page it appears many other people agree that murder is more factual especially as several examples given show peoplebeing convicted for murder. Why does the word murder seem so POV to you and other Irish republicans on Wikipedia for? Its simply a word that means pre-meditated and unlawful killing of someone. Your insistance of using killed and killing can be classed as POV Mabuska 23:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not like i'm using sensationalist words like massacre or slaughter now. Mabuska 23:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way you have one revert left before you are in breach of 3RR Mabuska 23:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not an Irish republican. I'm an English editor who tries to prevent both sets of Irish editors from using POV language. The editors tend to favour a policy based approach where facts alone are stated - "x was killed", "y was convicted of murder". All factual and above board, there is nothing POV about that. Killed is not a POV term. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification on your background. But the use of the word murder is not POV but also 100% factual. No paramilitary killing is deemed lawful, only by the groups who carried them out and their sympathisers, thus murder is not POV and is factual. It is also a far more descriptive than killed when it comes to the deaths of people at the hands of paramilitary organisations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabuska (talk • contribs) 23:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under UK law you need to prove the perpetrators were of sound mind at the time of the killing. Can you do that? Until you can, I strongly suggest you stop adding POV. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again i will state for your benefit my usage of the word murder is not POV but based on the actual definition of the word. Sound mind? That sounds like a cop out to me no offense to put in me a cul de sac as you know it'd be impossible for me to do that. All i will say is that everyone tried and found guilty of killing someone during the Troubles (or anywhere else) has been done for either manslaughter, murder, or unlawful killing (which is what murder means in the various non-bias NPOV definitions i provided to you earlier on). I'm happy enough to go along with the courts and the NPOV definitions on the use of murder. Mabuska 23:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least you and me are discussing this unlike Mr Padraig and his recent edit. Mabuska 23:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one changing the article against consensus. If you looked at the VP discussion you'd see it's the second one, as someone wants to override the consensus from the first one. The consensus from the first one is to say "x was killed", "y was convicted of murder". So until that consensus is changed, please respect consensus and do not add opinion based on original research. Have another look at an ArbCom case (Great Irish Famine) where editors tried to add "genocide" based on dictionary definitions, it's classed as original research. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted you, because you continued to edit war, whilst there is a ongoing discussion here, read WP:POV.--padraig 23:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@ Hackney Okay dokey, i'll leave the issue until consensus is changed, i was unaware of the consensus at the start of this evenings precedings, and you have done what DerryBoi failed to, showed me the consensus. However on what constitutes murder in the UK, for future reference i'd like your source for UK law requiring perpetrators having to be of sound mind as reading [4], the murder law reform reported here doesn't appear to state this being the case. All i can find on Google is 2005 articles on UK murder law reviews and ideas etc. Mabuska 00:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the basic difference between murder and one form of manslaughter. Diminished responsibility, or more specifically diminished responsibility in English law. You're setting a very dangerous precedent if you're going to say that "unlawful killing = murder". Does it apply to IRA member Séamus McElwaine, found to be unlawfully killed at Roslea in 1986? How about the eight members of the Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade including Jim Lynagh, Patrick Joseph Kelly and Pádraig McKearney, who were found to be unlawfully killed at Loughgall in 1987? How about IRA members Mairéad Farrell, Daniel McCann and Seán Savage, found to be unlawfully killed in Gibraltar in 1988? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist groups have no lawful killings, only in their own dogma. The army has a role and purpose to defeat insurgents and terrorists especially ones who are in the process of carrying out an attack as in Loughall or planning one as in Gibraltar. The deaths of the IRA men in Loughall can be lawfully justified in that sense as they where carrying out an attack that was aimed at taking lives. The deaths of the IRA men in Gibraltar though can't be lawfully justified as they weren't actually carrying out the attack at the time, rather they should of been apprehended on suspicion to carry out an attack.

Just like the army was lawfully justified in killing UVF man Bryan Robinson just after he murderd a Roman Catholic, however as they were spying on him at the time they should of taken action before he and his accomplice had the chance to kill the guy.

It depends on the circumstances of the situation. I also hope going by your examples your not trying to assume i hail from the unionist/loyalist side of the community here just because i say the SARAF murdered civilians. I'd point out my userpage which makes it clear i hail from neither side and am of no religion. Just like you'd hope people don't assume that you lean towards republicans especially as most of your contributions seem to be mostly on republcian articles.

Mabuska 12:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point I'm making is that you try and apply your "unlawful killing" argument to those articles and change the lead to "murdered by the SAS" and see how long it takes someone to revert you. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree with above point made by ONIH. BigDunc 13:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also have to disagree with you there Mabuska you say above The deaths of the IRA men in Loughall can be lawfully justified in that sense as they where carrying out an attack that was aimed at taking lives. Loughgall was not an attack aimed at taking lives at all, as it was a part time police station and was supposed to be unmanned at the time of the attack. The security forces deliberately placed men inside the station which would allow all other forces in the area (and there were plenty) to immediately open fire on the IRA unit. So what actually happened was the security forces deliberately manufactured a situation that would allow them to open fire without warning. BigDunc 13:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to diagree with your republican POV, which is clear from your use of the republican Fianna Éireann flag in your profile BigDunc.

The matter of fact is why would the IRA perform an armed attack on an empty RUC station for? Why did they detonate a 200ib bomb at the station and open fire upon it - even before the SAS ambush was sprung?? And reading the Wikipedia article on it, the same IRA unit had carried out similar attacks on rural RUC stations with the exact same tactic killing the occupants intentionally. The exact same tactic and style that they used on the Loughgall RUC station.

Mabuska 18:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And on opening fire without warning - as i've already pointed out the IRA opened fire first and secondly what warnings did the IRA give in their East Tyrone RUC station hits? Mabuska 18:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assume and you make an ASS of U and ME you do not know my political stance and as regards the flag read Sunburst flag used by a lot of groups not only republican. BigDunc 18:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I use that assume joke all the time, glad to see someone throw it back at me for once :-) However i read the Sunburst article and only one group, as oppossed to a lot, was mentioned that wasn't a republican group: Conradh na Gaeilge. Mabuska 18:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mabuska I hate to be the one who lets the facts get in the way of your opinion but: They had come to destroy Loughgall RUC station, an unmanned base, using a digger with a bomb in the bucket.[5]

Among the terrorists gunned down at Loughgall as they approached the unmanned station in a hijacked digger carrying a 200lb bomb was brigade commander Patrick Kelly.[6]. Now this talk page is not a soap box for your views. The next comment like "I have to diagree with your republican POV," will be brought to the attention of an Admin. Now put up Diff's to back up your opinion, or say nothing. --Domer48 21:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let my response be an end to this debate:

I do see now BigDunc's comment was not the republican POV i did assume (jokes aside), and accept his assertions. My response was based on the Wikipedia article of the attack and BigDunc's to me apparrent political leanings due to his use of a republican flag and him being a member of the Irish Republican WikiGroup, and i do apologise for my comments and assumption (which may still or may not be true).

However i'm not doing this because of your threat of bringing it to the attention of an admin, but due to the fact i was wrong - something i am happy to admit both here and in the real world unlike many others. If i am proved wrong i accept it as it means in a future debate on the same issue involving other people i won't be wrong.

Mabuska 18:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats no problem Mabuska, I've learned one thing on this though, when your right nobody remembers, and when your wrong nobody forgets. --Domer48 08:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List

I intend to remove the list of attacks from this article as it is an article on South Armagh Republican Action Force not a chronology of attacks by them. BigDunc 19:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with having both in the one article? ~Asarlaí 19:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article has 3 lines on the group and the rest is a chronology of their actions. BigDunc 20:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the group is only known for these six attacks.
It's not a massive list, and it's all relevant and sourced.
What harm is it doing? ~Asarlaí 20:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok lets leave it, unless other editors feel it should be removed. BigDunc 20:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do, the extra information shouldn't be in this atticle at present. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should stay in, as both sections are small and it gives substance to the article. As Asarlai says its all relevant and sourced. Mabuska (talk) 12:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do attacks in Belfast and Antrim have to do with the South Armagh Republican Action Force? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the attacks are attribuated or claimed by the SARAF then it has everything to do with them and so should be included for posterity. A group doesn't have to be confined to one specific area to operate in, after all, SARAF like any other paramilitary name is just a name to describe where the groups from and what they represent - it doesn't restrict them to just that area. Mabuska (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having inspected the actual information closer i realise it states just the Republican Action Force and not the South Armagh Republican Action Force, which means that it doesn't mean its exactly and specifically attributed to the SARAF. On that basis i remove my vote on the issue. Mabuska (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]