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.
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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 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 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 Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects 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.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British crime, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.British crimeWikipedia:WikiProject British crimeTemplate:WikiProject British crimeBritish crime articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw 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.
A fact from Paramilitary punishment attacks in Northern Ireland appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 January 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Loyalist paramilitaries UDA/UFF, and LVF were re-listed as terrorist organizations in October 2001 after they were found to be involved in punishment attacks is dubious. While the reference is talking about punishment attacks then goes on to say In October 2001 the government concluded, in the wake of violence in the North Belfast area that the UDA, Ulster Freedom Fighters (UFF) and LVF were no longer maintaining their ceasefires and specified these organisations, it doesn't appear to be making a direct connection between punishment attacks and the October 2001 specification. Crimes of Loyalty: A History of the UDA by Ian S. Wood (Edinburgh University Press, ISBN 978-0748624270) pages 274-5 says in September 2001 John Reid announced that he would give the UDA ‘one last chance’, claiming to have had assurances from its leaders that they would order members to withdraw from attacks and interface confrontations (see interface area). He then further states on 12 October, Reid changed his mind and announced that as far as he and the government were concerned the UDA ceasefire was over. This came in response to serious rioting the night before on the Shankill Road, when police searching houses for drugs and arms came under attack from a large crowd hurling petrol bombs and other missiles at them.The Guardian say The decision by the Northern Ireland secretary, John Reid, to call the bluff of the larger of the two organisations is the culmination of RUC investigations. These exposed the UDA/UFF's involvement in more than 200 pipe bomb attacks on Catholic homes in the past year and in last month's drive-by shooting of a Newtownabbey teenager, Gavin Brett, as well as several other murders. The Guardian also says the LVF's ceasefire was no longer recognised because of the murder of Martin O'Hagan, as clarified by John Reid's actual statement. There were a lot of things going on in October 2001 (and the months before), most obviously the Holy Cross dispute which was causing all kinds of problems between the two communities. While there certainly were punishment attacks being carried out by various republican and loyalist paramilitary groups, the British government were more concerned about inter-community violence (which had the potential to escalate very quickly) then intra-community violence. FDW777 (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into this more closely. I was just relying on what one RS stated without investigating further. (t · c) buidhe 11:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's no problem, it's a reasonable conclusion to draw based on what the reference implied, especially as all they talk about for pages leading up to October 2001 is intra-community violence. I just realised the situation is even more complex than the wording suggested. The UDA/UFF and LVF were "specified", and I had to do some checking as to exactly what that was, as the UDA was de-specified in November 2004, yet remain a proscribed organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000. Specified organisations are dealt with in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 (the legislation that allowed the conditional early release as part of the Good Friday Agreement). According to that a specified organisation is concerned in terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland, or in promoting or encouraging it and has not established or is not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire. This is then covered in the Terrorism Act 2000, which states as specified organisation is one which is specified under section 3(8) of the M1Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, and it is, or forms part of, an organisation which is proscribed for the purposes of this Act. So essentially, being specified and proscribed (the term used for formal designation under the Terrorism Act 2000) are two different things, specified is more to do with whether an organisation's ceasefire is recognised or not, and the effect that has on early prisoner release or some court proceedings. FDW777 (talk) 13:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to review this. Will have a read through and offer some comments a little bit later in the week. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything more to say about the controversy over naming? As it stands, the quote from Bell is potentially undue weight given the relatively short length of the section.
I've paraphrased the first part of the quote but "The use of the term 'punishment' confers on the act a degree of legitimacy by suggesting that the guilt of a victim is an established fact." is the main objection, and she said it most clearly so I think it's worth a quote.
Out of curiosity, why "Northern Ireland conflict" instead of the more common "the Troubles"?
I just prefer it as a more objective sounding name while "Troubles" always seemed a bit euphemistic to me.
was a civil war is that from the sources? I'm just not used to hearing it referred to as such.
The cited source, Steinberg, uses it repeatedly for example, "The 1998 Agreement that ended Northern Ireland's bloody civil war has often been attributed to many of the remarkable individuals involved in the peace process."
British rule in Ireland seems focused on historical British rule of the whole island of Ireland rather than the current situation with NI.
Yes, the article should be expanded. But the scope of the article covers the entire situation from 1169 to the present day.
The Irish republican movement considers itself I'm not an expert (my main interests are IRA activities in GB and British special forces in NI), but I have read around the subject area and I didn't think the movement was as cohesive as this makes it sound.
I realize that it's not a cohesive movement, but I believe most or all the groups which are considered part of the "republican movement" make this claim (almost all term themselves the "Irish Republican Army"). Jarman states, "The republican movement, for example, views itself as the legitimate inheritors of the independence movement of the early twentieth century and of the first Irish government..."
Perhaps make clear that the various faction see themselves but not each other that way? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded accordingly. (t · c) buidhe 17:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Ulster Defence Association/Ulster Freedom Fighters (UDA/UFF) and Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) are rival groups Suggest clarifying that they're loyalists and rivals to the various IRAs as opposed to each other.
The text clearly establishes that they are both loyalist, but the rivalry between them is important to this article as they have conducted punishment attacks on each other as part of their feud.
Protestant neighbourhoods began to organize This is the first mention of the Catholic/Protestant divide in the article. For readers unfamiliar with the conflict, it's not clear that Catholic and Protestant were almost interchangeable with republican and loyalist. Perhaps add a sentence in the background section?
As stated in the background section, this article, like most sources on the time period, uses "IRA" consistently to mean the Provisional Irish Republican Army.
According to Munck, punishment attacks represent Introduce Munck on first mention
Done
However, soon community members were calling If you're planning on taking this to FAC, expect to find use of words like "however" heavily scrutinised. In this instance, for example, it doesn't add a lot.
Pared down on use of "However".
The article is mostly written in the present tense, but is past tense in places (especially earlier on). Are these beatings a regular thing these days? Perhaps a few sentences on the current state of affairs might be a good way to end the article, to tie up loose ends?
The article takes a thematic rather than historical approach. Sadly, these attacks are still a regular occurrence with more than 1 attack per week on average since from 2010 to 2019. (as stated in Statistics section)
their purveyors responsible for "CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY What's with the all caps?
Repeating the same capitalization used in the source. I could lowercase it but I think all caps shows the original intent.
Your bibliography looks good but is there a reason you don't cite the books listed under further reading? Also, I would have expected to see some of the broader reference works on the Troubles cited, eg Tim Pat Coogan's The IRA and Richard English's Armed Struggle, or CAIN. It's fine for GA but if you're planning on taking it to FAC (I hope you do), there might be work to be done to satisfy the "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" requirement.
I do not have access to any of the books listed in "Further reading", the main reason that they aren't cited. From my search it looks like both Coogan and English discuss punishment attacks fairly briefly and don't have much if any new information not already in the article (also, some of Coogan's books such as The Famine Plot have a poor reputation among academic historians). I didn't cite the CAIN website as I've tried to focus on published, peer-reviewed research. I do not have any current plans to take the article to FAC.
It's a shame you're not planning on taking it to FAC. I think it would do well with just a little bit of extra work. CAIN could be useful for its index of individual deaths. You're right that Coogan and English don't cover punishment attacks in great depth because those books have a wider scope but for the sake of comprehensiveness and context I usually like to include some broader works. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added some CAIN statistics to the external links. (t · c) buidhe 17:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no mention of similar incidents linked to the authorities. The obvious example is the MRF but there were also ... interesting incidents involving the SAS and specialist units of the RUC. Again, fine for GA because you've covered the "main aspects", but the FA requirement for comprehensiveness is much tougher.
This is interesting, but I didn't read anything about this aspect in any of the sources covering punishment attacks. I would be interested if you have any sources covering it. The thing is I worry it might be WP:OR if they are not explicitly described as punishment attacks in reliable sources.
You might be right that it's OR to directly connect it to punishment attacks, though there's plenty of evidence of certain elements of the security forces behaving in the same way as paramilitaries. If nothing else, there might be something that an be lined to in a "see also" section. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, after looking into this I'm not sure it's the same thing. The hallmark of "paramilitary-style attacks" is that 1) they are carried out by paramilitaries and 2) they target the same community that the paramilitary draws its support from. Looking at the MRF I see it was mostly controversial for killing Catholic civilians for little or no reason, which is more like a sectarian attack. (We're missing Sectarian attacks in Northern Ireland...) (t · c) buidhe 17:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All in all, a good read and very well put-together. For GA, the work needed is minimal. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for reviewing! (t · c) buidhe 03:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. The GA criteria are easily satisfied so I'll pass this once you've had a chance to look at my replies, whether you want to do anything with them or not. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
