Talk:Provisional IRA South Armagh Brigade

British withdrawal from South Armagh

I was about to revert the changes made by Weggie on October 25, but I think that the supposed blatant PoV he claims is something to be discussed here.

There are some questions to be made about:

• Was the full demilitarization of South Armagh a major Republican objective or not?

• Was the IRA brigade there effectively wiped out or defeated in any way by the British Army?

• Was the control of roads achieved by the British security forces at any time of the conflict in S.A.? (They were forced to resupply their bases by helicopter).

• How can anybody consider "successful" an army retreating from a conflict zone, with an unbeaten enemy still lurking there?

Thanks.

DagosNavy

The British Army remained unbeaten as well - the peace process alone led to the withdraw (not complete as yet) as the troops are not needed. The army didn't retreat, it was withdrwan after the politics of murder were abandoned by the republican mvt in favour of negociation. The watch tower policy was highly successful as was the helicopter resupplies in keeping a solid military presence in a republican heartland - which is another POV as yours is a POV.Weggie 18:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, You didn't answer any of the questions, especially that related to the Republican political goal of removing the military presence from S.A.. If just the first question has an affirmative response (by You or by other readers), then the brief line I wrote should stand in the article.

In the other hand, yup, the British were unbeaten as well, but they are the third (if not the second) best army in the world (the Republicans were just a well organized guerrilla or terrorist group, not the Wehrmacht), and they outnumbered the IRA by far. As You say, the British also have helicopters and electronic surveillance; the IRA didn't, and still it was undefeated. The UK forces wanted and could have the IRA eliminated, both politically and military, but they failed; the Republicans realized that they couldn't do the same to the British long time before. Well, I concede that all this is just a point of view.

I guess you can think the East German Army and the Soviets were also undefeated when the Berlin wall fell, as part of another peace process; yes, that could be an interesting PoV too. Yet, the desire of freedom of the German people was accomplished anyway. Best regards.

DagosNavy

It's also worth pointing out that there are no 'winners' in Northern Ireland only the grieving relatives. The reason that the British Army didn't wipe out the S.Armagh 'ra was public policy - Slab Murphy head of the IRA lived next door to the British Army for years in their watchtower and the local members of the IRA were named under parliamentary privilige. This was a counter-insurgency/policing mission to back up the RUC/PSNI not a mission to 'wipe out' anyone.Weggie 09:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the first question remained unanswered, so In my opinion the line I've introduced sometime ago should be restored in the article, unless somebody could get out claiming that the Republicans and their supporters welcomed the presence of UK troops in the region. I am not posting something like "The IRA forced the British Army out", or "The Republican pressure expelled the British security presence", what would be obviously PoV, I just wanted to reflect the fact that, as a result of the GFA, Republicans achieved a major political objective by obtaining the so called "normalization" in South Armagh.

About the other issues, Ok, may be the BA soldiers were there not to wipe out anyone, but the SAS still gunned down almost all the members of East Tyrone'ra Brigade and the Gibraltar three. Also a good number of civilians or unarmed Republican sympathizers fell to Royal Army bullets since Bloody Sunday up to the cease-fires. It's obvious they failed to do the same in S.A., but certainly the cause was not self-restraint. DagosNavy 16:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The demilitarisation of South Armagh was the aim of both the UK Govt. and the provos. The British Army was sent to support the RUC/PSNI - the reason they are leaving is the improved security situation brought on by the GFA. I should point out that the PSNI will still have an active presence in South Armagh, so the British state will still be represented in many of the bases that the British Army was stationed. Don't forget that the army shared the RUC/PSNI bases (the BA was in support of the police). The SAS arrested far more people that they killed, an example in South Armagh is the Caraher sniper squad. Your comment about self-restraint is POV, the facts do not support your assessment, the British Army showed massive restraint in South Armagh under the circumstances - nearly all the provos were known to intelligence, British state policy dictated that this was a policing operation where normal legal rules applied. The provos were treated as common criminals not an army to be wiiped out, that's why so many of them ended up in prison and not 6ft under Weggie 17:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Weggie. Finally, you have answered the key question: "The demilitarisation of South Armagh was the aim of both the UK Govt. and the provos", so you have conceded that my statement must be included in the text. I insist, no matter the cause, no matter if it was also the goal of any other group or State, normalization in S.A. was a Republican objective, so I feel free to restore the line to the article. The PSNI doesn’t count as a military force, so its presence doesn’t change the validity of my statement.

Certainly, the other issues are PoV and a matter of discussion. The PSNI (unlike the now defunct RUC) is an entirely civilian new force, open to both communities and also open to a genuine cross-border cooperation. Even members of the Irish Garda can fill its ranks. Its aim is just normal policing for the community, without the strong militarized profile and the political bias that characterized the RUC. The PSNI doesn’t display the “Royal” title anymore, so the nationalist and republicans view of them will be that of a local force rather than a “brit” one. They will be accountable to the local residents trough the monitoring of the political parties, they will not use Army helicopters or watchtowers to control the life of the people in the border. The life will be as normal as in any place of Western Europe. In the other hand, the real criminals (Murphy and his fellows, if you want), will be just criminals, they will now be unable to hide themselves under the cover of a dubious "patriotism". They will cannot claim anymore the status of militants; they will be prosecuted as the mobsters they are. The fact that the Caraher sniper team was handed over to the RUC and not executed in sight by the SAS was a political gesture, since by 1997 there was a great expectation for another PIRA cease-fire and the effect of another Loughgall would have been potentially disastrous to the Peace Process. The IRA army council was also showing some restraint in NI, waiting for the outcome of the May UK elections to enter the proposed multi-party talks. Had the capture of Caraher and his men took place (for example) in 1992, there is not doubt the sniper squad members would have died. Remember that the Royal Marines shoot dead Caraher’ brother in 1990 just for breaching a checkpoint or something lenient than that, I believe. I would call this trigger-happy, not restraint. Wether they killed or arrested PIRA members in S.A., they never were able to neutralize the Brigade's activities. DagosNavy

The SA provos achieved nothing - the GFA started the process of demilitarization as per the Patton recommendations after the security situation improved to which is why the material was removed. No GFA, no troop withdrawls from South Armagh 19:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Weggie 19:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, take it easy. I will include the statement with the clarification that the strategic goal yourself have already admitted was the aim of the provos and others, was the result of the GFA provisions and in exchange of the PIRA decommissioning, avoiding any reference to words like achievement or retreat. I repeat, I never intended to post nothing more than the fact that the normalisation was a political objective of the Sinn Fein/IRA, since this is an article about the Republican main force in S.A., not about the GFA or about the British Army in NI. I think this modification cannot be seen as PoV in any way. DagosNavy

Fair use rationale for Image:XmaglenSniper.jpg

Image:XmaglenSniper.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Merger with South Armagh Sniper (1990-1997)

The sniper information belongs in this article, not tucked out of the way in an article that barely has any incoming links. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The sniper activity in South Armagh was far beyond the routine operations of the Brigade, both for its significance inside the Republican minds and for the complexity shown by the ASUs involved in sniping, a fact acknowledge by the British military. Remember that at least another Brigade action (Warrenpoint ambush) has an exclusive article because of its significance in the history of the conflict in Northern Ireland. In the same way, I think the sniping in South Armagh largely deserves a separate article, since there is a lot of info and citations (important to understand the last phase of the Troubles) that I guess would be lost if a merger is done. DagosNavy 01:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Taking each point in turn:

• The sniper activity in South Armagh was far beyond the routine operations of the Brigade - not really. During the time period apart from making bombs for use elsewhere, the majority of operations were sniper ones.
• Remember that at least another Brigade action (Warrenpoint ambush) has an exclusive article because of its significance in the history of the conflict in Northern Ireland. - that still doesn't address why it should be merged. Content forks for the sake of it are a waste of time, you're spreading content around that doesn't need to be spread around.
• In the same way, I think the sniping in South Armagh largely deserves a separate article, since there is a lot of info and citations (important to understand the last phase of the Troubles) that I guess would be lost if a merger is done - what would be lost? It'd be a straight merge, less the unsourced stuff that's in the article.

Check the incoming links. They are mostly easter egg links, or ones that don't belong. Take the Goldfinger link, there's nothing in the source that says it's anything to do with James Bond, it's pure conjecture. Even the description in the sniper article is nonsense - "The troops had nicknamed the trigger man Goldfinger, an irony for his alleged marksmanship" - where in the source does it say anything of the sort? There's not a single incoming link that should exist that can't point directly to a section in the South Armagh Brigade article, which is linked to by more articles, or the same articles to begin with. Therefore there's more chance of people actually seeing it, and no needless content forking. 02:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, I suppose the unsigned statement above come from you, One Night. "There's not a single incoming link that can´t point directly to a section in the South Armagh Brigade article"; well, following the same criteria, NONE of the thousands of battles or campaigns cited in Wikipedia should get an article of their own (Austerlitz, for example), since it would be enough to mention them in the main article about the wars (In the example of Austerlitz, the Napoleonic wars). And, of course, ALL incoming links of "Austerlitz" can point directly to a section of the narrative about the Napoleonic wars...

• If the entire "sniper" article is to be merged with the "Brigade"'s one, then a large part (around 40%) of the new article will be glutted by the sniper story, since the size of both articles is 47k and 30k respectively. To counterbalance this disproportion, I guess we should also merge the article about the Bishopsgate bombing, another notorious South Armagh Brigade operation...

• Yes, I acknowledge that the "Goldfinger" stuff and the Times citation are somewhat flawed, but there is no doubt that the sniper got that nickname (it's not so relevant to the article, I realize that). On the other hand, tell me please , besides the "Goldfinger"'s issue, where is the other "unsourced stuff" in the article?. The narrative is well supported by footnotes, mostly based on an specific chapter of Tobin Harnden's book Bandit country, a reliable and established author.

• Google´s Page Rank shows a ranking of 4/10, which is not so bad for a three months old article. What I want to say is that there is many people online looking for specific info about the S.A. sniper, so the alleged dispersal by "forking" is not true. Conversely, one of the first pages to appear if you hit "South Armagh Sniper" in Google or other searchers is that of Wikipedia. DagosNavy 18:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Bishopsgate wasn't a South Armagh operation, it was an England Department operation. The England Department used personnel from South Armagh. You want evidence of the unsourced stuff? In no particular order....

• "Contrary to the widely spread belief, there was not just a single sniper involved." - really? Even ignoring the unsourced weasel wording, that isn't a fact. Even Harnden himself says (exact words) - "There was more than one weapon and probably two snipers"
• "During one of these, at Forkhill, on 17 March 1993, a bogus gunman, pretending to be running away from a patrol, lured a Royal Scots soldier to an open field, were the serviceman was shot to death." - again, really? Hardnen says (again, exact words) - "...when his [Dickson] patrol commander reported on the radio that a person had been seen running near Church Road. Dickson jumped over the back wall of the disused Protestant churchyard and out through the gates onto Church Road, telling Private Lindsay McWhir to keep his eyes open for anyone acting suspiciously. McWhir heard a shot ring out and saw Dickson lying on the grass verge." So there's a) no evidence of a "bogus gunman", b) no evidence of him running away from a patrol and c) nothing about him being shot in an open field. In fact it says he was on a road, and was found shot on a grass verge (which would be at the side of the road).
• "During the 1980s, the IRA purchased a huge amount of weaponry both from Libya and from USA." - not really. The stuff from Libya wasn't paid for, and the amount of weaponry coming in from America was siginificantly less than say in the 1970s.
• "The distribution of the incidents and the type of weapons involved reveal, however, that there was interaction and shared zones between the two groups." - not seen a source for that, in fact it's contradicted by the "military official" you're quoting in the next sentence who says there were two "distinct zones" not "shared zones".
• "The shippings from America included at least four Barret .50 long range rifles, which would become the best known asset of the South Armagh snipers." - first off, best known according to who? At least four Barret M82s (aka light 50)? That's not supported by any source. A Barrett M90 was seized at the farm after the SAS arrest, a Belgian FN was seized in September 1998, one Light 50 is known to have been successfuly shipped to the Republic of Ireland, and Harnden states the rifles known to be outstanding (at that time) to be another Barret M90 and one other .50 calibre rifle.

And I could go on and on and on if you really want me to? There's so much stuff in this article that's not supported by sources it's untrue. Once that's gone it quite easily goes in the main Brigade article. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Take it easy, One Night, it's not my intention to have an argument or something like that with you. Yes, you are right, there are some flawed points praeter the already removed citation of Goldfinger. I will take care of that by removing weasel words and rewriting statements. However, I still maintain that the merge will deprive the readers of an specific article about one of the last successful operations of the PIRA during the Troubles, and one of the main icons of the Republican struggle.DagosNavy 00:02, February 9 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree - just read the South Armagh Sniper (1990-1997) article; it's good; a lot of information in it - far too much to be merged. I understand ONIH has some issues with the references? Sarah777 (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Also disagree. Could do with some improvements but otherwise deserves to be treated as a stand-alone article.GiollaUidir (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Also Disagree - Culnacréann-(talk) 22:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with the merger. As ONIH has amply demonstrated, once the unreferenced or just plain untrue information is removed, there is no reason for it not to be merged into this article. The disagreement messages above are not convincing in any way. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't close discussions about your own article, especially when you haven't fixed the problems. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, ONIH. The discussion was about to reach consensus on the merge, and not about fixing problems in the article (which certainly belongs to Wikipedia, not to me); I thing that is obvious that there was NO agreement on the subject, thus the discussion should be closed and the tags removed. If you think that the "South Armagh Sniper" article have any problems to fix, go to the talk page there. Thanx. --Darius (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If you read what's been said there's a consensus in favour in my opinion. And as before, it's this article that needs fixing to avoid the need for a merger. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I insist, go to the Talk page about "The South Armagh Sniper", this was just a poll about merge or not to merge. It's not in favour of you or me; what I see here is 4 votes clearly against the merge and only 2 (including yourself) agreeing with the proposal. I will not re-close the discussion, but this one is certainly over.--Darius (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

We aren't voting or polling, so your argument is incorrect. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if so, you should have then go ahead with the merge without a discussion seeking consensus. Of course, me and others users have the right to reverse it. --Darius (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a discussion, which is still ongoing. DO NOT refactor my comments under another heading again. Why don't you try addressing the issues raised? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No capitals, please, be civil. If I added a header, is because the following Wikipedia guideline (which you ignored by reopening an alredy closed discussion):

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Have I to repeat that the discussion about improving the South Armagh Sniper article should be discussed, as any of the other millions of Wikipedias articles, in its own talk-page?. There is no other issue to adress here than the proposed merge, and we have the opinion of six different users with no agreement in sight, and no comments by new users for a month.--Darius (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because you're not archiving an active discussion when you've ignored points raised. Please address the reasons raised in favour of the merger, which you have failed to so far. This is a discussion, please discuss the points raised. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The reasons for merging were raised by you, as expected, since it was your proposal, not mine. In order to merge, according to Wikipedia guidelines, you need a substantial consensus. It's obvious that you failed to convince enough editors. I have no issue to raise, I only expressed my disagreement, as others did. The burden of the proof is on you.--Darius (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

So, you're refusing to discuss the issues raised? Great, that means you've clearly got no answers as to why the article shouldn't be merged. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I already gave my answer on February 8, and my remarks were supported by other users; thus no need of more comments from my part.--Darius (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Erm, no. It's an ongoing discussion. Your arguments from Feb 8 were countered in depth by me and another editor, so over to you again. Are you willing to take part in it or not? The issue is whether the main article should be castrated by the non-inclusion of wholly relevant information while a sub-standard article filled with unsubstiated claims, OR and misrepresentation of sources exists? I've not seen a single coherent argument as to why that should happen. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your comments after 02/08/2008 and those of 'Republican Jacobite' (no depth analysis in his posting at all) were aimed to the weaken points of the article (about the sniper), not to the reasons for merging, nor to my arguments against it. On the other hand, the article was heavily edited and improved since then.--Darius (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

So, you claim others have no depth in their posting, while ignoring the only people that agree with you said absolutely nothing to support their position. How selective of you! The article hasn't been heavily edited or improved, it's still full of total bollocks and there's still points outstanding from my list above. Your comments still fail to address the impact on this article, which has always been the main bone of contention.One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, One Night, do you know this Wikipedia quote?:

Please do not feed the trolls.

Trolling refers to deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia. Trolling is deliberate violation of the implicit rules of Internet social spaces. It necessarily involves a value judgment made by one user about the value of another's contribution.(...)The archetypal example of trolling is the deliberately inflammatory edit or post — saying something controversial specifically to cause a flame war. Inflammatory edits usually come from users who have a minority or controversial opinion and who sincerely believe that this view is inadequately represented by Wikipedia; trolls, however, will generally not seek consensus but will instead insist on a position without any regard for compromise.(...)

Deliberate misuse of processes is a favourite troll game.

Well, it's over for me. Probably we will talk again when you and others reach consensus to merge, according to Wikipedia rules...10 years from now, I guess. Bye.--Darius (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: Ah, I almost forget something; if you close this discussion in the future, I will reopen it and revert the changes in the articles, just as you did before.--Darius (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed merger, the info in the Sniper article belongs here and not in a separate article it is part of the history of the South Armagh Brigade and should be included within the main article on the brigade.--Padraig (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree Padraig, ONIH has stated the case well and there has not been anything in the way of strong arguments against. Would have added more points only ONIH covered most of them already, as per usual. --Domer48 (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. None of the arguments against have been at all persuasive. Hack's argument has been on point. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the merge. I made some edits as unregistered in some of the articles about 'Irish Republican Army actions', and most of the actions described there were carried out by an specific PIRA brigade; no sense in merging all of them to the 5 or 4 brigades articles. The SA Sniper is part of the Irish Republican folk and tradition; the article should stand alone. I also agree with the opinion that the article is too long to merge here.IsaacMorrison (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

All due respect, Mr. Morrison, but can you please make an argument that is based upon Wikipedia policy? All this about "Irish Republican folk and tradition" is kind of irrelevant. There is no purpose in having a separate article on the actions of one small group of the brigade. It is simply pointless. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I came here by chance, but now I'am getting involved in all this mess!

Well, Mr. 'Jacobite', you are questioning the South Armagh sniper article on the grounds that the PIRA unit was a 'small group' inside another group. Just browse the account of casualties at the CAIN site, out of 11 soldiers killed during the period 6 were victims of this nasty bunch: 55% of all military fatalities in NIR. At this stage of the Troubles, the usual thing for the provos was to kill out of duty soldiers; the sniper shot full combat-ready squaddies. Your point about numbers are, therefore, arguable, to say the least. The sniper chase was the main concern of the British military between 1992-1997. A little bunch, yes, but its deeds made an overall effect on 'The Troubles' from the security point of view. This is a fact, and facts and History preceded Wikipedia policies. Yes, those 'little rascals' deserve a separate article. Other reason for avoiding the merger is practical. Someone over there wrote that 'is far too much to be merged'. I think he was right, mergings only work for stubs, I think.--IsaacMorrison (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel that it should be merged as these operations were carried out under the auspices of the South Armagh Brigade. The rational used and countered by ONIH regarding Bishopsgate bombing is flawed as this was certainly carried out by the English department certainly with the help of South Armagh Brigade. Also bandying about accusations of trolling are not helpful. BigDunc (talk) 10:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not to merge then all operations conducted under the auspices of the SA Brigade?. You (and the other guy) have mentioned Bishopsgate, but failed to address Warrenpoint, the Newry mortar attack, and other ops carried out by the Brigade, not to mention the bios of notorious members like Slab Murphy and others. These are, at least, of the same importance than the sniper article. Why to focus only on the sniper?. It's a stub?. It's the same article about the SA Brigade under different name?. No, and the criteria for merging articles relies on this Wikipedia guideline:

"There are several good reasons to merge a page:

Duplicate - There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject and having the same scope.

Overlap - There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.

Text - If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For instance, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity, and can be merged there.

Context - If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it. For instance, minor characters from works of fiction are generally covered in a "List of characters in <work>", and can be merged there; see also WP:FICT."

Point by point:

1) As long as I know, there is obviously no duplication of subjects-The sniper page subject are not the activities of the IRA in SA since 1968 to 1998.

2) There is not a large overlap; the sniper, as I mentioned before, had a significant impact in the Troubles and goes well beyond the routine activities of the Brigade: The common reader identifies the Sniper at work sign with the IRA, not specifically with the South Armagh Brigade, and some issues -general sniping activities inside the IRA, IRA importation of arms, some links, Bernard McGinn, not properly a South Armagh Brigade rank- overcome the Brigade's context. On the other hand: is the sniper so trivial to match a dictionary entry?.

3) The text is not a very short one, it has been assessed as Start and is almost as large as the article about the Brigade.

4) And for the context, the sniper is already in the category of Provisional IRA actions, so someone can hardly claim that the sniper material is "in the wilderness".

I think there is no ground to merge according to Wikipedia policies. And, I repeat, I feel free to revert any merging if no large consensus is achieved, since Wikipedia establishes that: If there is clear agreement with the proposal by consensus, or if there is silence, proceed with the merger. No clear agreement in sight, no merger.

If the other guy thinks that the Brigade article should be improved, according to his words: Your comments still fail to address the impact on "this" article, which has always been the main bone of contention., then the improving should be perform inside this article, but not at the expense of another.

The trolling suggestion from my part was a reaction to some uncivil attitudes of ONIH, like the use of derogative language and open inflammatory remarks (use of capitals, total bollocks for the edits of another user). I think he is, however, a honest wikipedian, but I will not tolerate any despising comment from anybody.--Darius (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The South Armagh Brigade were believed responsible for about 170 deaths of British security force members during the troubles, the snipers were responsible for 9 deaths over a 6/7yr period, yet you seem to view this as a signicant event, as for the claim in the infobox that the result of the snipers was a restriction on foot patrols that is false, the restriction of foot patrols as with mobile patrols came about through the use of culvert bombs and booby traps which made the British forces and RUC rely on helicopters for moving personal and equipment as the roads where a no-go zone for them. So I fail to see how the sniper article can be justified as a stand alone article.--Padraig (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Padraig. It's not about numbers. The 170 deaths claimed by the South Armagh Brigade date back to the first '70s, a period of almost 30 years untill 1997; the "kills" of the much smaller sniper units (which of course didn't employ bombs capable of kill dozens, as the Brigade did) took place in a shorter four-year period (counting the first IRA ceasefire), then, proportionally, the importance of the snipers should not be dissmissed so quickly.

The claim of "restriction of foot patrols" is absolutely valid. The British Army was compelled to use helicopters instead of large-convoys by the late seventies, but the employ of foot patrols was almost unchallenged until the "Barret" made its debut. Yes, the roads were no-go zones for APCs and Rovers, but the town's streets and country fields were still disputed by the patrolling troops. If you read the "Conclusions" section of the article, you will find the word further in relation to the restriction of movement; it means that the IRA first hit the vehicular movement of the BA through the region, as you commented, and later they went after the soldiers foot mobility. This point makes the article about the snipers an issue of interest in the strategic development of the overall conflict in NI.

Did you read the Wikipedia's criteria for merging?--Darius (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you do before Wikilaywerying any further, as you'll realise they recommend merging once the articles have been fixed. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a quote from Harnden, Padraig, about what I meant by "further" restrictions: "The defensive measures the Army was forced to take meant that its operations were more constrained than at any time since 1970s." (page 405).--Darius (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Page 405 ? dosen't exist in my edition, as for further restrictions every advancement in IRA weapons technology meant the British were forced to change their defensive methods, in the early seventies they were forced to abandon the use of light skinned landrovers for heavily armoured ones, attacks on barracks forced then to reinforce their defensives on a regular basis to counteract developments in better mortars by the IRA, and the use of Barrack-busters, so by the time of the sniper attacks their defensive measures where already severely restricted, even their use of helicopters was restricted and flew in groups of two or three to enable them to defend themselves.--Padraig (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to points:

1) My edition is a paperback, revised and updated edition of 2000. Chapter 11, Sniper's Promise, pages 387-425. I assume good faith, but is really very strange any edition of "Bandit Country" with less than 404 pages, since the edition I have ends at page 564...

2) You did compare the "Barrack Busters" with the sniper tactics. You mentioned the infamous IRA super mortar as an example of "advancement IRA weapons technology" which "forced then to reinforce their (the British) defensives". Well, the "Barrack Buster" has its separate Wikipedia page, in great part due to the reasons exposed by yourself, and nobody propose a merge to the main Provisional IRA article...It's that true or not?--Darius (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

1) My edition is also paper back, but in large size format, so the number of pages would may differ and in mine ch 11 Sniper's Promise is p.281-307, and p.404 is the final page of the Index...

2) We are not discussing other articles, as for the Barrack Busters or the various mortars the IRA developed where not confined in there use to any brigade area, if you want to propose a merger on the article feel free to do so, it is irrevelant to this issue here.--Padraig (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, since there's a clear consensus that the sniper material belongs in this article regardless of the existence of any other article I shall add it later, once I've decided what information needs to be added and what's total bollocks (like the American importation stuff) and doesn't deserve a place in any article. Then once that's done there is a substantial overlap, and we can discuss the merge further. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It's O'right, Padraig. Your edition is just different from mine, sorry for suggesting something wrong :).

Yes, we are not discussing other articles here, not even the South Armagh Brigade or the sniper one; we are discussing just whether or not a real substantial consensus is reached to merge both articles according to Wikipedia policies, not to the behest of any Wiki-maniac. On the other hand, I remember to anybody, you cannot first invoke Wikipedia guidelines to perform the merge, and later accuse another user of "Wikilawyerying". And that "Wikilawyerying", I repeat again, allow the users to revert any change, including a merging performed without the proper consensus.--Darius (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

There is consensus for merging, well supported by reasoned arguements, suggesting you will revert any change, including a merging performed without the proper consensus is disruption! I suggest you don't go there. --Domer48 (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure that a fifty-fifty opinion means consensus?. Are you sure to perform a merging when the same guy that proposed it has acknowledged that some part of the sniper article should be deleted ("Then once that's done there is a substantial overlap", he said about the "arms import") in order to achieve one of the criterion for merging? He questioning of the (arms) issue is totally PoV: remember his "total bollocks" remarks; is that a reasoned argument, Gentlemen?. I guess the latter is only disruption in order to advance a position. I eventually will not oppose to the merge, it will be good anyway to contribute to this article about the SA Brigade, but only under the appropriated Wikipedia standars, which includes, I insist, a substantial consensus.

Another question, Gentlemen, are you part of a choir, or something like that?. Your movements seems to be collectivelly coordinated. Remember the policies about "meatpuppetry". Just in case.--Darius (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you consider consensus DagosNavy? BigDunc (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

A substantial agreement between many users, (substantial consensus, Wikipedia says); not a 50-50.--Darius (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Darius, please try to stay civil, I can't speak for anyone else but this article is on my watchlist, so don't accuse peopl of meatpuppetry without proof, but if you wish you can ask for a CU on me anytime, and I sure the same applies to the others.--Padraig (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, Padraig, for including you in the "package", as we say here in Argentina:). Sorry again. Well, guys, civility is finally arriving here, and may be we'll reach some sort of compromise soon. My mention of the possibility of meatpuppetry was my reaction to a user that accuse me, in advance, of future vandalism if I revert certain changes proposed here. One point for the Sniper article, however; it was today classified as a B class by the military task force. Too much for a text full of "total bollocks", I guess. It makes more difficult to me to accept a merging. On the other hand, I will read tomorrow the other comments after assessing them at my office. I'am very tired now. My apologies again, Padraig.--Darius (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S.:Be carefull! Somebody here is scanning the minds of other people! He knows whether you did read the sources of an article or not!.--Darius (talk) 03:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to try it sometime? That way the articles wouldn't be full of total bollocks? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because the person assessing it hasn't read the sources, that doesn't mean your article isn't full of total bollocks because it is.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You might want to try reading WP:CONSENSUS then. While you're at it, try reading WP:SIZE as that proves the article won't be too big according to established guidelines. That's more than appropriate when the people claiming it will be too big don't even know how much information needs to be merged, it's astonishing how much total bollocks needs to be removed. There will be a consensus based on WP:MERGE, WP:SIZE and WP:CONSENSUS, once the information has been added to this article. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and yes the bit about the arms importation does need to go. Firstly Bell never made the claim you attributed to him, and secondly arms importation from America continued even after George Harrison was arrested. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break (i)

(outdent) I don't think the articles should be merged, though this one should contain a section summarizing the contents of South Armagh Sniper (1990-1997). And, while I'm here, can I remind everyone that WP:CIVIL is policy and that editors ignoring it can be blocked? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Once the other article has been stripped down to what the sources actually say, there's not going be be that much more than a summary left. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've withdrawn my remark about merging pending checking of the sources. I note that the online ones are reported accurately enough. I'll get hold of the Harnden one and see what it says. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider the online ones to be reported that accurately either. For example "It was claimed that the unit had been infiltrated by a mole, an assertion dismissed by the Ombudsman report." is referenced by this. Not the specific use of the linked "mole", when what the source actually says is "During the lull, intelligence analysts had been able to look more carefully at the pattern of attacks, to target likely informants and plant listening and tracking devices to build up pictures of the suspects" or "While it is not known if McGinn was passing on information before his arrest, as well as after, security sources suggest that the Russian AK-47 that he carried contained a beacon which gave away the gang’s whereabouts. The possibility remains that he, or someone else connected to the gang, was co-operating with the security forces and their identity was being protected". The unattributed journalistic speculation about McGinn is utterly meaningless, Harnden deals with his interrogation and it was the realisation that he'd be sentenced to 25+ years in prison that led to him confessing after over two days of saying nothing. Why mention the mole yet leave out the electronic surveillance which even the source tends to favour? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I assumed it was referencing the sentence "Sources believe the order to stand down was made to protect an informer", that seems accurate enough. The job here is to reflect what the source material says and both Tony Geraghty and the Sunday are reliable sources. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 23:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit dubious, as "informer" could mean virtually anything. For example in the theories about the 1987 Loughgall ambush where eight IRA members died, there's been countless theories and suggestions about informers, and a common one is that an IRA member made a phone call from a house where an informer lived. So in that case you wouldn't say "the IRA unit had been infilitrated by an informer" as there wasn't any infiltration as such. I'm well aware what sources are reliable and what must be treated with caution, but (especially) when it comes to Troubles related articles it's better to stick to what the source actually says not some interpretation of it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's only dubious from your POV. I don't honestly think that the editors in the South Armagh sniper article have put their own spin on what the Sunday Times said. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines a "mole" as A secret agent who gradually achieves a position deep within the security defences of a country; a trusted person within an organization etc. who betrays confidential information. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but informer =/= mole is my point. Informers can be absolutely anyone, they don't have to be part of an organisation or even associated with it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

So why not assume good faith and suggest that "informer" might be a better choice of words than "mole"? It seems to me that a great deal of heat is being generated here over stuff that could be very easily resolved if it were addressed succinctly and courteously. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Once you've read Harnden (and compared it to the version of the article before recent amendments made as a result of my edits in userspace) you'll see why my good faith is somewhat lacking based on the gross misrepresentations of what Harnden actually says and what is being said in the article. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't much matter what happened in the past. It's where the article is now that's important. If you continue to read the article critically, and the article is improved as a result of it, then all well and good. However, the place for that discussion to take place is on the South Armagh sniper page not here. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk

I think we should rely on Roger as some sort of arbiter once his reading of Harnden citations is done. After all, he is a Wiki administrator. I also support his idea about a section summarizing the contents of the South Arrmagh Sniper here while keeping in place the main article. This pending his review of Harnden, of course.--Darius (talk) 00:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here. The first is the merger. The second is the accuracy of the South Armagh sniper article.

1. Like Tom, I can't see consensus for a merger. I suggest this discussion is closed to reflect this. If One Night in Hackney still disagrees they can take the article to WP:Articles for Deletion, where the option for merging can be raised.

1. Discussion about content ought properly to take place on the South Armagh sniper's talk page. So I suggest all further stuff is raised there.

Thoughts? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk

Pardon? You can't see consensus for a merger? Have you seen the arguments against a merger? Would you be so kind as to actually list them? And the two issues are inextricably linked, as those against say "there's too much to be merged" while ignoring the fact that there's a large amount of information that isn't sourced that needs to be removed. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't need to. If there isn't consensus for something, the status quo prevails. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you actually answer my questions please? Firstly - is consensus based on discussion or voting? Secondly - what are the actual valid arguments against merging that have been presented? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus means there is broad general consent to a proposal. That is missing here, no matter how you cut it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? Who is disagreeing? The person that left the insightful "Also Disagree" comment? The people that claim this article would be too big, a claim which is contrary to WP:SIZE? The coupld of people that claimed there would be too much to merge, despite not knowing how much needs to be merged? If per WP:MERGE there's a substantial overlap the articles should be merged, regardless of how much arm waving their is. Arm waving < existing guidelines. As above, consensus is based on strength of argument not numbers, otherwise Wikipedia could constantly be held to ransom. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, consensus is not based purely on strength of argument. It's based on the extent to which people accept the those arguments. There is simply no evidence that people are buying your arguments in sufficient numbers for you to claim that you have their consent to act. That is why there is no consensus. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is! I quote direct from WP:CONSENSUS - "However, to find the actual consensus (or what it will end up as), you actually need to carefully consider the strength and quality of the arguments themselves" (emphasis in original). One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I assume by your silence that you're agreeing that consenus is actually determined by strength of argument now then, not arm waving and vote counting? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't assume that if I were you :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

So are you saying WP:CONSENSUS doesn't say "However, to find the actual consensus (or what it will end up as), you actually need to carefully consider the strength and quality of the arguments themselves"? Or is that another assumption on my part? :) One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's another assumption on your part :) First, consensus can only work if people actively work together in good faith. Second, consensus can only work if everyone agrees to abide by the outcome. I haven't seen much evidence of either of these. Finally, cherry-picking bits of WP:CONSENSUS does not consensus make. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

How is that cherry picking? That says how consensus is determined, and every time I requested you point out the arguments against merging you failed to do so, falling back on a "it isn't the strength of arguments" position when that's clearly incorrect. Going by your own standards, you've just cherry picked one part ("Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome") out of the exact same section of the policy while saying the other part doesn't apply! As for your last part, I'm becoming increasingly unwilling to assume good faith with an editor who persistently misrepresents sources and calls me a "troll" and "wikimaniac" and instantly reverts my attempts to improve his policy violation ridden so-called article. Plus there's claiming I wasn't assuming good faith when I've got the sources right in front of me and they don't support the text. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Which just goes to show that consensus is easier to recognise than to define and that WP:CONSENSUS is inherently contradictory :) Oh, and on re-reading it just now, I notice that I missed a word out above (which changed the meaning somewhat). No wonder you were puzzled. Apologies ... --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No, administrators don't settle content disputes. And it's this simple - don't put down what you think a source says, but down what the source actually says. Once I've finished my rewriting I'll be explaining in depth why the previous version made a mockery of what the sources said. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"Your" rewriting, ONIH, could also be questioning on the same basis (PoV interpretation of the sources), remember that. I proposed an admin only to grant neutrality. Therefore, we need some kind of mediation to establish whether or not Harnden and others were misrepresented in the sniper article. --Darius (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion about content of the South Armagh sniper should take place on its talk page. Incidentally, I would advise against wholesale replacement of reliably sourced material. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You're assuming there is reliably sourced material.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Now you're leaving me way behind :) If there isn't any reliably sourced material, what are you proposing to base your re-write on? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You said "wholesale replacement of reliably sourced material", which implies there's enough reliably sourced material in the article to be replace wholesale, not source material that isn't being misrepresented. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything that's a misrepresentation though that may change when I get the prime source. The South Armagh sniper article is copiously cited to reliable sources, which is what Wikipedia requires. I suggest that you take your detailed criticisms to the South Armagh sniper page so they can be discussed on an item by item basis. Simply replacing the article with your own version isn't the way forward. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Detailed criticism of content of South Armagh sniper article. Hidden by --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 02:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(deindent). In that case, I'll give you an incomplete list now, in addition to what was stated at the top of the merge discussion. Information is taken from this version IIRC.

• "During the 1980s, the IRA relied mostly on weaponry smuggled from Libya" - not supported by the source as that only details that weaponry was smuggled from Libya, the IRA were still getting arms from various sources, the Libyan shipments were very, very useful but if they hadn't happened the arms would have come from elsewhere. The Libyan shipments are generally seen as enough to keep the IRA armed indefinitely, so much that they didn't really need to smuggle anything after that except for "special orders".
• "The shipments from America, once the main source of arms for the Republicans through the gun running operations of George Harrison, were halted by the FBI in 1981." - that was one operation, there were still others going on. Or did I just imagine Gerry McGeough admitting to buying weapons from anywhere and everywhere, amongst other shipments?
• "One of the IRA volunteers captured, Michael Caraher, a Sinn Fein and IRA member" - Michael Caraher wasn't a SF member, his brother Fergal who was killed in 1990 was. I can only imagine what would have happened if a SF member had been arrested under those circumstances at that stage of the peace process!
• "Another six rounds achieved nothing, albeit two of them struck the patrol boat HMS Cygnet, at Carlingford lough, with no casualties" - the source actually says the shots missed, although how you can miss a patrol boat with a sniper riple is anyone's guess?! Either way, Harnden simply says they missed, he doesn't say they actually struck the boat.
• "Sixteen operations were carried out from the rear of a van" - the source actually says "estate car, van or jeep", not just "van".
• "According to Harnden, there were two different teams" - source says nothing of the sort. Hardnen quotes a BA source saying there were two teams, then he himself says there may have been two teams. So put it this way, Harnden has interviewed the guy, and even he's not sufficiently convinced to say there were two teams, only that there may have been. So how it can be stated as fact in the article that there were two is beyond me....
• "About 180 British soldiers, RUC and prison staff members were killed in this way from 1971 to 1991. Some 70 paramilitary militants and civilians were also killed by sharpshooters in the same period" - seems to be based on a search of the Sutton index for the word "sniper", you'll forgive me for thinking that's not particularly accurate especially as if the word "sniper" doesn't appear in the text it won't appear on the search.
• "The ceasefire put in place by the IRA on August 31, 1994, gave an opportunity to the British to collect intelligence about the modus operandi of the snipers" - nope, it gave them a chance to get intelligence in SA in general, not about the MO of the snipers who (shockingly!) weren't sniping at the time!
• "The tabloid press of that time nicknamed the sniper Goldfinger or Terminator" - funny how the source says the locals called him that, and the tabloids took the name from them!
• "The campaign is viewed as the most efficient overall IRA operation in Northern Ireland for this period." - supported by a dubious reference titled "IRA Sniper kills nine in one area", which was allegedly published in 1994, before the sniper had killed nine!
• "During one of these, at Forkhill, on 17 March 1993, a civilian, pretending to be running away suspiciously, lured a Royal Scots soldier to a grassy area along a road, where the serviceman was shot and killed." - I even wrote exactly what the source said above, and the new amended version is still wrong! There's nothing about a civilian pretending to be running away suspiciously, there's only a soldier responding to a report of a man running. Nothing about pretending, nothing about suspicious, nothing about luring....
• "The soldiers were forced to wear a new type of body armour, too heavy for a long march and much too expensive" - "forced" is inherently POV to begin with. And it's not even a case of it being too heavy for a "long march", the source says it wasn't worn on patrol at all, it was only used by soldiers at static checkpoints and even they could only wear it for two hours at a time.

More to follow. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hidden text above copied to Talk:South Armagh Sniper (1990-1997) for discussion there. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 02:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the updated article or just your version of this?. Go to the article Talk page, just as Roger suggested, please.--Darius (talk) 02:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm demonstrating the amount of OR and general misinterpretation was in the article already, to demonstrate how reliable sources are being distorted and misrepresented. This information needs to be here, as it's relevant to what I'm removing which will be discussed here therefore I'll bring it up here. There's no discussion needed based on the points raised, either the information matches the source or the information doesn't match the source. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break (ii)

"Just because the person assessing it hasn't read the sources..." I do not need to read the sources to assess the article becuase the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. You could write a 92 kb page on the importance of the letter "e" in the word "the" and as long as you cite second and third party sources it would be permitted to stay. Thats also the reason why the fiction based projects here continue unabated, they deal with aspects of reality that exist only in someone elses imagination, yet the information in such articles can be varfied. Having said that, I will concede that both sides bring up good points. We could merge the article into this one, but given Hackney's failure to incorporate the sourced material on the sniper page here I have to wonder if this discussion is his way of making a WP:POINT. The sniper article itself appears notable is cited, and has achieved a B as noted earlier, but that shouldn't prevent a merger if a good policy established reason can be clearly stated as to why the two should be merged, and from what I see he claims four good reasons. As for consensus: I see 3 disagrees to the merge and two agrees to the merge, thats hardly consenses.

Taking all this in stride, my summary of the above debate is that the sniper article could be maintained as an independent article if better sourcing can be found, but should be integrated into this article because this article is the parent brigade which dealt with the sniper in the first place. Without all the added drama, would all involved parties agree that this is more or less the core of discussion, or have I left something important out? TomStar81 (Talk) 21:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you check your facts before accusing me of POINT violations. If you haven't read the sources how do you know the article contains no original research, which is the main problem with the article as it's comprised almost entirely of it - there's so much that'ss not in the sources it's unbelievable. It's that I need to fix before incorporating it into the article which I'm currently doing in userspace.

As for your claim about consensus, consensus isn't based on formal vote counting. How do you see "3 disagrees to the merge and two agrees to the merge" - I don't mean to be rude, but even if we were polling (which we aren't) I'd be demanding a recount right now. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not required to read sources for lower assessments, merely to ensure that the article has sources, and since neither article has a red flag template relating to sources ({{OR}} and the like) I have assumed good faith the ariticles sources are reliable. I noticed you userspace edits, but I haven;t seem them in the mainspace (yet) hence my comment on that. As for consensus: that one of those "phantom" definitions that changes radically depending on who you ask and what there idea of censensus is. I usually count "consensus" as being two-thirds to three-quaters of the overall opinion of editers on the tlak page. In this case I do not see consensus here. I assume that your definition is different, and I respect your take consesnuss and you aplication of it the article namespace, whatever it may be. At the moment I am trying to get a short, one or two liner feel for what the problem is. May I assume that since you have not commented on my summary of the situtation above you agree with it? TomStar81 (Talk) 22:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting you're required to read the sources, please look at the context of my comments in the discussion above. An editor proclaiming it's B class therefore has no problems and shouldn't be merged, when as you have demonstrated that doesn't mean it's a ringing endorsement. Let me put it this way - if you had read the sources then assessed the article, and seen exactly how much information misrepresents what the source say, would you still have assessed it as B class? Consensus is about strength of arguments last time I checked, so you'll forgive me for ignoring things like this:

• Also Disagree - Culnacréann-(talk) 22:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The arguments against tend to be along the lines of "there's too much information to be merged", or "it would make the article too big". Well firstly how do the people know exactly how much information needs to be removed prior to merging? Secondly WP:SIZE says it wouldn't make the article too big, obviously assuming the merged content didn't overwhelm the article. All the pro-merge arguments tend to agree that the information about the sniper needs to be in this article, not just a two sentence summary. Let's face facts here - as long as the content is somewhere on Wikipedia why do you actually need a seperate article especially if having one is to the obvious detriment of another article? I've not seen a single valid counter argument to that point, have you? So what I'm doing is re-writing the content (mostly from scratch, due to the vast amounts of OR and misrepresentation of sources), then I'll incorporate what I think is actually worth salvaging into this article (while still leaving the other article not redirected) and we can discuss further from there. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I regret to inform that I need to bow out of the discussion; it seems my proffessor has final sent my paper back, and I will be spending the rest of the evening fixing it. Therefore, feel free to disregard everything I've written on the matter of the merger since I will be unable to discuss it further. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think the article South Armagh Sniper (1990-1997) can't be merged into this article. First, both articles arte too long; second, iIt deserves an independent article, because of its relevance.--Eloy (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

A little truce to talk about the pic on the top

I would like to hear your opinion about the top photo in the article. It's a fair-use one, if you have any objections, please, left your comments here.--Darius (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a fair use violation unless the actual incident is talked about in the article. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. I will added some comments about the 9 October 1975 incident as soon as I can. On the contrary, I will remove the pic.--Darius (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Things to do in the article

I think there are some jobs to do to improve the narrative:

1)A brief summary about the Warrenpoint ambush.

2)A brief summary about the sniping activity.

3)A brief summary about the Docklands bombing, an entirely SA Brigade operation.

4)If possible, free images in order to illustrate some points.

DagosNavy 12:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your list, point 2. is being discussed above, point 3. the Dockland bomb may have been prepared in South Armagh, but the operation would have been carried by the IRAs' English Department who where responsible for all operations outside of Ireland, including England and mainland Europe, this department was under the responsibility of the IRA GHQ, not to any brigade.--Padraig (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Padraig. Yes, point 2 is already treated in the proper place. For point 3, we have this Harnden's textual citation: "Never before had an IRA vehicle bomb been fully assembled in Ireland and driven to its destination in England without using any of the sleeper units or the logistical support network in place." (page 22 of the 2000 edition) In the next pages, Harnden describes how McArdle drove the truck bomb right to London, along with an escort of two scouting vehicles ahead of him. Thus, this was clearly a full SA Brigade operation. Your comments about the other points?.DagosNavy 16:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

More misinterpretation of sources. Members of the South Armagh Brigade were members of the England Department, simply because other members of the England Department weren't used doesn't make it a South Armagh Brigade operation. Harnden doesn't say that at all, yet again you're making false assumptions and drawing erroneous conclusions from source material. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and all of them were part of the IRA, they weren't?. As usual this is your own personal interpretation (about this issue, at least).DagosNavy 17:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

As demonstrated above, the person who puts their own personal interpretations into articles is you. Try reading Harnden properly, he talks in depth about the South Armagh/England Department relationship. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

DagosNavy, Yes they where all members of the IRA, but the English Department members where seperate from the Brigade and come under the command of the GHQ, in the manner as the Engineering and other departments, if you don't understand the structure which the IRA operated under then don't make personal assumptions. As for the sniper article, if I removed everything out of that article that was irrelevent to the topic the article would be nothing more then a stub, so the issue is not resolved.--Padraig (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Padraig I agree with you on point 3, the Docklands bomb was made in South Armagh, but making it is the only involvment they had in it. Which is actually very different to their first bombings in London in March 1973, where two car bombs exploded, one at Whitehall that injured 40 people, and the Old Bailey bombing which injured 180 & killed 1 man. But unlike the Docklands this was carried out from start to finish by the Belfast Brigade, from recruiting for the operation to parkingthe primed car at it's target. I think they came up with the idea of an English department after all the bombers were caught except for 1. TommySocialist 23:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

TommySocialist, just as an FYI, unfortunately Padraig passed away about 11 years ago and this is an old conversation you're responding to. If you'd like to bring up any new points for the article, please start a new section and conversation. Canterbury Tail talk 12:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

(Outdent) It seems to me, and with great respect to everyone here, that it is a little premature to discuss the detail of this article until the SA sniper content is sorted to everyone's satisfaction. And can we all stop the personal stuff? It really doesn't help to move things on ... --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward

What I suggest is the following:

1. Suspend the merger proposal and remove the tags. This is a temporary step.
2. Concentrate on the SA sniper article to get it reflecting sources and consensus. (Not a huge amount of work involved in doing this but it does require cooperation all round.)
3. Revisit the merger once SA sniper is stable and fixed so that sourcing issues don't muddy the water. With them out of the way, it will be much easier to find consensus.

For clarity, I don't have strong views on the merger either way. My interest is purely in high quality Wikipedia articles. I also assume that other editors would prefer to channel their efforts and knowledge productively into the nitty-gritty of article improvement, each in their own way, rather than spending time bickering. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think the review of the disputed sources by a "neutral" part is the first step; I propose the latter in order to avoid disruptive changes or removals of materials in order to advance a position or another. The key then will be what remains in place in the sniper article once the things are fixed.--Darius (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree completely. The most important thing to do is get an accurate, reliably sourced version of the sniper article added to this article. Then it will become clear that the other article is redundant, and filled with off-topic filler. There is no need for reviewal of disputed sources by "neutrals", if you really insist on me proving how wrong you are I'll put word for word exactly what any source says and how your interpretation of those sources is a policy violation. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There is, of course, no reason why this article shouldn't have a South Armagh sniper section. I suggested that a couple of days ago. Whether it renders the other article redundant remains to be seen :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

DagosNavy has become a SPA account, and acts as such. If they continue to add WP:OR they will be reverted as per policy. --Domer48 (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that that is how it appears but would like to see more transparent evidence of WP:OR - which is not an invitation to bombard me with examples :) - before acting. I will, in the meantime, warn them about the necessity for accurate sourcing. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, and you might also point out to ONIH that his opinions don't constitute reality. He has particular difficulty with the concept of unanimity. Sarah777 (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, that comment is not only inappropriate and contentious, but it is unsupported by facts. I would like you, if you would, please, to provide one example of a situation in which Hack imposed his opinion, POV, "view of reality," whatever you may choose to call it, over and above the facts. I dare say that you will be unable to do so. Rather, I would suggest that you retract the statement you made above. Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say WP:Kettle to the charge of "inappropriate and contentious"; except that I am serious. If you'll check ONIH's "thoughts" on the concept of "unanimity" here you'll find that I'm 100% correct. You may now feel free join ONIH in a double apology/retraction. Sarah777 (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

"100% correct"? I hardly think so. You've not made your case at all. Now as far your WP:Kettle remark is concerned, am I to understand that you are implying that I have made accusations that are "inappropriate and contentious"? If so, please do specify. As things stand, neither an apology nor a retraction are necessary on my part nor will either be forthcoming. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Eh...how can I put this in really simple terms? ONIH called a decision "unanimous". A significant minority of those involved opposed the decision. Therefore, (still following this?) it wasn't unanimous. Because, "unanimous" means everybody involved agrees. Everybody involved didn't agree. What ONIH thinks of the arguments is utterly irrelevant. Everybody didn't agree, QED - not unanimous. As all this is pretty obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of English I must assume that you (1) have poor English comprehension or (2) are not being honest. Which is it? Sarah777 (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Provisional IRA South Armagh Brigade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070928205026/http://www.uup.org/media/media_19_08_05_kennedy.htm to http://www.uup.org/media/media_19_08_05_kennedy.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Provisional IRA South Armagh Brigade. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131016233843/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0135/S.0135.199304290006.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0135/S.0135.199304290006.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060509073456/http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/ulster/article350380.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/ulster/article350380.ece

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 08:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)