Talk:Kingsmill massacre/Archive 1

Reverts

If people want to keep reverting to pov versons of this page, then there's not much I can do about it, due to the 3rv rule. However, objective editors might like to consider why one contributor has produced so much on collusion between the loyalists and state forces, when this article is abouta republican atrocity. I would suggest that this contributor is trying to justify the killings at Kingsmill by distracting reader's attention from what actually took place there. Jdorney 18:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - there are other articles on collusion. The huge paragraph on the role of the SAS is frankly bizarre in context so I've removed it. Weggie 20:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

GOing to have a look at this tonight and see what I can do.--Vintagekits 20:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Nomath: As it was originally constructed the page contained little or nothing explanatory on the context of sectarian attacks in the area, while it gave us the views of sectarian killer Billy Wright of the UVF-LVF. Jdorney questioned SAS involvement. That has been explained. The Reavy connection has continued relevance in the context of his friendship with a Kingsmill victim, and in the context of Ian Paisley's allegations - originally, only Paisley's allegations were present.

I stand by my contributions. Failure to include relevant information can also amount to a creeping point of view, through censorship. Cheers.

1). Please see WP:3RR - Please revert your last changes or you may be reported.

2). This is a controversial topic - radical changes need to be discussed. It will be easy to do so on this page

3). If you do not cite your material according to WIKI standards it can and will be removed.

4). The Reavey/Black stuff is useful in a cut-down form. The SAS claims are irrelevent as are collusion allegations.

5). As far as I can see the material most needed on this page is more material about the actual massacre.

Weggie 22:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Contentious points

I find this very frustrating. One contributor seems determined to make this into an article about collusion, which has nothing to do with the issue at hand, ie the IRA's killing of ten men at Kingsmills in January 1976. The SAS, whatever else they may have done, certainly did not carry out the Kingsmill massacre.

Leaving aside, for a minute, the involvement of the SAS in sectarian assassinations, which is very far from being proved, lets deal with the central point here. If state forces were helping the loyalists to kill Catholics (as undoubtedly some of them were), does this mean that the IRA were more justified in killing ten totally innocent building workers at Kingsmills? Did collusion somehow increase the guilt of these men? If not, then why are you trying to devote so much space in the article to it?

Billy Wright's views are very relevant in terms of the impact of Kingsmill on the conflict. Wright argued that the killings made him believe that he had to join the UVF to "protect his people". In the same way, many republicans have argued their experience of violence directed at their community, eg the August 1969 riots, thee Falls Curfew, internment, Bloody Sunday etc. propelled them into the IRA.

One smaller point, there is no need to write "eleven (11)", it just looks clumsy.

Jdorney 22:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the article needs a rewrite and should run along the lines of -

1. Intro - brief synop
2. Background - Catholic killings etc
3. Events of the day
4. Who did it
5. Aftermath - with list of the killed removed as per norm

Agree/disagree?--Vintagekits 23:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. That sounds about right. Jdorney 00:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, what do you think of the currect edit? It still needs more work but imo its a big improvement--Vintagekits 20:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

WTF is your problem Vintage? I've re-added two paras: The Billy Wright citation (see Jdorney comments above and O'Callaghan para which is needed to support accusations of PIRA involvement. I've also spell checked and corrected your grammar and added links so that the article comes close to meeting WIKI standards. Weggie 18:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Listen Weggie, firstly WP:CIVIL, secondly, thanks for the spelling correction, it was late when I finished it the other night, thirdly, I made a massive effort to weed of the superfluous nonsense but you seem to want to creep back in just the stuff that suits you. So if you want to put SOME of the nonsense back it that was there before we should just put it all back it and start again if you are not prepared to be reasonable.--Vintagekits 18:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I expanded Vintagekit's version, which I felt had a better structure than the original, while reinserting some deleted material. I have also added some new information. Perhaps other editors might feel I have added too much on the background and reactions, but i felt that it was important in order to understand first the context of the killings and then their impact on public perceptions in NI. Vintagekits, do you still feel that there is superfluos info here? Jdorney 18:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks spot on imhoWeggie 18:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

ditto--Vintagekits 18:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. So one further question: should we re-instate the section on the Paisley-Reavey allegations or not? Jdorney 19:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I don't believe I have transgressed any rule.

Secondly, it is tendentious nonsense to suggest that there is any attempt to justify the Kingsmill massacre. The material I have inserted expands on, and in some cases corrects, points already made. I have not deleted other people's work.

For instance, I extended the reference to Ian Paisley's allegation in the House of Commons against Eugene Reavey by revealing Reavey's denial and Alan Black's rejection of the allegation. Surely this is relevant. Surely also, the personal and political connection between the deaths of six Catholics and ten Protestants in very close proximity to each other is relevant. There is more that could be added on Reavey’s treatment by the RUC, but I will show forbearance, since the evidence I produce appears to cause controversy.

There was more than one assertion not supported by evidence. I examined the assertion that 30 Catholics were successfully targeted by loyalists in the area, in the two months after Kingsmill. I checked a database on violence and found that this was not true. This is not a fact that in any way justifies the original massacre. Some clearly find it an uncomfortable fact and an unpalatable one, but it is a fact nonetheless, unlike what preceded it. Is it the case that assertions that are not true are preferable to ones that are true, because they fit a preconceived conclusion with regard to the meaning of the events?

Similarly, with regard to the SAS, there is ample evidence that the SAS was deployed in South Armagh prior to 1976. I cited it, and explained it since it was questioned. That evidence is far stronger than that found in a general history. The experience of Colin Wallace and Fred Holroyd, and the evidence found by Raymond Murrray and Irish parliamentary (Oireachtas) reports provide detailed information. What is the problem in referencing it?

The assertions of Billy Wright and Billy McCaughey are justifications of sectarian killings after the fact. They need to be treated with some caution. In McCaughey’s case there is reason to be sceptical. As yet, I have not had the opportunity to look more closely at Wright’s extensive career as a sectarian killer.

As I conceded (without hesitation) and on a number of occasions, the page as it was originally constructed needed work. It has a better structure now.

--Nomath 17:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the Paisley/Reavey/Black stuff and was about to put it back there myself. Likewise I have no problem with a sentence about the SAS being in S Armagh before 1976. What I would have a problem with is devoting half the article to the SAS. Another problem, though better addressed in a more appropriate article, is that you have not supplied exact quotes fro mthe articles you have referenced and the ones on indymedia are currently unavailable.

Re Wright and McCaughey, I would agree that they are using Kingsmill as a retrospective justification, in both of their cases and especially McCaughey, it seems they were involved in the UVF before Kingsmills. But similar things could be said about the IRA using Bloody Sunday to recruit nationalists. The point is that Kingsmills had such resonance among the Protestant public that the Loyalists felt that they could justify their actions by reference to it. Jdorney 18:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Reference

I don't know why i get involved in NI articles they break my heart anyway would it be possible to name the quoted person , that's the only issue i have with this reference (Gnevin 01:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

O'Callaghan allegation

The inclusion of Sean O'Callaghans allegation against Towmney and Keenan is ridiculous. He's a proven liar and an ex-MI5 agent at that. Hardly a non-biased source. There is absolutly no credible evidence that Keenan or Twomey had any role in Kingsmill. (Irish Republican 03:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

As well as that, Toby Harnden isn't a credible source. Very liberally cits evidence from "Volunteer M". Total nonsense. If I wrote a book saying "Johnny Adair said Ian Paisley told him to shoot a Catholic" would that be cited on wiki? (Irish Republican 03:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

Online sources: Indymedia appears to be between servers – as explained on the site.

SAS: The SAS material was expanded because it was queried. As in other areas, the original information was incomplete and inaccurate. The original quotes I used could be found by doing a search within the PDF document cited, even Google would source them.

McCaughey-Wright – Kingsmill as justification for sectarian killing: One of the reasons why this justification was taken seriously is because the Kingsmill massacre was usually presented without reference to the six deaths immediately preceding it (or if they were referenced, it was simply in passing). The nationalist victims were second-class citizens in death, largely ignored (mirroring their role as live second-class citizens within Northern Ireland). Kingsmill deserves a page in its own right, but references to it by loyalist killers as a unique event should not be presented uncritically. In particular, non-reference to the deaths of six nationalists illustrates sectarianism. It is very difficult to accept that the Kingsmill massacre propelled them into sectarian killing. Sectarian killing is a typical aspect of one form of unionist politics, and the more widespread ignoring of its victims a consequence.

Toby Harnden: The revelation that Mr Harnden concocted a report of the hanging of Saddam Hussein for the Daily Telegraph may lead some to question his credibility (Journalist suffers bloggers' ire, Sandra Laville, Jan 13, 2007, The Guardian). The observations above with regard to Sean O’Callaghan and Harnden are well taken. Reliance on police 'intelligence' and the use of anonymous sources should be regarded carefully and presented with care. Ian Paisley claimed to be relying on police intelligence when he fingered Eugene Reavey for the Kingsmill killings. The allegation was published here without question originally. Presumably, since I produced relevant counter information, it is now regarded as an illustration of unthinking sectarianism on Paisley’s part, and on the part of the sources of his 'information'. Nomath 09:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well when indymedia is back up we can get the exact quotes about the SAS. Until then, I'm happy with what the article currently says.

Re the killing of Catholics prior to Kingsmills, this is now well documented in the first section of the article (and was even before the current clean up work began). Are you satisfied with the current state of this section?

On the subject of Wright and McCaughey, the point is not whether or not we believe them, the point is that this is what they argued. They thought it would be a credible argument among the unionist community. Hence its significance.

Re Toby Harnden and Sean O'Callaghan, if we were to qualify or challenge their testimony in the article, then we would need sources who specifically challenged them. Otherwise it would just be pov and not eligible for inclusion.

Jdorney 09:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting "evidence from 'Volunteer M'" and the word of Sean O'Callaghan constitues a reliable source? Mind boggling. (Irish Republican 06:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

It's interesing to note the Historical Enquiries Team issued a grovelling apology to the Reavy family just yesterday. For years there was a whispering campaign villifying them as being responsible for Kingsmill which was of course nonsense. They've had to put up with considerable harrassment as well. On top of that, it's people like O'Callaghan who start these smear campaigns. He's nothing more than a little man with a big imagination who totally blows out of proporation his role in the IRA. (Irish Republican 06:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

It's not mind boggling. It's in a well respected objective book. You may not believe them, but that's just your pov isn't it? Has anyone publicly challenged Harnden's version of events? As for O'Callaghan, the same applies to him. He may be a little man with a big imagination, but that's not for us (in our capacity as wp editors), to decide. Jdorney 19:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright

I reverted a copied/pasted article as per wiki-policy: In general, extensive quotation of copyrighted news materials (such as newspapers and wire services), movie scripts, or any other copyrighted text is not fair use and is prohibited by Wikipedia policy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Weggie (talk • contribs) 17:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

An element still missing plus a comment

Just noticed that the meeting between Black and Reavey after Kingsmill has been deleted. Needs to go back in.

The editing of the references to collusion, a factor in what happened in Sth Armagh, make it appear as though it was the result of decisions by a small bunch of individuals. The evidence in fact suggests that it was structural and went right to the top. Minimalist references to Harnden and English will not do, particularly as there is extensive evidence available that should not be removed or tampered with. The role of MacCaughey is definitely interesting and very relevant – linking the Reavey killing and Kingsmill again. I cannot fathom what possible objection there is my correcting the inadequate information that accompanied the first introduction of McCaughey to this topic. The evidence suggests that McCaughey was heavily involved in sectarian killing prior to Kingsmill, and therefore the suggestion that it lead him into this life is not to be taken seriously (or presented as a serious comment). Nomath 22:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Nomath, as I've suggested on your talk page just now, I believe this material is relevant and up for debate, but not here. It should go in articles on the Reavey Killings or Reavey/O'Dowd Killings (or whatever name) and Billy McCaughey. It is unbalanced and pov to devote so much space here to collusion when the perpetrators of the Kingsmill killings were republicans. I also note that in S Armagh (though not in NI generally) the IRA were killing more civilians than loyalists throughout the 1970s. Therefore, even if, as you suggest, the state was orchestrating a campaign of sectarian murder, the IRA in the locality were still outkilling them. In saying this I'm not taking sides, I'm just pointing out that the article must reflect both sides and not just the republican pov.

Jdorney 19:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Jdorney

Jdorney, I take your point.

However, my contributions have grown out of the introduction of, for example, passages on Reavey, McCaughey and the nature of sectarian killing after Kingsmill, which were misleading. My contributions grew out of that.

The 10 Kingsmill killings are related to the 6 Reavey-O'Dowd killings that preceded them and in the relationships, political and personal, that developed afterwards. Simply saying that one set of killings happened, and then a counter set occurred explains very little of significance. I concede that such presentation is within the 'tit-for-tat' scenario put forward by the security forces themselves, but it obscures the role of the security forces in organizing and fomenting killings. (You have interjected a new set of statistics, and when I can, I intend to examine them - in the past, I have found this type of assertion to be not comparing like with like. In this case, we'll see.)

Kingsmill is significant in its own right. By the way, just to be clear (as per your comment on my talk page), there is no justification. But think again about your rejection of the collusion evidence helping to "explain" what happened. If it does not, there is no basis for it being present. However, if the nationalist population was subject to sectarian killing, and if those investigating were also implicated in carrying out the killings (as Eugene Reavey noted pointedly at one point), and if the same security forces were acting in a sectarian and oppressive manner toward the nationalist population, then such activity could help explain the development of a mindset that lead to consideration of, and carrying out, of the Kingsmill massacre.

The fact that collusion was involved in the Reavey-O'Dowd killings that were the proximate cause of the Kingsmill massacre makes it a significant factor.

The fingering of Eugene Reavey for Kingsville afterwards by elements of the RUC (possibly the same people who worked with the UVF) and by Paisley is part of a sectarian mindset (Reavey was finally, this week, given an apology by the Historical Enquiries Team - I see you have referenced it. Paisley has not apologised and his allegation against Reavey is still prominent on unionist websites). The publication today (see Irish Times, January 20) of the NI Police Ombudsman's report into the way in which, in effect, the RUC ran the UVF in Belfast has resonance with what happened in Armagh. The evidence for a similar methodology there is overwhelming.

It is a question of getting all these elements into the story and, I agree, getting the balance right. Arbitrary deletion and counter insertion will not help in that task.

Just looking at the page now, I think the commentary on McCaughey (who also is linked to Reavey-O'Dowd and Kingsmill) is too bland.

The name of the ‘Pat Finnucane Centre’ will be changed to just that.

The reason for the personal contact between two victims, Alan Black, who survived Kingsmill, and Eugene Reavey, who lost his brothers (and who was targeted afterwards by the RUC), is a highly significant part of this story - it has been lost and needs to be reintroduced.

There is a lot of reliance on one source, Toby Harnden, There are assertions about what the RUC “believe” – the same force that was doing some of the killing. I have not edited those, but they amount to speculation at best.Nomath 15:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be going around in circles a bit here. However, to address your points one by one; Are the Reavey and Kingsmill killings related? Of course. Nobody has suggested otherwise. Regarding the statistics for the death toll, I can only work with the sources I have and Harnden says 19 Protestants and 11 Catholic civilians were killed in the area between 1972 and 1978. The Pat Finucane centre suggests that the loyalist group centred in north Armagh was responsible for 87 killings in these years. I can only assume that not all of these were in the South Armagh area. I have relied on Harnden quite a lot I accept, but he is the most complete source I have to hand. The RUC's interpretations contained therein may conceivably not be accurate, but they are still worth including because, a, they were the police force charged with investigating the killings and, b, even if innaccurate the force's role is still relevant.

Re Collusion "explaining" Kingsmills, I take your point, up to an extent. Yes the killings were a retaliation for sectarian killings on the loyalist side. Yes the state forces had some involvement with these. Yes more comes out on collusion on a daily basis, showing the extent to which it was prevalent in the 1970s and beyond. However, would it have made a difference if there had not been state collusion? In other words, would the IRA's response have been any different? Kingsmill was not an isolated incident in these years and this is an important point to make. Collusion does not diminish the IRA's responsability for the killing of ten innocents at Kingsmills.

Re the tone on McCaughey, I feel this is an a discussion for another day and another article. Billy McCaughey is the place to expand on his role. Also, it is not the place of wikipedia to provide commentary or interpretations of events. The articles here must be neutral and present only the facts, in so far as we can assemble them.

Jdorney 19:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Re collusion: the extent of the killings on the loyalist side were possible because they were aided and abetted by the security forces. Had that not happened, history would have been different. Whether the Kingsmill massacre would have happened in the absence of those circumstances is entirely speculative, highly debatable, and, in any case, hypothetical. I agree, again, stating this does not diminish responsibility for the killings. The paraphrasing of Susan McKay’s account (seemed fine to me the way it was – I hazard to suggest that the original was more incisive), has a grammatical error.

Re McCaughey: “bland” as in not as incisive as it could be, nothing to do with point of view. It appeared as though his claim that Kingsmill drove him to killing was description of a fact, whereas the fact that he was involved in sectarian violence prior to this was presented as merely something that ‘appeared’ to have happened.

Re Eugene Reavey (current edit): I think it is a problem to write, baldly, that he was “accused of participating in the Kingsmill attack”. I suggest that it read “accused in controversial circumstances by DUP leader, the Reverend Ian Paisley, (see below) of participating in the Kingsmill attack”. This serious charge was based on information from questionable elements within the RUC, and is (and was) acknowledged to be entirely without foundation. Also, the current edit refers to the PSNI, possibly (need to look again) that should be RUC.

Nomath 13:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Weggie

Happy to address Weggie's concerns (see Weggie comment on article history tab). When I came upon this page it was full of errors, noted above. If you feel that the material I have inserted has unbalanced the page, then I am sure that can be rectified. However, I am not responsible for the current structure of the page. If there is further information you want to insert, then do so, but avoid deletion or censoring of existing information.

I am adamant that you cannot address the Kingsmill Massacre adequately, without addressing what went before and after. You cannot isolate the terrible Kingsmills killings from the killings that went before and after, or from the forces involved in their organisation or execution. Security force collusion plays a big part in that story. Just today, the Police Ombudsman has produced a report on RUC involvement in collusion in Belfast. The situation was worse in Armagh.

http://www.policeombudsman.org/pubscheme.cfm

Nomath 12:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Your theories are well and good but this page is specifically about Kingsmill as Dorney says a new page Billy McCaughey will give you an opportunity to display this info. The article gives the impression that Kingsmill was the fault of the security services. There are a range of experiences and opinions of the troubles that have an impact on the Kingsmill massacre. The article cannot give a balanced view of all of these, hence the consensus that the focus of the article should be about the events of the massacre itself. I suggest you re-consider Dorneys comments Weggie 17:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I do think the activity of the security services has a bearing on what happened, directly in the case of the Reavey-O’Dowd killings, and indirectly immediately afterwards in an unjust retaliation for the killings at Kingsmill. Medium and long term effects of collusion in Northern Ireland as a whole, and in the south, could also be addressed, but that might more properly be addressed in a separate article on collusion. We are dealing here with the relevance of collusion to the Kingsmill massacre. I think it is relevant. You, apparently, do not.

If collusion is an action (Reavey-O'Dowd) causing death, what about the reaction (Kingsmill) causing death? Are they separate entities?

Jdorney asked the question about whether Kingsmills might have happened anyway, without these factors. As I pointed out, we do not deal with might have been, but with what did happen. The climate of violence within which the Kingsmills massacre happened had specific causes and was affected by specific human agencies. They should be described.

McCaughey: I did not introduce this RUC-UVF officer. He was cited as someone claiming, falsely as it turns out, to have been turned on to killing Catholics by the killing of Protestants at Kingsmill. Again there is a connection, through McCaughey himself, to the previous Reavey, O’Dowd shootings, undermining McCaughey’s claim. What is the problem with pointing this out?

Are you saying there is no explanatory or contextual connection to Reavey-O’Dowd, to collusion (McCaughey, etc) and to the activities of the Special Patrol Group? Are you saying that you do not like the description of how the Reavey and Black families met up, or the link up between Black and Reavey after Paisley’s malicious allegation? To me it is so obvious; you would need to be blind to miss it. The suggestion of separate pages for McCaughey, et al, is all well and good. It would not stop me from suggesting that they are also relevant to this page. Other wise why was McCaughey introduced (by Jdorney?) to this page in the first place?

Can you be more specific about what precisely you disagree with, or is your disagreement global?

Nomath 18:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

WP article

Remember that what we are doing here is writing an article for wikipedia. Not promoting our various povs. Now, the problem I have with the article currently is that is would not make sense to someone who knew nothing about the event and wanted to find out about it. They would be asking why half the article is devoted to things like the Special Patrol Group, Billy McCaughey and the SAS.

In my opinion, the paragraph about the SPG being taken off patrolling Crossmaglen etc is interesting, but is really a matter for an article on that group and not for here. The sentence which says that the SPG enabled loyalists to operate in S Armagh, for me is sufficient for the point being made here. It can be elaborated upon elsewhere.

Similarly, re the SAS, I would prefer to see the allegations regarding them debated elsewhere, unless they can be shown to be specifically responsible for, or connected to Kingsmill. If they can be shown to be connected, then this should be pointed about explicitly, not by inuendo. Clarity is all in wp articles.

Again, on the role of Eugene Reavey; Susan McKay's paragraph is indeed emotive, but what does it tell the reader who wants to understand the Kingsmill massacre? Encyclopedia articles are not supposed to be emotive. The passage tells them that Reavey was bereaved and that he met the other bereaved families on the night of the killings. Relevant in the context of the false accusations later made against him, but is it central to an understanding of the Kingsmill massacre? Should we have passages on all the grieving relatives (no disrespect intended)?

Before answering these questions, remember that the goal here is a clear, well balanced informative article. The reader should come away satisfied that they have got the essential facts about the event in question. Jdorney 20:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think I'm finished with this article. I don't have the patience for a pov war. It's time to call in some third opinions. Jdorney 08:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You brought in McCaughey (and Billy Wright) and presented their spurious claims without counterpoint. Paisley’s claims were also given to us originally without further elaboration.

I don’t accept that a newcomer to the issue would not be able to discern the story of the massacre in the ‘before, during and after’ structure of the article (your structure, essentially).

McKay skilfully evokes the emotion of the occasion – there is not a word out of place. That is perfectly acceptable. Also, she is quoted - readers can take it or leave it. She tells the story of families whose loved ones were killed at Kingsmills, and that of the Reaveys . If you feel that other such stories would add to our understanding of their experience of this tragedy, feel free to add them.

SAS, Ok, let me look at that again. The relationship between military Intelligence and SAS possibly needs to be clarified – or deleted. They were involved in unlawful violence in the area (Robert Nairac), and that is relevant to the background to the massacre. Nomath 23:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't get defensive Nomath. I've already outlined why Wright's and McCaughey's views are releveant, whether they are "spurious" or not. I had nothing to do with the Piasley allegations and I'm happy wit hthe current content on that.

There is nothing wrong with the structure of the article, parts of it are just overloaded at present. Re McKay, yes she does 'skilfully evoke the emotion of the occasion', but that is not what this article is for. For this reason, we should not be adding this or the stories of the other relatives. Jdorney 08:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel defensive and I will try not to get that way. McKay evoking the emotion of an event is not the same thing as being personally emotive. The languge is quite spare and it is basic reportage (just well done, which is why it conveys emotion) Anyway, I have shortened it (a bit) - I think originally you edited out the phrase "Reavy died" after "Black lived". I thought that should stay in. Nomath 18:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

I am not involved in this dispute, which has been listed (link) on Wikipedia:Third opinion, nor have I ever edited this article. I have two observations and a question:

• The first section in any article, following its brief introduction, should describe the subject of that article. It should not begin with the words, "The following day ..."
• Preceding that primary article subject section with two other massive sections renders the article nearly unreadable. Clearly the context of the event is pertinent to the analysis of the event, but the placement and length of these two sections are counter-productive.
• Which two editors (WP:3O guidelines) are disputing? — Athænara ✉ 17:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: In some ways, the 21:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC) first version of this article is superior to the current one. Can you see why? It sketches the essentials of the event, leaving the reader free to investigate it further, rather than swamping the reader in a relentless deluge of detail. — Æ. ✉ 17:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The two principle, though not the only, parties to the dispute are me and User:Nomath. Basically, I want less detail in the background section, he wants more. I would like to move a lot of the extra information to seperate articles. I'm going to make an edit now to this end. opinions are welcome. Jdorney 00:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that—I could see just two in the most recent posts, but I'd read farther back and was not sure whether or not I was getting it right. Your idea is excellent. There is so much material here, it's enough for two additional articles, each larger than this one needs to be. — Athænara ✉ 01:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I am going to go with the flow on this one. The article is considerably better balanced and more informative than it was originally. Taking a quick look at what is currently proposed by jdorney, I have a couple of observations:

In editing down the material on the SAS and British subversion in Sth Armagh, more informative references than those present currently have been lost. “According to the Provisionals…” in this context is too vague: who, where, what when? The exact references from Colin Wallace should be reinstated as he served in British forces at this time (he should know). The link between British (SAS, 14 Int, Military Intelligence, etc) and local security forces has been lost to the extent that the latter are correctly implicated in collusion, but the former’s role is now (again) lost. Without overburdening the article, this need s to be rectified, otherwise a misleading impression that British forces played only a peripheral, if any, role in collusion is created. In fact their role was central and this is, by now, well documented.

“Several Loyalist paramilitaries have claimed..”. That should be changed to “Some..”, unless the “several” are to be quantified and referenced in more detail (incidentally I wonder what Billy Wright thought of the Reavey-O’Dowd killings the day before Kingsmills? Maybe he wasn’t asked and we will never know).

Eugene Reavey: I would edit that to foreground the Paisley allegation; otherwise the impression is that, apart from Paisley, there have been specific allegations by others. As far as I know there have not, merely the posting of the Paisley allegation on to his website by Willie Frazer of FAIR and ‘Love Ulster’.

That is more or less it. I will attempt the above and hope to get agreement after it is done.

Nomath 13:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I await your edits. One thing though, the role of the SAS in sectarian attacks, as opposed to the RUC SPG group and the UDR, is not proved at this stage, only alleged. In any case, I suggest that an in-depth look at this is for another article. I suggest you look at the following articles; The Troubles, Robert Nairac, Special Patrol Group (RUC), Billy McCaughey Royal Ulster Constabulary etc to elaborate on these points. The point about Wright and the Reavey killings is taken, but as I've argued before, his reaction to the Kingsmill massacre is still relevant. Jdorney 13:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I will come back on the SAS reference, as it is lost somewhere in the 'history'. An SAS officer admitted to SAS running 14 Int, and 14 Int were implicated (with Robert Nairac) in collusion and sectarian violence.

Hope that is OK

Nomath 14:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I would really prefer the more concise version though. Whats say the third opinion? Jdorney 21:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the previous Dorney version. I think we can do without the POV pushing with unproven allegations Weggie 22:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion work

→ (Jdorney left a message for me on my talk page, so I brought it over here to reply where the discussion is.)

Thanks for your contributions to the Kingsmill massacre page. Would you mind having one more look and giving us your thoughts on the current version? Regards. Jdorney 00:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The main thing wrong with the article is that there are two very long sections of complex material deliberately placed in the article before the description of the incident itself.

Try it this way:

1. Move the section now called "The massacre" so that it will be the first section which follows the introduction and the table of contents. That's where it belongs.
2. Work on the lead sentence in that section so it doesn't begin with "The day after…" and ensure that this section is at least adequate on its own so that a reader who had never heard of the event would, having read this section, then know what had happened that day.
3. Then consider (and be prepared to be ruthless) how little of the "background" and "cycle of violence" material belongs in this article. This is not a background article. This is not a cycle of violence article. It is an article about a named event.

A rough estimate of how much of the "background" and "cycle of violence" detail which should be removed (with all of the small remainder placed after the first section) would be more than half—close to three quarters of it.

There's Wikipedia:Neutrality Project, too, if you all are finding these observations unhelpful. — Athænara ✉ 03:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have made a slight addition to the 'Background'. With regard to Weggie, what exactly are the "unproven" allegations and what level of proof do you require?

Nomath 15:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Nomath, every time I try to edit this article for clarity, you pad it out again with collusion allegations. Also, its almost impossible to edit you background piece becuase of the referencing you have used - its almost unreadable in the editing form. Can you not just make your point in a short sentence and put the details elsehwere? Jdorney 18:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Jdorney, again your edits removed references to specifically British responsibility for organising and running collusion. Have you a POV issue here? You are now arguing over 79 words, which I have cut to 65. The complicated references in edit mode are user friendly for readers wanting to follow them up. I have given references that are an internet click away and that are reputable. They are more specific and helpful than many of the other references to the article.

Nomath 19:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the literature refers to a 'Republican Action [not'Reaction'] Force'.

Nomath 19:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No pov issue here. The issue is clarity. No problem with the name change, Action Force is indeed correct. Re the references, they need to go into a See Also or External Links section at the end of the article. Putting them into the text just makes it impossible to edit. Showing all links to a subject is not the purpose of referencing but is ok if its put in its own section. Jdorney 19:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[Groan] You have again removed the main MI5 and Special Branch references. There was no lack of clarity.

Nomath 19:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No offence, but are you actually reading the article?? I quite clearly did not remove the reference to MI5 and Special [Branch [1]. There was a lack of clarity:

old version "It is alleged that MI5 and RUC Special Branch set up a 'pseudo gang' within the UVF to undermine official policy. [6] Then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Merlin Rees, admitted that such forces were out of control. [7] Allegedly, this group was responsible for 87 killings in the mid 1970s, including the Dublin and Monaghan bombings in 1974 and the Miami Showband massacre in 1975 [8]".

(whose policy, the UVF's?, Merlyn Rees'?)

newer version It is alleged that British military intelligence, MI5 and RUC Special Branch were directing loyalist violence, running a group composed of loyalist paramilitaries, RUC and Ulster Defence Regiment members. [5] Allegedly, this group was responsible for 87 killings in the mid 1970s, including the Dublin and Monaghan bombings in 1974 and the Miami Showband massacre in 1975 [6].

Which is clearer? Jdorney 19:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, those references are all about the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. You need to contribute them to that page, not here. Jdorney 19:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I refer to the information in Footnote 5 (as it is now, 19:40, 31 January 2007). Yes, Merlin Rees - where is he? A Secretary of State admitting British collusion is fairly robust evidence - deleted for the sake of 14 words?! Merlin Rees is in the Oireachtas report and (if you remember) Colin Wallace is quoted with regard to 'pseudo gangs' plus the role of Military Intelligence and RUC Special Branch. (At least we are down to a reference.)

Nomath 19:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Nomath. Read this slowly; This article is not about collusion. Read again; This article is not about collusion. You need to contribute the Merlyn Rees stuff etc elsewhere. If appropriate articles do not yet exist then you need to create them. The point about the opening paragraph is that it has to help the reader to understand the main paragraph. It has to be very short and it had to be crystal clear. it is not the place to be analysing collusion in all its forms. Jdorney 20:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Cross posting:

Jdorney: in your haste to remove the reference which supports the material you currently accept, you also removed the ST article reference. The Oireachtas report contains the Rees comment, the supporting evidence for 'pseudo gangs' and Military Intelligence and Special Branch is in the comments from Colin Wallace (a reputable source).

Nomath 20:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Nomath, I really don't understand what you're trying to achieve here. References need to be short and concise. They are not supposed to take up more space than the actual text. What is the problem? Jdorney 20:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Jdorney, It is really quite simple: the allegations with regard to Military Intelligence and RUC Special Branch are in the references you deleted. If you are so concerned with regard to the amt of words in the references they can be shortened (but without deleting the references themselves). I know of no academic rule that limits the size of a reference. This is not a narrative expansion on the text. It also allows the reader to consult more widely (and immediately) from relevant parliamentary reports and from reputable newspaper articles.

Nomath 20:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You're really making me tired now. As I've already explained twice, the issue is about ease of editing the paragraph.

Jdorney 20:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing issues

There is genuinely disruptive and tendentious editing here. Is User:Nomath (talk) (contribs) a single issue editor with ownership issues about this and other articles on related topics? — Athænara ✉ 20:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Short answer: yes. Jdorney 20:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Jdorney, You have shortened the passage into one sentence - fine, no problem. However, in doing so, you deleted references that support the assertions made in the shortened passage, one that is now overloaded with assertions. [With me so far?]. If you leave out those particular references, what you have written will be unsupported. Others will come along demanding the evidence that backs them up. [Is that clear?] Then the sentence will be deleted and we will be back to square one. This may seem pretty pedantic, being pedantic about what can and cannot be included is what got us here in the first place.

By the way, I am not citing the whole of the report on Dublin Monahan, but simply the page cited. I have no problem per se with external links.

[The guy with the 'third opinion' - what is your beef?]

Nomath 21:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Drop the smart arse tone please. Is there any chance that you can shorten your reference so that it becomes possible when editing to distinguish easily between text and reference? Thanks.

Jdorney 21:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, but how much more editing are you intent on doing?. And, can Merlin Rees get a look in please? And, why am I asking you?

Nomath 22:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

1.None. I'm more or less finished with it. But its important that people can edit articles.

2.If you think its really necessary to introduce the reader to the subject at hand. Maybe it would be better to go into it on the Reavey and O'Dowd killings page?

3.I don't know.

Jdorney 23:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Check Harnden references

Jdorny: Your first Harnden ref appears to have disappeared - can you re-insert your ref from your edition. Mine is 2000 paperback - just got it. Page numbers seem to be different.

Nomath 22:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Unclear speculation

Can we try and tidy up who is alleging things slightly, especially as most of the references are offline? For example:

• However, it is suspected that this title was a cover name for the Provisional IRA South Armagh Brigade

I'm assuming it's speculated by the British based on the sentence after it, but without clarification it's a bit vague.

• It was alleged that IRA Chief of Staff, Seamus Twomey, on the suggestion of Brian Keenan ordered that there had to be a disproportionate retaliation against Protestants in order to stop Catholics being killed by loyalists.

Again, I'm assuming that's to do with the sentence after with the statement from O'Callaghan, but it's not that clear and O'Callaghan doesn't say anything abourt Twomey. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. A suspicion or allegation should be sourced directly to the individuals or groups who made them. Direct quotation from an author, if it is offline, is preferable.

Nomath 14:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Killings claimed by the UVF but aided by the RUC

From the background section; "From August 1975 to January 1976, 18 Catholic civilians were killed in the locality (including two in Dundalk, just over the Irish border). These loyalist killings were claimed by the UVF, but have since been shown to have been aided by a Royal Ulster Constabulary unit, the Special Patrol Group." So who committed them? The UVF? And if not, who did the RUC aid? A bit of clarity would help. Alastairward (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)