Talk:Operation Banner

Open Editing
How can something like this be openly edited? People are reading this and believing it as gospel. Military history of any kind should be banned from Wikipedia; too susceptible to nationalistic bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.185.188 (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Stalemate
I am literally lost for words on the supposed "stalemate" resolution to this operation. By what criteria could the IRA be said to be anything other than defeated? I note that the link to the Army internal document no longer works, but that "stalemate" was but one man's opinion. If no-one objects, I'll edit the outcome in a few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.224.44 (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The supposed "stalemate" resolution should be replaced with "pathetic Brit's defeat", you basterd! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcmannon (talk • contribs) 04:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that http://web.archive.org/web/20070926091152/http://www.patfinucanecentre.org/misc/opbanner.pdf is a link to the same document that still works. If it then perhaps someone will change it. -- PBS (talk) 07:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Where in the document does it mention the the British considered themselves defeated? I note in the introduction, it refers to the Troubles as "one of the very few (campaigns) ever brought to a successful conclusion by the armed forces of a developed nation against an irregular force." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.119.20 (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, the use of the tricolour to represent Republican paramilitaries raises an eyebrow. This gives the impression that they were the forces of the Republic of Ireland. Same goes for the use of the Northern Ireland flag for Loyalist paramilitaries. Is this really appropriate? Wouldn't this in fact be rather offensive to Irish people, to have their flag attached to a terrorist organisation? I'm sorry for not signing this or my previous comment, I don't know how. Should I go ahead and change it, or is there an etiquette to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.114.73 (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There is something in what you say. You seem to be new to Wikipedia so I'll try to advise you.  The concept is: if you see something you want to change you do it, but within the guidelines for doing so.  Opinion isn't enough, you must have a published source to back your opinion up.  As regards the flags: whilst it might seem odd, these organisations did identify themselves with the flags shown in the article - for right or for wrong.  You're quite right to suggest that the British didn't consider themselves defeated.  They just thought it was a stalemate and that outright victory wasn't possible - which was also felt by PIRA.


 * To sign your posts use four tildes like this (SonofSetanta (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)) without the brackets. The tilde key is the one you get when you press cap lock for the hash sign - #.  Have you created an identity yet?  That would be helpful too.  If you need any more assistance just click on the link beside my name which says "talk".  That'll lead you straight to my talk page where you can start a "new section" and leave whatever messages you want. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * In case the above stops working, The reference "Matt Yglesias Belfast on the Euphrates?, Spectator, 11 December 2007" contains the quote in the article and several other quotes from the same document. -- PBS (talk) 07:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure about the placement of the "Civilians" casualty figure... If they are Civilians, then they should probably be listed separately. --John Lunney (talk) 12:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Operation Banner Report
I've removed text from the article that purports to summarise the material but looks like selective use of materials to support a individual conclusion which = WP:Original Research. The report should only be used for reference directly or reliable third party analysis on the contents. Kernel Saunters (talk) 12:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Martin van Creveld: is this a quote or an analysis of his comments?
I guess this exceeds the scope of WP, but it would be interesting for the article to determine if van Creveld comments are quoted directly by the report or the paragraph is just an analysis of General Jackson about undisclosed van Creveld's conclusions. The only secondary source available (for now) is the (in)famous BBC release, whose concise interpretation left this question open. I hope we could find a second (reliable) opinion about the report in the near future.--Darius (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The actual report is one of the article's references, so it is possible to check. It seems that it doesn't quote him directly. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification.--Darius (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Catholic reception section
MFIreland is removing a OR tag from this section. It was added to highlight the OR nature of the last paragraph which is 1/3 of the section. This material needs sorting out or removing by a neutral editor Kernel Saunters (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It needs two citations. I don't think a drastic measure such as the removal of text needs to be applied in this case. I'll see what I can do as I consider myself a neutral editor as regards Troubles articles.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, the first two sentences accurately describe what took place at Derry on 30 January 1972 when the Paras opened fire on demonstrators, killing 13. That's not OR. The Cameron quote requires a citation as do the final sentences in the paragraph. That makes a total of three citaions needed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The Troubles started in 1968 see The Troubles. Remember just because you can dig out a quote don't make it useful material for a summary. It needs rewriting. You might want to remove "murders" see WP:BLP - This is defamatory. Kernel Saunters (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm aware the Troubles began in 1968, but you'll agree Bloody Sunday led to a massive recruitment to the ranks of the IRA not to mention a rapid escalation in the violence. Which part of the paragraph needs rewriting?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * To quote directly "It is widely acknowledged that Bloody Sunday was the beginning of The Troubles as we know it" Kernel Saunters (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that might be better phrased "Bloody Sunday was a signifiant event in the Troubles....." or something to that effect with of course a RS to back it up.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Defo along with the formation of the PIRA in 1971 dedicated to armed conflict Kernel Saunters (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

PIRA was formed in December 1969 - source is Prof Richard English, "Armed Struggle", p106 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.195.217 (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Ulsterisation
there is no mention of Ulsterisation in the article. It also needs to point out that the UDR was a regiment of the British Army - in fact, its largest regiment.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Operation Banner
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Operation Banner's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named ":0": From Glenanne barracks bombing: Potter, p. 351 From Labour Party (Ireland):  From Ulster Defence Regiment: Potter, p376 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring
This is unacceptable and threatens the neutrality of the article. The place for any accusations against individual UDR battalions is on the article page for that battalion. The Belfast units were: 7th (City of Belfast) Battalion, 10th (City of Belfast) Battalion and 7th/10th (City of Belfast) Battalion. This article is an overview of a 35 year+ operation and if individual accusations are allowed to occupy as much space as these currently do in the "Collusion" section then the article will finish up a mile long. I feel I need to remind all editors that Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for striking back at the Brits. Keep the article neutral and it serves its purpose better. As a result of this I have posted the missing {WP:1RR]] warning at the top of the page along with the sanctions warning for edit warring over Troubles articles. I've certainly had enough of that in my time and am very glad I don't have to fight to edit anymore. I don't want to see it happening again. SonofSetanta (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * SonofSetanta, there are three reasons why I undid or tweaked some of your edits in the Collusion section.


 * Firstly, you re-worded some sentences so that they misrepresent what the sources say.
 * The British Army report Subversion in the UDR states that the UDR was the main source of weapons for loyalist groups. You changed that to "The report speculated that in 1972 the UDR was the main source of weapons for loyalist groups".
 * This article, citing British Army documents, says "Despite evidence of 70 UDR soldiers being linked to the UVF only two were dismissed on security grounds". You changed that to "70 of the company's soldiers were suspected of links to the UVF, but evidence was only found against two, who were dismissed on security grounds".
 * The British Army order issued on 29 November 1972 said "If a soldier's sympathy for the UDA, CESA or any similar organisation is strong enough to affect the performance of his military duties or to call in question his future loyalty or his complete impartiality, he will be discharged". I summarized this as follows: "the Army issued an order that a soldier should be discharged if his sympathy for a paramilitary group affects his performance, loyalty or impartiality". However, you changed that to "the Army issued an order that dual membership of UDR and paramilitary organisations would not be tolerated". This is not what the order says, and in fact the accompanying British Government document notes that "an application to join the UDR would not be automatically rejected because of UDA membership".


 * Secondly, you removed important info (which was well-sourced) without giving a reason.
 * The first bit you removed was this: "In the summer of 1972 the Army mounted a number of joint patrols with the UDA, following public negotiations between General Robert Ford (Commander of Land Forces in Northern Ireland) and UDA leader Tommy Herron". The source for that is p.170 of The Troubles by Tim Pat Coogan.
 * The other bit you removed was this: "The Army then kept the investigation a secret, until it was uncovered in 2011". The source for that is here.


 * Thirdly, you added info that not only lacked a source, but contradicted all the other info. For example, you added that "the UDR did not want these people" (referring to members of legal loyalist groups), yet the sources show that the UDR accepted people who belonged to those groups.


 * ~Asarlaí 13:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There really isn't any point in debating semantics about this, however I will say this: the army never engaged in joint patrols with the UDA or anyone else. It was a fantasy cooked up by the UDA themselves and was an offer they made to the army which, while it may have been considered, never came about - it was vetoed by the army.  I found sources to verify that yesterday - within the text of this article.  The army and special branch vetted UDR applications, not the UDR itself.  On 29/11/72 the GOCNI issued his order prohibiting members of the UDA, who were a legal organisation, from joining the UDR.  A statement from one UDR battalion commander, Lt Col Dion Beard, 3 UDR is unequivocal in what it says: I will not tolerate any active participation by members of this battalion in any organisation which encourages violence... you cannot play in both teams. Either you believe in law and order applied equally to all men, or you believe in violence as a means of achieving political ends. In this respect the UDA is no better than IRA. Not only should you take no part in UDA activities but you should discourage your fellow citizens [from doing so].  The UDR issued an out of bounds list to prevent its soldiers from using the same locations for socialising as loyalist paramilitaries.  From that you can easily determine that the UDR "did not want these people".


 * The reason I don't want to debate semantics is this: to go into such detail on this article which is supposed to be an overview of 35 years of military operations in Northern Ireland is pointless. If you go into that amount of detail on every point then you will finish up with an article that is far too long.  The section which contains all these allegations on collusion etc is however proportionately bigger than anything else on the article and it reads, as does most of the article, like a piece of anti-British propaganda.  That is not in keeping with the Wikipedia manual of style.  The place for detailed accusations on the UDR is in the article concerning that battalion.  The main Ulster Defence Regiment article is already too long and is being cut down as much as possible to qualify for A Class, and on the recommendation of A Class reviewers.


 * If you are trying to damn the UDR then don't, because for every accusation you make one statement kills them all - that this was just a small proportion of the 40,000+ who served with the regiment and any attempts you make to damn that regiment can be far outweighed by comments from another POV which will praise the regiment, it's achievements and its many awards. That is not the way forward however.  What I recommend in every case such as this is to create an article which touches on things and gives concise examples, not the type of epistle you seem to favour, and my style has come about after years of edit warring with editors who were keen to show the entire British administration and its army units as being biased - revisionism, along the lines of Sinn Fein propaganda.   It's not acceptable on the wiki and it's not complimentary to true Irish nationalism or republicanism.


 * So, to move forward: I have already transferred your favoured information into the relevant battalion pages for the UDR. I invite you to look and edit what you think is wrong. However, don't fall victim to "gilding the lily" because I doubt that anyone else on the wiki has my experience or knowledge regarding the UDR.  I'm engaged in a rewrite of all 18 articles on Wikipedia concerning the regiment, which has taken five weeks so far.  I'm surrounded by books on the subject at the moment.  I welcome you as an editing partner but want you in a Wikipedia state of mind - not applying your own POV to articles.  Is that fair enough? SonofSetanta (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "On 29/11/72 the GOCNI issued his order prohibiting members of the UDA" — We must be faithful to the sources. As I pointed out, the order didn't say that UDA members were banned, it said that a soldier should be discharged if his sympathy for a paramilitary group affects his performance, loyalty or impartiality. If you have evidence (for example, an official rule) that UDA membership was not tolerated at all then it should of course be added to the article. Maybe something could be added about the "out of bounds lists" you mentioned? Lt Col Dion Beard was speaking only for his own battalion while under his command.
 * "The section which contains all these allegations on collusion etc is however proportionately bigger than anything else" — The other sections are in dire need of content. As you've got lots of books on the topic, maybe you could work on it once you're done with the UDR articles? I'd be willing to help. Alternatively, we could shift most of the Collusion section to an article about Collusion during The Troubles. Such an article would be an overview of loyalist and republican collusion with state forces. I proposed this on another talkpage, but there wasn't much backing for it. ~Asarlaí 15:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll get back to this on monday, run out of time for today - sorry. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've rewritten the section as it stands although I believe I could do a far better job if we just concentrated on inline refs from here to battalion records of the UDR for each incident. A reader would get a much better perspective from that. I haven't done it now because I believe it would require too big a leap of faith for some editors.  I stand by my earlier comments though that a lot of the article is written with a anti-British perspective.  The fact that the two largest sections are, "Relationship with the Catholic and Irish nationalist community" and "Collusion with loyalist paramilitaries", more than adequately bear that out.  I, and others, have noted that there has been a tendency for editors with strong republican sympathies to corrupt articles in this fashion and, quite honestly, they're not doing anybody any favours, not even their own cause because most people are intelligent enough to see through this POV.  I suggest that in future editors write in a more neutral style and stop overloading articles with text such as "The Army saturated the area with CS gas, firing 1,600 canisters,[15] which was deemed "excessive" in such a small area."  While this is undoubtedly true it is more fitting for the pages of a book, not for an encyclopaedic overview on Wikipedia.  I've renamed the two sections as "Relationship with the community" and "Collusion with paramilitaries" because I'd like to see a better overview which deals with both side of the fence and also to illustrate that the IRA had no qualms about penetrating the UDR or other regiments either.  Had they not either killed all the Catholic UDR soldiers or intimidated them out of the regiment then there would have been a much better chance for them to do so and while that is speculation in itself there is ample evidence of UDR weapons being stolen by the IRA and even killings committed by republican UDR soldiers.  I would love to see this article being turned into an accurate overview of Op Banner without all the sniping (pardon the pun).  As and when I have anything relevant to add I might just drop in and do so. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The British Army was sent into Northern Ireland in 1969 becasue many Loyalists were members of the Territorial Army and if push-came-to-shove as a result of the 1969 Northern Ireland riots, the more extreme Loyalists might have access to these regiment's armouries, and Home Secretary James Callaghan was afraid - rightly or wrongly - of a potential blood-bath of Catholics. With the arrival of the Regular Army these armouries then passed into their hands, and thus out of the control of the local regiments. The Regular units also had the advantage of lacking any of the local sectarian bias, and so could be relied upon to favour neither side.


 * IIRC, the previously-classified Cabinet documents relating to this are now at TNA, Kew, (formerly the PRO) although I cannot remember where I read the above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.190 (talk) 10:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Joint patrols - Army/UDR
Just a wee word to inform everyone - this never happened. Try and substantiate the information on Google and you'll come up with the same thing as I did - just a reference to Tim Pat Coogan. I like Coogan's style but he's got it wrong this time; probably fooled by the way the UDA used to walk alongside army patrols for press pictures in the days when the army was told not to interfere with them unless they became violent. There's plenty of evidence to show that the UDA offered this facility to the army and were turned down. I believe CAIN have a reference to it. Without proper evidence however you can't put it in the article and to edit in a line which says "the UDA offered to patrol with the army" is a waste of time, unless you're doing an article on the UDA. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The Subversion in the UDR report
Anyone using quotes from this needs to be aware that a lot of it is speculation, which is noted in the document's own introduction, so unless it states that something is absolute fact, like the figures for weapons stolen, then treat it as a document written by a person or persons not in possession of the full facts. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Relationship with the community
I've softened this section and removed a lot of POV as well as images which were just there to reinforce the Catholic/nationalist/republican viewpoint. I still don't think it's short enough to be an overview and it still contains no Protestant views or incidents but I'll leave that to someone else who has the necessary interest. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits.
Asarlai you've removed the information which stated accurately that Catholic UDR soldiers were intimidated from within their own community and assassinated by the IRA. Do you think the removal of this text is beneficial to the article? Also, you have removed the text which says that stricter gun controls reduced losses. As point 16 of the "Subversion" article states that this was at least in part due to improved security. How would you propose editing that text back in to reflect the true situation at that time? SonofSetanta (talk) 14:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The IRA and pressure from their own community was only one of the reasons. If we mention that reason we must also mention the other reasons, for the sake of balance. However, doing so would take up too much room, so I think it's better just to say that Catholics left "due to a number of factors". If readers want to find out why they can go to the UDR article – this section is about collusion, not Catholics in the UDR.
 * 2) The bit you added was this: "by 1973 stricter controls had reduced UDR weapons losses by up to 75%". I searched the Subversion document but couldn't find this statement, so I tagged it as needing a citation. Admittedly, I overlookt Point 16. Point 16 says that "The rate of weapons loss has decreased during 1973: while in some part this may be due to improved security". I suggest we re-word the sentence as follows: "the rate of weapons losses decreased in 1973, which may have been partly due to improved security". ~Asarlaí 14:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * 1. Ok. I agree.  Go for it.


 * 2. I have the exact wording, "arms losses reduced as a result of stricter controls" from Potter (somewhere, I'd have to peruse) but I don't see it as necessary to include that because it's all there on the "Subversion" report and if you work out the difference between 1972 and 1973, it's 75%. Of course you've got to bear in mind there were several large losses from armouries in 1972 through loyalist paramilitary raids.  The tightening up of security after those was a major factor.  Nor can we overlook the fact that vetting became tighter and it was harder (although not impossible) for paramilitaries (hun and mick) to join after 1972.  The use of the "Subversion" report as a source can be dodgy because it's mostly speculation but I think you'd do ok to include a sentence which says, The rate of weapons losses decreased significantly in 1973 due to tighter security measures and a loss of confidence in loyalist paramilitary groups by protestant soldiers.  You don't have to quote exactly from the report you see, you can paraphrase and by making such a statement you know it can be backed up from Ryder, Potter and Gamble - the only significant sources we have on the UDR. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

RUC
What's the rationale for the removal of the RUC from the Belligerents list? No-one is disputing that Banner was primarily a BA operation. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's because Banner was a military operation, separate from the police, and the police didn't take orders or direction from the army.--Flexdream (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I know that, but the police were their main ally. They worked hand-in-glove, often sharing bases. Gob Lofa (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

List of military dead
How about having a pop-up list of the British Army killed during Operation Banner? I have seen this question come up on many online Forums where people complain that Wikipedia has lists for the Titanic passngers but no Roll of Honour for the British soldiers who were killed during the Troubles.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a good idea.--Flexdream (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Where the British Army the only people killed during Operation Banner? Mo ainm  ~Talk  20:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you know the answer to that.--Flexdream (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well then I think you know what my response to the OP is then. Mo ainm  ~Talk  16:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What is your primary objection to listing the names of the dead, Mo ainm, apart from the obvious fact that they were not the only people killed during the Troubles?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My primary objection is that they are not the only people killed during the Troubles, the IRA's roll of honour would have to be added along with those of all other belligerents and civilians that died during this time. Mo ainm  ~Talk  09:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call it a roll of honour, but I've no objection to other lists of other names being added likewise. However I don't see that as any reason not to do a list of Army dead. Mo - if you want to do those other lists go right ahead.--Flexdream (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm all for that as well. Mo?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it'd be much more trouble than it's worth.
 * Firstly, I don't think it's needed, as there's alredy a list of all casualties (including the 700+ British military casualties) on CAIN and other websites.
 * Secondly, as Mo Ainm noted, it'd mean making at least six more lists for the other participants (one for the RUC, one for the IRA, one for the UVF, asf).
 * Lastly, I fear it'd lead to a lot of wrangling over neutrality, the circumstances of deaths, inclusion critera, and so on.
 * We should try to get more input from other editors.
 * ~Asarlaí 21:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's no trouble if someone else will do it. Wikipedia does contain material found elsewhere. It does not 'mean' doing other lists, neither does it prevent that. Allowing all lists equally is neutral, and the criteria are already relevant to totals which are in Wikipedia. Jeanne has posted here to get more input.--Flexdream (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I wish more editors would weigh in here. I would be willing to compile the list if there's consensus.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Number killed Operation Banner
I have again reverted an IP who insists on adding members who died of natural causes, suicide and "other" to the number killed during the campaign. Mo ainm ~Talk  20:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've changed killed to died as the IP insists on reverting and someone is not killed if they die of natural causes which the source the IP is using clearly states. Mo ainm  ~Talk  11:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Role of the armed forces
At the bottom of the second section, where it says "The role of the armed forces in their support role to the police was defined by the Army in the following terms:", are those sentences direct quotes? If so, that needs to be clearer. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Operation Banner. 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/20110426121606/http://www.patfinucanecentre.org/sarmagh/sarmagh.html to http://www.patfinucanecentre.org/sarmagh/sarmagh.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610153435/http://www.madden-finucane.com/patfinucane/archive/pat_finucane/2003-04-17_stevens_report.pdf to http://www.madden-finucane.com/patfinucane/archive/pat_finucane/2003-04-17_stevens_report.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Citations in lede
Do we really need the citations that have been added to the lede? All of the statistics in that section are sourced at Operation Banner or Operation Banner, plus those casualty figures that are listed in the infobox are cited there too. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Infobox casualty figures
I've just been doing some spot-checks on the figures in the infobox, and I can't work out where the 127 Republican deaths figure comes from. Selecting organisation and status summary for the crosstabs gives a figure of 126 Republican paramilitaries killed by the British Army, so that's one short. Perhaps the UDR should be included, but they are listed as killing two, so that would make 128. , can you remember how you got to 127? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, given that we list the RUC amongst the belligerents, shouldn't people they killed be included in the casualty figures? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And I'm also confused how the 305 deaths caused by the British military figure at Operation Banner was arrived at. The crosstab says that the British Army killed 297, the UDR eight and the RAF one. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, so maybe the Republican deaths figure should be 128, which would make the total 306, which would tally with the BA+UDR+RAF total. I think the difference is one PIRA member, because when I look at the detailed status crosstab, the BA killed 97 IRA, 12 IRA Youth Section, and the UDR two IRA, which makes 111, not the 110 given in the casualties section. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Although looking at the civilian death figures, there's 149 by the BA and five by the UDR, so where does the 156 figure in the article come from? Perhaps the Ulster Special Constabulary? But that one would take the total to 307. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The organisation summary tab gives a figure of 363 deaths caused by the British security forces. The detailed organisation tab shows 55 RUC and one British Police, so that would indeed leave 307 by the BA, UDR, RAF and USC. Maybe that's our answer. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I have now updated the article in line with my comments above. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

lies
this is all lies the army was brought in to protect the Catholics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.135.112 (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Dubious figures
IRA and UDR UDA membership figures tagged as dubious, for obvious reasons. FDW777 (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I have removed them for now. Dormskirk (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Typo in original post fixed, original text struck. FDW777 (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)