Talk:Paramilitary punishment attacks in Northern Ireland/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) 22:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Happy to review this. Will have a read through and offer some comments a little bit later in the week. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 22:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

All in all, a good read and very well put-together. For GA, the work needed is minimal. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 00:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there anything more to say about the controversy over naming? As it stands, the quote from Bell is potentially undue weight given the relatively short length of the section.
 * I've paraphrased the first part of the quote but "The use of the term 'punishment' confers on the act a degree of legitimacy by suggesting that the guilt of a victim is an established fact." is the main objection, and she said it most clearly so I think it's worth a quote.
 * Out of curiosity, why "Northern Ireland conflict" instead of the more common "the Troubles"?
 * I just prefer it as a more objective sounding name while "Troubles" always seemed a bit euphemistic to me.
 * was a civil war is that from the sources? I'm just not used to hearing it referred to as such.
 * The cited source, Steinberg, uses it repeatedly for example, "The 1998 Agreement that ended Northern Ireland's bloody civil war has often been attributed to many of the remarkable individuals involved in the peace process."
 * British rule in Ireland seems focused on historical British rule of the whole island of Ireland rather than the current situation with NI.
 * Yes, the article should be expanded. But the scope of the article covers the entire situation from 1169 to the present day.
 * I'm not sure it's a helpful link as-is but it's up to you. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 16:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Irish republican movement considers itself I'm not an expert (my main interests are IRA activities in GB and British special forces in NI), but I have read around the subject area and I didn't think the movement was as cohesive as this makes it sound.
 * I realize that it's not a cohesive movement, but I believe most or all the groups which are considered part of the "republican movement" make this claim (almost all term themselves the "Irish Republican Army"). Jarman states, "The republican movement, for example, views itself as the legitimate inheritors of the independence movement of the early twentieth century and of the first Irish government..."
 * Perhaps make clear that the various faction see themselves but not each other that way? HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 16:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Reworded accordingly. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Ulster Defence Association/Ulster Freedom Fighters (UDA/UFF) and Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) are rival groups Suggest clarifying that they're loyalists and rivals to the various IRAs as opposed to each other.
 * The text clearly establishes that they are both loyalist, but the rivalry between them is important to this article as they have conducted punishment attacks on each other as part of their feud.
 * Protestant neighbourhoods began to organize This is the first mention of the Catholic/Protestant divide in the article. For readers unfamiliar with the conflict, it's not clear that Catholic and Protestant were almost interchangeable with republican and loyalist. Perhaps add a sentence in the background section?
 * Done
 * were quickly overtaken by the IRA which one?
 * As stated in the background section, this article, like most sources on the time period, uses "IRA" consistently to mean the Provisional Irish Republican Army.
 * According to Munck, punishment attacks represent Introduce Munck on first mention
 * Done
 * However, soon community members were calling If you're planning on taking this to FAC, expect to find use of words like "however" heavily scrutinised. In this instance, for example, it doesn't add a lot.
 * Pared down on use of "However".
 * The article is mostly written in the present tense, but is past tense in places (especially earlier on). Are these beatings a regular thing these days? Perhaps a few sentences on the current state of affairs might be a good way to end the article, to tie up loose ends?
 * The article takes a thematic rather than historical approach. Sadly, these attacks are still a regular occurrence with more than 1 attack per week on average since from 2010 to 2019. (as stated in Statistics section)
 *  their purveyors responsible for "CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY What's with the all caps?
 * Repeating the same capitalization used in the source. I could lowercase it but I think all caps shows the original intent.
 * Your bibliography looks good but is there a reason you don't cite the books listed under further reading? Also, I would have expected to see some of the broader reference works on the Troubles cited, eg Tim Pat Coogan's The IRA and Richard English's Armed Struggle, or CAIN. It's fine for GA but if you're planning on taking it to FAC (I hope you do), there might be work to be done to satisfy the "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" requirement.
 * I do not have access to any of the books listed in "Further reading", the main reason that they aren't cited. From my search it looks like both Coogan and English discuss punishment attacks fairly briefly and don't have much if any new information not already in the article (also, some of Coogan's books such as The Famine Plot have a poor reputation among academic historians). I didn't cite the CAIN website as I've tried to focus on published, peer-reviewed research. I do not have any current plans to take the article to FAC.
 * It's a shame you're not planning on taking it to FAC. I think it would do well with just a little bit of extra work. CAIN could be useful for its index of individual deaths. You're right that Coogan and English don't cover punishment attacks in great depth because those books have a wider scope but for the sake of comprehensiveness and context I usually like to include some broader works. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 16:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Added some CAIN statistics to the external links. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no mention of similar incidents linked to the authorities. The obvious example is the MRF but there were also ... interesting incidents involving the SAS and specialist units of the RUC. Again, fine for GA because you've covered the "main aspects", but the FA requirement for comprehensiveness is much tougher.
 * This is interesting, but I didn't read anything about this aspect in any of the sources covering punishment attacks. I would be interested if you have any sources covering it. The thing is I worry it might be WP:OR if they are not explicitly described as punishment attacks in reliable sources.
 * You might be right that it's OR to directly connect it to punishment attacks, though there's plenty of evidence of certain elements of the security forces behaving in the same way as paramilitaries. If nothing else, there might be something that an be lined to in a "see also" section. HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 16:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, after looking into this I'm not sure it's the same thing. The hallmark of "paramilitary-style attacks" is that 1) they are carried out by paramilitaries and 2) they target the same community that the paramilitary draws its support from. Looking at the MRF I see it was mostly controversial for killing Catholic civilians for little or no reason, which is more like a sectarian attack. (We're missing Sectarian attacks in Northern Ireland...) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Sectarian violence in Northern Ireland is blue, but redirects to Sectarian violence. There's defintiely scope for an article there. Anyway, passing GA nad I hope you'll consider taking it to FAC at some point. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 21:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for reviewing! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. The GA criteria are easily satisfied so I'll pass this once you've had a chance to look at my replies, whether you want to do anything with them or not. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 16:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)