Talk:Warrenpoint ambush

POV 'Victory' Tag?

Putting a 'victory' tag on the article is both a blatant and distasteful POV statement, you don't see the USS Cole or any other similar entry with the tag 'Al Qaeda Victory' do you? No, what you do have is 'Perpetrator'.... Author David Barzilay's book refers to the British Army's opinion that the IRA would consider it a victory and the quote was taken out of context and it's application here quite misleading Twobells (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not POV, it was an PIRA action against the BA, the PIRA won that action, end of story. Drawing comparisons to the USS Cole is childish to say the least... Applytheneed1 (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Twobells. It has a gloating, POV ring to it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

How about making a battle statistics on the September 11 attacks. Now that is an 'Al Qaeda victory'. An Afghan flag of the Taliban regime will be needed, as attacks on Afghanistan was justified with great ease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.30.208 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There are enough reliable sources which describe this ambush as a guerrilla attack, so comparing Warrenpoint with the 9/11 is pointless as per WP guidelines.--Darius (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well yeah. Some combatants who just can not care as much to become legal combatants will chose to do things by guerilla style, or just by using timed bombs.....timed bombs, thats like what someone did at the AMIA centre. And he did it again. Since Darius lives at La Plata, there is no way he could have done it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.30.208 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

AMIA bombing was aimed to Argentine civilians, purportedly by a bunch of fanatics. Warrenpoint was an action intended against fully armed troops, whose presence in NI was controversial even for people not associated with Irish Republicanism. The only cause I will not report you for breaching WP:CIVIL is that you are just an IP user, and probably a minor by law. And I live in Mar del Plata, on the southern coast of Buenos Aires province, not in La Plata. I guess you need some lessons on Geography, boy.--Darius (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Fully armed troops are legal combatants, and could we please confirm or disconfirm that they also were uniformed? Legal combatants are also legal targets, but should not the same rules apply to both sides? If these IRA types were fighting for Ireland, it would seem proper if Dublin could give a confirmation of such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.28.194 (talk) 09:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

As they were travelling in a military convoy, it is obvious that they were all in uniform. Also, could you please sign your name to avoid confusion. Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how fully armed troops cause controverse. It would be more of a controverse if they were without bulletproof vests on a mission in Afghanistan. In todays world, one can cause controverse by advocating pro life just before playing at Super Bowl. Purchasing Fois Gras. Laughing at poor people. Advocating nuclear power. Constructing pulp mills. Living your life in Hello Magazine. Denouncing the notions of global warming. I dare not say this one: Teena...no I don't dare to say it. Please don't mention the Muhammed, Prophet of the muslim faith.

It can't be that few things made controversies in the olden days. Never the less, those requested to stop these things, will carry on. The complaints may be the actual reason for controversies. I can not reverse someones actions by just calling him controversial.(82.134.28.194 (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

I've changed the "IRA Victory" result to "Successful IRA ambush" as strangly enough that was the result. --Yerkschmerk (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Please adhere to which five cited sources say, not to your own PoV. Try WP:PROVEIT. Thank you--Darius (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Im more worried about your sources that you've cited. An "IRA victory" isnt mentioned in any of them, the incident is refered to as a succesful for the IRA, ie. "Succesful IRA ambush". Your use of emotive rather than neutral factual language is totally out of place. --Yerkschmerk (talk) 10:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, "X victory" is a common descriptive tag for all battleboxes, and not an "emotive" use of language as you say. Since all cited sources mention a "success", the preestablished tag suits perfectly to the infobox. I agree, however, that given the controversial nature of the issue, the word "victory" should be avoided. Indeed, I was not the first editor to introduce the word "victory" on the article. I will rewrite the statement accordingly by restoring my original edit on the "result" entry.--Darius (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed!!!--Yerkschmerk (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'am glad, mate ;)--Darius (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Does the article on Bloody Sunday claim it was a British Army victory? Does the article on the murder of the Birmingham 21 claim it was an IRA victory? Does the article on La Mon House claim it was an IRA victory? Does the article on the murders of Ross McWhirter, Airey Neave, or Ian Gow, or Capt Richard Westmacott, or Capt Robert Nairac, claim they were IRA victories? Does the article on Enniskillen claim it was an IRA victory? Does the article on Omagh claim it was a Real IRA victory? Does the article on the Miami Showband murders claim it was a UVF victory? Does the article on 9/11 claim it was an Al Qaeda victory? Does the article on the Whitechapel murders of 1888 claim they were Jack the Ripper victories? This kind of thing is the reason why Wikipedia is universally despised. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

---

The above seems unresolved and also justifies the "neutrality dispute" note. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I've not come across a 'victory' like this before. Flexdream (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I stumbled into this by first changing victory to success, then removing the word victory. But not for POV reasons, just military terminology: ambushes are successful or not ... wars, battles, skirmishes, won or lost. So I wonder if the issue is with the template, or with the wrong template being used. Some Troubles articles use a different template - Template:Infobox civilian attack - but that title may be POV! - and I’m not going to waste everyone’s time with an info box change which would certainly be reverted. Best wishes to all Springnuts (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Ones where the IRA lost are marked as British victory, see for example Loughgall ambush, Ambush at Drumnakilly, Coagh ambush and Kesh ambush. It's not a one-sided application of the terminology. FDW777 (talk) 07:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Most interesting - there is certainly inconsistency in which template to use. Eg; 1991 Cappagh killings, Ballygawley bus bombing, Brighton hotel bombing ... and going wider, 1983 Beirut barracks bombings and My Lai massacre all use the 'civilian attack' Infobox. I couldn't find any policy about where to use the 'civilian attack' Infobox: eg is it for attacks by civilians? On civilians? Involving civilians? Can anyone help please? Springnuts (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

If, and I'm not saying that is the case, any other articles are using what's believed to be an incorrect infobox that would be a matter to discussed at those articles. A 'civilian attack' infobox would clearly be incorrect for this article. FDW777 (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with FDW777, per MOS:INFOBOXUSE which template to use must be discussed "at each individual article". A military infobox is the correct choice here, since Narrow Water was (according to printed, published sources cited in the page) an elaborated guerrilla ambush against an operational military force. The difference with Beirut 1983 and Ballygawley 1988 is that the paras at Warrenpoint managed to react by firing or returning fire on the assumed IRA "firing point" in the south (killing the Hudsons in the process) and by mounting a helivac operation that eventually bore the brunt of the second explosions, as the IRA unit had anticipated.----Darius (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

No prosecutions

From the article, it can be inferred that there were no prosecutions, much less convictions, in relation to his attack. Can we say so explicitly, with a source? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. --Bsherr (talk) 03:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Use of Flag of Ireland

The 'Belligerent' sections uses the flag of Ireland to represent the IRA. The IRA is/or was a terrorist organisation. It may have aspired to a connection with The Republic of Ireland, but was not sponsored by it, did not represent it and was in fact pursued by its law enforcement agencies for decades. Is this appropriate? Hanoi Road (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes. It was the flag of the Irish Republic before it was the flag of the 26-county state. FDW777 (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I take your point, but the tricolour is a state symbol. Furthermore, the Provisional IRA, INLA, etc do not act on behalf of the Irish state in any capacity, official or otherwise. One would not, for example, use the flag of The United Kingdom to represent the UVF. There is a difference between perceived allegiance and official status. Hanoi Road (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

No, the IRA did not act on behalf of the 26 county state. They acted on behalf of the 32 county Irish Republic, as previously stated that use of the flag pre-dates the existence of the 26 county state, never mind their adoption of the flag. The tricolor is the flag of the IRA, and Wikipedia is not censored. FDW777 (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not a question of "censorship", but an issue of the misuse of a national flag on Wikipedia. There is a difference between republicanism and terrorist activity. Do you understand that difference? Hanoi Road (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

This was already discussed years ago, and the current banner (only used for republican groups) is a result of that discussion. Take a look to the flagicon, the image is not the same that the national flag of Ireland. Agreed with FDW777, as the file rationale explains, the tricolour predates the 26 county-state.--Darius (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

If the "banner" is "not the same" as the Irish flag (ie: Green, White and Orange, with Green at the hoist) the distinctions are lost on me; and I suspect, most others. However, if the matter has previously been thrashed out, fair enough. Hanoi Road (talk) 12:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

"Massacre"

It may have been called a "massacre", it may have been called all kinds of things in Britain; but currently we're treating this as if it's a legitimate name and not an absurd propaganda term. Whatever you think about the attack: it targeted armed active soldiers on duty. How can that ever be called a "massacre"? 90.186.170.100 (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Deleted my comment, because, you know...Sarah777 (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)