Talk:Operation Demetrius

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ireland Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Correction and Detention Facilities (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Correction and Detention FacilitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesTemplate:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesCorrection and Detention Facilities articles Irish republicanism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Irish republicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish republicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish republicanismIrish republicanism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 9, 2013, August 9, 2016, and August 9, 2021.

There is an image of the "burning of long kesh" out there too, which might fit in the article. Fluffy999 15:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was going to put that in but seeing that it was on fire we couldn't see much of it :-). I'd have no objection if you want to add it. They want me to source the second photo but I'm not sure how to edit the source information of a photo. Otherwise they'll remove it in 7 days. El Gringo 16:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont know either. I normally just reupload it with the same name, taking care to make sure the little drop down box doesnt have the focus when i hit submit- think thats what puts it off. The version I have of the burning is B&W with some kind of clothes line going across it. Fluffy999 17:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saw the images got removed, im pretty sure that the top left one couldnve been HMSO copyright. Will keep an eye out for some of a decent quality. I enjoyed the article btw, but get the feeling someone will come along wanting to neutralise some of the power words used. Fluffy999 16:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, pretty good article, but the second half of the first section needs a lot more citations. Pauric 22:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the main body of the article called "Background"? In fact there is no background at all except a short sentence saying internment had been used before. For that matter, why is the article called "Operation Demetrius"? There is no detail at all in it about the operation, which took place (not began) on the morning of Monday, 9 August 1971 (there is actually slightly more detail in the "Background" section of the Maze article). Scolaire 15:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article should be renamed "Internment (Northern Ireland)"? Mooretwin (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recently made these changes to the casualty figures, based on this and this. O Fenian reverted those changes, claiming the additional deaths were unrelated to Operation Demetrius. So we have the figures, but we need to determine which deaths were directly related to the operation.

On August 9th/10th/11th a total of 24 people were killed or fatally wounded.

Casualties by date:

• August 9th – 14 people were killed
• August 10th – 3 people were killed
• August 11th – 4 people were killed
• August 12th – 1 person died of injuries received on August 10th
• August 20th – 1 person died of injuries received on August 11th
• August 27th – 1 person died of injuries received on August 11th

Casualties by status of the victim:

• Civilians – 20 killed (14 were Catholic, 6 were Protestant)
• Provisional IRA – 2 killed
• British Army – 1 killed
• UDR – 1 killed

Casualties by status of the perpetrator:

• British Army – killed 19 (17 were civilians, 2 were Provisional IRA)
• Provisional IRA – killed 2 soldiers
• Unknown attackers – killed 3 civilians

I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that all deaths on these dates were in some way related to Operation Demetrius. Obiously not everyone agrees. So I ask you, how do we determine which deaths to include and exclude? ~Asarlaí 19:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the time honored way, in other words we include the deaths that reliable sources say were part of it. I think including casualties in the infobox is misleading anyway. Operation Demetrius was an arrest operation, the majority of the deaths occurred in the violence that followed the arrest operation, when the British Army were back on general security duties. O Fenian (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been unable to find a single source that says "X people were killed as part of Operation Demetrius". This says 17 were killed in the first 48 hours (but that doesn't include anyone who died after the 10th), while this says 18 were killed, presumably in the first 48 hours. The Sutton chronology gives us the status of those killed, where/when/how they were killed, and who killed them. Now we have to ask ourselves, who are those sources referring to? ~Asarlaí 15:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to take part in any such discussion as it violates policy and amounts to mental masturbation. You can carry on by yourself.. O Fenian (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What policy are you referring to? ~Asarlaí 15:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One possible solution is having all the above info in a subsection, rather than the infobox. That would allow us to explain things in detail. For example we could say "X people were killed in this 48 hour period... X were killed by the British Army, X were killed by the IRA" etc. We could then explain that "it's unclear which deaths were a direct result of the operation". ~Asarlaí 16:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you start at WP:5P. We do not add original research to articles, and have the cheek to add a disclaimer saying it is original research. O Fenian (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I added was supported by reliable sources. All the statistics I added were taken directly from the Sutton Index of Deaths on CAIN. What you have reverted to is incorrect – the "10 civilians" in the infobox refers only to 10 Catholics who were shot dead. It ignores the Protestants who were shot dead, and the Catholics who died of their wounds at later dates. ~Asarlaí 17:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I said no original research, not unsourced. The Sutton list does not support anyone being included in this article, you are drawing your own conclusion that the deaths are related. The "10 civilians" is the part that is actually sourced, try reading! Source says "17 people were killed during the next 48 hours. Of these 10 were Catholic civilians who were shot dead by the British Army". I doubt you did read the source, as you do not read your edits. "Although the sudden rise in casualties can be attributed to the operation and/or the associated violence, it is unclear which casualties were a direct result of the operation." says the disclaimer, everything after the comma means it is exactly original research. Where is the evidence the people died after the start of Operation Demetrius also? The Troubles didn't stop at bedtime, they went on round the clock. Is it not possible that, in particular, the UDR "soldier" could have been shot at 3am on 9 Auguat? O Fenian (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not original research to read the Sutton index and then take info from it. Not once is it written (or even implied) that all deaths are related to Operation Demetrius. What it does say is that: in this period of time...here's how many were killed, here's their status (eg. civilian), here's who killed them. Bare facts. The bit at the end is simply saying that: some of these deaths are related to the operation, but we're not going to guess which ones. Now, if I were to guess which ones are and aren't related, that would be original research. Furthermore, I've already explained why the "10 civilians" is incorrect. ~Asarlaí 18:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, it is a primary source. You cannot take a name from that list and link it to this operation, you are explicitly drawing your own conclusion that the death is linked. Until you provide reliable sources, I am not even going to waste my time replying any more. O Fenian (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're claiming that the Sutton Index is an unreliable source? I've simply noted how many people were killed whilst the operation was taking place, and who killed them. Not once did I write that they're all related. ~Asarlaí 18:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even understand what English words mean? I said it was a primary source, not an unreliable one. If you do not know the difference, then you haven't (or couldn't) have read the policies. Please immediately, as in within 10 minutes, provide cites that prove every single person you have added was killed during Operation Demetrius itself, and not before or after it was ongoing. O Fenian (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide cites that prove each of those 10 civilians was killed during Operation Demetrius itself? ~Asarlaí 18:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deflection is a poor debating technique. If you cannot answer the questions just say so, and we will not have to waste time discussing your unacceptable edit any more. O Fenian (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point I was making is that, if you remove the "casualties" section, you must also remove the "10 civilians" since it can't be proven when exactly they were killed. I'm using your logic here. ~Asarlaí 19:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except I am using a source that is more than a list of dead with no context to link them to Operation Demetrius. O Fenian (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It says 10 civilians were shot by the Brits in a 48 hour period. That doesn't link the deaths directly to the operation. ~Asarlaí 19:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Provide the sources, and stop edit warring! The The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.--Domer48_'fenian' 19:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What, the source saying that 24 people were killed or fatally wounded on August 9th, 10th and 11th? The source saying what status they were? The source saying who killed them? Okay, here you go. If you open your eyes you'll also see eleven inline citations. ~Asarlaí 19:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 9 starts at midnight, Operation Demetrius started at about 4 am, nice big window there. You also fail to provide proof that the deaths were in any way linked, as in were there actual disturbances going on in the areas deaths occurred, or were they the consequence of everyday activity. You can hardly expect people to believe the entire of the North was a riot zone? O Fenian (talk)

I don't have to prove that all the deaths are linked, because I don't write that all the deaths are linked. ~Asarlaí 19:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying an end run round no original research, and it is not going to happen. O Fenian (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only bit of original research is the "10 civilians" that you added to the infobox. Your source says that 10 civilians were killed by the Brits in a 48 hour period. You're then assuming that all of those deaths (and those deaths alone) are directly related to the operation. The "casualties" section doesn't assume that all the deaths are directly related to the operation, it's simply saying "24 people were killed on the 9th, 10th and 11th...but it's not clear which deaths are directly linked". ~Asarlaí 19:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading WP:OR and then coming back to this discussion!--Vintagekits (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read what the source says. "There was an immediate upsurge of violence and 17 people were killed during the next 48 hours. Of these 10 were Catholic civilians who were shot dead by the British Army" - the upsurge in violence is explicitly linked to Operation Demetrius, and says 10 of the 17 deaths were Catholic civilians killed by the Brits. The problem with Sutton is that it doesn't link the deaths to Operation Demetrius, it just has them happening at the same time. What if the UDR "soldier" was shot at 3:30am on 9 August, before Operation Demetrius began? What if it was a pre-planned IRA operation? The same applies to other deaths. You can't add them all to the article with a disclaimer saying we do not know which are linked, we need to only include the ones that are linked by reliable sources. O Fenian (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your source, just like mine, only says how many people were killed in a certain period of time. The difference is that I'm not guessing how many of those were directly linked to Operation Demetrius. I only intend to say that "24 people were killed on the 9th, 10th and 11th...but it's not clear which deaths are directly linked". If those numbers are then backed by reliable sources, what's the problem?

Here's the slightly-altered wording I plan to use:

The operation began on 9th August at around 4am. The initial wave of house searches appears to have lasted until the morning of 11th August. On the 9th, 10th and 11th of August, the number of conflict-related deaths was much higher than in the period immediately before and after - a total of 24 people were killed or fatally wounded. Three did not die of their wounds until after this period. The dead included: (insert stats here). It remains unclear which casualties were a direct result of the operation.

~Asarlaí 19:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC) – edited 17:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. You are not performing an end run round no original research by including a disclaimer saying it is original research. Stop wasting time, and find a better source than a list of dead. O Fenian (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about actually answering my question? ~Asarlaí 15:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did. The inclusion of everyone is original research, and your disclaimer that not everyone might have died as a result of Operation Demetrius still makes it original research. O Fenian (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; not immediately relevant to this page. But several Troubles and related pages have had their flag icons removed. The user who did so sees them as in violation of WP:FLAGCRUFT, though has thus far failed to specify how. Any opinions on this matter? Simon Levchenko (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. There needs to be information on the reasons the Unionist government introduced internment: a) There was an escalating pattern of violence from about the middle of 1970s; b) internment of suspected members of the IRA was to prevent the escalation of Loyalist violence.

2. A breakdown of the perpetrators of that violence leading up to internment will provide context for the one sided nature of internment. The figures shows that nearly all of the bombings and murders were committed by the IRA in the months leading up to internment. (Not mentioned in the article).

3. The article says the UVF was active in violence since 1966. The article does not mention that the leaders of the UVF and the perpetrators of that violence were jailed by the Unionist government. The UVF were largely dormant for several years as a result of the actions by the Unionist government to imprison UVF members. (Not mentioned in the article.)

4. The largest loyalist organisation, the UDA, didn’t exist in August 1971. Loyalist organisations only started to emerge again in late 1971 and 1972, and loyalist bombings and murders increased thereafter. (Not mentioned in the article.)

5. The article discusses the ECHR report on internment with regard to interrogation methods. In that same judgement the ECHR detailed that internment in NI meet the conditions of an emergency in Article 15 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Article 15 provides provides a legal framework for the derogation of Liberty. Internment was therefore considered justified and legal by the European Court. (Not mentioned in the article).

6. Context is needed on the application of internment. The article correctly says that it was not the first time the Unionist government used internment against the IRA. But the article fails to point out that internment was used by the Free State during ‘The Emergency’ against the IRA in the 1940s. Internment was also used by the Unionist government against Loyalists ‘Ulster Protestant Association’ in the 1920s.

7.  The article mentions that the IRA took part in retaliation attacks.  This gives the impressions that the British started the Troubles.  This is contradicted by intelligence found on Sean Garland, and Joe Cahill who admits it was the IRA who went on the offensive.  

In summary, this article is replete with omissions and as a result it is very biased. Carefulacts (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, 7 changes. I just kept going! Carefulacts (talk) 02:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. Says who?

2. Which references support that? Editors drawing their own conclusions from source data is specifically prohibited per WP:NOR.

3. The UVF leaders were not jailed by any Unionist government. The judiciary is independent of government

4. The Ulster Protestant Volunteers to name but one would disagree. If I were to disagree with my own stance in point 2, I could point out that the 1,874 Catholic/Republican internees versus the 107 Protestant/Loyalist internees despite the significant degree of loyalist violence.

5. I'm not entirely sure I understand your point. You appear to be attempting to justify "inhuman and degrading" interrogation techniques with the sop that the people were legally detained at the time of the "inhuman and degrading" treatment.

6. The background section states "Internment had been used a number of times during Northern Ireland's (and the Republic of Ireland's) history, but had not previously been used during the Troubles, which began in the late 1960s."

7. This is a murky area. The early part of the Troubles was the so-called "honeymoon period" between the nationalist population and the British Army, when public opinion would not have been in favour of an all-out IRA campaign against the British Army. Through a series of events such as the Falls Curfew, the British Army either blundered or were provoked by IRA traps into alienating the nationalist population. Simply saying "it was the IRA who went on the offensive" is an over-simplification.

FDW777 (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. Internment was introduced for specific reasons, those reasons should be known. I’m interested in understanding if and why you believe these reasons should excluded from the discussion? It’s customary to include this information on other Wikipedia articles so why not here?

2. Data on the level of violence is widely available. The Sutton Index has the number of deaths and the organisation responsible from 1969 until the introduction of internment. Ed Moloney, Peter Taylor, and the cain archives have details the number of explosions. Ivor Bell did an interview on the IRA bombing campaign which started in 1970. The Guardian has information on the IRA bombing campaign in Derry. Brendan Hughes talks about his bombing runs. The false flag bombings by the UPV are also known and should also be included. This is non-original background information and at least some of them should be cited. Once again though, if you can provide a good reason why it should be excluded then I’m willing to hear it?

3. The article should be amended to state that the UVF were put in jail by the judiciary.

4. The degree of Loyalist violence, as measured by bombings and killings was considerably smaller in the first years of the Troubles. It is fine to include details of total numbers of Republicans and Loyalists interned provided information on the rate of offending is also included. Why should such information be excluded?

Optional - although Loyalists were interned in low numbers, the rate of Loyalist imprisonment over the Troubles was higher when adjusted for the offences they committed. This is detailed in a RUC report available on cain. Perhaps this is too much for an article about internment.

5. There were two principle conclusions from the ECHR judgement. Conclusion A) internment was legal and justified given the scale of violence in NI - this does not appear in the article. Conclusion B) The treatment of inmates was considered inhuman and degrading - this does appear in the article. In a discussion about the ECHR judgement why should Conclusion A be excluded but Conclusion B included?

6. Noted.

7. I agree it is complicated and perhaps this is not the article to make that judgement. For the sake of balance then, any reference about retaliation should therefore removed. The word retaliation is loaded and it implies that British security hit first.

I would be happy for you to take ownership of these changes. I can assist you by providing references etc.

Carefulacts (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. Again, says who?

2. Again, you are not permitted to draw such conclusions from primary source data per WP:NOR.

3. Irrelevant. As stated, the judiciary are independent of government. Thus, the deliberate refusal of the Unionist government to intern loyalists in 1971 cannot be mitigated by the wholly independent judiciary having imprisoned some members of the UVF in 1966.

4. Vague allusions to references don't further discussion. Victims of loyalist violence were subjected to smear campaigns to avoid classing them as victims of loyalist violence (see McGurk's Bar bombing, and I also note the tendency to launch a smear campaign against nationalist victims continued the following year with Bloody Sunday).

5. There is no need to state something that is already evident and not relevant to the section in question, which is "Interrogation of internees". If the detention was illegal, the article would say so. As a matter of fact the detention of some internees was illegal (but this article doesn't point it out), as British Army soldiers had no powers of arrest and the government was forced to amend the Special Powers Act (see MacUileagóid, Mícheál (1996) From Fetters to Freedom. p. 75. ISBN 978-1-901005-05-9)

7. If you wish to provide references and suggest a change in wording please do so. FDW777 (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. Wikipedia rules on neutrality state, “Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias”. It further states, “Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents ALL significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

So far as I can tell you don’t appear to have a legitimate reason to exclude the viewpoint of the Unionist government. Indeed, the exclusion of the Unionist government’s viewpoint without a justification is at the very least unbalanced, but potentially editorial bias which is prohibited by Wikipedia rules.

The fact is, that the Unionist government’s point of view is almost entirely absent from this article and it should be included on grounds of Wikipedia neutrality rules.

2. It is not original research, it is published research. I will compile all the references in the coming weeks and post them here.

3. The data on offending are conclusions from primary sources such as Peter Taylor, Gareth Mulvenna, William Matchett, Ed Moloney and the editors at cain. For example, Peter Taylor cites that there were 153 IRA bombs in 1970. Ed Moloney gives a breakdown of IRA bombs in the months running up to internment in 1971. The cain archive gives a breakdown of which organisation was responsible for killing people and when that occurred. NONE of this is original research and it’s inclusion does not break any Wikipedia rules.

4. All references are citeable and from published research. I will provide them for you if you do not know them, as per my previous reply.

I am not sure what a ‘smear campaign’ has to do with the unbalanced nature of this article. Let’s focus on this article for now.

5. There is a section on the ‘legal basis’ of internment. The conclusion of the ECourtHR’s judgement, that internment was justified and legal under Article 15 of the EConventionHR fits in that section perfectly. One would think, that in a discussion about the legal basis of internment, that the opinion of the ECourtHR would matter. There is absolutely no reason why it should be excluded from this article.

7. I will compile references and amended text in the coming weeks. We should request a wiki arbitration should we continue to have differences.

 Carefulacts (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. There is no point in saying that articles include viewpoints "published by reliable sources" while for the third time failing to provide the reliable references.

2. If it involves any analysis of data to draw conclusions it is original research. If it does not, I fail to see why compiling is needed.

3. Your answer is of no relevance to your original point #3. It further amplifies that you are attempting to draw conclusions from primary source data, and is not permitted per policy.

4. So your answer when requested to provide references instead of making vague allusions to references is to fail to provide any references but make further vague allusions?

5. The information you are referring to is in the article.

7. You should have done that before ever wasting my time to begin with. FDW777 (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. Above I said, “I will compile references and amended text in the coming weeks”, that remains the case. Peter Taylor and Ed Moloney are both award winning journalists for their coverage of the Troubles. The cain archive was created and maintained by academics. I can allay your fears, my sources are reputable. 2. There is no analysis of raw data. The references have to be ‘compiled’ insofar as Wikipedia articles do not write themselves. 3. You’re point about the judiciary and internment are clear and correct. 4. These are discussions about modifications, not the modifications themselves. References will come with the amended text “in the coming weeks”. 5. At no point does it reference the 1978 ECourtHR judgement, even though reference 10 specifically mentions the 1978 judgement. 7. The choice to reply is yours. I will be requesting arbitration. Carefulacts (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Example of omissions:

Below is text from the ECourtHR 1978 judgement on the level of offending in the run up to internment. It explains why the Unionist government took the decision to only intern members of the IRA at the beginning of internment. Note this is not original research, it is a direct quotation from the judgement, and none of these FACTS are in this article:

"29. The situation worsened in 1970. The number of explosions recorded by the police jumped dramatically from a total of 8 in 1969 to 155 in 1970. Some explosions were caused by Loyalists - about 25 according to statistics cited by the Commission - but there is no dispute that the majority were the work of the IRA. In total, 23 civilians and 2 policemen were killed during the course of the year. None of these deaths was attributed by the police to Protestant activity.

30. The terrorist campaign by the IRA appears to have begun in earnest in 1970 and to have been one primarily of bombing buildings and attacking the security forces. There was also undoubtedly some terrorist activity on the part of Loyalists, directed largely against politicians seen as hostile to Unionism and against Catholic owned or occupied property, particularly licensed premises. Responsibility for certain explosions was in fact claimed by the UVF.

31. The sharp increase in what may be termed terrorist-type activity was not accompanied by the cessation of inter-communal street disturbances which continued sporadically during the year of 1970 and accounted for the deaths of a number of people.

32. Between January and July 1971, the violence intensified, being marked by a dramatic upsurge in terrorist activity by the IRA. Police statistics record a total of 304 explosions, including 94 for the one month of July. Shooting at the security forces’ patrols built up and for the first time soldiers numbered amongst those killed. By 9 August, 13 soldiers, 2 policemen and 16 civilians had died since the beginning of the year. In addition, serious and prolonged rioting occurred in both Catholic and Protestant areas. Apart from one explosion in which a civilian was killed, there is no evidence of any deaths or even injuries having been caused by Loyalist terrorists. On the applicant Government’s own approximate estimate, Loyalist explosions accounted for only 14 out of the overall total of 304. Furthermore, as in 1970, Loyalist terrorists used mainly pipe bombs which were not very powerful in comparison with the devices employed by the IRA.

The Commission stated in its report that the IRA were indisputably responsible for the very great majority of the acts of violence during this period. Loyalist terrorist activity had declined; there is no evidence that such Loyalist terrorism as did exist formed part of a highly organised campaign in the sense that IRA activity did. The Commission’s conclusion was that the threat and reality of serious terrorism came almost exclusively from the IRA.""CASE OF IRELAND v. THE UNITED KINGDOM" (PDF).

Why is this perspective not in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carefulacts (talk • contribs) 00:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. There should be no need to compile any references in the first place, as you should have presented them right at the start.

2. I disagree. You have repeatedly attempted to interpret the data and draw your own conclusions. That is not permitted.

4. There can be no discussion without references, a point I have tried to make repeatedly.

5. There is no need to because of Operation Demetrius#Legal basis, as far as the information currently provided goes.

As for your more general point regarding alleged ommissons, you have appeared to confuse the English language Wikipedia and Wikisource. We will not be cherry picking excerpts to suit a particular viewpoint from an 86 page primary source, you will need secondary sources. To rebut just one point, data from 1971 does not explain away the failure of the Unionist government to intern any loyalists between the remainder of 1971 and early 1973 despite increased loyalist violence. If loyalists weren't interned in 1971 because they weren't violent enough, then how can the internment of the completely non-violent civil rights movement members be justified? FDW777 (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. Additional references below. Ed Moloney, Richard English, and Peter Taylor, are three of the most authoritative commentators on the Troubles. There is additional commentary from William Matchett on the levels of violence, which together with the ECHR report is compelling. Finally Brian Faulker in his own words.

a) Ed Moloney, Secret history of the IRA, page 100: “The official explanation given by the IRA for launching its bombing campaign in April 1971 was twofold – it would stretch the British army on the ground, and it would inflict economic damage, which the exchequer in London would have to pay for. But the truth was that the IRA wanted to force Britain into premature and hasty action. The number of bombing operations, mostly in Belfast, steadily rose: 37 in April, 47 in May, 50 in Jun, and 91 in July. The targets were not just military and police bases but increasingly included government and commercial premises. As the summer progressed, the pressure for internment and on Faulkner grew.

b) Richard English, Armed Struggle – the history of the IRA, page 138: “At the end of March the IRA’s bombing campaign began in earnest, and their war with the army continued to intensify. At the start if July there was a deliberate and sudden escalation of the activity of the IRA in Derry, following extensive rioting during the early months of the year.”

c) Peter Taylor, Brits – the war against the IRA, page 65: “As the security situation deteriorated through the spring and early summer, the question was not whether internment would be introduced but when. By the beginning of August 1971, ten soldiers and five policemen had been killed, but the statistic does not reflect the anarchy that unionists believed the IRA was causing. Since the beginning of the years there had been over 300 explosions, 320 shooting incidents, and 600 people treated in hospital for injuries. Faulkner had persuaded the British government of the need for internment, and once that was done the operation was almost a fait accompli.”

d) Peter Taylor, Provos the IRA and Sinn Fein, page 92: “By the beginning of August 1971, five more soldiers had been killed, four of them by snipers and one by a time bomb left inside a police and army base. But the deaths of these soldiers do not give a true picture of the general mayhem that unionists saw engulfing their province. Since the beginning of the year, there had been over 300 explosions and 320 shooting incidents. Over 600 people had received hospital treatment for injuries. To Brian Faulkner, there was only one option: internment – locking up people without trial. Faulker finally persuaded a reluctant British government and less-than-enthusiastic British army commanders that there was no other alternative”

e) William Matchett, Secret Victory – the intelligence war that beat the IRA, page 126: “In July 1971 a terrorist incident took place almost every house. For a place the size of Yorkshire and with less than half the population, where homes were left unlicked and murder was a novelty, the frequency and type of violence bewildered and frightened. Who was responsible? How could it be stopped? These were questions people asked. In the first 20 months of the Troubles, republicans committed the majority of the violence and 95% of all murders, mostly by a turf war between two IRA factions competing to dominate the streets of Belfast and Londonderry. Compelled to respond, in August 1971, the government introduced internment.”

f) Unionist PM Brian Faulkner speech on the introduction of internment: https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/nai/1970/nai_DFA-2001-43-1436_1971-08-09_b.pdf

g) Unionist PM Brian Faulker defending internment: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00jg8dj

2. Incorrect, see above commentary. 4. See above references.

On your comments:

You claim, ‘We will not be cherry picking excerpts to suit a particular viewpoint from an 86 page primary source’ – that is exactly how references in this article has been used thus far. I'm trying to right that particular wrong. There is no justifiably reason to omit the events leading up to internment and the rationale of the Unionist government.

You say, ‘you will need secondary sources’ – I have added additional secondary sources above. Though I note, that no such standard of evidence has been required for any of the other sources referenced in this article. Why the high bar?

You say, 'To rebut just one point, data from 1971 does not explain away the failure of the Unionist government to intern any loyalists between the remainder of 1971 and early 1973 despite increased loyalist violence' – this is not a contention of mine.

You say, 'If loyalists weren't interned in 1971 because they weren't violent enough, then how can the internment of the completely non-violent civil rights movement members be justified?' – we are not here to provide our own commentary, but accurately represent background information, and the viewpoint of BOTH sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carefulacts (talk • contribs) 19:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. Weeks later, despite numerous promises of references, I am still waiting for references for your claim that "internment of suspected members of the IRA was to prevent the escalation of Loyalist violence" that you made at 19:07, 20 March 2020.

2. Weeks later, despite numerous promises of references, I am still waiting for references for your claim that "A breakdown of the perpetrators of that violence leading up to internment will provide context for the one sided nature of internment. The figures shows that nearly all of the bombings and murders were committed by the IRA in the months leading up to internment." For the sake of thoroughness I will rebut each claimed reference in turn.

• Ed Moloney, Secret history of the IRA, page 100. The quote provided makes no mention of loyalist violence.

• Richard English, Armed Struggle – the history of the IRA. The quote provided makes no mention of loyalist violence.

• Peter Taylor, Brits – the war against the IRA. The quote provided makes no mention of loyalist violence.

• Peter Taylor, Provos the IRA and Sinn Fein. The quote provided makes no mention of loyalist violence.

• William Matchett, Secret Victory – the intelligence war that beat the IRA. The quote provided states republicans were responsible for 95% of killings and the "majority" of violence. Exactly how big a majority is not made clear.

• "Unionist PM Brian Faulkner speech" is a primary source. See also point below regarding his interview

• "Unionist PM Brian Faulker defending internment" is also a primary sorce. He keeps trying to emphasise about gunmen, which doesn't exactly tally with the internment of civil rights movement members such as Ivan Barr and Michael Farrell who were emphatically not gunmen. The interviewer notes internment was "responsible for stirring up sectarian violence".

4. The only reference you have provided regarding loyalist violence doesn't even state the degree of it or even mention loyalists at all for that matter, other than loyalist violence being a minority since republicans were responsible for the "majority".

At present there is little to discuss since there are no actual proposed changes to the article. Should you wish to suggest any actual changes, I will be happy to discuss at that point. FDW777 (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above references are about Loyalist violence. They are intended to provide information on the scale of the violence by the IRA in the run up to internment. These events contributed to the decision by the Unionist government to introduce internment - they are omitted from this article.

I made passing mention of the Unionist government seeking to curtail loyalist violence, it was only a minor point. You appear to think that is my main issue with this article. It is not. Nevertheless, I have references for that as well:

a) Gerry Moriarty, Internment explained: When was it introduced and why?: “The then unionist prime minister Brian Faulkner said it was designed to smash the IRA. Approval for internment was given to Faulkner by the British Home Secretary Reginald Maudling who was said to be unenthusiastic about the move but feared a loyalist backlash if the did not act.” https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/internment-explained-when-was-it-introduced-and-why-1.3981598

b) Martin J McCleery, Operation Demetrius and its aftermath: “In other words, the IRA’s campaign had driven the Stormont administration to the point where it could see no alternative but to introduce internment. If it did not there was a possibility of civil disorder from within the Unionist community. It was quite possible that failure to act would result in Faulkner’s resignation because of the demands of hard-line unionism for sterner security measures.”

c) David McKittrick, David McVea, Making Sense of the Troubles: The Story of the Conflict in Northern Ireland, page 67: “Maudling wrote later of internment: ‘No one could be certain what would be the consequences, yet the question was simply this: what other measures could be taken?’ He added, ‘I think if we hadn’t introduced internment there was the danger of the Protestant backlash. What we were always worried about was if people did not think the British government were doing all they could to deal with violence, they might take the law into their own hands.’ As this indicates, the government had an eye not just to the rising tide of IRA activity but also to the possibility of an eruption of loyalist violence. The steadily rising graph of shootings and bombings, as well as the street rioting in republican districts, contributed to the sense that something had to be done.”

d) William Matchett, Secret Victory – the intelligence war that beat the IRA, page 129: “Unprecedented levels of violence prevented the normal functioning of civic society, placing Faulkner in an impossible position. For the majority of the population (who were law-abiding) something had to be done. Internment – detention of terrorist suspects without trial – was that something. Its purpose was to protect life and restore order by taking terrorists off the streets. The depraved minds that murdered the Fusiliers must be locked up. The priority was to prevent a loyalist backlash by curtailing republican violence, deterring nationalist from supporting the IRA, and placating hard-line unionists calls for tougher action.”

Relating to further comments you made.

You said, 'The quote provided states republicans were responsible for 95% of killings and the "majority" of violence. Exactly how big a majority is not made clear.' Other sources elaborate; ECHR report ‘On the applicant Government’s own approximate estimate, Loyalist explosions accounted for only 14 out of the overall total of 304’; Peter Taylor, on page 86 of Loyalist says "Since the UVF had shot dead Constable William Arburkle during the Shankill riots in October 1969, loyalists killed only two people. The IRA had killed thirty-three."

I have fulfilled every request for references that you have asked for. I think I have gone above and beyond in demonstrating that this article omits important events that contributed to the decision of the British / Unionist government. It also omits the viewpoint of the British / Unionist government and their reasons for introducing internment.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carefulacts (talk • contribs) 01:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

Carefulacts, when you wish to suggest changes to an article, they should never be phrased "additions required for balance". Instead, proposed changes should come across as suggestions or in a way that compels other editors to want to contribute instead of directly putting anyone that may respond on the defense. Further, when suggesting an edit, particularly one that may be controversial, you should propose exactly what change you want to make and with what reliable, secondary source you are citing to provide support for your suggested edit. This lack of specificity caused a very drawn out, convoluted back in forth between you and FDW777. Mostly, this seems due to FDW rightly questioning how you planned to source your information. Going forward, the resolution I propose is for both of you to reset your WP:AGF meters before things get testy and remember that you both are here to help contribute to this article even if your views may currently be different on how to do so. Next, instead of going back and forth about 6 or 7 claims at once leading to these thesis length replies, break up the arguments. That is, Carefulacts, create a section for each of the six or seven points you want addressed. In each of those points, concisely write the specific addition, removal or modification of content in the article you are suggesting. With each of these suggestions, provide a source that is reliable and independent of the subject that concretely proves true the modification you wish to make. FDW, if and when this is done, try to relook at Careful's arguments with fresh eyes and a clean slate. If it helps, maybe even wait a day or two before responding. This article isn't going anywhere that an extra day or two to respond will hurt anything. On that same note, Carefulacts, you are suggesting a major overhaul to an article that has been in the mainspace for nearly 15 years. This normally wouldn't be a big deal, but since this overhaul would deal with a subject that is inherently contentious you're making quite a big ask. Wikipedia can and should be slow and deliberate at times when fast and bold would lead to push back or disputing viewpoints. If after this, you two still are having issue with a specific issue, please reach out to me on my talk page. I have made no previous edits on Operation Demetrius and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input Sulfurboy. The points I raised are major thematic additions, but raising those issues will require only a few additional sentences.

To both, I have made modest edits to the background section for review. These changes are sufficient to cover all of the points that I think this article omits. Note that the vast majority of the article remains untouched. There is a problem with some duplication of my references, however my previous experience of editing wikipedia leads me to believe that these will be correct themselves automatically - please advise if this is not the case.

I suggest you take notice of the point Sulfurboy made, That is, Carefulacts, create a section for each of the six or seven points you want addressed. In each of those points, concisely write the specific addition, removal or modification of content in the article you are suggesting. With each of these suggestions, provide a source that is reliable and independent of the subject that concretely proves true the modification you wish to make. rather than making sweeping changes to the article. FDW777 (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You said, 'The quote provided states republicans were responsible for 95% of killings and the "majority" of violence. Exactly how big a majority is not made clear.' Other sources elaborate; ECHR report ‘On the applicant Government’s own approximate estimate, Loyalist explosions accounted for only 14 out of the overall total of 304’; Peter Taylor, on page 86 of Loyalist says "Since the UVF had shot dead Constable William Arburkle during the Shankill riots in October 1969, loyalists killed only two people. The IRA had killed thirty-three." That's incomplete data. Not everyone who was shot died, people were also burned out of their homes or suffered other forms of violence. Murders and bombings were not the only forms of violence, which is why it's incomplete data. FDW777 (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had edited this section to bring the proposed changes to the top of this subsection in an attempt to clean this section up. Below were the proposed changes. --Carefulacts (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Paragraph on background information: By 1970 the IRA had planted 153 bombs targeting businesses but also RUC stations ^{[1] [2]}. The level of violence continued to increase in 1971 and markedly so in the months leading up to internment ^[3][4][5][6]. By the 9th of August there were over 300 bombing incidents and over 90 bombs in the month of July alone ^[7][8]. There were 320 shooting incidents, 600 persons were injured and 31 people died ^[9]. According to the ECHR “the IRA were indisputably responsible for the very great majority of the acts of violence during this period" ^[10].

Additional information on the motivation of the Unionist / British government: The goal of internment was to target the IRA and reduce the levels of their violence, but it was also hoped that the tougher measures against the IRA would prevent an escalation Loyalist violence ^[11][12].

Additional information on the ECHR ruling: "the Court ruled that internment was not discriminatory against the Nationalist / Catholic population in Northern Ireland ^[13][14]. The explanation the British government provided for the one-sided nature of internment was that Loyalist violence was much reduced compared to Republican violence, and they could process loyalists through the criminal system much better than they could Republicans, was accepted by the ECHR ^[15][16]."

--Carefulacts (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

I have reverted the majority of these pending discussion, as they either cherry-pick or completely misrepresent what was said.

"the Court ruled that internment was not discriminatory against the Nationalist / Catholic population in Northern Ireland". The court made no such ruling. What it actually said was on page 52, On the basis of the data before it, and bearing in mind the limits on its powers of review, the Court cannot affirm that, during the period under consideration, the United Kingdom violated Article 14, taken together with Article 5 (art. 14+5), by employing the emergency powers against the IRA alone. So it didn't say it was discriminatory, but it definitely didn't say it wasn't either. Firstly "On the basis of the data before it", page 11 confirms this data was wholly inaccurate. It reads Apart from rioting and a small-scale bombing campaign of licensed premises, there was apparently little serious violence by Protestants in 1971. Only one death occurring between August and the end of the year, an assassination of a Protestant in September, was attributed by the police to Loyalists. I will ignore the description of the pub bombing campaign as "small-scale" since the rest of the sentence makes it obvious they are in complete denial about the UVF perpetrated McGurk's Bar bombing which killed 15 Catholics in December 1971. As that article makes clear, the RUC and British Army attempted to smear the victims for a number of years, and it was in 1976/77 that specific UVF members were linked to the bombing and arrested. You had to wonder why this rather salient information isn't in a court document dated 1978 that details deliberations on 10 and 11 February, 22 and 25 to 27 April, 25 to 28 July and 6 to 13 December 1977. It puts "On the basis of the data before it" into a different perspective doesn't it? Also Matchett does not reference the sentence The explanation the British government provided for the one-sided nature of internment was that Loyalist violence was much reduced compared to Republican violence, and they could process loyalists through the criminal system much better than they could Republicans, was accepted by the ECHR despite it appearing as a reference at the end of the sentence

Even if this claim did belong in the article, it doesn't belong in the "Background and planning" section.

I have also removed the paragraph about the frequency of IRA attacks, although I believe something similar could be added back when it does not misrepresent the references and downplay the severity of loyalist violence. To counter the very selective cherry-picking of sentences from the references, I will provide much more detailed information so that more balanced changes can be discussed.

• McKittrick page 69 The use of internment was to continue for another four years, during which time it attracted much condemnation of Britain and never looked like defeating the IRA. It came to be almost universally regarded as a misjudgement of historic proportions which inflicted tremendous damage both politically and in terms of fatalities. It was also seen by nationalists as a cynical weapon, since they regarded Faulkner’s primary motive not as a concern to reduce violence but as the partisan purpose of propping up his government and preserving Stormont. The internment process was an openly political one, Faulkner personally signing each individual internment order.

• McKittrick page 70 Faulkner was heavily criticised for the fact that not a single loyalist had been detained, leading to charges of blatant partiality. Faulkner recorded that Maudling had said to him, ‘Lift some Protestants if you can’, a remark which if accurately reported reveals much cynicism but also some grasp of public relations considerations. The failure to use internment against loyalists seemed to many to confirm that it was as much a political device as a security measure. Sir John Peck, then British ambassador to Dublin, wrote later: ‘Internment attacked the Catholic community as a whole. What was worse, it was directed solely against the Catholics, although there were many Protestants who provided just as strong grounds for internment.’ The mood across the Catholic and nationalist community was thus one of communal outrage against a measure they viewed as the essence of injustice. In physical terms many Catholic working-class areas of Belfast were for months afterwards convulsed by gun battles and killings on the streets, while thousands of homes were searched by the army. In 1971 more than 170 people were killed; a further 2,600 were injured and 17,000 homes were searched. Unsurprisingly, there was massive alienation from authority. To the outside world internment might be seen as a response to IRA violence, but many Catholics in areas such as west Belfast regarded IRA activity as a response to violence from the authorities.

• English page 139 During the first twenty-four hours, 342 people were arrested by the Army and police. Fewer than a hundred of them were either Provisional or Official IRA Volunteers.

• English page 140 The initial swoops were on republicans (although loyalists were later interned), and this one-sidedness was one of the features which enraged Catholics in the north . . . The effect on the Catholic community was certainly to strengthen resistance to the government and to unite the Catholic people in opposition to the authorities . . . it remains clear that internment helped to invigorate that which it had been intended by the authorities to uproot.

• English pages 140-141 Condemnations of internment have been extensive. William Whitelaw . . . observed that "The introduction of internment was predictably followed by heavy rioting during which twenty-one people were killed in three days. Thereafter internment did nothing to stem the deterioration in the situation. On the contrary, it remained a source of discontent and a spur to more violence.’ Military judgments tend to be similar. ‘Internment was a political disaster, nor was it particularly effective in military terms’

• English page 141 There is, however, no doubting that internment confirmed a widespread Catholic rejection of the unionist government and that it thus helped to undermine Stormont rather than strengthen it. During the pre-internment period of 1971 (up to 9 August) the Provisionals killed ten British soldiers; during the remaining months of the year they killed thirty. For many Catholics, internment confirmed what their experiences had up until that point been suggesting. One Belfast woman, explaining why she joined the IRA, referred to having experienced loyalist intimidation, then British Army raids – and then to having witnessed internment: ‘I felt I’d no other option but to join after that. That’s when it became crystal clear to me that the Brits were here to suppress the Catholic minority, and for no other reason.

• Moloney pages 101-102 Internment was a triumph for the IRA in political terms as well, not least because it had been introduced in such a completely one-sided way that its effect was to enormously increase nationalist alienation on both sides of the Border. Although loyalist violence was also growing, the operation was directed solely against republicans, and even then political activists who were in no way associated with the IRA, student civil rights leaders, for instance, were included in the swoop. In Dublin the prime minister, Jack Lynch, had been toying with the notion of introducing the measure in tandem with Faulkner but the one-sided nature of the Northern operation meant he had little choice but to abandon the idea . . . Internment also pushed the levels of violence to record heights. Sectarian rioting flared across the city, driving up to seven thousand Catholics and two thousand Protestants from their homes, while for several days fierce gun battles raged . . . The figures spoke for themselves. In the whole seven months up to August 9, 34 people had been killed in conflict-related incidents, but in just three days following internment 22 people died violently. The death rate continued at a high level afterward; a further 118 were to die during the rest of the year, an average of nearly one a day . . . There was little doubt that internment had exacerbated the violence . . . The consequent alienation and anger in the Nationalist community took two catastrophic forms. Scores of young men and women, eager to strike back, flocked to the IRA, while older and more moderate nationalists registered their disgust by resigning from public positions. At Stormont, the nationalist opposition party, a pro-reform coalition called the Social Democratic and Labour Party, or SDLP, had already withdrawn in protest against British security policy, but now its leaders announced plans to establish a rival parliament. Internment had united Northern Catholics against the state in a way nothing else had done since 1921. It also soiled Britain’s name abroad and brought protests from respected human rights activists and intellectuals. Special interrogation methods used against twelve of those arrested landed Britain in the European Court of Human Rights, accused by the Republic of Ireland’s government of breaching the human rights charter and found guilty, the first of many occasions in which events in Northern Ireland would see an embarrassed British government carpeted at the international tribunal.

• Moloney page 103 The effect of all this was to antagonize a broad swath of rural Catholics and to energize the IRA outside Belfast, in Counties Tyrone, Armagh, and Fermanagh in particular, where new units, battalions, and brigades of Provisionals were formed or expanded . . . Internment enlarged the IRA into a six-county-wide army and transformed it into a force that could now seriously challenge British rule in Northern Ireland.

• Taylor (Provos) page 93 Faulker had pushed hard for the controversial panacea and finally got it, but internment proved to be a disaster . . . Internment was entirely one-sided. No Protestants were lifted . . . In the two days following internment, seventeen people died.

• Taylor (Brits) page 67 Three hundred and forty-two republican suspects were arrested and, critically, not one Protestant. There were no Protestant names on the Special Branch list despite the fact that the loyalist Ulster Volunteer Force had been active, although not on a scale comparable with the IRA. Farrar-Hockley offers a simple explanation. 'It was a reflection of the fact that at many levels and in many branches in those days within the Royal Ulster Constabulary there were many people were were partial to one extent or another, in many cases, to a considerable extent. I hasten to say that that was not true at the top level.' In other words, many rank-and-file members of the RUC saw themselves as being on the same side as the Protestants. Internment, as nationalists justifiably pointed out, was entirely one-sided. Any credible claim that the 'Brits' still had to being even-handed was shattered in the small hours of that morning.

• Matchett page 126 A former SB detective states . . . We were not fully prepared and it was too one-sided. Yes, we all knew the Provos were now the major threat and the Officials were still there, or thereabouts, but it was really important to also deal with the loyalists, even though it was a much smaller threat, and more importantly to show nationalists that we were dealing with it

As can be seen by all the references provided by Carefulacts, they are unanimous in that internment was a disaster that was applied in a one-sided way. Other than Matchett who deals with the ECHR in one sentence where he manages to misrepresent what they said, not one reference covers the ECHR other than the torture/inhumane/degrading treatment aspect of the case (for the sake of brevity I have not included those quotes as well, but can if necessary). The attempt to construct a narrative where the one-sided nature of internment was somehow justified and correct is not one supported by references, this appears to be a narrative created by Carefulacts. FDW777 (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Matchett also says that internment was a disaster and was one-sided, he also said that Special Branch briefed against the introduction of internment. Unlike the other commentators however, Matchett also points out that the the ECHR ruled that internment was not discriminatory. Something can be one-sided but not discriminatory, in this case the court ruled that the reasons for targeting the IRA was justified. --Carefulacts (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

Regarding FDW77 comments on discrimination:

Below are other quotes from the ECHR judgement on the issue of discrimination. It is clear that the Court did not believe internment was applied in a manner which discriminated.

Page 55: "242. With regard to Article 14 taken together with Articles 15, 5 and 6 (art. 14+15, art. 14+5, art. 14+6), the applicant Government do not challenge the legislation as such. Moreover, it did not introduce, direct or authorise any discrimination in the exercise of the extrajudicial powers. The claim concerns only the legislation’s application, in respect of which the Court has not found any violation (see paragraphs 228-232 and 235 above)."

Page 56: "15. holds by fifteen votes to two that no discrimination contrary to Articles 14 and 5 (art. 14+5) taken together is established;"

Page 56 again: "17. holds by fifteen votes to two that no discrimination contrary to Articles 14 and 6 (art. 14+6) taken together, assuming the latter Article (art. 6) to be applicable in the present case, is established;

--Carefulacts (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will copy some text from my reply below. The unanimous viewpoint among reliable sources regarding internment is that it was a disaster, largely due to it being carried out in a wholly one-sided way, and whether it was legally discriminatory according to a particular piece of human rights legislation is of no relevance. Attempting to create a narrative that says otherwise by the use of a primary source is creating a fringe theory. You may wish to read Operation Demetrius#Operation and immediate aftermath and Operation Demetrius#Long-term effects, or what your own references say on the subject while I helpfully collated for you at #14 April changes. I don't like to speculate as to why all the references ignore one particular part of the ECHR ruling, but I would hazard an informed guess that it is because a 1978 (I don't know if it was covered in the 1976 ruling, the same argument applies to both dates) court judgement is almost completely irrelevant to the effects that internment had. A 1978 ECHR ruling could not put the genie back in the bottle, as the bottle had been completely smashed to pieces years before. FDW777 (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I don't disagree with a great bulk of that except for one thing. The ECHR judgement is relevant, it was taken by a panel of legal experts. In their expert opinion internment did not beach Article 14 of the European Charter of Human Rights. This matters.

--Carefulacts (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

Regarding FDW777 comments on the McGuirk bar incident in the ECHR report. You are correct, that sentence is not accurate - but how is this relevant to the statistics I introduced?

The statistics that I referenced on bombings, killings, and injuries occurred 6 months before the McGuirk bar bombing and before the introduction of internment. That is why it is in the background section.

The statistics I cited tally with accounts from other sources, including the ECHR judgement, Peter Taylor and Ed Moloney. These can be further verified by the work on the cain archives.

Furthermore Operation Demetrius was the operation to introduce internment on the 9th and 10th of August, it does not refer to the entire period which internment was applied in Northern Ireland.

--Carefulacts (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's lies, damned lies, and statistics. Several of your own references (McKittrick although there were many Protestants who provided just as strong grounds for internment, Moloney Although loyalist violence was also growing and Taylor despite the fact that the loyalist Ulster Volunteer Force had been active) pointing out that loyalists were active, and increasingly so according to Moloney. My view is that you are attempting to frame the violence solely at the door of republicans in order to advance a fringe theory that internment was a good idea. I said in my reply I have also removed the paragraph about the frequency of IRA attacks, although I believe something similar could be added back when it does not misrepresent the references and downplay the severity of loyalist violence, so I am not against the information being added just not in the way you added it. Therefore insisting I revert to your preferred version is pointless. FDW777 (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, there is no doubt that the widespread view is that Loyalists should have been interned at the very least sooner. However, the ECHR judgement is also clear that despite the one-sided nature of internment, it was not implemented in a way that breached Article 14 - which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion or political opinion. The Court accepted that the IRA were the target because they were responsible for the "very great" majority of violence in the run up to the 9th of August, they were not interned because they were Catholic or Nationalist.

--Carefulacts (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

Regarding FDW777 10 references on internments

This narrative is already in the article. Notice I have not removed any of the article which mentions the one-sided nature of internment, or it being a general failure. I did not remove it because it accurately reflects not only nationalist opinion, but the opinion of many historians and commentators.

What I have done is to include three themes that this article omits;

1) key background information on the number of offences leading up to internment and by which organisations;

2) How this motivated the British and Unionist government to introduce internment;

3) The judgement by the ECHR on whether internment was discriminatory.

It is not cherry picking to include these facts and viewpoints which for some reason have been omitted. To not include them is a breach of wikipedia's code on neutrality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

--Carefulacts (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is my view the information, as it was presented, was advancing a fringe theory. I said I may be happy for the information to be added in some form, you seem to have ignored this part of my reply completely.

2. This theme is not omitted. It was in the article before you edited it, it is still in the article now.

3. Already addressed multiple times, I will again rebut it. The unanimous viewpoint among reliable sources regarding internment is that it was a disaster, largely due to it being carried out in a wholly one-sided way, and whether it was legally discriminatory according to a particular piece of human rights legislation is of no relevance. Attempting to create a narrative that says otherwise by selective quoting of books while ignoring their broader point is creating a fringe theory. You may wish to read Operation Demetrius#Operation and immediate aftermath and Operation Demetrius#Long-term effects, or what your own references say on the subject while I helpfully collated for you at #14 April changes. I don't like to speculate as to why all the references ignore one particular part of the ECHR ruling, but I would hazard an informed guess that it is because a 1978 (I don't know if it was covered in the 1976 ruling, the same argument applies to both dates) court judgement is almost completely irrelevant to the effects that internment had. A 1978 ECHR ruling could not put the genie back in the bottle, as the bottle had been completely smashed to pieces years before.

Neutrality does not mandate the inclusion of fringe theories unsupported by references, the opposite in fact. FDW777 (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. Can you list what information you would include in the article?

2. The motive to prevent the so called "Loyalist backlash" was not in the article.

3. I agree with you. The vast majority of opinion is that internment was one-sided, that loyalists should have been interned sooner, and that overall it made things worse is nearly unanimous. I've made no claim contrary to that. However, the fact is that the ECHR ruled that the implementation of internment, albeit one-sided, was not discriminatory on the basis of religion or political opinion (Article 14 of the EU convention). The Court made this judgement regardless of whether they deemed internment to have been a success or not. It is completely relevant.

Perhaps you can flesh out what statistics you would include in the article to see if we have any common ground there. --Carefulacts (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

Page 15 of CASE OF IRELAND v. THE UNITED KINGDOM reads At the beginning of February 1973, a British soldier was shot dead in a Protestant part of Belfast. Shortly afterwards, on 5 February 1973, two interim custody orders were made in respect of Loyalists. These two men were the first Loyalists against whom the extrajudicial powers were exercised. CAIN cross tables state 117 people were killed by loyalists in 1971. I'm guessing nobody would think it appropriate to cherry-pick the quote from page 15 and point out loyalists were only interned after killing a British soldier, despite loyalists killing 117 people the year before. FDW777 (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

What is the relevance of this to the edits I have made? The changes that I made to this article includes information leading up to internment, the motivation of the British / Unionist government, and the ruling of the ECHR. To omit these views is in breach of wikipedia neutrality rules which state: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."[3]"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

I would also like to make a separate point. When I previously brought up the use of the cain archive you claimed that it was original research - yet here you are conducting what looks like original research by the standard you ask of others.

--Carefulacts (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You cherry picked information from that court judgement, so did I. I was not actually planning to use CAIN as a reference for any planned edit, I was simply using it for ease while discussing. Despite 1972 being widely known as the bloodiest year of the Troubles, I could not quickly find a reference for how many people were killed by loyalists that year, and how many of them were civilians. I have no doubt I could if I needed do, but since I didn't actually plan to make the edit I didn't see the need to waste time finding a reference for an edit I have no intention of making.

As for your point about neutrality, you seem be ignoring the part are being published by reliable sources, you may wish to read WP:SOURCES. As I have pointed out, the court document is a primary source. As I have also pointed out, the unanimous viewpoint among reliable sources regarding internment is that it was a disaster, largely due to it being carried out in a wholly one-sided way, and whether it was legally discriminatory according to a particular piece of human rights legislation is of no relevance. Attempting to create a narrative that says otherwise by selective quoting of books while ignoring their broader point is creating a fringe theory. You may wish to read Operation Demetrius#Operation and immediate aftermath and Operation Demetrius#Long-term effects, or what your own references say on the subject while I helpfully collated for you at #14 April changes. I don't like to speculate as to why all the references ignore one particular part of the ECHR ruling, but I would hazard an informed guess that it is because a 1978 (I don't know if it was covered in the 1976 ruling, the same argument applies to both dates) court judgement is almost completely irrelevant to the effects that internment had. A 1978 ECHR ruling could not put the genie back in the bottle, as the bottle had been completely smashed to pieces years before. FDW777 (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The ECHR is a primary document, it states that it did not consider internment discriminatory - contrary to what you have claim. This is referenced by William Matchett. Therefore I have included both a primary and secondary source for that information. The statistics on the levels of violence can the run up to internment an also be found in William Matchett, Peter Taylor and Ed Moloney. All of which are reputable. Again, I provided multiple sources for that information and quoted some of it above. I made no comment or any amendment on the one-sided nature of internment other than what the government said and the ECHR accepted. Nor did I say whether it was a good or bad thing.--Carefulacts (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to my points above, made repeatedly and at length. You persistently ignore the broader points all your references make and cherry-pick from each to construct a narrative which effectively says "Aha, but don't forget though in 1978 the ECHR said internment wasn't discriminatory" even though the article never says it was to begin with. You're offering a counter-point to a point that isn't even made in the article. It's a completely irrelevant counter-point, because even if it wasn't legally discriminatory according to a specific piece of human rights legislation it was still completely one-sided, and it dramatically increased violence on both sides, increased support and recruitment for the IRA, caused the collapse of the Stormont government and completely alienated the Catholic population of Northern Ireland and the Republic as well for that matter. FDW777 (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, something being one-side does not mean it was discriminatory in nature. The ECHR ruled that despite the one-side nature of internment, it was ultimately not discriminatory in nature as regulated by Article 14 of the EU Convention of Human Rights. I'm not disputing any of the broader points about the one-sided nature of internment, or whether it was a success. I am simply laying out the facts - the ECHR ruled it was not discriminatory. Meaning the expert panel of judges ruled that there were just reasons to target the IRA alone.--Carefulacts (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carefulacts reached out to me to review this again. I see my recommendations were fully ignored. Looks like the user just now made some sloppy subheadings (not sections) and did not heed the advice of how to approach this issue. Carefulacts, if you are going seek neutral, outside help then you should actually follow the advice given. You can not just do as you wish and hope for a different result. FDW777's reverts of your edits is completely warranted since you have not taken the appropriate steps to actually follow very simple and fair recommendations on how to forward your arguments. Carefulacts, you also need to properly sign your posts with four tildas. The lack of signatures makes your arguments even harder to follow. I would highly advise not continuing to attempt to edit the article until you've actually followed the previous third opinion advice and have received CONSENSUS to make changes. The way Wikipedia works is to make a change, if that change is reverted, then discuss it on the talk page. Then, if and when consensus is gained, it can be added back. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

Dear Sulfurboy

I have added my signature to the above comments - apologies as I didn't know it was a requirement. I have also added the changes which I originally made to the talk section above on April the 14th, once again apologies - I thought in your original post that I should make changes to the article.

I realise that there is a process that guides how changes are made on wikipedia, which as a relatively new editor I am not entirely familiar with. It will come with time.

However, the fundamental issue is that FDW777 believes that the information that I am seeking to I am include is 'cherry picked' and 'complete misrepresentation' of what the sources I cite - therefore it should not be included in the article. If it is not for the third party to judge the merits of those arguments where should I seek recourse.

Thanks --Carefulacts (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carefulacts, You did seek recourse and you are still continuing to ignore the advice given. That's the "fundamental issue". Also, stop putting ref tags around links in talk page discussions. It breaks the page and lists all the references at the bottom. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sulfurboy, I am following the advice that you have suggested. There can be no consensus when two people disagree. If you aren't willing to provide further input then it will remain deadlocked until a third party steps up and makes a call on the merits.--Carefulacts (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carefulacts, I think it's starting to become clear that you are only really seeking input from someone that will agree with you. I provided a solution to better frame your arguments which you put very little effort into implementing. You've also put virtually no effort into tidying up the mess that you've made of this talk page (unorthdox headings/sections/broken ref tags scattered at the bottom of the page). It's going to be hard for anyone to take your arguments seriously until you start to take yourself and your posts seriously. Also, you again should be reminded that Wikipedia is at times a slow process, particularly for articles that are about established subjects that aren't subject to much updating via current events. This article has been around for 15 years and you are proposing many scattered, but major overhauls. Waiting a few days or even a few weeks for another interested party to come by the talk page is completely reasonable. Until then, I would highly advise again to create concise and clear sections for each argument and cease attempting to add information to the article that you know will be challenged, as that can be broadly construed as edit warring. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carefulacts you appear to fundamentally misunderstand how Wikipedia works. Nobody is going to come along and say one person is right and the other is wrong and the article will be changed and that's the end of the situation. I have given many specific objections to your changes, pointing out you are ignoring the broader points the references you provided make. You have largely ignored this completely and insisted your changes are correct and I should revert to your version. I strongly suggest you take my objections into account and make new proposals. FDW777 (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FDW777, some of the points you have raised amount to shadow boxing. Despite what you seem to think, I'm not you fighting on a range of issues you brought up. For example. I am not disputing that internment was one-sided or a disaster, nor am I asking that any reference to that be edited out. On this particular issue, all I have sought to point out are the facts - what the European Court of Human Rights ruled on this matter. I happen to think that matters a lot.--Carefulacts (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sulfurboy, I made sure to discuss what I had in mind before editing the document. In nearly 4 weeks I have made only one edit to the article and nothing since then. I don't think anyone can accuse me of engaging in edit wars. I went as far as to consult a third opinion to judge the merits of the issues I have raised before making an edit. I have been implementing your suggestions - i) I've put the text I've proposed in the talk section, ii) I have added my signature to my edits, iii) I have attempted to significantly clean up my entries. The only thing I have not done is remove the references - because FDW777 has asked that I provide them in the first place. I am happy to continue waiting.--Carefulacts (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than continue to have the same circular discussions in different sections, this can be considered my reply to all sections. I still consider your changes to promote a fringe theory unsupported by references. Your original post at #6 major additions required for balance. makes it clear, to me, that you are attempting to introduce material sympathetic to the Unionist and/or British government to mitigate internment, when references are unanimous that one-sided internment was a disaster that made a bad situation infinitely worse. FDW777 (talk) 12:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]