Talk:Loughgall ambush

Long overdue article

Good Job, Asarlaí. This incident deserved an article of its own.--Darius (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. ~Asarlaí 09:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Number of Volunteers

Nowhere has there been proof that the unit contained only 8 members. In fact, in a statement in An Phoblacht/Republican News dated the 14 May 1987, the IRA states that a number of it's volunteers shot their way out of the ambush and escaped. It went on to claim that one of those volunteers saw a captured comrade being shot while lying injured on the ground. The statement is referenced here: http://www.lib.unb.ca/Texts/JCS/CQ/vol010_3summer1990/wright.pdf --Baldeadly (talk) 04:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, because An Phoblacht is a really reliable source, isn't it? There were only eight of the bastards in the gang and they were all killed.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You know that the editor who posted this comment did it back in March 2010 and has been inactive since February 2012? Though you might want to refrain from using "bastards" and other colourful adjectives (no matter how applicable), civility and all that - only serves to be used as evidence against an editor of POV pushing. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

36 SAS

How can this be reported as fact? What is the source of the Guardian? The Irish Times reports the number being 24. What is their source? This is the problem with Wiki, any report on any online site is used as a credible source, no matter how dodgy. Hmm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.193.117 (talk) 03:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The figure of 24, sourced to the ECHR proceedings, is probably wrong. Mark Urban, in Big Boys' Rules: The SAS and the Secret Struggle Against the IRA, Faber, London, 1992, ISBN 0-571-16809-4, p.228, states:- 'Commanders decided that the twenty-four SAS soldiers stationed in Ulster were insufficient for this task, so 22 SAS headquarters in Hereford was alerted. A troop of about fifteen soldiers from G Squadron was flown over from Britain to boost the forces in Ulster.' This would give a maximum of perhaps 39, but the exact number is not known. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Ambush?

It seems odd to use "ambush" to describe this incident, particularly as it occurred during an attack launched by the "ambushed". "Ambush" typically describes the attacker lying in wait, not responding to an attack by the other side. If there is some peculiar reason to use the term, it should be explained. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

It is commonly referred to as such, and if you look at it it was an ambush in almost everyway. The SAS where lying in wait to attack the attackers. Mabuska ^(talk) 09:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Piledhigheranddeeper:,@Mabuska:This article should be re titled. For example Loughgall RUC station bombing. It was a bombing. Or Loughgall RUC station attack. Other article examples are Attack on RUC Birches barracks and Glenanne barracks bombing. The SAS responded to an attack on a RUC station.--Melbguy05 (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

It is commonly referred to by this name by both unionist and nationalist media amongst other sources. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

1. Most newspaper articles use ambush WP:COMMONNAME, however, these seem to be nationalist sources WP:ADVOCACY. Loughgall attack is used by media. 2. WP:TITLE "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' title". Ballygawley was a similar military/terrorist attack that article is titled Attack on Ballygawley barracks and also Birches which is titled Attack on RUC Birches barracks. I propose that article be re-titled to Loughgall RUC station attack or Attack on Loughgall RUC station. Station or barracks. The bombing/attack preceded the counter attack by the SAS (described commonly as an ambush by nationalist sources).--Melbguy05 (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Is the News Letter and Belfast Telegraph or even the Guardian naionalist newspapers? Also how about [1]? Is this site dedicated to the SAS nationalist? You claim only nationalist sources use the term ambush but this is clearly not the case. An ambush is an ambush whether or not the targets where about to do their own. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

This case is not notable because a RUC barracks was blown up but because the SAS ambushed the attackers. The Banner talk 16:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The Collins dictionary definition of ambush "the act of waiting in a concealed position in order to launch a surprise attack". The SAS positioned in the station were not concealed and it should of been no surprise for the IRA to expect opposition, although normally three regular RUC officers, therefore that was not an ambush. However, the five SAS positions around the station were concealed in woods and they did not identify themselves/challenge so it was a surprise for them to engage the IRA therefore an ambush. The IRA attack whilst a surprise was not from a concealed position and did not lie in wait therefore was not an ambush. I withdraw suggestion to re-title.--Melbguy05 (talk) 12:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. The term ambush doesn't have to have a negative meaning, indeed it was great to see the IRA unit taken out in such a way that they were so fond of doing themselves. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit warring

Whilst Melbguy05 seems to be unaware of the Troubles restrictions whereas The Banner definitely knows of them, I find it odd for The Banner especially with their block history to engage in such an edit-war without any form of proper discussion especially when the edits they are objecting too are 1) an improvement to the article; 2) reliably sourced such as the European Commission on Human Rights, unlike some of the ones they have restored such as the Guardian newspaper or other statements that are not sourced at all!

Obviously there are POV issues in play here and Loughgall remains a propaganda battlefield for republicans, however The Banner has provided no viable reasoning as far as I can see for the reverting of Melbguy05's edits, which are all reliably sourced. Obviously both are guilty of edit-warring, however only The Banner as far as I am aware knows of the Troubles restrictions. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Going back to 2015 to find a stick? And assuming bad faith by immediately referring to my naughty past? Good heavens. It are two different edits. The Banner talk 21:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I welcome any discussion on my recent edits if there are factual disputes. Regards,--Melbguy05 (talk) 06:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

So despite continually objecting to Melbguy05's edits on what appear to be flimsy grounds you have nothing tomadd to the main issue altogether? And on bad faith, is your recent labelling of Melbguy05 as a whitewasher and POV pusher not the same? Mabuska ^(talk) 09:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Loughgall ambush. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111217073954/http://www.psni.police.uk/property_sold.pdf to http://www.psni.police.uk/property_sold.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091016003710/http://www.shanemacgowan.com/lyrics/streets.shtml to http://www.shanemacgowan.com/lyrics/streets.shtml
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://openlyrics.org/charlie-and-the-bhoys/lyric/loughgall-ambush/258267.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)