Talk:Miami Showband killings

Perpetrators, and other matters

Weggie has removed my addition of 'British Security Forces' as perpetrators, without explanation. I can see this leading to further debate. There is a question of consistency to be established. If the British security forces are not to be included here, but only their subordinates, the UVF, are (this fact of security force direction is well documented at this stage), then the Kinsgmill page needs to be amended also. In addition, why is it the Miami Showband 'killings', but the Kingsmill 'massacre'? There is inconsistency here also - either both should be described as 'killings' or both as a 'massacre'. The usual parlance is 'Miami Showband massacre'.

Nomath 11:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Equating the UVF as a 'subordinate' to the British security services' is a biased statement and entirely POV. No ones disputes that the UDR was infiltrated by the UVF but to try and say this was a sanctioned attack is unproven and seriously POV. The systemic bias that is being shown here is wholly against the principles of Wikipedia. Weggie 11:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Robert Nairac was involved. There is irrational resistance here to perfectly well established evidence. I will come back to this. BTW, what about the RUC (McCaughey, Weir) Weggie? - RUC and UDR were both British security forces.

Nomath 14:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The perpetrators were wearing british uniforms and quite happy to do so. Therefore it was the British occupying force that was the perpetrator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.176.206 (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Stepthen Travers has just written a book about that tragic night. In it he insists that there was a British officer present overseeing the entire operation. He assumes the officer to have been Nairac.--jeanne (talk) 06:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Travers claims in his book that the checkpoint was not bogus, but a regular roadblock with uniformed UDR soldiers. He claims that when told to get out of the minibus, the soldiers were in a jocular humour, having a bit of craic with the band members. But suddenly a car pulled up, a very fit-looking man appeared on the scene who spoke with a crisp English accent. By his stance and authorative demeanor, Travers immediatly assumed he was a British Army officer. In fact, upon his arrival, the whole atmosphere boleyn|talk]]) 06:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

UVF is too vague

The perpetrators were specifically from the Mid-Ulster brigade of the UVF, run at the time by Robin Jackson, who allegedly had links with British Intelligence and Robert Nairac. The article needs to state this.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources to support it, go ahead. I've been meaning to add more sources myself. ~Asarlaí 16:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Just did. How does it look? I included an external link which gives the information on Jackson having been the Mid-Ulster brigade's commander at the time.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Good job. I just tweaked a few things. ~Asarlaí 16:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I felt the info needed to be added.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

British Army officer

Stephen Travers has never claimed that the British officer in charge on the night was Robert Nairac. He has makes it clear that he does not know who the officer was. Others have assumed that it was Nairac but Stephen makes it clear that he does not know the identity of the British officer. A subsequent newspaper article stated incorrectly that he identified the officer as Nairac. He simply states that the operation was commanded by a British officer. Three members of The Miami Showband, Brian McCoy, Stephen Travers and Des Lee felt more at ease when the English officer arrived and took charge. Brian McCoy reassured the new bass player that everything was ok now that the British army had taken charge charge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galyuta (talk • contribs) 20:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Brian McCoy had presumed (falsely) from the start that the patrol was regular Army and not the UDR. The article makes it clear that Travers was unsure about Nairac having been present.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Galyuta, please do not remove sourced information from the article. It took me an hour to fix the page this morning, as refs were also messed up. Another thing, don't sign your name to the article. Last night I had assumed you were a vandal-now I realise you were acting in good faith. I do happen to agree with you about Brian McCoy as he could not have presumed they were regular Army when seeing the red torch, especially as the soldiers would have been wearing their distinctive Maid of Erin UDR berets. McCoy had just presumed it was a legitimate checkpoint when he pulled over. I have, therefore moved up the text which details the arrival of the soldier with the "crisp English accent" to the Bogus checkpoint section, and I also added that Brian McCoy reassured Travers that the soldiers were British Army and not the UDR after the arrival of the mysterious Englishman. Of course, the UDR was a regiment of the British Army. We can only presume that what McCoy had been implying to Travers was that the patrol was under the auspices of the regular Army and not the UDR, although it would be Original Research to extrapolate this presumption in the article. I also need to point out that not ALL the UVF gunmen at the scene were UDR. Robin Jackson who has been implicated as the main perpetrator was no longer a member of the UDR, therefore it would be incorrect to state that all of them were UDR. Next time you wish to remove sourced information discuss it here on the talk page before taking it out of the article. Remember when adding information to articles, you need to cite a reliable source to back up your addition.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Images

Main image caption

The image is perfect for the article, however, the caption needs to specify on which side of the road the killings took place. Seeing as one member was blown into a ditch, I take it the massacre occurred just behind the roadsign.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Going by these pictures it seems the minibus was parked on the layby (behind the roadsign), although in the second pic it looks like its on the road (or maybe that's just me). ~Asarlaí 16:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Half was on the layby, and the other half on the road. The van was probably originally fully parked on the layby, but the force of the blast moved part of it onto the road. The second photo was shot from a different angle than the first. I think we can safely say in the caption that the killings took place on the left hand side of the road.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Image of band

Can we upload a non-free image of the group and claim fair use? I believe we can meet all the requirements.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure we could. What picture have you got in mind? ~Asarlaí 10:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I like the one taken in 1975, which was one of their last.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Here it is: [1]--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. Go for it. ~Asarlaí 11:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I just did it. If you think it should be moved to another section, go ahead.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Image of the minibus

Could we add a picture of the type of minibus they were traveling in? I assume it's one of these, but I'll need more info before I start hunting for a picture. ~Asarlaí 16:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. Here is a documentary from YouTube that shows the type of minibus: [2]. I hope this links up.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Ach I should've thought of checking YouTube. I even watched that program when it was on. Anyway, I've added a picture now. ~Asarlaí 17:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. I just reduced the size so it matches that of the group. Oh, I wonder if the minibus depicted in that programme was the actual colour?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

They used the same registration plates, so it might well be. ~Asarlaí 18:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason I ask is that I don't want readers to think a white minibus was used. How would you describe the colour of the van in the film? Mustard yellow?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The same colour as this one. I chose the picture of the white minibus because it gives a good view of the back and side, but if you'd rather use another I'm fine with that :-) ~Asarlaí 18:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the image you chose is fine. It looks more vintage than the yellow one. I'll try to find out what colour their bus was and I'll just add it to the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Images of the weapons

Asarlaí, do you think you could locate an image of the 9mm Luger and the Stering subs used in the attack? I think they'd look well in the Shootings section. Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd thought about doing that. I doubt we'd be able to find pictures of the actual guns, but there are pictures of the same types of guns here and here. What do you think? ~Asarlaí 12:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Perfect. It's highly unlikely that any photos exist of the actual Luger that was used seeing as the RUC destroyed it in 1978.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Loyalist forces?

This sounds odd. I think the wording should be changed to loyalist paramilitaries as loyalist forces implies that all the security forces of Northern Ireland were part of the plot.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done ~Asarlaí 02:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Great. It looks much better now. Loyalist forces implied that all the members of the RUC, UDR, etc were implicated in the killings which is patently contradicted by the fact of Des McAlea having allerted the RUC at Newry who immediately went to the site and brought Travers to hospital.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

On a side-note, could we write more about what the loyalists hoped to achieve (aside from "killing a few taigs")? Had their plan worked, it would've certainly been a blow to the Irish showband scene, but I'm not sure how it would've embarassed the Irish government. ~Asarlaí 09:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the plan was more Byzantine than that. I think the Glenanne gang not only wished to embarass the Irish government, but to use the transportation of bombs by the band as justification for their attacks against the Nationalist community as well as further attacks in the south, with this "piece of evidence" that all "Irish Catholics (north and south) supported the IRA". Had the plan come to fruition, I am convinced there would have been more UVF/Glenanne gang bombs planted in the south. I also find it a coincidence that Brian McCoy, a Protestant from Tyrone was the first band member killed (by a Luger, possibly fired by Jackson, himself a Protestant originally from Tyrone).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Nairac

I think the article should point out that Nairac, had he been present at the scene, would have most likely adopted a fake Irish accent as had been his wont, rather than his own "crisp, English accent". The English accent could have belonged to someone else in the 14th Intelligence with whom Jackson and the Mid-Uster UVF had links.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

That may be true but we shouldn't speculate. ~Asarlaí 02:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not my speculation. Martin Dillon dismisses the suggestion that Nairac was at the scene of the Miami killings. I agree, however, that it should remain in the article as Travers himself believes the man to have been Nairac. It should be added that Travers was present when the attack occured, whereas Dillon was not. Dillon was basing his assumption on the mistaken identity of the Star pistol. The Barron REport established that Mc Coy was shot by a Luger-the same which was used in the Green and O'Dowd shootings. Officer John Weir named Robin Jackson as having been the gunman in both those killings. It's possible Nairac was at Buskhill directing the operation, but Jackson could very well have been the man who shot Brian McCoy with the Luger.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Number of gunmen involved

 Done We need to find a good source to establish the number of UVF gunmen involved. I have seen the number given as anywhere from 7 to 10. Let's see this includes Harris Boyle and Wesley Somerville, plus Crozier, McDowell, Somerville, the mysterious Englishman, Robin Jackson. I think we should say at least 7 men were present. It's highly unlikely more than ten were involved. I'd say 6 were initially at the checkpoint with the Englishman (Nairac?) arriving to make it 7. What do you think?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. ~Asarlaí 09:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I cannot find the source. I was reading about the number of gunmen just the other day, but I haven't been able to locate it again.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Eureka!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Bomb to explode in Irish Republic?

This part does not fall into place. How could the security forces possibly convince people the IRA would transport a device to blow up in the Republic? It's more likely the bomb was meant to explode in Newry. The Englishman's plan behind taking down the bandmembers' names and DOBs was obviously to put them on a list of suspected terrorists.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have found a source which says the bomb was meant to go off in Newry. I have added it to the article with ref.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Miami Showband's own article?

Resolved

Considering their long-time popularity in Ireland for many years prior to their killing, I feel they deserve their own article, showing all the different line-ups.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

They now have their own article!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There should be a background section in article

I think that after the massacre section there should be a background section relating the history of the band as well as the political situation in Northern Ireland at the time of the attack, in order to provide historical context. What do the other editors think about my suggestion?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes a background section would be useful, but it need not be very long. ~Asarlaí 19:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

On a side note, this site explains the origins of the name Buskhill and has a map of the townland. Also, in case you hadn't noticed, the name Buskhill is just one letter away from... Bus Kill... *cue the creepy music*.

You'll have to forgive me, I have an unexplainable interest in placenames of all things :D ~Asarlaí 20:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that's why they set up the bogus checkpoint there. Robin Jackson allegedly had a macabre sense of humour. I agree it's creepy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Travers pushed back into line

Stephen Travers has related how he had gone to the back of the minibus when Somerville and Boyle were planting the bomb as he feared they'd damage his guitar. He recalled how one of them had punched him in the back and roughly pushed him back into the lineup. Should this be included in the article?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The more detail the merrier. ~Asarlaí 19:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Brian McCoy

Resolved

What troubles me by all the accounts of the massacre is how Brian McCoy was convinced that the soldiers were regular British Army and not the UDR? When the mysterious Englishman arrived on the scene, his view appeared to have been reinforced. The only thing I can conclude is that when he pulled over and the soldier approached the bus, McCoy (being from the North and familiar with the UDR) immediately looked for the special UDR insignia on the beret and possibly found it lacking. Perhaps it was this that convinced him, in spite of the men having spoken in Northern Irish accents. The photos of Somerville and Boyle certainly do not resemble regular British Army personnel.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

After perusing the Ulster Defence Regiment article, it appears that they had a special regimental cap badge which was a gold Maid of Erin surmounted by a crown. Had they been wearing these on their berets that night surely McCoy would have recognised them as UDR. Travers never said anything about whether or not they had this badge on their caps.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

This has been resolved by reading Stephen Travers personal account of events (Shared Troubles) that night. Brian McCoy had been convinced it was a legitimate checkpoint when he pulled over; however, he presumed the patrol was under the auspices of the regular British Army only after the officer arrived on the scene. The soldiers had indeed been wearing their UDR berets and all had Northern accents. McCoy could not have believed them to be anything other than UDR until that Englishman in his light-coloured beret appeared and took charge.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ages of McAlea and Millar

Does anyone know the ages of McAlea and Millar at the time of the massacre?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Brian McCoy shot 9 times

All sources say that McCoy was shot nine times by a Luger pistol in the initial gunfire; the Barron Report confirms that a Luger was used to kill him. However, Travers has stated that while he was lying on the ground he heard the gunman who was approaching him kick and then fired a shot at the body of McCoy. A Luger can fire 8 rounds before having to be reloaded so I presume McCoy was hit 8 times in the initial firing and the ninth bullet was received when he was already dead. This alas is OR so we need a source to back this up. Robin Jackson has been linked to that Luger, so it's presumed that Jackson was the gunman who shot McCoy; he would also have been the man Travers said had kicked the bodies and was approaching him to finish him off seeing as McCoy was shot 9 times by the same Luger. Any thoughts or comments? Hopefully Travers book elaborates on this.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Peer review

This peer review has been undertaken at the request of Jeanne boleyn. Congratulations on writing an interesting, informative and well presented article. The referencing would need improving to pass WP:GA. e.g. refs 6 & 7 are probably from here. It needs formating. The Taylor refs should be in the bibliography and referenced to that. As many as possible of the other references should be linked to their web source, so that readers can check for themselves. Biography of The Miami Showband and info on the killings (in External links) is a deadlink. Other than that it should pass. Nevertheless, I have some suggestions to improve it. You are welcome to make the changes, or not. I won't be offended should you not take my advice, which is, after all, only an opinion. I would be happy to clarify or discuss any of the points made.

Intro

• In general, I favour no in-line citations in the Lead section. This is because the Lead is/should be a summary of information contained in the rest of the article, which should (of course) be sufficiently referenced.
• Comment: three of the citations are needed as they source quotations and a description of the attack as a massacre.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Nothing in the Lead should need a reference, as it should be referenced where it appears in the main text. I note that the paragraph "Colin Wills of the Sunday Mirror newspapaper called the attack "one of the worst atrocities in the 30-year history of the Troubles"; while the Irish Times summed up the massacre as "an incident that encapsulated all the madness of the time"." does not appear in the main text, contrary to WP:LEAD. I agree that these authoritative quotes should be part of the Intro. Nevertheless, they should also be in the main text. The Lead, by its very nature, is duplicating information found elsewhere. But that is what summaries do, and the Lead it there to summarise the article. Daicaregos (talk) 06:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done. I have since added both quotes to the Memorials section. Thanks for noting this oversight!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• “which occurred” is unnecessary in the sentence “was a bombing and shooting attack which occurred on … “ and can be deleted.

 Done

• The site of the killings should be defined in the Lead (if that mean it is duplicated in the article text, so be it. Everything in the lead must be contained in the article text). If Buskhill has no article with which to link, narrow it down to something like “Buskhill near foo, County Down” or “Buskill, a village about six miles (10 km) north of Newry, County Down”.

 Done

• In the sentence “Three serving UDR soldiers later received life sentences after having been found guilty of perpetrating the killings.” -change “... perpetrating the killings.” to whatever the offence was of which they were found guilty (murder?).

 Done

Main Text

• Citations: I favour placing citations after punctuation (couldn't find the WP:MOS)
• All refs should follow WP:CITE.
• Access dates should include the year accessed (see examples at Template:Cite web)
• All book refs should note the page number (see examples at Template:Cite book)

The Miami Showband

• No need for the pipelink in the first sentence. “... from their fans on both sides of the Irish border” is unambiguous. Sorry, didn't realise there was no article of that name. So: change the pipelink in the first sentence from “... from their fans on both sides of the Irish border” to “... from their fans on both sides of the Irish border”

 Done

• Change “In late 1974, the Miami Showband's song Clap Your Hands and Stomp Your Feet (featuring O'Toole on lead vocals) was a big hit in Ireland, reaching #8 in the charts.” to “In late 1974, the Miami Showband's song Clap Your Hands and Stomp Your Feet (featuring O'Toole on lead) which reached number eight in the Irish chart. Does Irish charts have a page?

 Done. I'm not sure if there's an article on Irish charts, I'll have to check

See Irish Singles Chart. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Re: Dublin's Portmarnock Country Club - The BBC Style Guide (see False possessives) suggests that that phrasology is “to be avoided at all times."

 Done. It's been altered to read: the Portmarnock Country Club in Dublin

• “They were prepared to travel anywhere in Northern Ireland to perform live for the benefit and pleasure of their fans.” and, presumaby, for a few bob. Best to re-cast, otherwise they sound like potential saints. Also, they didn't restrict themselves to Northern Ireland, did they?

 Done I've rephrased it slightly.

Political situation in Northern Ireland

• “In 1968, the conflict known as "The Troubles" had begun in Northern Ireland.” Not sure of the tense implied here, but it should be saying “The conflict in Northern Ireland, known as "The Troubles", began in 1968.”

 Done

• Re: "On 4 April 1974, the proscription against the UVF had been lifted by Merlyn Rees,Secretary of State for Northern Ireland." Do you know of the relevant article that the "proscription" against the UVF could be pipelinked?

 Done I've pipelinked it to the Ulster Volunteer Force article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• The caption given for the image in this section is at odds to the image.

 Done--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Describing the dead as civilians does not seem NPOV. People would be better.

 Done I've changed it to the precise bandmembers

• "... believed to have been responsible for ... ": weasel words. Best to say by whom, or if anyone claimed responsibility (if believed) "... foo bombed two pubs ...".

 Done

• The sentence "Their fears were partially grounded in fact, as the MI6 officer Michael Oatley was involved in negotiations with a member of the IRA Army Council, during which "structures of disengagement" from Ireland were discussed – this actually meant the possible withdrawal of British troops from Northern Ireland." is far too long. Best to re-cast, breaking it at least once. "actually" is redundant here.

 Done--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Are you sure "Convention" is a proper noun? Can it be linked to an article?

I have changed it to lower case.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done. I have now linked Convention to its proper article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Bogus checkpoint

• "southern Irish-based"? Of course it is difficult to please everyone and to be NPOV. How about "Five members of the Dublin-based band were travelling home after a gig ... "? (btw, "Dublin" should be Wikilinked once, and on first use)

 Done--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Re the: "one soldier with a notebook": did you mean for Thomas Crozier to be redlinked, or in brackets? Currently, it says "[Thomas Crozier] ".

 Done I removed the brackets to avoid confusion--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Allegations against the Jackal need to be defined, i.e. who alleges, who claimed he had links to British Intelligence and who implicated him in car bombings, 100 killings and the murder of Billy Hanna? I appreciate the allegations are referenced, but it should also be explicit in the text.

 Done

• Re: "When the RUC arrived at the site, they found a scene of carnage and destruction: " Of course I understand why you would want to add commentary on the horror, but it is important to be dispassionate and to let the facts speak for themselves. However, if you delete "a scene of carnage and destruction", it will seem even more chilling.

 Done Yes, best to let the cold, hard facts speak for themselves; besides the statement scene of carnage and destruction could be misconstrued as an attempt by the editor to influence the reader. Thanks for pointing this out!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• I found the information about the weapons used needed clarification. That they had been used either before or since these killings could be explained.

 Done I have since added more info about the weapons and the fact that Jackson was charged (but not convicted) after his fingerprints had been found on insulating tape for the silencer which was attached to the Luger.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Aftermath

• "attempted to justify" implies that they didn't. How about just saying something like "Immediately after the attack the UVF leadership issued a statement, under the heading ... "?

 Done

• Some thoughts on William McCrea: that he was a politician does not convey his power and influence – he could have been third or fourth in a local community council election and still be considered a politician. Noting that he was, or became, an MP and an AM shows the depth of support for him (or his platform) in the community/electorate. Could you expand that a little. It may also be interesting to note who succeeded him in his constituency (maybe).

 Done I really don't think we need to elaborate too much on McCrea, as he has his own article. I did add that he was MP for Mid-Ulster but lost his seat in the 1997 general election to Martin McGuiness as you suggested.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Convictions and allegations

• Although implicit by the life sentences, this section should identify explicitly the crime(s) they were found guilty of (and any they were acquitted, if known).

 Done--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Mind having another look Jeanne? " ... for their part in the Miami murders." is not a legal accusation. If the crime of which they were convicted was murder, it should say "[the accused] was convicted of murder."

How does it look now?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Good explanations. Daicaregos (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• " ... having handed down the longest life sentences ... " will need further explanation, for those unfamiliar with that concept.

 Done--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• The Glenanne Gang could be mentioned in the Lead.

 Done--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Is the word "rogue" a quote? If not, it could be considered original research or synthesis, and should be removed.

It's not OR. I used rogue in lieu of the words "bad apples" which were used in the Pat Finucane Centre' article to deescribe these gangmebers from the security forces. I didn't wish to infinge on copyright. I prefer using my own words whenever possible.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Memorials

• Re "... Portadown's Killycomain estate ..." I refer you to false possessives and the BBC style guide above. Also, would estate form part of the name of Killycomain Estate, thereby needing a capital 'E' ?

 Done--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, missed this in the Lead (where it also applies): per WP:UKCOUNTIES#Grammar and layout checklist " "While" should only be used when emphasising that two events occur at the same time, or when emphasising contrast. It shouldn't be used as an additive link. " Best to split the sentence and/or re-cast. Something like: "In a report on Nairac's alleged involvement in the massacre, published in the Sunday Mirror newspaper on 16 May 1999, Colin Wills called the attack "one of the worst atrocities in the 30-year history of the Troubles". Irish Times diarist, Frank McNally, summed up the massacre as "an incident that encapsulated all the madness of the time".

 Done Your rephrasing works beautifully!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. You have a really fine article here. Review ends. Daicaregos (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Your review was thorough, but relatively painless. Thanks a million for your patient assistance, sage advice, astute observations, and wonderful encouragement!! Cheers, Dai.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. Daicaregos (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Bogus checkpoint

I think this subsection is too long. Does anybody else agree with me that it should be broken up with another subsection added: Explosion?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree. As each paragraph in that section deals with separate topics, a subsection "Explosion" could be introduced at the paragraph beginning "Out of sight of the band members ...". Another subsection could be set up for the paragraph beginning "Almost all of the gunmen were indeed British soldiers ... ". Not sure what to call it though. Daicaregos (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that one's easy: Robin Jackson as it focuses entirely upon him.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Why not. We'll have to re-site the images. Daicaregos (talk) 09:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I just added Robin Jackson and the Mid-Ulster UVF. What do you think?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Sums up the subsection well. Daicaregos (talk) 09:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the image of the UDR soldier should stay where it is. Your thoughts?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Daicaregos (talk) 12:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The article now looks more focused. Don't you agree?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It certainly does. Daicaregos (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead

I think the lead pretty much summarises all the key points unless I have missed something. It descibes the band, highlights the dynamics of the incident, the perps, the allegations including Nairac, the convictions, Glenanne gang/Robin Jackson links, plus at the end the quoted summaries by journalists. What do others think?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Overall the lead is good. I read it then read it again, also skimming a few times. I understand the peer review discussion touched on the third paragraph with the quoted summaries, and you made some changes. I am not sure that paragraph should be quite so long though; it is engaging and kept my interest, but I found myself briefly wondering what had happened to the article about the showband killings, "this is not the same article I started reading." If it would be possible to either keep the incident in closer focus in that part of the lead or else revise to shorten the paragraph by a dozen or two words, I would recommend trying to tighten it up. I see how the atmospheric overview relates, but something about the way it develops at that point had me unsure for a moment. Don't worry if you feel such a copy edit unnecessary, it is however a comment I thought I should make. Other than that insight, I again think it is good and agree with the peer review, a well presented piece overall; in fact outstanding. Sswonk (talk) 04:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your insights. I see where you're coming from but considering the massacre was political, the background is needed in the lead. I'm not sure where the paragraph should be tightened up, without it losing the explanation regarding loyalists fears following the IRA/MI6 talks. I think I'll leave the article as it now stands and wait for the comments of the GA reviewer. It's easier to remove text than add it back in. Thanks again for your input and praise, Sswonk. It's a tragic story that needed to be fully, reliably, and truthfully told in an encyclopedia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Miami Showband killings/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: one found and fixed, I hope that is the best target.[3] Jezhotwells (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I aim to post a substantive review within the next 24 hours. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Well written, I made some minor formatting changes.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Accords sufficiently with key elements of the Manual of Style
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Although apparently well referenced, the referencing style is unclear and inconsistent. Where a source, e.g the Barron report 2003 is used more than one, it should be listed in the Bibliography. Then, and only then, summary references such as "67. The Barron Report (2003), p.260" can be used. References such as "Dillon. The Dirty War. p.219. Google Books. Retrieved 13 April 2011" are inadequate. If this is a book, we need the full names of author publisher, year of publication and iSBN number. Google books is not a publisher. It is somewhere one can see parts of a book (sometimes). Ref #34 links to a website of a campaign group (which is not neccessarily a reliable source), which presents archived copies if Irish government reports. This needs to be made clear and the reports themselves linked to as appropriate, with page numbers for the cited statements. Are these reports not available from official sites? This would be preferable. Again the referencing is unclear further down the Barron Report 2003 is linked to by just "The Barron Report (2003), p.260". Is this the same report? "61. ^ a b c Interim Report, p.159" is inadequate. "31. ^ The Miami band lined up against the van. Then they were coldly murdered. The Independent.ie. by Liam Collins. 17 July 2005. Retrieved 16-12-10." If this is meant to conatin a URl to the soutrce, it didn't work. If there is an online source, then link directly to it. If it is an offline book or newspaper then make that clear. Presently the referencing is messy and unclear. Many references are just links with no details of title, author, publisher, date of publication, etc. Also links to Jstor or similar (e.g #79) need full details of publisher, journal title, page number, doi or ocli number, etc. I sugggest a thorough read of WP:CITE and then applying it. Currently this is a definite fail on the extremely poor presentation of references. Done
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Sites such as Shared Troubles, Justice for the Forgotten, Carrick on Suir info do not appear to be RS Done
	2c. it contains no original research.	No OR
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article appears to cover the details well
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No unnecessary trivia
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The artcile is neutral in presentation
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Surpisingly stable for an article with the background of "the troubles"
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Miami showband.jpg (this needs a separate rationale for its use in the manin Miami Showband article); File:11 UDR Inspection.JPG I have nominated this as a possibly unfree file; File:Fountain (04).JPG at the resolution used in the article the tricolour is barely visible. I appreciate how you are trying to illustrate the background section, but this just doesn't work; File:Newtownhamilton PVCP -2.JPG, another scan which I have nominated as possibly unfree; I note that the uploader of the two scans has had a number of other images deleted. Done
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Use and captions are fine
	7. Overall assessment.	OK, on hold for sevne fourteen days (that's 29 April) for above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC) Everything seems to be in order now, so I am happy to list this. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

The source Justice for the Forgotten contains the full text of the Barron Report 2003; Shared Troubles is taken from Travers' autobiography. The Carrick-on-Suir ref I have removed. The statement is actually better suited to the main article than here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, ;et me know when you and Daicaregos are done. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, how are you doing. Shall I take another look yet? Jezhotwells (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes please. Daicaregos (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it's ready for another look. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment There are constant references to the mens UDR association, indeed the article suggests that UDR Sergeant etc etc were convicted of the murders. The men were not acting in any UDR capacity and also were expelled from the organisation so how can we say that UDR soldiers were convicted without clarifying that the men were expelled and it is also technically incorrect to state that the men were UDR at the times of their conviction which the article seems to suggest Kernel Saunters (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment The firm rejection of Nairac's involvement from several sources is not in the article so it looks unbalanced Kernel Saunters (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• I should able to take a look at this later tomorrow - Sunday. Have driven 600 miles today so need my sleep! Jezhotwells (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comments. Kernel Saunters, regarding the UDR men convicted of the crime, only one of them - John James Somerville - was in fact a former member (as stated on page 159 in the Barron Report 2006, p. 3 on the Sub-Committee Barron Report 2006, and on page 48 in the Cassel Report); Crozier and McDowell were at the time of the attack, serving members of the UDR as stated in my sources to the BBC, Cassel Report (pp.52, 67, 110), various Barron Reports, Peter Taylor's Loyalists, etc. I have since corrected the article to show that JJ Somerville was a former member of the regiment, but left in the fact that McDowell and Crozier were serving UDR members as the article's sources all state. The military checkpoint was indeed bogus (the article says this); however as Crozier himself admitted, they set up all trappings of a bona fide military checkpoint and all the gunmen were wearing UDR uniform. McDowell admitted to having lost his UDR beret which was found at the scene by police. Even Brian McCoy, who had relatives in Northern Ireland's security forces and a brother-in-law who was a former B-Special, was fooled into accepting it was a genuine, legal checkpoint. Nowhere in the article does it say that the soldiers were acting on instructions from their battalion superiors or 11th UDR had knowledge of its taking place. The qustion does remain (and I didn't put it in the article) is how they could have set up an illegal checkpoint on the main north-south road when the area was constantly patrolled by regular Army and the UDR (in an official capacity). Another thing I must point out is that at the time the attack occurred, the UVF was not an illegal organisation, as its proscription had been lifted by Merlyn Rees in April 1974. Therefore, it would not have been a crime then for UDR members to also be in the UVF. According to Martin Dillon, one former UDR commander (McCord) tolerated joint UDR/UDA or UVF membership. As for Nairac, I disagree that the article is unbalanced. I have presented Fred Holroyd's allegation that he organised the attack with Robin Jackson, but counterbalanced it with Martin Dillon's firm claim that Nairac had not been present at Buskhill. I also stated that Dillon alleged the attack was conceived and organised by a certain "Mr. A". I have also added that when Stephen Travers was shown a photograph of Nairac, he could not make a positive identification. Kernel Saunters, how does this not present a NPOV?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The Nairac issue is resolved - WRT the UDR stuff, my comments were more on the tone. The article in the convictions section merely reports them as UDR soldiers missing the point about the attack being a UVF attack NOT a UDR attack. To a casual reader it reads like the UDR killed some civilians. It did not - UVF men some of whom were paramilitary carried out the attack. Also it is not easy to identify all those who carried out the attack, you need to work it out looking at the dead and then at the convictions section Kernel Saunters (talk) 11:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I have since added a blockquote with Dillon's words as to why he believes Nairac was not present at the attack. I think the article is now properly balanced.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this gives that section a more rounded feel Kernel Saunters (talk) 11:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I fixed the Convictions section. The opening sentence now begins that the three convicted gunmen were UVF members who were also BA UDR..... OK. I think it's now more balanced. As regards the gunmen who carried out the attack, well there were the two dead bombers, Boyle and Wesley Somerville, plus the three convicted men. Those five are the only postive IDs we have, although Robin Jackson as leader of the Mid-Ulster UVF has been implicated in the attack. It is obvious (but would be OR to link them in the article) that Dillon's "Mr A" is Jackson, but seeing as he was alive and kicking back when The Dirty War came out as Dillon himself admits, he ccould not be named for legal purposes. So that makes six men (remember Jackson had been expelled from the UDR several years before for reasons which remain unknown). Jackson's brother-in-law Samuel Fulton Neil provided one of the getaway cars, but no evidence exists that he was present at the scene of the attack. That leaves the mysterious Englishman, who has never been identified. The other men (Dillon gives a total of 10 at the checkpoint) were never caught or named. Crozier himself said the lives of his family would be endangered were he to give their names. McDowell was traced through his glasses, but it is alleged that Neil informed on Crozier, hence Jackson (allegedly) shooting him dead in January 1976.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Pre-FAC check

Comments from Malleus Fatuorum

Lead

• The opening sentence just doesn't work for me. It seems to be cramming in just a tad too much information, and I find that "The ... Miami Showband Massacre ... were a bombing and shooting attack" to be especially jarring.

 Done I have since fixed the sentence.

Political situation in Northern Ireland

• What relevance does the May 1974 strike have?

It has much significance. Following the strike, loyalist paramilitary groups began with attacks specifically-directed against southern Irish targets, including the Dublin and Monaghan bombings and the Dublin-based Miami Showband.

Bogus checkpoint

• "As McCoy rolled down the window and produced his driving licence, soldiers came up to the minibus ...". The attackers are called soldiers in this section, yet they were called gunmen in the lead. My understanding is that they weren't all soldiers as in members of the British Army.

 Done I changed soldiers to gunmen

• "At no time did the Englishman speak to any of the band members ...". Do we know that he was an Englishman? All we seem to know is that he had an English accent.

 Done

Robin Jackson and the Mid-Ulster UVF

• A report in the Irish Times implicated Jackson in the 1974 Dublin car bombings; among more than 100 killings attributed to him, according to the Pat Finucane Centre, the Derry-based civil rights group." The punctuation needs fixing here. Whatever follows a semicolon must be a complete sentence.

 Done

• "Jackson had assumed command of the Mid-Ulster UVF just a few days before the Miami Showband attack ...". This is a little repetitious, as we were told just a few sentences higher up that Jackson was in command at the time of the attack. The material needs to be coalesced.

 Done

• "Journalist Joe Tiernan claims that Hanna was shot for refusing to participate in the Miami Showband attack. He also alleged that Hanna became an informer ...". Why do the tenses not match here?

 Done

UVF reaction

• "Within twelve hours of the attack the UVF's Brigade Staff (Belfast leadership) issued a statement." We've already been told this at the end of the Explosion section.

 Done I mentioned the statement in one sentence at the end of Explosions to explain how the bodies were identified. The full statement is in UVF reaction

Convictions

• "A third person, former UDR soldier John James Somerville (aged 37, a lorry-helper ...". What on Earth is a "lorry-helper"?

I haven't a clue. That's what the source says. It's possible Somerville described himself as such.

Allegations

• "... close to the Irish Republic border". Is that a correct name for the country? I thought that in English it was the Republic of Ireland?

 Done

References

• Something's gone wrong with citation #45.

Fixed

Comments from Hchc2009

A couple of thoughts on what is an interesting article:

• Early on, the article says: "Although some of the gunmen were members of the British Army". Later on, it notes that "Almost all of the gunmen were indeed British soldiers". This probably needs to be consistent, and we should probably give a number for how many gunmen were British soldiers (if the article says this somewhere, I couldn't see it).

 Done. All we know is Crozier, McDowell, Wesley Somerville, and Boyle were UDR/UVF. JJ Somerville was ex UDR and Robin Jackson, who was allegedly there, ex UDR. So a total of four serving UDR members as far as we know seeing as the others were never identified by their comrades.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• There's a slight inconsistency about how the gunmen are counted. Early on, it says that "there were reportedly about 10 gunmen at the checkpoint", but doesn't says who reported this; later, the article is much more definite, talking about "the ten-member gang". Again, the article needs to be consistent.

 Done I added that Dillon claimed this.

• "Fran O'Toole was noted for his good-looks and popularity with female fans." - not sure this fits well with the section on the shooting, and might live better further up in the background bit.

I mention his looks in the Shootings section because he was shot 22 times in the face so felt it belonged there. If it looks out of place, I'll move it up to the Miami Showband section.

• NB: In the south, when I was younger, a lorry helper was someone who'd go along with the lorry driver to help load and unload the lorry along the route (you don't see them so much any more, because of the small fork-lift vehicles that most of the larger vehicles have). Don't know if that helps at all?

Hchc2009 (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The bit about lorry helper is dead on, especially as UVF leader Robin Jackson drove a chicken lorry for a living. So it makes perfect sense.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Wehwalt

Working on it, will have comments during the course of today. Very thorough article.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

For the information of all, the principal editors chose to work directly from my notes in my sandbox. I will post the comments and responses to a sub-page for archival purposes in due course and will do a re-read and give more comments tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

My comments are here; I am still adding to them but I see no reason why this article shouldn't take a shot at FAC. I can't guarantee a pass but it will not be shot at sight.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

J.J. Somerville

I think the article should say that one of the convicted killers, John James Somerville is now an evangelical minister in Belfast. Should it be put at the end of the Convictions section?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not have the last paragraph in the aftermath section devoted to the long-term fate of those involved?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I added a new subsection instead.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ages of Victims

Fran O'Toole, Brian McCoy & Tony Geraghty have their ages shown here as 29, 33 & 23 respectively, but they were actually 28, 32, & 24 respectively. This can be verified within this article if you zoom up on the photograph of the memorial plaque, where the ages are shown in brackets under the names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bournville225 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I obtained their ages from impeccable sources, namely Peter Taylor, CAIN, the Barron Report. Surely they couldn't all be mistaken? I'm afraid you'll have to produce a RS which contradicts the ages given by Taylor, CAIN and Henry Barron.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what an RS is exactly, but I can tell you that my sources are the families themselves, who your sources did not engage with. You will also see the ages stated correctly at http://patfinucanecentre.org/cases/miami/miami.html, these are people who also engaged directly. But given that it was the families who decided on the memorial design and signed off on the detail, then I don't think you need to look much further than what is there cast in bronze. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bournville225 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The Pat Finucane Centre is reliable enough so I'll change the ages right away. Thanks for pointing out my error.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the additional reference I added also has the wrong ages! Bjmullan (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Sunday Business Post ref

The refs I linked to the Sunday Business Post article by Tom McGurk can only be read now through subscription only. However, the same article was published by the Pat Finucane Centre. Should I change the refs to link to this page instead?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and linked it as there were so many dead refs which shouldn't be so on a GA article and it's the same article as appeared in the Sunday Business Post. This way readers can verify the citations for free rather than pay a subscription to do so!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Relevance of Colin Wills' Commentary

I'd like to bring into question the relevance of Colin Wills' (Sunday Mirror) commentary that the attack was "one of the worst atrocities in the 30-year history of the Troubles". First of all, it just wasn't. Second of all, nobody in Ireland (North or South) affected by the troubles knows/cares who Colin Wills is or, about, what he has to say. I'd like to suggest that it be removed as it makes absolutely no sense, insults everyone who died during The Troubles, and was written from a comfortable chair in Dublin far far away that trauma.

If anyone would like an example, contact the HET and ask them about the countless innocent lives that were taken as well as the ferocious fire fights that took place in the heart of Belfast.

What an embarrassment.

93.89.252.130 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Admin needed

I've made a start here but this article needs a lot of work. It's over wordy, full of sentiment and POV. It's missing the point of what an encyclopaedic article is about. I'll try to come back to it soon and snip out some more cruft, repetitions and bad grammar but I'd appreciate it if someone else had a look too. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This happens to be a GA class article. If it had so many defects as SonofSetanta claims it would hardly have passed several peer reviews, let alone received GA status. I think Sonof Setanta has a problem with the subject matter and is not overly concerned with the integrity of Wikipedia. I see he/she has already removed a fair amount of text as well as a whole section thereby making all the hard work Daicaregos and I did to get this article into shape, redundant.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I see that SonofSetanta apparently "loves to have calm discussion which leads to better understanding...". Hence the need for him to describe the article as "...need[ing] a lot of work.... over wordy, full of sentiment and POV... [with] cruft, repetitions and bad grammar"?! That's a good start, then. (Hope you had a good summer, Jeanne! Welcome back!) Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I had a diverting and exciting summer even if the weather was not as glorious as previous summers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

SonofSetanta has been topic-banned from Troubles-related articles, so I don't think he can get involved in this discussion.

I don't hav a problem with his edits to the Background section. It was a bit too long and needed to be made shorter and more to-the-point. However, I've re-added much of what he removed from the rest of the article. There was no justification for that, nor for describing the article as "full of sentiment and POV". ~Asarlaí 14:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Not a UDR attack

The article lead now says that the massacre “was an attack by the Ulster Volunteer Force ... and the British Army's Ulster Defence Regiment” This is an inaccurate and misleading summary of the article. This was not an attack by the UDR. The attack was carried out by the UDA UVF. While some of the attackers were members of the UDR, not all were, which the lead already noted correctly. Please self-revert. Daicaregos (talk) 13:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

User Mownberry is a persistently disruptive account that is currently blocked for vandalism and edit-warring. I doubt you will receive any rationale response, if any response, from this user in regards to this discussion. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting Dai. It was a UVF attack using UDR members but to say it was a UDR attack as well implies the regiment had sanctioned the ambush which it clearly DID NOT.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

14 February edit

I've reverted this edit. The link to the cited reference does not work. Please add back with a working link, although the related text should make clear what the sympathy note was for i.e. did it express sympathy for members of the band, for members of the UDR or for everyone killed. Also, the 'G' in British Government, should correctly be upper case (i.e. British government is incorrect). I checked the Government of Ireland article and have amended Irish Government to Government of Ireland and have reinstated copy edits improving the text. Daicaregos (talk) 08:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Although I have no doubt that Combat did issue a sympathy note, given that Boyle and Somerville were such high-ranking UVF members, Dai was correct in removing the allegation until there is a working link and a more detailed explanation as to the contents of the note and for whom it was intended. It's extremely unlikely it was for the deceased bandmembers but we must remember that we write for Wikipedia readers and many do not understand how strongly the battle lines were drawn in 1975. Thanks Dai.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Gaming the 1RR rule by Gob Lofa

When your edit is reverted, per WP:BRD you should justify that on the talk page rather than simply reverting. I gave clear reasons for that reversion in the edit summary and I will revert in 24 hours if you don't gain agreement to the changes here. Further, this habit of using your 1 revert to impose a contested edit is becoming disruptive and it happens again I will take to to Arbitration Enforcement for clarification ----Snowded ^TALK 10:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

A look at both our edit histories makes it quite plain who's being disruptive here, and your fondness for only two thirds of BRD has been noted elsewhere. I thought we were agreed about capitalisation. Gob Lofa (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Interesting thought that, you are the one proposing changes, but reverting you is to be considered disruptive? You haven't addressed all the points made in the edit summary here so it is a little difficult to discuss. In respect of the capitalisation I favour The over the and I think that is the norm in common reference. If you want to make the change on a range of articles (as you do) then you should start by getting agreement at IMOS or similar. That way there will be a standard agreed by the community. If you respond to the other reasons given for my revert then I will happily deal with them. Otherwise without agreement here you will be reverted and the extent of your gaming means that if it continues it will have to go to enforcement for clarification. ----Snowded ^TALK 10:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Once again; I thought we were agreed. Gob Lofa (talk) 10:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Please provide diff for agreement. You keep resisting taking general changes to community fora which seems strange. Trying to make policy by multiple small edits is far less effective than working with the community as a whole. Otherwise please provide response to arguments given in edit summary for reverting your change ----Snowded ^TALK 10:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

At this community forum (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Capitalising_.27the.27), where I was happily working with the community as a whole to make policy, and you were happy with the majority view. What's changed? Gob Lofa (talk) 11:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

That was not resolved, there were two opinions I responded and no one came back. I said I thought the use of the capital was better, but I would abide by a community decision. Neither you or the editor responded so the discussion is open. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

That's an interesting take from someone who doesn't have a strong tradition of responding to points made on talk page discussions. Another way of looking at it would be that three opinions were expressed, two of which disagreed with yours, and you said you'd go with the majority. I'm also not happy with how your edit implies that the ROI's influence in NI wouldn't be reciprocal. Gob Lofa (talk) 11:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the revert as regards "which would have given the Government of Ireland a voice in running Northern Ireland." The strike of May 1974 was in protest against the Irish government being given a voice in running Northern Ireland, not against any "reciprocal" arrangement. I've given my views on "the/The Troubles" at WT:IE. I do, however, think that labelling edits as "disruptive" just because they represent the view of one person in a two-person dispute is overdoing it. A content dispute is just a content dispute, and an edit that is contested does not have more of an advantage under 1RR than under 3RR. Additionally, BRD – besides not being policy – does not put the onus on the person making the bold edit to initiate the discussion. There was a month in which to initiate a discussion on this page; the opportunity was not availed of. A read of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle#Discuss may be in order. Note in particular the sentence, "If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version." Scolaire (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Stable version

Could somebody please revert this article to the stable version prior to 15 November 2015? A hell of a lot of painstaking work by Daicaragos and myself has been pulled apart by edit warring and unnecessary rewording. We both got it up to GA status which means if it ain't broke don't fix it. Additional information is another matter but just taking out sentences and words is a bit frustrating to say the least. It is the reason why I rarely edit at Wikipedia anymore. I hear the clock ticking away on my life and spending time and effort only to see it swiped away with a touch of the keyboard makes me want to totally abandon Wikipedia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Nothing to stop you doing that Jeanne other than the capitalisation of "The" which has been agreed elsewhere should be "the". If I reverted every small change Gob Lofa makes I would have a job for life so I confine myself to those which change the meaning of the article (which I did here) letting anything else go. But if you want a full revert to 15 November I'm happy to support you in that. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I cannot do the reversion. I tried. We could revert it then add "the" which I also support.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

worked for me ----Snowded ^TALK 09:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Snowded. Truth is I forgot how to do it. I'm rarely on Wikipedia anymore.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Well stay around if you want to defend it ----Snowded ^TALK 09:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh I shall. This aricle represents a lot of hard work by Daicaregos and me.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

"His leadership was endorsed by the UVF's leader Gusty Spence." What's the point of including this? Were there many brigade leaders whose leadership Spence opposed? Gob Lofa (talk) 11:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I support the version created by Snowded today and agree that reverting other editors' reverts, thus simultaniously ignoring BRD and the spirit of 1RR, is gaming the system. I ask all editors to follow WP:BRD. Daicaregos (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Great. Would you like to discuss the questions I asked? Gob Lofa (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Dai/Jeanne I do think it behoves you to answer Gob Lofa's question ----Snowded ^TALK 18:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@ Gob Lofa. Glad you have chosen the discussion route. With respect to mentioning Gusty Spence, the preceding sentence says that Hanna set up the Mid-Ulster Brigade and that he was its self-appointed leader. Noting that the UVF's overall leader approved of this shows he was working within the UVF not operating alone, thereby adding context. Please explain what you mean by “Great”. Daicaregos (talk) 10:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

It's great that you're choosing the discussion route. I disagree; it's needless detail that's covered in more relevant articles. Unless there were brigade leaders who weren't endorsed by the leadership, it's not notable. Gob Lofa (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Astonishing how we not only had the same view, but independently arrived at exactly the same choice of wording to express it … incredible, actually. Of course, you are entitled to disagree with me. As I am entitled to disagree with you. Let's see what other editors think. Daicaregos (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Gob Lofa it was I who included the information about Spence endorsing Hanna's leadership. I am surprised that you fail to see the significance of this. During the four months Spence was on the run from jail he structured the UVF into battalions, platoons and companies; it was during this period that Hanna formed the Mid-Ulster Brigade and appointed himself its leader with Spence's full approval. At the time Spence wielded much power as leader of the UVF so it is important for readers to know Hanna had Spence's backing. It gave Hanna much autonomy as the Brigade, with its power base located in Lurgan and Portadown, was a remove from the Shankill Road-led mainstream UVF. When Billy Wright set up a rival organisation the UVF threatened him and ordered his expulsion from NI. Bearing this in mind, I think it needs to be mentioned here that Hanna's brigade and leadership were both fully sanctioned by Spence who was still overall head of the UVF although Sammy McClelland was Chief of Staff. This article received careful scrutiny when it was reviewed for GA status and the inclusion of Spence passed muster. I think it should remain.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

It's fully relevant for the articles about Hanna and the Brigade; here it just comes across as filler. Unless Hanna's endorsement from Spence was an aberration in the usual leadership-brigade leader relationships, there's no reason to include it here. Gob Lofa (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Miami Showband killings. 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/20090619170035/http://www.seeingred.com/Copy/2.1_CODE_weiraff.html to http://www.seeingred.com/Copy/2.1_CODE_weiraff.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.tribune.ie/archive/article/2007/dec/09/memorial-to-victims-of-miami-massacre-to-be-unveil/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.tribune.ie/archive/article/2007/dec/09/memorial-to-victims-of-miami-massacre-to-be-unveil/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 12:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Ref error

Tried to solve a reference error but only managed to change its nature. Apols, could someone take a look? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 10:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done No worries. Thanks for noting it here. Looks OK now. Daicaregos (talk) 11:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, there's still something wrong with fn 31; it's got a red warning which travels over the right margin. (If you have User:Keith-264/common.js a page like this, harv errors show up in red). Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

My browser doesn't show any problems now. It showed up in red before my edit, but not now. Don't know what to suggest, sorry. Daicaregos (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110426121606/http://www.patfinucanecentre.org/sarmagh/sarmagh.html to http://www.patfinucanecentre.org/sarmagh/sarmagh.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610155220/http://www.patfinucanecentre.org/sarmagh/collusion.pdf to http://www.patfinucanecentre.org/sarmagh/collusion.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 23:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Miami Showband killings. 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/20110724062513/http://www.sharedtroubles.net/storydetail.php?story_id=1006 to http://www.sharedtroubles.net/storydetail.php?story_id=1006
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714013616/http://www.madden-finucane.com/the_firm/cases/echr/2007march06_2.htm to http://www.madden-finucane.com/the_firm/cases/echr/2007march06_2.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://uk.news.yahoo.com/collusion-not-ruled-massacre-141214561.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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 12:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Miami Showband killings. 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/20120309005953/http://www.patfinucanecentre.org/sarmagh/050731bp.html to http://www.patfinucanecentre.org/sarmagh/050731bp.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120414203920/http://www.patfinucanecentre.org/cases/miami/Jackson111214.pdf to http://www.patfinucanecentre.org/cases/miami/Jackson111214.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120414203939/http://www.patfinucanecentre.org/cases/miami/Miami%20families%20statement.pdf to http://www.patfinucanecentre.org/cases/miami/Miami%20families%20statement.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

State Papers 1987

https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2017/1229/928724-state-papers-1987/ "The letter says that MI5 also supplied the UVF with detonators "which they had set to explode prematurely," as happened during the attack on the Miami Showband near Banbridge in 1975." Not sure where to fold this into the article yet. --John Lunney (talk) 11:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Hello John, the faulty detonators could be added at the bottom of the Later Years section. It would be an excellent addition.Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Netflix Documentary

FWIW: Netflix has a new documentary called: "Remastered: the Miami Showband Massacre. https://www.netflix.com/title/80191046 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bharshaw (talk • contribs) 19:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Erroneous Information

In the article in the aftermath section it should be noted that the information has been proven to be untrue and full of presumed and false information.

Blaming victims is classic defense when the truth demonstrates the guilt of the government and those working with them. Interesting that none of the band members were ever prosecuted for anything yet the attackers were conficted of murder. Tahester (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Which specific information is untrue and where does it imply that the band members were guilty of anything? Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)