![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Article seems to provide a biased view of the British military. For example, "the army was more inclined to target republicans than unionists". 05:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
the army being inclined to target republicans rather than unionist is an obvious fact that has been agknowledged by british soldiers themselves ! PALESTINE1234 —Preceding unsigned comment added by PALESTINE1234 ( talk • contribs) 16:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I understand your opinion but i believe that encyclopedias should truthfully describe events. Sometimes the truth seems bias.-- PALESTINE1234 ( talk) 12:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I've cut and pasted the following recent addition to the article. Firstly it's entirely uncited and is quite possibly a personal commentary on the issue. Also it is in serious need of copy-editing and condensation to make it more readable and appropriate.
Mabuska (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
There are two issues with the section on Mr Norman. Firstly there is no suggestion that he was involved with the Springhill events. If he wasn't, then he should not be mentioned here. If he was, that should be stated. Secondly, after he was shot (presumably fatally, though that it not stated), he cannot have "later told colleagues at Sandhurst, where he was an instructor", etc. Royalcourtier ( talk) 05:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Journalists have a nasty tendency to call all riflemen snipers. Is there any evidence that the soldiers here were snipers - using sniper rifles - or soldiers with SLR's? Royalcourtier ( talk) 05:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
<!-- ==Impact== {{onesource|section}} In May 2005, Michael Norman, a former [[Coldstream Guards]]man and [[Special Air Service]] trooper, was found shot in the stomach in his car in London, with photographs of certain incidents in which he had been involved. Previously, he had told colleagues at [[Royal Military Academy Sandhurst|Sandhurst]], where he was an instructor, that he was on an IRA hit list. His ex-wife said she did not believe Norman committed suicide, but added that he never told her that he believed he was on an IRA [hit] list.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thefreelibrary.com/IRA+LINK+TO+DEAD+SAS+MAN%3B+Special+Forces+soldier+was+top+of...-a0132223007|title=IRA LINK TO DEAD SAS MAN; Special Forces soldier was top of Republican hit list|website=Thefreelibrary.com|accessdate=2 December 2015}}</ref> On Sunday 13 March 2016, the publisher of the book [http://bobsmithwalker.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/a-legalised-death-squad-killing-for.html '''''Killing For Britain'''''] alleged on his blog that Mike Norman was the military contact named "Mike" who was a central character in the KFB book.<blockquote>''Post publication we believe we found "Mike" ... Warrant Officer Michael Norman was a sniper of exceptionally high skill to the point that he ended up a sniper instructor at Warminster. He had served in Ireland during the period covered in the book. He was 62 years old in 2005, making him late 20s early 30s in the early 1970s. From North East England, he’d spent time in Ireland as a child where his family had land in Roscommon (according to his ex-wife). He'd joined the Coldstream Guards, as other Geordies had done. Michael Norman was an anonymous witness called by the Bloody Sunday Enquiry, surely only because he was there on that fateful day.''</blockquote> <blockquote>''Michael Norman had in his possession photographs relating to the Springhill Massacre when he was found shot dead in his car not far from a police station in [[Hounslow]] in April 2005, around 6-8 months after he’d met the author in [[Ayrshire|Ayr]], Scotland, in an effort to dissuade him from writing his book. Detectives initially suspected foul play (a so-called IRA "revenge squad" being suspected). Scotland Yard took over the investigation, reportedly "due to the sensitive nature" of Mike Norman's "work in Ireland". His death was eventually ruled suicide ... Initial reports stated that a 9mm pistol was found in the car when the body was discovered. However, a police source told us in 2010 that the weapon was actually a shotgun which had been registered to Mike Norman and that he’d shot himself in the stomach. The same source stated that there had been NO photos of the Springhill Massacre in the car at the time, contrary to initial reports on the public record. The source added that Norman had become a quite unstable in later life. It seemed this source might be trying to discredit Norman."''<ref>[http://bobsmithwalker.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/a-legalised-death-squad-killing-for.html Legalised death squad killing for Britain], bobsmithwalker.blogspot.co.uk, March 2016; accessed 29 August 2017.</ref></blockquote> NOTE: ONLY SOURCE FOR THIS ENTIRE SECTION IS bobsmithwalker.blogspot.co.uk -- SEE TALK PAGE--> Quis separabit? 04:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 16:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Springhill Massacre → Springhill massacre – Massacre isn't a proper noun, so it shouldn't have a capital letter Jim Michael ( talk) 14:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
The Springhill Massacre was ...). It is unfortunate that WP equates capitalisation with being a proper noun when they are not equivalent and there are other reasons for capitalisation. Such a title may be capitalised 'in full' for emphasis or distinction. MOS:SIGNIFCAPS discourages WP editors from this practice. However, such capitalised phrases can enter into the "collective conciousness" - eg French Revolution. The first issue is that there are very few independent reliable sources on the subject - far too few to assert that the capitalised phrase has entered the "collective cociousness". An n-gram search returns no hits for the phase (regardless of capitalisation). A simple google seach consists mainly of unreliable sources and is of little value. Most Google Scholar hits cannot be accessed to evaluate context. Google Books returns (for me) 10 English language hits, of which two acknowledge they are sourced from WP and are therefore, not reliable. One is written by Gerry Adams and arguably not independent. Three sources use the phrase in citing the title of a work. One uses it in headings only and one uses it in quote marks (ie scare quotes). This leaves only two sources that might indicate how it might be capitalised and they are divided on the matter. Per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS: only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. The evidence does not support capitalisation of "massacre". Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
{{reply to|Eyer}}
to your message to
let me know.) 12:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)The entry claims that he was believed to be in the PIRAs Fianna however he was described as linked to the OIRAs Fianna 82.24.124.233 ( talk) 23:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Article seems to provide a biased view of the British military. For example, "the army was more inclined to target republicans than unionists". 05:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
the army being inclined to target republicans rather than unionist is an obvious fact that has been agknowledged by british soldiers themselves ! PALESTINE1234 —Preceding unsigned comment added by PALESTINE1234 ( talk • contribs) 16:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I understand your opinion but i believe that encyclopedias should truthfully describe events. Sometimes the truth seems bias.-- PALESTINE1234 ( talk) 12:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I've cut and pasted the following recent addition to the article. Firstly it's entirely uncited and is quite possibly a personal commentary on the issue. Also it is in serious need of copy-editing and condensation to make it more readable and appropriate.
Mabuska (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
There are two issues with the section on Mr Norman. Firstly there is no suggestion that he was involved with the Springhill events. If he wasn't, then he should not be mentioned here. If he was, that should be stated. Secondly, after he was shot (presumably fatally, though that it not stated), he cannot have "later told colleagues at Sandhurst, where he was an instructor", etc. Royalcourtier ( talk) 05:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Journalists have a nasty tendency to call all riflemen snipers. Is there any evidence that the soldiers here were snipers - using sniper rifles - or soldiers with SLR's? Royalcourtier ( talk) 05:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
<!-- ==Impact== {{onesource|section}} In May 2005, Michael Norman, a former [[Coldstream Guards]]man and [[Special Air Service]] trooper, was found shot in the stomach in his car in London, with photographs of certain incidents in which he had been involved. Previously, he had told colleagues at [[Royal Military Academy Sandhurst|Sandhurst]], where he was an instructor, that he was on an IRA hit list. His ex-wife said she did not believe Norman committed suicide, but added that he never told her that he believed he was on an IRA [hit] list.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thefreelibrary.com/IRA+LINK+TO+DEAD+SAS+MAN%3B+Special+Forces+soldier+was+top+of...-a0132223007|title=IRA LINK TO DEAD SAS MAN; Special Forces soldier was top of Republican hit list|website=Thefreelibrary.com|accessdate=2 December 2015}}</ref> On Sunday 13 March 2016, the publisher of the book [http://bobsmithwalker.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/a-legalised-death-squad-killing-for.html '''''Killing For Britain'''''] alleged on his blog that Mike Norman was the military contact named "Mike" who was a central character in the KFB book.<blockquote>''Post publication we believe we found "Mike" ... Warrant Officer Michael Norman was a sniper of exceptionally high skill to the point that he ended up a sniper instructor at Warminster. He had served in Ireland during the period covered in the book. He was 62 years old in 2005, making him late 20s early 30s in the early 1970s. From North East England, he’d spent time in Ireland as a child where his family had land in Roscommon (according to his ex-wife). He'd joined the Coldstream Guards, as other Geordies had done. Michael Norman was an anonymous witness called by the Bloody Sunday Enquiry, surely only because he was there on that fateful day.''</blockquote> <blockquote>''Michael Norman had in his possession photographs relating to the Springhill Massacre when he was found shot dead in his car not far from a police station in [[Hounslow]] in April 2005, around 6-8 months after he’d met the author in [[Ayrshire|Ayr]], Scotland, in an effort to dissuade him from writing his book. Detectives initially suspected foul play (a so-called IRA "revenge squad" being suspected). Scotland Yard took over the investigation, reportedly "due to the sensitive nature" of Mike Norman's "work in Ireland". His death was eventually ruled suicide ... Initial reports stated that a 9mm pistol was found in the car when the body was discovered. However, a police source told us in 2010 that the weapon was actually a shotgun which had been registered to Mike Norman and that he’d shot himself in the stomach. The same source stated that there had been NO photos of the Springhill Massacre in the car at the time, contrary to initial reports on the public record. The source added that Norman had become a quite unstable in later life. It seemed this source might be trying to discredit Norman."''<ref>[http://bobsmithwalker.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/a-legalised-death-squad-killing-for.html Legalised death squad killing for Britain], bobsmithwalker.blogspot.co.uk, March 2016; accessed 29 August 2017.</ref></blockquote> NOTE: ONLY SOURCE FOR THIS ENTIRE SECTION IS bobsmithwalker.blogspot.co.uk -- SEE TALK PAGE--> Quis separabit? 04:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 16:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Springhill Massacre → Springhill massacre – Massacre isn't a proper noun, so it shouldn't have a capital letter Jim Michael ( talk) 14:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
The Springhill Massacre was ...). It is unfortunate that WP equates capitalisation with being a proper noun when they are not equivalent and there are other reasons for capitalisation. Such a title may be capitalised 'in full' for emphasis or distinction. MOS:SIGNIFCAPS discourages WP editors from this practice. However, such capitalised phrases can enter into the "collective conciousness" - eg French Revolution. The first issue is that there are very few independent reliable sources on the subject - far too few to assert that the capitalised phrase has entered the "collective cociousness". An n-gram search returns no hits for the phase (regardless of capitalisation). A simple google seach consists mainly of unreliable sources and is of little value. Most Google Scholar hits cannot be accessed to evaluate context. Google Books returns (for me) 10 English language hits, of which two acknowledge they are sourced from WP and are therefore, not reliable. One is written by Gerry Adams and arguably not independent. Three sources use the phrase in citing the title of a work. One uses it in headings only and one uses it in quote marks (ie scare quotes). This leaves only two sources that might indicate how it might be capitalised and they are divided on the matter. Per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS: only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. The evidence does not support capitalisation of "massacre". Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
{{reply to|Eyer}}
to your message to
let me know.) 12:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)The entry claims that he was believed to be in the PIRAs Fianna however he was described as linked to the OIRAs Fianna 82.24.124.233 ( talk) 23:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)