text:
Heuneburg

The Heuneburg is a prehistoric Celtic hillfort by the river Danube in Hundersingen near Herbertingen, between Ulm and Sigmaringen, Baden-Württemberg, in the south of Germany, close to the modern borders with Switzerland and Austria. It is considered to be one of the most important early Celtic centres in Central Europe, particularly during the Iron Age Hallstatt culture period. Apart from the fortified citadel, there are extensive remains of settlements and burial areas spanning several centuries.

The fortified citadel measures about 300 by 150 m. It stood on a strategically positioned mountain spur that rises steeply 40 m above the Danube. It is at the centre of a fertile river plain, surrounded by rolling hill country. During the Iron Age the Heuneburg is thought to have controlled a surrounding area of over 1000 km2 including other hilltop settlements, hamlets, villages, roads, cemeteries and cult or gathering places.

The settlement has been called "oldest city north of the alps", and has been identified with the Celtic city of Pyrene mentioned by Herodotus.

"..."The Istros river arises among the Celts and the polis of Pyrene, cutting Europe across the middle" — Herodotus (c.484–c.425 BC)."

Discovery and excavations

The site was first noted in the 1820s. In 1882, recognised its importance and correctly identified it as a prehistoric fortification. He misidentified the lower fortifications as medieval. Some of the nearby burial mounds were opened in the 19th century.

Sporadic excavation on the citadel began in the 1920s. In the 1930s, the Hohmichele mound was examined (see below). A systematic excavation programme took place from 1950 to 1979, directed successively by, Kurt Bittel, and.

Since 2003, the Heuneburg is one of the foci of a multi-disciplinary research project on early Celtic centres undertaken by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. New excavations began in 2004.

History
Although best known for its role as an important early Celtic centre from the 7th to 5th centuries BC, the Heuneburg was occupied at several other points during its history.

The first settlement on the site dates to the Middle Bronze Age (15th to 12th century BC) during the Tumulus culture period. At this time, the main plateau was fortified with a massive ditch-and-bank enclosure, including a wooden wall. The settlement was abandoned at the beginning of the Urnfield period. This abandonment apparently did not entail a violent destruction. During the Urnfield period, there was a burial area in the location of the later Südsiedlung (see below).

The citadel was reoccupied and refortified around 700 BC; adjacent areas were occupied at the same time, including Alte Burg and Grosse Heuneburg. The Heuneburg complex developed briskly, and by 600 BC, it was one of the key centres of power and trade in Celtic/Halstatt Southern Germany. Major changes in internal structure occurred around that time. Before 500 BC, the site suffered a major destruction, followed by a second flourish and a further destruction in the 5th century BC. It used to be assumed that the Heuneburg was abandoned by the La Tène period, but recent evidence does not fully support this view. The conjunction of a prominent fortified site, elaborate burials, specialised craft production and trade of valuable imported goods class the Heuneburg with a small group of similar important early Celtic sites, the so-called Fürstensitze (see below).

The strategic location of the Heuneburg led to some activity in the Middle Ages, although no permanent occupation occurred at that time.

The Celtic citadel

The main 2 ha plateau on the mountain spur, 40m above the Danube and naturally defensible, was the centre of high-status occupation and of fortification in Celtic periods. It measures only 150 by 300 m but is the main visual landmark in the area. From c. 700 BC onwards, it was the centre of a large settlement.

The main settlement on the citadel underwent several changes during its existence. As the houses were built of wood and daub, and the fortifications mostly of wood and earth, they were replaced frequently. This resulted in over a dozen identifiable occupation phases, representing at least 250 years of activity.

The plateau was refortified from c. 700 BC onwards. Originally, the fortification took the form of a classic Celtic wood-and-earth wall (murus gallicus), replaced regularly.

Around 600 BC, this was replaced by a structure without parallel in contemporary Celtic Europe. A limestone foundation supported a sun-dried mudbrick wall of c. 4 m height, probably topped by a roofed walkway, thus reaching a total height of 6 m. The wall was clad with bright white lime plaster, regularly renewed; this was necessary to prevent the northern weather from eroding the unbaked mudbrick. Towers protruded outwards from the wall at intervals. It must have been widely visible in the area, as the modern reconstruction of a section is. No other mudbrick structures are known from Celtic Central Europe at this time. It is generally accepted that this structure imitated contemporary walls in the Mediterranean region.

The wall lasted c. 70 years (much longer than its wood-and-earth predecessors and successors which had to be renewed frequently). After a fiery destruction around 530 BC, the settlement was defended by a murus gallicus again until a further destruction in the 5th century.

The fortification had two monumental gates, one to the west, giving access to the outer settlements, and another to the east, probably to a steep road leading directly to the Danube (and perhaps a harbour).

The citadel contained a regular system of streets and houses. It appears that the settlement underwent a major reorganisation after 600 BC, after which the dwellings were much more densely and regularly spaced than before. At all times, the Heuneburg houses are of remarkably large size and elaboration compared to contemporary settlements. The uniform buildings probably served as dwellings and workshops. There is evidence for an active metal industry, including a bronze workshop in the southeast corner of the citadel. After the 530 BC destruction of the mudbrick wall, the internal arrangements underwent some changes. The workshops were moved to the north. A very large house (14 by 30 m) was built in the southeast corner. This is sometimes interpreted as a Herrenhaus, i.e. the dwelling of a local ruler.

The Heuneburg yielded many finds marking it as a rich site, operating both as a local centre of production and as a hub for long-distance trade. These included a full bronze workshop, a high proportion of Greek vases (in fact, the fragments make up about a dozen Greek pots, indicating a larger amount than contemporary sites but also a very limited elite access to such material), and other imported raw materials like tin and amber. Much of the exotic material dates from after 530 BC. There was also a local tradition of producing painted and decorated (incised or stamped) pottery.

Settlements outside the citadel
Recent work in and around the Heuneburg has produced groundbreaking information regarding the full extent of the settlement. It now appears that the citadel was only a small, if focal, part of the overall complex at most times.

The Aussensiedlung

The Aussensiedlung (exterior settlement) was located downslope, immediately to the west and northwest of the citadel. It was probably occupied from the 7th century (Hallstatt period) to the 5th century BC. It appears to have existed as a separate fortified settlement. The Aussensiedlung covered up to 100 hectares, many times the area of the citadel proper. It appears to have consisted of separate fenced or palisaded lots, each containing a main dwelling, storage areas and much terrain for fields. It is suggested that each of the lots functioned as a separate farmstead, supporting an extended family. A population of 5,000 to 10,000 individuals is estimated just for the Aussensiedlung. The area enclosed could never have sufficed to produce the amounts of food necessary to feed such a population. The Giessübel mounds (see below) are erected on top of the remains of part of the Aussensiedlung and must thus postdate it.

The Südsiedlung
The Südsiedlung ("south settlement") further south appears to have been similar to the Aussensiedlung in character and chronology and may indeed have been contiguous with it.

Vorwerke (lower fortifications)
The huge fortifications recognised in the 19th century, but then misinterpreted as medieval, are also part of the Celtic complex. They have been partially obliterated by erosion and ploughing. A triple system of several hundred metres of banks and ditches enclosed and subdivided the lower terrain just west of the Heuneburg proper. Since they partially overlay the Aussensiedlung houses, the walls must have been erected in a later phase. They survive to a height of over 6 m; the ditches were originally 7 m deep.

The gate
Recent excavations have revealed a monumental gate in the westernmost wall. Measuring 8 by 12 m, it was a massive construction. Its walls had a core of limestone set in a fine clay mortar, and were faced on each side with fine limestone ashlar masonry. Like the mudbrick wall on the citadel, this feature is exceptional in the Celtic world and resembles contemporary Mediterranean architecture.

Iron Age cemeteries

Several burial areas surround the Heuneburg. They consist of clusters of earthen tumuli or burial mounds. More than 50 such monuments are known in the area. Not all have been excavated. Some date from the Hallstatt period, but most are probably La Tène. The relationship between prominent fortified sites and elaborate burials is also known from other important Celtic centres, like Glauberg oppidum and grave, the Hochdorf Grave near the Hohenasperg settlement and the Vix grave near Mont Lassois.

Giessübel
The Giessübel cemetery is located 500 m northwest of the Heuneburg. It was built on top of the then abandoned west part of the Aussensiedlung. By the 19th century, four mounds remained here, each measuring c. 50 m in diameter and 7 m in height. First excavations were undertaken in the 19th century (mounds 2 and 3), but more systematic work took place between the 1950s and 1980s.

Grave 1
This mound contained a rectangular wooden chamber (3.5 by 5.5 m). Its main occupant was a man aged around 50. There were also remains of two women. It had been robbed in antiquity, but modern archeological finds nevertheless included weapons, gold and bronze attachments for garments, and some amber plaques that probably once adorned a kline (couch) imported from the Mediterranean. Twenty further burials were later placed in and on the same mound.

Grave 4
Grave 4, also robbed, contained a single individual, accompanied by the remains of metal attachments from a wooden chariot.

Hohmichele

A cluster or necropolis of burial mounds, the so-called Hohmichele Group, is located 3.5 km west of the Heuneburg. It consists of at least 36 burial mounds. The group is named after its largest mound, the Hohmichele. It is located near Altheim (Biberach district). Most of the mounds are not visible any more due to natural erosion and ploughing. The 14 or so that remain are located in forests.

Excavation
The first excavation of the main Hohmichele mound took place from 1936 to 1938, directed by Gustav Riek as part of the research programme of the SS-Ahnenerbe. Only about a third of the mound was removed during that project; the central burial chamber was located. After the war, from 1954 to 1956, Siegwalt Schiek undertook further excavations.

The Hohmichele mound
With a diameter of 85 m and a height of over 13 m, the Hohmichele is one of the largest Celtic tumuli in Europe. Excavation has mainly concentrated on its central and eastern portions. The mound was used from the late 7th to the late 6th century BC. 13 burials were located within the mound, several of them accompanied by grave offerings. The mound was restored to its original dimensions in 1960. Today, it is visible as a vegetation-covered landmark in a small forest clearing. A modern war memorial is located on its summit.

Grave I
The centre of the mound contained an oak-built main chamber (Grave I), built on the original ground level. It measured 5.7 by 3.5 m and was c. 1 m high. This grave, containing a man and a woman, had already been plundered shortly after the burial. The remaining finds, reflecting its original riches include horse trappings, nearly 600 glass beads from a necklace, pieces of amber, and fine gold threads that were originally part of a brocade-like fabric. The floor had been covered with cowskins. A central mound, 5 m high and 40 m in diameter covered this chamber.

Grave VI
12 m southeast of the central chamber and about 2.2 m above the old ground surface lay an unplundered wooden chamber (grave VI). It measured 3 by 2.4 m and was 1 m high. This grave also contained a man and a woman. Their equipment included a four-wheeled chariot with trappings for two horses, bronze eating and drinking vessels, a quiver with 51 iron arrowheads, an iron knife and many amber and glass beads (from necklaces), including 2,300 green glass beads. The woman had been laid in the chariot, the man on the floor. The bronze vessels were placed by their feet and heads. There were also remains of embroidered fabrics.

Grave IX
Grave IX, a so-called pyre grave, was located 1 m above VI. Its occupant was a woman who had died between 18 and 30 years of age, her remains accompanied by two bronze armlets and over 20 pottery vessels with incised and stamped decorations and red paint.

Other graves
Six further graves (II-V, VII, VIII) were inhumations. 22 fireplaces found within the mound are probably connected to cult activity. Some or all of them may represent funerary pyres.

Interpretation and significance

There can be no doubt that the Heuneburg and its associated monuments are one of the most important centres of the early Celtic Iron Age in Central Europe. It is also clear that the site should be seen in a context with other prominent centres of its time, the so-called Fürstensitze (German: "princely seats" - see below).

Social/economic development
The Heuneburg settlement reflects important sociopolitical developments in early Celtic Europe. It appears to be the case that after 700 BC, in some regions, wealth and population became concentrated in relatively small areas, a development that further accelerated after 600 BC. A growing differentiation in terms of wealth that is visible among settlements sites but especially among burials, indicates the development of social hierarchies. This is illustrated by the discovery, in 2005, of the burial of a 2-year-old child near the Heuneburg, accompanied by imported (Etruscan) jewellery. It is clear that a young child could not have earned or gained such wealth, hence the individual must have been born rich. There is probably also an element of political centralisation involved in these processes. The fact that the Heuneburg and Aussensiedlung were not able to locally produce enough food to support their own populations implied quite clearly that they must have been able to receive and maintain the support of a much larger surrounding area. The ongoing social and professional specialisation had led to the development of specialised workshops, perhaps even artisanal quarters that did not just produce to serve local needs.

The term Fürstensitz
The traditional term Fürstensitz ("princely seat") to describe sites like Heuneburg has been criticised recently, especially by the archaeologist Manfred Eggert (University of Tübingen). It could be argued that the phrase implies a potentially misleading interpretation of power structures, potentially distracting from more complex realities.

Interaction with other sites

Several other hilltop sites came into existence in the broader region at the same time as the Heuneburg, about 700 BC. Initially, they may have been similar in size and population. Strikingly, most of them were abandoned around 600 BC, i.e. when the Heuneburg settlement was reorganised. It is possible that the Heuneburg had become so powerful as to attract population at the expense of other sites. It has long been suggested that the Hohenasperg settlement, some 100 km to the North of the Heuneburg, was somehow involved in the destruction of the Heuneburg after 500 BC and profited from its demise (see "abandonment" below). There is no clear evidence for such an interpretation, especially as the abandonment of the Heuneburg area is now in doubt (see below).

Destructions, abandonment, and continuity
The traditional view that the two main destructions of the citadel fortifications are the result of violent destruction, and that the Heuneburg was abandoned after the second destruction, which may have been part of a power struggle with Honenasperg, have lost some ground recently. It remains likely that the mudbrick fortification was indeed destroyed violently, but there is no exact evidence to indicate whether this may have been the result of external warfare or of internal difficulties. The renewed economic flourish after this event may argue against a wholesale destruction of the site. The second destruction, in the 5th century, is even more problematic. It has been argued that the fire or fires could be accidental. It is also important to note that although the Heuneburg plateau is mostly abandoned at this time, as is the Aussensiedlung, smaller settlements develop in the surrounding area and burial activity continues, perhaps suggesting a change in the focus of settlement activity, possibly connected with sociopolitical changes at that time.

Climate
It has been proposed that the flourishing of Celtic cultures between the 7th and 5th centuries BC is connected with a warm phase that coincided with that period. A milder climate would have permitted more successful agriculture, which would, in turn, have allowed for larger populations, and thus for the development of more complex political, social and artisanal specialisations. The end of this mild period would have led to population losses and to a collapse of the established economic systems. The demise of centres like the Heuneburg, but also the 4th century Celtic migrations could be connected with such events.

Trade, contacts with the Classical World
The importance of the Heuneburg, like that of other contemporary centres, is closely connected with its location in relation to several important trade routes. Placed just north of the Alps and on the Danube, the site had access to important land routes across the mountains from Italy and Southern France (especially the Greek colony of Massalia), and, by river, to the Balkans and the Black Sea. It was involved in long-distance trade between northern and southern Europe, involving luxury goods (as found in the burial mounds) and probably wine from the south, and amber, metals, as well as probably perishables like leather and fur, from the north. The Mediterranean (Greek and/or Etruscan) influence on the Heuneburg is especially strongly reflected by its mudbrick fortification and the newly found ashlar masonry.

Pyrene
In the mid-5th century BC, the Greek historian Herodotus (Book 2.33) made a brief passing reference to a Celtic city called by the Greek "Pyrene": "For the Ister flows from the land of the Celts and the city of Pyrene through the very middle of Europe..." Since the Heuneburg is roughly in the right location and was a major regional centre just before that time, it is possible that it is the settlement referred to by that name.

Museums
The Heuneburgmuseum is located in the renovated barn of the former monastery of Heiligkreuztal at Hundersingen. The exhibition explains the importance of the site and displays some of the original finds from the site and nearby burials.

In recent years, an open-air museum has been erected on the Heuneburg plateau itself. It includes reconstructions of several houses and of part of the mudbrick wall.

Some of the finds from the Hohmichele grave are partially on display in the Württemberg State Museum (Stuttgart).

Further reading (a selection)

 * Jörg Bofinger: Archäologische Untersuchungen in der Vorburg der Heuneburg - Siedlung und Befestigungssysteme am frühkeltischen Fürstensitz an der oberen Donau, Gde. Herbertingen-Hundersingen, Kreis Sigmaringen. In: Archäologische Ausgrabungen in Baden-Württemberg 2004. P. 82–86. Theiss, Stuttgart 2005. ISBN 3-8062-1957-5
 * Jörg Bofinger: Stein für Stein ... Überraschende Befunde im Bereich der Befestigungssysteme der Heuneburg-Vorburg, Gde. Herbertingen-Hundersingen, Kreis Sigmaringen. In: Archäologische Ausgrabungen in Baden-Württemberg 2005. P. 73–78. Theiss, Stuttgart 2006. ISBN 3-8062-2019-0
 * Egon Gersbach: Die mittelbronzezeitlichen Wehranlagen der Heuneburg bei Hundersingen a.D. In: Arch. Korrespondenzblatt. 1973, 3, P. 417–422.
 * Wolfgang Kimmig: Die Heuneburg an der oberen Donau. Führer arch. Denkm. Bad.-Württ. Stuttgart, Theiss 1983.
 * Dirk Krausse, Manuel Fernández-Götz, Leif Hansen, Inga Kretschmer, The Heuneburg and the Early Iron Age Princely Seats: First Towns North of the Alps. Budapest, Archeolingua 2016.
 * Manuel Fernández-Götz, Dirk Krausse, Rethinking Early Iron Age Urbanisation in Central Europe: The Heuneburg Site and its Archaeological Environment. Antiquity 87(336), 2013, P. 473-487.
 * Siegfried Kurz: Die Heuneburg-Außensiedlung (Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg vol. 72), Stuttgart 2000
 * Siegfried Kurz, Siegwalt Schiek: Bestattungsplätze im Umfeld der Heuneburg. (Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg vol. 87), Stuttgart 2002
 * Siegfried Kurz: Die Heuneburg bei Herbertingen-Hundersingen, Kreis Sigmaringen, und ihr Umland. Zum Abschluss des DFG-Projektes. In: Archäologische Ausgrabungen in Baden-Württemberg 2003. P. 62–65. Theiss, Stuttgart 2004. ISBN 3-8062-1876-5

Heuneburg studies
The excavations have led to the publication of a series of specialised monographs on the Heuneburg. 11 volumes have been published so far:
 * Gustav Riek: Der Hohmichele. Ein Fürstengrabhügel der späten Hallstattzeit. Heuneburgstudien 1, Röm.-German. Forsch. 26, Berlin 1962
 * Günter Mansfeld: Die Fibeln der Heuneburg 1950-1970. Heuneburgstudien 2, Röm.-German. Forsch. 33, Berlin 1973
 * Amei Lang: Die geriefte Drehscheibenkeramik der Heuneburg 1950-1970 und verwandte Gruppen. Heuneburgstudien 3, Röm.-German. Forsch. 34, Berlin 1974
 * Heinz-Werner Dämmer: Die bemalte Keramik der Heuneburg. Heuneburgstudien 4, Röm.-German. Forsch. 37, Mainz 1978
 * Susanne Sievers: Die Kleinfunde der Heuneburg. Heuneburgstudien 5, Römisch-Germanische Forschungen 42 Mainz, 1984
 * Egon Gersbach: Ausgrabungsmethodik und Stratigraphie der Heuneburg. Heuneburgstudien 6, Röm.-German. Forsch. 45, Mainz 1988
 * Daniela Fort-Linksfeiler: Die Schüsseln und Schalen der Heuneburg. Heuneburgstudien 7, Röm.-German. Forsch. 47, Mainz 1989
 * Helga van den Boom: Großgefäße und Töpfe der Heuneburg. Heuneburgstudien 8, Röm.-German. Forsch.51, Mainz 1991
 * Egon Gersbach: Baubefunde der Perioden IVc - IVa der Heuneburg. Heuneburgstudien 9, Röm.-German. Forsch. 53, Mainz 1995
 * Egon Gersbach: Baubefunde der Perioden IIIb - Ia der Heuneburg. Heuneburgstudien 10, Röm.-German. Forsch. 56, Mainz 1996
 * Wolfgang Kimmig (Hrsg.): Importe und mediterrane Einflüsse auf der Heuneburg. Heuneburgstudien 11, Röm.-German. Forsch. 59, Mainz 2000

title: Heuneburg


text:
Vital Center

The term Vital Center was first coined by the Harvard historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. in his 1949 book of that title. However, he objected to the domestic use of the phrase:

US President Bill Clinton started to use the phrase "vital center" in speeches given during his term of office. Schlesinger noted an article for Slate magazine that Clinton hoped to appropriate the term to mean "middle of the road" or something that his "DLC fans" might prefer its meaning to be, which would locate it "somewhere closer to Ronald Reagan than to Franklin D. Roosevelt." In the Slate article, Schlesinger strongly rejected that interpretation of the term and reiterated his argument from the 1998 introduction:

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Vital Center


text:
Talk:Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade

"Guerilla" or "Terrorist"
Does anyone else feel that "guerilla" is a more neutral term than terrorist? I mean the previous attacks by this particular unit weren't against purely civilian targets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DamnedDamnedDamned (talk • contribs)

[CK]: I'm not sure that targets have to be civilian for an attack to be considered "terrorism". dictionary.com gives us this:

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

I changed it back to "terrorist" based on this.

The rest of Wikipedia doesn't follow what you said. That definition is not true at all or else pretty much any armed conflict (that is considered illegal which is POV anyway) would qualify. The Provos considered themselves legally justified by there more then reasonable support base, if you disagree thats fine, but thats POV. The word terrorist is not used to refer to armed Irish Republican groups on wikipedia there was some large arguments on it over at Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army. The arguments alone are indicitive of it being a POV matter, that is easily settled by uses a NPOV word like guerilla, paramilitary, or depending the case not using a discriptive word in that context. (the man was a member of the IRA instead of the man was a member of the [discriptive word] group the IRA).SCVirus 10:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[niraqsback]:

I changed it back to terrorist - yet again. This article is politically impregnated. Volunteer is a term the organisation gives its own 'people'. The IRA is a proscribed terrorist organisation under the laws of the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Its members have attacked and killed civilians with intention in addition to attacking and destroying civilian property against the laws of both states. Its members are correctly described as 'terrorists' The fact that the same coiterie of 'editors' keep changing the nomenclature to 'volunteers' shows up this article for what it is; web-propaganda administered by individuals with a clearly defined political allegiance and bias. You only have to visit the respective 'pages' of the same editors in question to see this!

 * The IRA has never been a proscribed terrorist organisation in the Republic of Ireland. Also please see WP:TERRORIST and WP:NPOV. It's quite a common thing now, for example the BBC and Reuters have similar editorial policies, unfortunately for British people who think The Sun is a bastion of neutrality. 15 cans of Stella  303  16:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

[niraqsback]:

Incorrect. The IRA is and as been - for several decades - an illegal organisation in the Republic of Ireland. It has committed illegal acts of terrorism - as described by An Garda Siochana and the Irish Government - against unarmed civilians - e.g. The Enniskillen atrocity on Nov 8th 1987 in which eleven people were killed and 63 injured, nine of them seriously.

Furthermore members of the Irish Defence Forces (Óglaigh na hÉireann) and An Garda Siochana have been murdered by the IRA down the years. Under the laws of the Republic of Ireland, membership of the self-styled IRA is an offence.

Not sure what your the diatribe about the SUN etc. has to do with this article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army.

18.24, 01 August 2008 (GMT)

 * under U.S. law, an attack against a military target does not meet the legal definition of terrorism[18] (see: 22 USC § 2656f(d)(2)).--Conor Fallon (talk) 03:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

 * What does the U.S. have to do with anything? Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 15:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not up to day on UK laws, I gave this as an example how attacks on military targets are often not considered terrorist attacks.--Conor Fallon (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

PoV
Intercept To stop, deflect, or interrupt the progress or intended course of e.g. ''the unit was intercepted as they carried out an unlawful attack on a police station. Niraqsback 16:50, 14 August 2008 (GMT)

Ambush is distinctly POV. Intercepted in the correct military term. Niraqsback 19:52, 01 August 2008 (GMT)

The SAS held a celebration party after the ambush.: Will we now be listing all the parties held by the IRA after their killings? Andy Mabbett 21:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * If you have a source for IRA parties then by all means list them but I've never read or heard anythiing bout the ra celebrating GiollaUidir 10:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Politics
Does anyone know where the IRA in Tyrone stood in relation to the ceasefires? I think they were opposed and some of them went dissident, but I'll have to look it up. We should have a section here about this. Jdorney 00:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

East Tyrone, the area in question were skeptical of the ceasefires and peace process but there wasn't widespread defections. (Irish Republican 05:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC))
 * I'll add something to it soon--Vintagekits 19:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge from members
Please merge any relevant content from these articles, per their AFDs: Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-14 02:13Z
 * [ Gerry O'Callaghan] per Articles for deletion/Gerry O'Callaghan
 * [ Patrick Kelly] per Articles for deletion/Patrick Kelly
 * [ Eugene Kelly (Irish republican)] per Articles for deletion/Eugene Kelly (Irish republican)
 * [ Seamus Donnelly] per Articles for deletion/Seamus Donnelly
 * [ Declan Arthurs] per Articles for deletion/Declan Arthurs
 * [ Tony Gormley] per Articles for deletion/Tony Gormley

 * Fantastic-this article is going to get horrendously messy as a result of this and quite possibally unencyclopedic. I hope the POV-pushers are happy. :| GiollaUidir 12:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am probably going to restart the Patrick Kelly article - he was the overall commander of the Tyrone Brigade and over Jim and Padraig. Anyone got any objections? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vintagekits (talk • contribs) 14:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
 * You'll need to create it in the project preparation area then take it to DRV, you can't just unilaterally recreate it. One Night In Hackney 303 14:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasnt just going to spring it, I ws going to start in the the project page and add him to the lonely William Flemming. Whats DRV?--Vintagekits 14:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just making sure you knew. DRV is deletion review, I'll be happy to handle that when the time comes.  One Night In Hackney 303 14:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But the page wasnt deleted just merged - anyway, if you are happy to sort it then thats gets. Controrebel looks like he is back for a bit and he knows the ET Brigade inside out so should be a big help on that.--Vintagekits 14:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Deletion review applies to the outcome of any AfD debate, whether it's merge, delete or even keep. If anyone thinks a decision is wrong, that's the next step. One Night In Hackney 303 15:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool, shouldnt be a problem. I am not going to do the same with Declan, Eugene and Seamus as they were pretty young and the main operation the were involved in but at a later stage might start Gerry's up again.--Vintagekits 15:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Mountain lodge?
What about mountain lodge? was that before or after this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.163.67 (talk • contribs)
 * It might help if you were a bit more clear. What are you talking about? ---Charles 22:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he's talking about the 1983 killing of three Protestants in County Armagh by the Catholic Reaction Force, but don't quote me on that. One Night In Hackney 303 22:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Aaahhhhh... I recall that event. Well, regardless, what has that to do with this article? ---Charles 22:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely nothing as far as I can see, which is why I'm not sure if that's what he's talking about. One Night In Hackney 303 22:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. Oh, Mr. Anonymous Editor, you wanna help us out here?  I rather doubt we'll get any clarification.  It's funny to me that "clarification" was the word he used in the edit summary when he posted the question.  Apparently, he was looking for it, not offering. ---Charles 22:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

PoV
I think 'ambush' is hopelessly POV, throughout. I'm well aware that 'martyr' is in there due to a certain folk tradition recognising the attackers, but it's a bit rich to keep reverting to 'ambush' when a more neutral stance is 'incident'. Hugorudd 19:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Incident is POV and weasel wording, and it's described as an ambush in plenty of sources. One Night In Hackney 303 20:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Loughgall Ambush -  , and that's ignoring the number of books it can easily be sourced from. Also given your attempt to change Derry to Londonderry on the Bloody Sunday article, your motivation for the POV and weasel wording is apparent.  One Night In Hackney 303 20:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Just to fully nail this down, you changed "were ambushed and killed by the" to "were killed in an Op/React mission by the" in this edit. Big Boys' Rules by Mark Urban has this to say regarding OP/React missions on page 164:

 * "During the 1980s the term 'ambush' was replaced in SAS orders in Northern Ireland by 'OP/React', short for 'Observation Post/Reactive', according to an SAS man who served there. He says an OP/React order is 'to all intents and purposes an ambush' and believes it was a cosmetic change prompted by RUC sensitivity over the word 'ambush'."

 * So your use of the rather vague term of "Op/React mission" only serves to confuse the reader. Furthermore let's see what Urban says about the number of troops involved on page 228:

 * "Commanders decided that the twenty-four SAS soldiers resident in Ulster were insufficient for this task, so 22 SAS headquarters in Herford was alerted. A troop of about fifteen soldiers belonging to G Squadron was flown over from Britain to boost the forces in Ulster....In addition the Provisionals would be shadowed by Army surveillance experts and those of the Special Branch's E4A. It is also believed that members of the RUC's highly trained HMSU were deployed in the area. At least fifty of the Army's and the RUC's troops most highly trained in surveillance techniques and the use of firearms were committeed to the immediate operation, and several companies of UDR and regular Army soldiers as well as mobile police squads were to be available to cordon off the Armagh/Dungannon area after the operation. Loughgall was to be an operation involving hundreds of soldiers and police."

 * Furthermore SAS soldiers were specifically placed inside the station, so that any attempted attack on the station would have allowed any soldier to instantly open fire on those responsible, therefore acting within the terms of the Army Yellow Card. So let's not beat about the bush with weasel or POV wording like OP/React or incident. The security forces had advance knowledge of the operation, and acted upon that information to ambush those responsible. It wasn't some chance encounter where soldiers just happened to be out on patrol, it was a clear and premeditated ambush, all sources agree on that. One Night In Hackney 303 03:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Successful
What is a successful attack? One murder? 100 murders?Traditional unionist 10:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

 * The SAS set out to ambuse the Volunteers, in that they were successful. Dose that answer your question? Could I also remind you that we use the discussion page to improve articles, and not as a soap box. --Domer48 11:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I made an edit. It was reverted, I am asking for the rational.  What is a successful attack?Traditional unionist 11:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The opposite of an unsuccessful attack. The previous two were successful, Loughgall was not, so there needs to be a distinction. One Night In Hackney  303  11:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The bomb went off didn't it? Surely that is success by those standards?Traditional unionist 11:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:DFTT. One Night In Hackney  303  11:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It was provocative and unnecessary to link to DFTT. Please respond to reasonable discussion reasonably. I've removed "successful" per WP:WEASEL: obviously if they carried out bomb attacks they were "successful". Otherwise the wording would have been different, e.g. "they attempted to carry out..." or some such. We state the facts and let the reader make the interpretation. Tyrenius 14:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrong, it was wholly necessary. He's well aware of the history of the IRA and in particular Loughgall. He referred to an operation where eight members of the IRA were unlawfully killed by the SAS as a success for the IRA. That's provocative trolling. One Night In Hackney  303  16:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh? The dispute is about the two earlier attacks, which you called successful, and he previously and subsequently reverted. Tyrenius 17:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * At 11:36 I said the "previous two [attacks] were successful, and Loughgall was not". He responded at 11:37 saying "The bomb went off didn't it? Surely that is success by those standards?". Yes the bomb went off, but all eight IRA members were killed and it was the IRA's biggest single loss of life since the 1920s. Now do you see why it's provocative?  One Night In Hackney  303  17:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)(edit conflict) Oh, I see, you're referring to the post in this thread. It's not trolling, just inappropriate argument, as the whole of this argument is inappropriate, since it's editors putting forward their own evaluation of events, divorced from any sources. Tyrenius 17:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

 * You don't consider that deliberately provocative? And unlike most editors on this page I have a copy of the major source used in this article, and most of the minor ones too. One Night In Hackney  303  17:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF requires you to assume the editor is acting properly, unless you can prove otherwise. You can't prove otherwise: you are conjecturing as to motive. In the context of the conversation, which is about what constitutes "successful" it is valid to point out that this term is open to different interpretations, and that Loughgall could itself be called that, in as much as the objective was achieved. There are plenty of attacks that are deemed successful for that reason despite the assailants perishing in accomplishing their task. This is why editors shouldn't evaluate information, but should state facts and let the reader decide. If you stick to the argument(s) presented and refrain from making personal comments about editors, you will be on much safer ground. Tyrenius 17:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

 * . One Night In Hackney  303  17:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a point, and, if there is, is it anything that wouldn't be better addressed in ArbCom? Tyrenius 18:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

 * and is relevant too. I'm sure those diffs and plenty more besides will end up at ArbCom, however they are also relevant here and now.  One Night In Hackney  303  18:09, 17 September 2007 (UT)
 * How? Tyrenius 18:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

From previous discussions with Traditional unionist on both the Orange Institution and Bobby Sands's Article the description outlined in WP:DFTT would I consider to be good advice. Both discussions resulted in opinion used as evidence, and references being ignored. It is somewhat gratifying that they now place citation tags, and they have been addressed by One Night In Hackney  303. If you look at Traditional unionist opening comment on this discussion, improving the content of the article is not what was being sought, therefore their intent was...? --Domer48 18:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am right now not looking at other discussions. I'm looking at this one. The issue was all about whether attacks should be labelled "successful" or not. This was the point Traditional Unionist was validly addressing at the beginning of the thread. Tyrenius 18:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Well that's a moot point, as "successful" is now "spectacular". I bet TU wishes he hadn't started this now.... One Night In Hackney  303  18:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That just comes across as an attempt at point-scoring and doesn't do you any credit. Please try to work collegiately with other editors. WP:NOT. Tyrenius 18:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You do realise you're referring to the editor who has repeatedly described me and other editors in good standing as "nationalist vandals" don't you? And that was after you issued him repeated warnings about attacking other editors and after it was brought to your attention your actions were wholly inconsistent. If people want to know why I'm not staying post ArbCom, look no further. One Night In Hackney  303  12:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There's nothing inconsistent. He acted inappropriately and was warned. You acted inappropriately and were warned. The fact that someone else does something wrong doesn't entitle you to also. That is a well-established principle on wikipedia. Tyrenius 18:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:FintonaMortarAttack.jpg
Image:FintonaMortarAttack.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tony-Gormley.jpg
Image:Tony-Gormley.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edits
It's called the "Loughgall Ambush" and all sources agree they were ambushed, it is not called the "Loughgall Interception". Please seek consensus for your changes, rather than continually making the same disputed and incorrect edits. BigDunc Talk 12:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How about the Kilmichael Interception? As an example? Its called the "Loughgall Ambush."-- Domer48 'fenian'  08:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Again you are reverting without coming near the talk page a quick google search throws up al big fat zero for "Loughgall Interception" so could you please explain your edits thanks. BigDunc  Talk 16:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Dunc that is highly disingenious. This content dispute is not about what it is called, it;s about NPOV language in the article.  I'm inclined to agree with whoever is doing the editing.  Ambush is a loaded word that does lead to a POV.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Traditional unionist, it is you who is being disingenuous. The user who has made these changes has offered no explanation, nor has he quoted a source for his choice of language.  The sources quoted call it an ambush, so, whether you call it NPOV or not, it is accurate and appropriate. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  00:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Intercept To stop, deflect, or interrupt the progress or intended course of e.g. ''the unit was intercepted as they carried out an unlawful attack on a police station. Traditional unionist is right. The ira "unit" were intercepted as they carried out an attack. This is clear and correct factual English.
 * Niraqsback 16:50, 14 August 2008 (GMT)

 * I am just about sick and tired of your tone. No one has expressed any doubt as to the meaning of the word intercept, so we do not need your little vocabulary lesson.  If you cannot find a source that says "intercept" instead of "ambush," you have no business changing the article. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  16:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

 * My commentary suggests no tone. Sorry to hear you are tired and unwell.
 * Niraqsback 17:07, 14 August 2008 (GMT)

 * "Intercepted" is problematic, as it carries connotations of whatever is doing the interception being mobile in a changing situation, i.e. getting "ahead" of the target, whereas Loughgall was a static ambush in a foreseen location. In addition, Urban's Big Boys' Rules specifically deals with the military concept of an "ambush" in understanding what happened at Loughgall and elsewhere. Some may consider the word POV, but it has a precise military meaning that reflects its use here. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I fail to see how a word in the English language can be deemed "problematic". The SAS knew their opponents were intent on carrying out an attack. Their opponents did so and were intercepted i.e. "nabbed", intercepted, caught in the act of carrying out a specific action. Intercepted is therefore an appropriate and accurate term. As you quite correctly have indicated, "some" may consider "ambush" a word which, in "Wikipedia" parlance could be considered "POV". Intercepted is therfore a more appropriate choice of word as it is free of such ambiguity or bias.
 * Niraqsback 17:57, 14 August 2008 (GMT)
 * Well, my dictionary defines "intercept" as "Seize, catch, stop (person, message, vehicle, etc.) on the way from place to place" i.e. en route. The SAS didn't ambush the ASU on its way to Loughgall, or indeed on its way back from Loughgall, but at Loughgall itself. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Separate article
The Loughgall Ambush should really have its own article, yeah? Stu  ’Bout ye!  15:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree. BigDunc  15:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree also. Irvine22 (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

While I may agree that there should be a separate article, I see it has been done in a totally clueless and incorrect way. Since I can't be bothered spending hours fixing other people's messes any more, either this article is fixed by the person responsible or it's being merged back here. 2 lines of K 303  13:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

 * This place goes more to the dogs each day. You'd expect someone who has forked an article to know what the problem is, and not have to ask random people. You'd also expect that anyone planning to fork an article might have bothered to read WP:CFORK before they had forked an article, unless they were totally ignorant of its existence in the first place of course. Now that you know where it is, have a quick read of it and you should be able to figure out why you ballsed it up first time round. There is a consensus for Loughgall to be forked, but that would involve it complying with the global consensus on how articles should be forked. So you either fix the mess you created on this article which is against global consensus, which takes precedence over any local consensus, or I am merging it back until such time as you fix it. 2 lines of K  303  14:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding recent edits
An anonymous user made some clearly unhelpful rewording edits recently, was reverted, and then was backed up by a "mate" "with similar interests, outlooks & values," as he put it. I, in turn, reverted the, er, "mate." This is a clear matter, though. "Brigade" is a simple factual term used by the sources, whereas "gang" isn't a factual term at all but a POV label supposedly deriving from sources that have not been provided. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 23:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Absolutely. "Brigade" is a division of the IRA that is recognised by most sources that have written about the IRA. "Group" could mean anything, if we are talking about brigade then say brigade. It is a factual label used by sources. O Fenian (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Kitlingra's gone shopping for support from the usual suspects, so I'll keep an eye on the page in case any reverts are needed. Is there a resident admin here? Throwaway85 (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Resident admin here? One would hope so? -- Domer48 'fenian'  00:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really want to disturb Rd232 on his wikisemibreak, so let's hold off until problems arise that require admin intervention. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Odd....
That the editor who proposed merging several articles back into this one hasn't actually bothered to do the merge, and in fact attempted to redirect the articles without merging. This is despite there being merged versions of the articles in the history of this one. So is anyone actually going to do the merge? 2 lines of K 303  15:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See User talk:Valenciano. I'm going to take a look at this in the next few days. As per the link, I was discussing how much should be merged to the "Membership of the Loughgall Unit" section. For example I think this would be sufficient for Arthurs:

"Declan Arthurs was a volunteer from the townland of Galbally in Tyrone, who became involved in the republican movement after attending the funeral of hunger striker Martin Hurson. Prior to the Loughgall ambush, Arthurs had been interned on three occassions." Mini biographies for each isn't required, just what's relevant. Maybe mention Arthurs' brother as well. What do you think? Stu  ’Bout ye!  15:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

'Retaliated'
The use of scare quotes around the word "retaliated" does not seem appropriate. The UDA perceived the murders of Protestants as a sectarian attack and carried out their own sectarian murders as was their disgusting habit, but there's no reason to believe it was anything but a retaliation, so the punctuation is not necessary.--FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 02:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Agreed. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Refs
QS, will you restore those refs? Gob Lofa (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)