Talk:Airey Neave

More info please

"supported covert "civil defence" actions against Harold Wilson's Labour government" What a tease! Rich Farmbrough 14:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The Kevin Cahill (Irish investigative journalist) referred to in the text is not the Kevin Cahill who is referenced by the hyperlink.

Furthermore the article refers to the Wilson government of the "early 70s". Wilson's two administrations were in the 60s (64-70) and the mid 70s (74-76). Edward Heath was PM from 1970 to 1974, which by any reasonable definition must be the early 70s. (qlangley).

Christopher Sykes?

The link does not seem to refer to any likely person. Is this a reference to Christopher Ewart-Biggs (UK ambassador to Ireland) or Richard Sykes (UK ambassador to Netherlands), both of whom were assassinated by the IRA? Widmerpool 08:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Crackpot assassination theories

While everybody loves a good conspiracy theory, this page contains too much information on the allegations made by one or two people. There's no actual evidence Neave sought to clean up the intelligence services, and the claim that the INLA lacked the technology to build the mercury-triggered bomb was dismissed by the Irps, who claimed to have tested the device on a member of the UDR months before the assassination.--User:70.52.180.126 05:23, July 20, 2007

The conspiracy content does seem rather weak, and largely based on a second-hand account of Cahill's claims included in Routledge's recent biography of Neave. LeContexte 16:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall an award-winning movie was based on one of these conspiracy theories, though I cannot remember the name of the movie. --Vvmodel (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the information should be deleted. Although I do think Neave's wartime activities and his political career should be expanded.--Johnbull (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Searchlight regiment?

What's a searchlight regiment? A regiment that operates searchlights? --AW 14:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't make it clear, but I think you've hit the nail on the head; based on e.g. this page about the Middlesex Regiment, a searchlight regiment operated searchlights in an anti-aircraft role. Or have a look at this page about the 225th AA Searchlight Battalion. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Tugendhat

The section on conspiracy theories states that "(Journalist Kevin) Cahill suggests a link between Neave's murder and Sir Richard Sykes' murder and the attempted murder of Christopher Tugendhat in December 1980". Wikipedia's article on Christopher Tugendhat mentions nothing of this. The only mention of the incident that I can find on the internet is on this Wikipedia article, which doesn't give a source (the page has one reference, but it doesn't mention Tugendhat). -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Death

The article, unreferenced, says "Both of his legs were blown off and he died in hospital an hour after being freed from the wreckage". However, a BBC4 documentary on "The Iron Lady" (broadcast 8pm on 17 June) claims that he was blown to pieces, and that the body could not be identified for several hours. Any verifiable source? --Paul Moloney (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The confusion may arise from the convention that no-one dies in a Royal Palace - they are always declared to have died at th hospital. If anyone dies on the premises of a Royal Palace the reigning monarch has to personally chair the inquest so the pretence that no-one ever does is maintained. (This sentence added by qlangley).

There is another reason why Airey Neave was not pronounced dead at the scene. Unless a doctor of medicine was able to state categorically that a person was dead - a British legal requirement., then they were always deemed to have been declared DOA -Dead on Arrival at a hospital casualty or Accident and Emergency - A&E department. The introduction of paramedics in the 1990's on to ambulances changed that and as a result many people are now declared dead at the scene of an incident. It may seem strange for example that a person could be in bits, head detached etc., but legally still alive as no doctor could certify that they were dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:A595:FA00:F948:D2D1:9BDE:2A29 (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

NPOV in death section

I have read one of Neave's autobiographies and seem to recall that his legs were amputated in c.1960, due to injuries caused in his escape - this was the health problem that led to Heath's quote. Having artificial legs blown off may not have been painful? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smlark (talk • contribs) 22:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I've checked several articles to try and shed some light on this and they all maintain that Neave's health problem was a heart attack. Here's an example;

"Neave stood at the 1950 election in Thurrock and at Ealing North in 1951. He was elected for Abingdon in a by-election in June 1953, but his career was held back by a heart attack he suffered in 1959."

http://military.wikia.com/wiki/Airey_Neave Meltingpot (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

This sentence in the 'death' section: "The nauseous Margaret Thatcher snivelled on television that he was an 'incalculable loss'—and so he was—to the British ruling class" seems to fall down on NPOV. I amended, but it was reverted. Khcf6971 (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It is a perfectly NPOV sentence, if you read it properly. O Fenian (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - entirely my fault, I didn't pick up on where the quote started and stopped - thank you for the fast revert. Khcf6971 (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I too had qualms about NPOV, as it wasn't that clear that it was a quotation. Hopefully, it should be clear now. Mjroots (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

What did Neave get his MC for?

If someone who knows could add that info, that would be great. 86.184.144.72 (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Was Airey Neave ever stationed in the Cairo-North Africa during WWII when he worked for Military Intelligence ?

86.151.100.11 (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

SIS

Snowded, I've had a look at the SIS page and it refers to the organisation as the SIS in the section covering the 1970s, the time relevant to my edit. If SIS is an older title as you suggest, then why is it the name of the article describing the current organisation? Gob Lofa (talk) 09:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I've no idea why it is the title of the current article so am especially interested. MI6 is better understood now especially when MI5 is being mentioned as well ----Snowded ^TALK 17:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Apparently hasn't used that name since WWII. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Not true, they use SIS (MI6) on current web sites and '6' and '5' are common parlance in whitehall. In this context existing use of MI6 is fine ----Snowded ^TALK 18:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh it's fine, certainly. But it can't trump the the actual name. Gob Lofa (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Good then you will now leave it alone unless other editors get involved ----Snowded ^TALK 05:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Like you? Gob Lofa (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Snowded? Gob Lofa (talk) 10:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

You have a new question? You want to apologise for reinstating your edit without consensus? ----Snowded ^TALK 10:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your edit. Gob Lofa (talk) 10:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Can't think of another way to try and clarify yours, maybe you have a 'third way'? ----Snowded ^TALK 11:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, I don't understand why you changed GB to UK in 'Cahill found Neave's remarks surprising because he seemed internally preoccupied with the UK, with his Northern Ireland brief "almost a sideline".' Whatever you might wish, NI is still in the UK and your sneaky pro-IRA edits aren't welcome. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Snowded, desist from your slow edit wars and engage in talk page discussions. Gob Lofa (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not repeating myself just because you want to pursue a solitary path. Neither is your comment on pro-IRA acceptable, I have asked for that to be reviewed ----Snowded ^TALK 15:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Did I miss your previous explanation for changing GB to UK? You're entitled to your nationalist views and you're entitled to seek the breakup of the UK, but that doesn't extend to edit warring here. Gob Lofa (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Snowded? Gob Lofa (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Snowded? Gob Lofa (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

You made a change I reverted it. Given that your question contains a false statement it can't be answered. Otherwise see comment of 19th September. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

"Did I miss your previous explanation for changing GB to UK?" What falsehood are you talking about? Gob Lofa (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't make a change, I reverted a change you made ----Snowded ^TALK 22:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

That's pretty Jesuitical. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

So, what falsehood? Gob Lofa (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Snowded? Gob Lofa (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC).

See previous answer and comments ----Snowded ^TALK 23:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I just have, but can't see where you've said what falsehood you're talking about. Can you remember? Gob Lofa (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

not really sure how more obvious it can be. You made a change and I reverted it, not the other way round ----Snowded ^TALK 23:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure you do remember. The question I asked was "Did I miss your previous explanation for changing GB to UK?" You then wrote "Given that your question contains a false statement it can't be answered." It's right there in black and white so I'm a little shocked that you think you can get away with what is a pretty transparent dodge. You can have another go, if you like. Gob Lofa (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Repeating, you initiated a change not I ----Snowded ^TALK 00:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

That's not an answer to the question you were asked, Snowded. I'm pretty confident you know that. Gob Lofa (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Well its the answer to the question as I understand it; so I think it is "This correspondence must now cease" time. If you want to raise a new argument for your original change, or other editors want to get involved then OK, but otherwise this is not getting us anywhere ----Snowded ^TALK 00:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Par for the course with you bucko, so no surprises there. Gob Lofa (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

@Bastun: Yiu are challenging the long-term stable version so the onus is on you to get a consensus.Do you have any competence whatsoever?

Regardless Neave was a person, how can be belong in an incidents category?Apollo The Logician (talk) 08:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 08:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

1. No. That's not how WP:CONSENSUS works, as you've been told multiple times by multiple editors. BRD applies. 2. Read WP:NPA. 3. Because he was murdered in a terrorist incident. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Those who are seeking to insert new material have the onus to gain consensus. It's not that hard mate. This article is not titled "Killing of Airey Neave" so it's not really appropriate.Apollo The Logician (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Is targeted assassination by definition terrorism?

I saw the dispute regarding this on ATL's talkpage and I think there is perhaps a valid point to be made whether the terrorist categories belong here. The cause of Neave's death was a targeted assassination by an organisation which considered him to be an enemy combatant in a conflict (ie - the Irish National Liberation Army). The definition of terrorism is an indiscriminate attack which has the aim of causing a general fear in the population. These two things; assassination and terrorism appear to be different categories of incident. Something like the Omagh bombing would be a better example of a terror incident. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

A terrorist is a person or persons who are not members of of a legally constituted armed force. As such the IRA, PIRA, INLA, Real IRA, UVF etc; fall in to that category. They were not and never have been part of the Irish State military. Therefore they full fill the definition of "Terrorist!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:A595:FA00:F948:D2D1:9BDE:2A29 (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Airey Neave. 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/20150207231619/http://www.arcre.com/archive/mi9/neave to http://www.arcre.com/archive/mi9/neave

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) 02:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Use of "sic" on this and related articles

I have again removed the addition of sic to this article and the assassination one.

• The nauseous (sic) Margaret Thatcher snivelled on television that he was an 'incalculable loss'—and so he was—to the British ruling class

This is the grammatically correct use of "nauseous". This is confirmed by Merriam-Webster

• "Many people have a strong belief that the proper use of nauseous is the one which may be defined as "causing nausea or disgust," . . . We do not disagree that this is a fine and specific manner in which to use nauseous, and if this is the way in which you learned how to use the word you may continue to do so"

And Vocabulary.com

• "If you're nauseated you're about to throw up, if you're nauseous, you're a toxic funk and you're going to make someone else puke.

It further states

• "Nauseous, on the other hand, should be reserved to mean causing that feeling, not having it. But it's used so often now to mean "feeling sick," that dictionaries define it that way."

Or you can keep going with this and countless others than confirm nauseous is correct. Other than one editor's apparent lack of understanding of what nauseous actually means, there is no problem with the original quote. I am removing the addition. 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:34D6:349F:F6D0:68A3 (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Assassination is murder...

...thus the edit-warring to change "assassinated" to "murdered" is pointless, since assassinated is the correct, and more importantly the more appropriate term, to use for a politically motivated murder. 2.221.168.203 (talk) 07:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Even Maggie Thatcher had no problem calling it an assassination! 2.221.168.203 (talk) 07:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I have restore the lead that was stable prior to this edit. FDW777 (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Consistent terminology

Are there any objections to the sole remaining change (the rest have since been apparently reverted or otherwise reverted) from this edit being changed? As per the section above, even Margaret Thatcher had no problems with calling it an assassination.

In addition I propose the rewording of "Irish terrorist paramilitarism" to "Irish paramilitaries" or some other wording to be decided upon, since it is not compatible with WP:TERRORIST. FDW777 (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)