This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British crime, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.British crimeWikipedia:WikiProject British crimeTemplate:WikiProject British crimeBritish crime articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish Republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Irish RepublicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish RepublicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish RepublicanismIrish Republicanism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related articles
2008 discussion of PIRA Bridage in terms of troop-strength
PIRA does not employ the military terms Brigade and Battalion in a conventional manner; the entire strength of PIRA - as supplied above - approximated to that of one NATO battalion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxburgoyne (talk • contribs) 19:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't put crap on talk pages that's been removed from articles for a very good reason. Do you want to know why you couldn't source it? Simple, it's not true. Would you like a couple of quotes from the British Army's own report on Operation Banner?
Altogether about 10,000 people were involved in the IRA between 1969 and 1972.
Between May and December 1973 1,798 members of PIRA were arrested.
The articles states, ". . . in 2002 the IRA had about 1,000 active members of which about 300 were in active service units". Units are not filled with historic members or those "involved" but only marginally so your point is not well made. Any 12 year old "dicking" troops would count as "involved" I took part in Op BANNER so do know what I am writing about.
Avoid "crap" comments. Not that eloquent or adult is it? --MJB (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid it is well made. You're simply going by a figure from one moment in time yet ignoring various points. Namely...
The 2002 strength of the IRA has no bearing on its use of the term in the early 1970s.
The level of activity in the early 1970s (especially 1972) clearly demonstrates the number of active IRA members at the time, all sourced by the Operation Banner report.
Yet none of that changes the original point. No source has made the observation, because it's flat out wrong. I suppose the people who've written all the books, reports etc know nothing compared to you, is that it? One Night In Hackney303 22:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are of course correct. There are 4000 plus people in a PIRA Brigade and I apologise for all the confusion I have caused. --MJB (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, the stength of the British Army is 100 million as I am going to include all historical members and supporters. --MJB (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was Move'Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am requesting that this page be moved to the grammatically-correct "Active service unit", since the article is about the generic organisational unit known as an "active service unit", and not about a specific "Active Service Unit". The comparison noted in the discussion below is "brigade" (generic unit) as opposed to "Brigade" (the South Tyrone Brigade). Mooretwin (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is it a proper noun? A proper noun is Tuesday, or Dublin, or Simon, or Africa. It's actually a phrase of three words, only one of which is a noun. It is a term describing an organisational unit in a generic sense - it's even preceded by the indefinite article in the opening sentence: an active service unit. If it were describing a specific, named unit then capitals might be appropriate, e.g. "the Ballygobackwards Active Service Unit was one of seven active service units in the Tyrone area". Mooretwin (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hilarious. As noted above, though, it is a phrase of three words, only one of which is even a noun. Mooretwin (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A proper noun is used to denote a particular person, place, or thing, is an ASU not a thing? BigDuncTalk 21:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A table is also a thing. Do you capitalise table? The table in my dining room is a particular table - should I refer to My Dining Room Table? Mooretwin (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And how do those discussions have any bearing on this? Mooretwin (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I ask, why should this term be written in capitals? It (a three-word phrase) is not "a proper noun": it is a generic term to describe an organisational unit. Specific "active service units" would be capitalised, but not the generic term. Mooretwin (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a proper noun. BigDuncTalk 21:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but how can a three-word phrase, consisting of two adjectives and a noun, be "a proper noun"? Mooretwin (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an example of correct capitalisation from Provisional IRA South Armagh Brigade: The South Armagh Brigade was a brigade within the Provisional Irish Republican Army ... "Brigade is capitalised in the name of the specific brigade in question, but no capital is used in the generic usage which follows. The equivalent here would be The South Armagh Active Service Unit was an active service unit within the PIRA. Mooretwin (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for an explanation as to how a three-word phrase, consisting of two adjectives and a noun, be "a proper noun" - and why "active service unit" should be capitalised, whereas "brigade", for example, need not be capitalised. Mooretwin (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, "previous discussions" don't provide an explanation. Why do you call for capitals for "active service unit", but not for "brigade"? Mooretwin (talk) 09:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Previous discussions do provide an explanation. Likewise examples such as Special Air Service, MI5, RUC and PSNI as to how a three-word phrase use capitals. --Domer48'fenian' 09:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So your argument is that any three-word phrase which is abbreviated must be written with capitals? In other words, the only reason you favour capitalising "active service unit", but not "brigade" is because "active service unit" is three words? That is looking at things the wrong way round (i.e. looking at the abbreviation and working backwards). I think you are confused by the fact that the term has been written as an acronym (and therefore in capitals), but generally, acronyms are written with capitals, regardless of whether the phrase itself is capitalised, e.g. RSVP, TV, ASAP, AWOL are all capitalised acronyms, but the phrases themselves do not use capitals.
Special Air Service, MI5, Royal Ulster Constabulary and Police Service of Northern Ireland are all the names of specific organisations, and are therefore capitalised. "Active service unit" is not the name of a specific organisation - it is a generic term for an organisational unit. I really can't see the difficulty in making the distinction. Mooretwin (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is currently being discussed on the talk page. It is a Proper noun, examples would include [9], [10], [11] and [12]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domer48 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Clearly it's not a proper noun: it's three words, only one of which is a noun, and describing a generic organisational unit, not a specific entity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooretwin (talk • contribs) 22:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
2009 discussion of WWI-era ASU, versus PIRA-era ASU
The first Active Service Units were created during the War For Independence as the photo of the plaque clearly shows. This history should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.38.5 (talk) 10:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of what you added was incorrect. There was one unit in Dublin, named the Active Service Unit. This article is not about that unit. O Fenian (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone writing these pages would take the time to read their own history once in awhile, instead of making assumptions based upon information from the popular media they would would know that Joost Augusteijn's, book "From Public Defiance To Guerrilla Warfare", Irish Academic Press, Dublin, 1996, pgs. 124-138, is an utterly reliable source, from which I got the following information:
The concept of the active service unit (ASU) was originally created during the Irish War For Independence. It was essentially a company of Irish Volunteers, comprised of men on the run, who were actively engaged in combat, via the mobile "Flying Columns" of the IRA.[1] These ASU's continued to operate throughout the War, the Irish Civil War and briefly, during the Border Campaign.(See Tim Pat Coogan's "The IRA" for Border Campaign reference) At a later date, the concept was altered by the PROVISIONAL Irish Republican Army (PIRA) into a cell of five to eight members, tasked with carrying out armed attacks. In 2002 the IRA had about 1,000 active members of which about 300 were in active service units.[2]
Nothing in this is at all inaccurate. You guys even have a plaque DATED from the WAR FOR INDEPENDENCE citing the spot on which the DUBLIN ASU was formed. It was only one ASU of many from that time period. Come on guys, cut out the propoganda, stick to the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.38.5 (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is inaccurate. You are confusing the "Active Service Unit" (note, it is a proper noun) with an "active service unit" (generic term). The information you added claims that the flying columns were active service units, when they were not they were flying columns. "Active Service Unit" referred to one specific unit, not any others. This is an academic enyclopedia, please stop adding nonsense. O Fenian (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not confusing anything, quite the contrary. The concept of the "flying column" (a mobile column fighting in irregular conditions) is one which pre-dates the Irish War For Independence. During that war though, the term "Flying Column" became a noun in that context, for a company of Irish Volunteer soldiers actively engaged in combat with the enemy, as opposed to Support Companies, who were not actively fighting, but were supplying, feeding, guarding those actively engaged. These companies were referred to by the IRA General Headquarter Staff as "Active Service Units". The Provisional IRA again referred to it's own units actively engaged (versus support units) as ASU's hence there is no "generic term" in this historical context and you are inaccurate. Fenian, you are yet again showing either your gross ignorance, or your active political agenda in this arena and it only discredits Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.38.5 (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, of the dozens of books I have on the period they all say without exception that the "Active Service Unit" was one unit in Dublin and there was no other unit called that during the War of Independence. That belongs in an article about that particular unit called "Active Service Unit", not confusing this article about an identically named but totally different type of unit. O Fenian (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Every Brigade - not just the Dublin Brigade - had an Active Service Unit. That plaque remembers just one of all the first ASU's. You need to read a hell of alot more - Augustein again, published by the IRISH ACADEMIC PRESS (heard of them?? or ar they "full of nonsense as well???) devotes a whole chapter to the Flying Column/Active Service Unit - the terms are interchangeable, as he states on page 125, and people all over Ireland have been using them as such since the War For Independence. Just one example of dozens:
I see you are still struggling to understand the difference between a proper noun and a generic term. O Fenian (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please explian to me where the IRA's ASU is documented here on Wiki...that would be a big help in explaining to me how you are differentiating between the two, and not nitpicking just to distract from the historical record. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.38.5 (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone provide a source to verify that the men in the photo are re-enacting a PIRA ASU? It appears that they are actually dressed in German Bundeswehr uniforms and one is carrying a Bundeswehr service rifle, so the PIRA connection isn't exactly clear.--FergusM1970 (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mooretwin wrote in 2009: "Explain why active service unit should be written as 'Active Service Unit'."
The IRA's Active Service Unit was a unique military term applied to attack units of the Irish Volunteers and only the Irish Volunteers (and later PIRA). The British army, for example, may have active service units or units on active service, but do not have military units designated by their HQ as being "Active Service Units". Thus the term - and it is one term, not three different ones - would not apply to them, their army or their units. A simple look at the first hand accounts taken down by Ireland's Bureau of Military History shows repeated examples of Irish war veterans, as well as some still serving in the "Defense Force" as it is known (note the capitalization of those "two" terms which add up to one noun), repeatedly shows that all members of the army spelt this term as "Active Service Unit". It's exactly like describing special operations forces and describing "United States Army Special Forces" or just "Army Special Forces" or "Special Forces" knowing that the reader understands that you mean specifically Army Special Forces by your capitalization. So for example the capitalization of the US Army's 1st Special Forces Group (SFG) at Ft. Lewis, would be identical to the capitalization of say the 3rd Cork Brigade's Active Service Unit (ASU). The word "teams" would not normally be capitalized in a sentence but Navy SEAL Teams - SEAL Team 2 for example - would be capitalized. Another SEAL example here on wikipedia would be "The Teams deploy as Naval Special Warfare Squadrons or Special Operations Task Forces." Are all "special operation task forces" in the world U.S. Navy SEALs? Of course not. But U.S. Navy SEALS are called Special Operations Task Forces when deployed, are specifically and uniquely called that (no other force in the world uses this) and hence the term is capitalized as a noun.
Maxburgoyne wrote in 2008... "Re: Use of names of types of units. PIRA does not employ the military terms Brigade and Battalion in a conventional manner; the entire strength of PIRA - as supplied above - approximated to that of one NATO battalion."
Actually the IRA's Active Service Unit *was* a unique military term applied to attack units of the Irish Volunteers and only the Irish Volunteers (and later PIRA). The British army, for example, may have active service units or units on active service, but do not have military units designated by their HQ as being "Active Service Units". Thus the term - and it is one term, not three different ones - would not apply to them, their army or their units. A simple look at the first hand accounts taken down by Ireland's Bureau of Military History shows repeated examples of Irish war veterans, as well as some still serving in the "Defense Force" as it is known (note the capitalization of those "two" terms which add up to one noun), repeatedly shows that all members of the army spelt this term as "Active Service Unit". It's exactly like describing special operations forces and describing "United States Army Special Forces" or just "Army Special Forces" or "Special Forces" knowing that the reader understands that you mean specifically Army Special Forces by your capitalization. So for example the capitalization of the US Army's 1st Special Forces Group (SFG) at Ft. Lewis, would be identical to the capitalization of say the 3rd Cork Brigade's Active Service Unit (ASU). The word "teams" would not normally be capitalized in a sentence but Navy SEAL Teams - SEAL Team 2 for example - would be capitalized. Another SEAL example here on wikipedia would be "The Teams deploy as Naval Special Warfare Squadrons or Special Operations Task Forces." Are all "special operation task forces" in the world U.S. Navy SEALs? Of course not. But U.S. Navy SEALS are called Special Operations Task Forces when deployed, are specifically and uniquely called that (no other force in the world uses this) and hence the term is capitalized as a noun.
One reason why British writers, reporters, wikipedia writers etc. try to keep it lower-case is because it is a subtle way of trying to de-legitimize the whole movement for Irish independence. A perfect example of which is the writings of Peter Hart which tried to "criminalize" Tom Barry and his actions by creating what has come to be shown completely false evidence including alleged eye witness testimonies from men who had been dead for years.
Finally, the Defense Forces's Bureau of Military History has posted numerous accounts by veteran Volunteers of their service in what they describe over and over again as "Active Service Units" which some point out were later called "Flying Columns." The PIRA borrowed the phrase "Active Service Unit" from the original IRA. This is incontrovertible proof and here you can see and read over 1000 entries yourself:
If the people with a political agenda keep deciding to re-write history here and elsewhere on Wikipedia, it will simply add to the corruption of Wikipedia as a reliable source of information.
O Fenian wrote in 2009: ...the "Active Service Unit" was one unit in Dublin and there was no other unit called that during the War of Independence. That belongs in an article about that particular unit called "Active Service Unit", not confusing this article about an identically named but totally different type of unit.
Information below copied mostly-verbatim from AfC submission written by 71.224.36.50 ( talk). I fiddled with formatting a little. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
During the Irish War of Independence, GHQ staff of the Irish Volunteers designated the strike force of a Brigade an "Active Service Unit" (often abbreviated "ASU"). Each Brigade had an ASU and was supported and billeted by local Companies while moving through a brigade area on operations. These units later came to be called "Flying Columns," but were still officially known as Active Service Units. As scholar Joost Augusteijn's, notes on page 125 of his book "From Public Defiance To Guerrilla Warfare," Irish Academic Press, Dublin, 1996, the terms Active Service Unit and Flying Column are interchangeable in the Irish context. Furthermore on pgs. 124-138, Augusteijn states that:
"The concept of the active service unit (ASU) was originally created during the Irish War For Independence. It was essentially a company of Irish Volunteers, comprised of men on the run, who were actively engaged in combat, via the mobile "Flying Columns" of the IRA. These ASU's continued to operate throughout the War, the Irish Civil War and briefly, during the Border Campaign."
Every Brigade of the Irish Volunteers (later "Irish Republican Army" the terms are interchangeable) had an Active Service Unit/Flying Column and supporting units. For example, in "Rebel Cork's Fighting Story 1916 - 1921" Published by The Kerryman, Ltd., Tralee 1947, we read under "The Heroic Fight at Clonmult" that:
"In order to fit themselves thoroughly for the task in hand, the I.R.A. Active Service Units, in the seclusion of quiet retreats, went through courses in physical and military training with the full knowledge that they needed both if they were to match themselves successfully against the war experienced British soldiers. The I.R.A. had to fight and learn at the same time; had to perfect themselves to a degree of discipline and skill that takes years to acquire in regular armies. Their Volunteer spirit, their zeal and their objective helped them to become proficient at arms in a short time, and turned them into soldiers, who could act with high intelligence and cool self control in any emergency or enterprise, either collectively or individually."
File:Mayo ASUMayo Active Service Unit/Flying Column. All Brigades of the Irish Volunteers had an ASU.
The concept of the "flying column" (a mobile column fighting in irregular conditions) is one which pre-dates the Irish War of Independence. During that war though, the term "Flying Column" became a noun in that context, for a company of Irish Volunteer soldiers actively engaged in combat with the enemy, as opposed to Support Companies, who were not actively fighting, but were supplying, feeding, guarding those actively engaged. These active companies wer
e referred to by the IRA General Headquarters Staff as "Active Service Units".
Ireland's Bureau of Military History Collection, 1913-1921 (BMH) is a collection of 1,773 witness statements; 334 sets of contemporary documents; 42 sets of photographs and 13 voice recordings that were collected by the Irish State between 1947 and 1957, in order to gather primary source material for the revolutionary period in Ireland from 1913 to 1921. The Bureau’s official brief was ‘to assemble and co-ordinate material to form the basis for the compilation of the history of the movement for Independence from the formation of the Irish Volunteers on 25th November 1913, to the 11th July 1921’ (report of the Director, 1957). This Collection is now available on-line and has 1000's of pages related to Active Service Units in the Irish War of Independence.[15]
Reference
References
Augusteijn, Joost, "From Public Defiance To Guerrilla Warfare", Irish Academic Press, Dublin, 1996, pp. 124-138.
Anon, "Rebel Cork's Fighting Story 1916 - 1921" Published by The Kerryman, Ltd., Tralee 1947.
Here is a helpdesk thread about 71's article.[16] It was declined 2013-12-27 suggesting that they come here. I copied the stuff over for 71. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2013 discussion, Do the sources use capitals, or lowercase?[edit]
When speaking specifically of the PIRA, in the 1970s and later, which do the sources use?
Active Service Unit
active service unit
Do we have some sources that use both? Do we have some sources that use one, and other sources that use the other? Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt it... but back in 2008/2009, see the collapsed discussion above, it was a Big Deal... apparently there are real-world political connotations to lowercasing it when referring to the PIRA, so I'd like to see what sources we have that use it one way, and what sources we have that use it the other way. Originally this article-title was uppercased, but there were at least four newspapers in 2009 which specifically used lowercase. Anyways, there is a semantic difference between upper and lower: the uppercase is a proper noun, like COBOL, whereas the lowercase is a standard sum-of-parts noun, which can still be acronymized for short, like frequently asked questions.
Looking at the article on acronym, it looks like at least *one* of the 2009 sources may have been lowercasing ACU as Acu for stylistic reasons (the same newspaper says Nato instead of the more usual NATO apparently). See Acronym#Aids_to_learning_the_expansion_without_leaving_a_document and also Acronym#Pronunciation-dependent_style_2. Do we have any documents where the proper-multiword-noun and the common-multiword-noun are separate articles, without being one redirecting to the other? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
where do we put various sorts of ASU-related content?[edit]
This article is currently in lowercase, and concentrates almost exclusively on 1969-20xx use of the ASU by the PIRA, with a troop-strength of 5 to 8 members per PIRA ASU.
Does info about PIRA ASU's belong here, in this lowercase-titled-article? If not, should it be merged with the 'parent' PIRA article, as it once was back-in-the-day™?
Do the sources refer to Active Service Units of the PIRA, or instead as active services units of the PIRA, or perhaps both?
Additional question, if an PIRA ASU is uppercase, does that also mean it is a specific proper-noun instance of the generic lowercase?
Historically, circa 1910-1930 roughly speaking, there was also use of the ASU by the IV, which later became the IRA, which later became the PIRA.
Does info about IV ASU(s) belong here, in this lowercase-titled-article? If not, does it belong in a new non-redirect article Active Service Unit? [17]
Do the sources refer to Active Service Unit(s) of the IV, or instead as active services unit(s) of the IV, or perhaps both?
Additional question, if an IV ASU is uppercase, does that also mean it is a specific proper-noun instance of the generic lowercase?
Bonus-round question, what was the troop-strength of the IV ASU(s)?
Double-bonus-round question, there were also "Flying Columns" used by the IV, were these FC's a synonym for active service units, or maybe even for Active Service Units?
Finally, are there any *other* military or paramilitary organizations, current or historical, which have used the phrase (or have been described in Reliable Sources with the phrase), active service unit, possibly capitalized? If so, do those belong in this article, and if not, why not? Hope this helps; thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there are other groups/organsations that make use of the term Active Service Unit then this article as titled should deal with all of them not just the PIRA. This article however could be renamed "Active service unit (IRA)" for example to make it specific. It could also due to it's short length be merged with the PIRA article from whence it came back in 2007, yet if something is deemed worthy of an article of it's own then there is no problem with having an article for this topic, though I agree that it may be too ambiguously titled. Mabuska(talk) 12:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are other militaries that use 5-to-8-troop-strength unit-sizes, see Fireteam and Squad, but so far as I know only the IV circa WWI and the PIRA in the 1970s/1980s/1990s/2000s specifically used this term. There are rumors that the use of lowercase was intended to distinguish between the two eras, but 71 is claiming that lowercasing is real-world-politically motivated... wikipedia should just describe what the sources say, methinks, which is my sentence above. If the sources say that the 1919+ ASU'(s) are related to the 1969+ ASU's/asu's then this article should be about both groups, or if the article is generic, about both groups plus any *other* groups that may exist now (or may arise someday in the future). On the other hand, if the WP:RS quotes indicate that the 1919 and 1969 phenomena are separate, then we can stick with existing article-separations, where Flying Columns covers the 1919-era phenomena, and this article covers the 1969-era phenomena, with see-also-links in both directions. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article had none, so I put one in, linking to Fireteam and Squad which are terms for similar-sized units structure, plus also to Flying Columns of the 1920s. Let me know if this is Not Okay, please. :-) — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The current version of the article makes it sound like ASUs were invented in 1977 "in place of battalion structures" (second paragraph). But the photo at the bottom of the page mentions them being used 60 years earlier. There is no explanation in the article of the relationship (or lack of) between the plaque and the ASUs of the 1970s onwards. I would love to fix this myself of course, but I don't know anything about the subject. There is a lot of material posted on this talk page. Can any of it be added? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
