Jump to content

Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Offensive operations

I find this wording, er, offensively POV as it implies that PIRA was carrying out military operations. This was not the case. PIRA was using terrorism as a tactic, i.e. IED attacks against civilian targets, intimidation of the population and small-arms assassinations carried out by members in civilian clothes. None of these activities is a military operation, offensive or otherwise. Please bear in mind that PIRA was not a military organisation, but a militant gang.--FergusM1970The moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on. 20:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I am sick, sore and tired of this word "implies". If an armed body does nothing, it is inactive; if it acts to defend itself, that is a defensive operation; if it acts on its own initiative, that is an offensive operation. It's that simple. There are no further implications. Using this word "implies" to spout your POV on the talk page because you know you can't do it in the article is an abuse of the talk page. Scolaire (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
There's always something in everything. I hear the word "offensive" on the TV every day with regards to actions by rebel groups in Syria so I personally don't see why it shouldn't be used with regards to PIRA however if it less POV then I would have no objections to a change to "pro-active" in this instance. It is less militaristic. My entire ethos on this article is to provide a matter-of-fact history of PIRA which includes as much as possible and leaves nothing out - warts and all, as some people would say. The danger is always that someone will become upset about wording, so let's keep the wording under discussion. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
It is a virtual certainty that someone will become upset about wording, but I guess that's all the more reason to keep talking. Certainly, "pro-active" is less militaristic. It is also a great deal less encyclopaedic. If you want to write a matter-of-fact history, then you're better to use words that you hear on the TV every day. "Offensive" is the appropriate word here. Scolaire (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
No objections from me.SonofSetanta (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Partially agree with the current lede

I think the current lede accurately reflects the subject. My only objection is the superfluous term "inactive" in the first line when the last paragraph describes the current status of the organisation. The mention of Clogher action in relation to PIRA tactics is somewhat too detailed for an introduction and also breaches WP:SYN.--Darius (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Great to have more input. My attempt at writing the lead was to provide a synopsis of the article. Including the Clogher attack was because it was a departure from the norm tactically. Could you suggest another way of putting it? SonofSetanta (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest what I always suggest: move it down into the article, don't try to write the article through the lead. Also, if there are synthesis issues, make sure you have your sources right.
@Darius, the word "inactive" was my suggestion (actually I suggested now-inactive) to get around the problem that there are no reliable sources for "is" and no reliable sources for "was". Edit-warring over two letters is a terrible waste of time and I thought the added word might prevent that in the future. Scolaire (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Scolaire, I actually agree with the current PIRA status of "inactive", my only concern was redundancy ("inactive" on the first line plus "inactive" in the last line). I also agree with you that the right phrase should be "now inactive".--Darius (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, noted. I'll do so. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
what I've done it to remove the reference to the Deanery altogether because what I'd be doing is starting to fill the article up with attacks by PIRA and that is covered elsewhere. I hope the current wording is deemed suitable even though we've lost the ref to Callaghan? SonofSetanta (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Fine work, it's OK for me now.--Darius (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Provisional IRA

Scolaire why do you think we shouldn't use PIRA or Provisional IRA when referring to this organisation? These are common usage terms. We should also bear in mind that PIRA is contemporary with OIRA who were originally the IRA. Should we not keep the first two terms in to avoid confusion? SonofSetanta (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, "Provisional IRA" is correct when needed for disambiguation, but since the late seventies it has been referred to as "the IRA", it being the only or principle organisation using this name. "PIRA" and "OIRA" are not used commonly except by military men and bloggers (and some Wikipedians). Remember when Big Ian used to talk about "Sinn Féin/IRA"? You never heard him say "PIRA". If it's good enough for him it's good enough for me. Scolaire (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd have to disagree, Scolaire. "The IRA" is certainly the most common name, but I've heard PIRA quite a bit even from non-soldiers. It may have caught on during the SAS autobiography/action novel craze of the 1990s but it definitely gets used. There are also the CIRA and RIRA scum, who definitely exist and definitely use the name IRA. In fact PIRA may be defunct, while the other two clearly are not.--FergusM1970The moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on. 17:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not going to respond to someone who uses the word "scum" just to get a reaction. I think that having writ, you should move on. Scolaire (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
It was not my intent to get a reaction, but I really can't think of any other word to describe the perpetrators of the Omagh bombing and the cowards who shoot unarmed men collecting pizza. Natirally I wouldn't try to put such wording in the articles on them, but they're murderous criminals and I don't really feel obliged to pussyfoot around that. In fact they're appalling enough that for once Gerry Adams and I are criticising the same people. However my point stands, in that other groups are using the name IRA and the use of PIRA/CIRA/RIRA is a valid and relatively common way of differentiating between them.--FergusM1970The moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on. 11:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Totally disagree with the new lead

For ease of reference, new and old (not necessarily the "best" old and not set in stone either, it just happens to be the one that's been stable for ages and more pertinently the one I'll be comparing against).

Let's start with the big problems. The new lead doesn't include the number of deaths attributed to the IRA. In fact it doesn't mention them killing a single person. Seriously? It also doesn't include the legal status of the IRA, I can only imagine the uproar if one of the so-called republican POV editors had removed the fact that the IRA is a designated terrorist organisation in the UK.

Dumping anything from the old lead into an 'Overview' section ignores that the lead is supposed to be an overview in the first place, the bit right at the start of WP:LEAD reading "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview" is a Ronseal style giveaway.

The addition of wording such as "now-inactive" has been rejected above. In 2005 the IRA said "All volunteers have been instructed to assist the development of purely political and democratic programmes through exclusively peaceful means". Just because they aren't shooting and bombing doesn't mean they are inactive.

"main armed Republican action group"? Please....

"with the objective of removing the border between the twenty six county Republic of Ireland and the six county Northern Ireland" - I doubt anyone has ever phrased the IRA's objective in such terminology. The removal of the border wasn't their aim, it would just have naturally occurred as a result of their real objective.

"main . . . opposition to British rule in Northern Ireland between 1969 and 2005" - appears to be OR. The exact dating of when they were the main opposition needs to be done by reliable sources, not editors.

"all-Ireland consensus for Northern Ireland to join a united Ireland if there was a democratic mandate in the future, as embodied in the Good Friday Agreement" - that wasn't anything new in the Good Friday Agreement. The Downing Street Declaration of 1993 said very much the same, and the term "all-Ireland consensus" isn't appropriate in my opinion. Yes there was a majority vote across the Ireland on the contents of the Good Friday Agreement, whether that in practical terms equates to "all-Ireland consensus" is another matter entirely.

"It organised itself upon military lines but largely confined itself to operations by Active Service Units of four or five persons with notable exceptions" - ignores that the ASU structure wasn't in place until the mid-1970s due to the security problems with the brigade/battalion structure.

The new lead covered detail in superficial detail particularly in relation to ceasefires, political talks, strategy and so on. I find it a very lightweight lead compared to the old one, and have restored the old one and removed the new "Overview" section" where the old lead was largely dumped. This also involved restoring a couple of sentences the section below, which did appear in the "Overview" section and has been removed to compensate. In addition I've removed a largely unreliably sourced section where there was no point leaving the other information there in its current form, and restored the multiply sourced use of "Traditional republicans" to refer to those who formed the PAC in December 1969. 2 lines of K303 19:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Image

Can we get rid of the image at the top of the article? I don't see how it's relevant, as it's just a bunch of saddo terrorist wannabes in German uniforms posing with their airsoft toys. If a photo of actual PIRA members can be found that would be fine (I know that such images were produced as propaganda, to give the impression that PIRA was an actual military unit,) but the current one is embarrassing.--FergusM1970The moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on. 11:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest something like this. The image in question is available in several places online and I can't find out its copyright status, but at least it shows actual PIRA terrorists and not Walts. If it's not suitable then a PIRA propaganda poster or similar might also do. However the current image does not show PIRA members. It's like illustrating the article on the SAS with a photo of airsofters.--FergusM1970The moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on. 11:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Sectarianism section

It would appear you missed my comment of "In addition I've removed a largely unreliably sourced section where there was no point leaving the other information there in its current form". theirishrevolution.wordpress.com/ isn't a reliable source per WP:SPS, "For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources". Wordpress is a self-published personal blog, in case you didn't know already. Yes there were some other sources, but as I pointed out "there was no point leaving the other information there in its current form". Obviously that means the information in those sources may go back into the article when a proper section can be written, but leaving what was left wasn't encyclopedic and involved cherry picking from the main source in particular. 2 lines of K303 11:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This section was not removed by mistake, it was removed because the great majority of it is not reliably sourced, since theirishrevolution.wordpress.com/ is not a reliable source. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 11:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't realise there was any dispute over the Sectarianism section. I thought it was all about the lead section and that Mo had deleted this other bit by mistake as part of the revert they did.--Flexdream (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Version under discussion restored

I have undone the version by Hackney as he has not been involved in the discussion to date. This is not an edit war Hackney, it is a controlled and discussed rewrite of the article. Your input is welcome but you are an experienced editor and know how such changes, apparantly dissing the work of others, is viewed on wikipedia. Notwithstanding the fact that you violated 1RR significantly in undoing many single edits at one go. I will however look at the points you have made, as hopefully others will, and see if I can put anything in which addresses your concerns. Of course you could do that yourself, you have seen how many people agree that the lead is wrong. SonofSetanta (talk) 10:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Erm, no. You've been bold. You've been reverted, with the reasons explained in depth above. Now we can discuss a new version here. 2 lines of K303 11:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
No problem. The concensus appears to be that the lead is too long. It needs to be shortened so that a new reader can catch it all in one screen, i.e 4-5 paragraphs. There was no image. The image I put in was deemed unsuitable but I also think the one Dagosnavy put in is unsuitable. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
As I have a complaint in at 1RR I will cease editing now until sysops have adjudicated. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
You should stop editing once you've been reverted and start discussing. Is there some reason you can't do that now? I've made the objections clear, how about proposing a new lead here that takes my objections into account? 2 lines of K303 12:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I further Hackney's suggest, try to a make coherent, productive discussion/debate before going to the A/R/E board as soon as you get a whiff of a 1RR violation. --Τασουλα (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Make sure and pass that valuable advice on to Hackney; I think he could do with it.--FergusM1970The moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on. 01:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Semtex that should have been decomissioned

"In mid-July 2013, proof that the IRA may have not decommissioned all significant weapons came forth when the Gardai displayed arms and explosives (Semtex) recently recovered from dissident republicans in the Dublin. The Gardai believe this Semtex to have come from the Libyan connection back in the 1980s and therefore should have been decommissioned.<ref> http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/regional/call-for-ira-weapons-probe-1-5282822 News letter 14th july 2013 </ref><ref>Dublin arms find included Provisional IRA weapons - RTÉ News http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0711/461949-weapons-seized/ RTE</ref>"

Plese explain how
I've restored this, though removed some of the editorialising that went with it, as these are reliable refs and relevant to the article. Valenciano (talk) 09:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
While addressing this section I cam across a line in the previous paragraph "There have been further accusations from the Irish Republic that the decommissioning process was a sham and that the PIRA only turned over weapons that were no longer useful to them.<ref>{{cite news|title=Provos on the rise while gardai struggle to hold Thin Blue Line|url=http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/provos-on-the-rise-while-gardai-struggle-to-hold-thin-blue-line-29120461.html|accessdate=3 April 2013|date=10 March 2013}}</ref>
This is given as fact, yet it is the opinion of Jim Cusack,
"Some of these gardai and ex-RUC officers privately held the view that the IRA had sold Gen de Chastelain's committee a pup. They believed, based on intelligence sources they had nurtured over the years, that the material that the monitors had seen being destroyed consisted of weapons and equipment that were no longer of use to the IRA, in other words, rubbish". Murry1975 (talk) 10:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

August arms discovery

This edit added a heading that, without proof "2013 Proof PIRA returns to buying Guns, in breach of Good Friday Agreement". I have removed this as there is no evidence given. The edit also add "In August 2013, another arms cache was intercepted as it was smuggled into Northern Ireland by a combined Gardai,FBI, and PSNI operation", with a reference to the Belfast Herald, yet no mention of PIRA (any IRA) the FBI and Gardai. A quick check on both Irish and British national broadcaster websites doesnt mention these either. Murry1975 (talk) 11:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

And several edits without discussion including re-introducing of POV header and removal of cn tag. Have templated POV warning on IP tp no response. Murry1975 (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Have removed unsourced information on arms find until source is found, it looks awful being in there. Murry1975 (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
my sources are back tracking -- very fishy -- i'll continue to investigate -- sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.167.200 (talk) 09:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
They didnt mention them yesterday when you linked either. Murry1975 (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

"The IRA is gone. It is finished"

The article currently uses mostly the present tense to refer to the IRA. Shouldn't we adjust this in light of yesterday's comments by Gerry Adams at his press conference to the effect that "The IRA is gone. It is finished"?Miles Creagh (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Adams comments came certainly from an authoritative voice, but it is not what the bulk of published, third-party sources say. We can not give preference to Adams' remarks as per WP:UNDUE, at least until a secondary or tertiary source interpret this as the disbandment of the IRA.--Darius (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Other sources added. It is clear that the PIRA is not active in any sense and as organisation it is not 'seeking' anything. This is widely reported. Former members may be active criminals but the PIRA and its structures are not active.--Flexdream (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
It's OK with the references, but none of them clearly declares the 'end' of the organisation as a whole. May be the NYT article, but it mentions the IRA 'disbandment' as a side note, without elaborating. 'Inactive' doesn't mean necessary 'disbanded', even if some of its structures are effectively gone per cited sources.
The IMC concludes that "In our view the way in which the leadership has adopted an entirely different course, disbanded terrorist-related structures and capacity and engaged in different activities, and members have moved on to other things, means that the PIRA of the recent and violent past is well beyond recall." No word on the dissolution of the PIRA as a whole, only of its "terrorist-related structures and capacity". The leadership has not disbanded itself, but instead "adopted an entirely different course" (activism perhaps?). The PIRA "of the recent and violent past is well beyond recall", but not the PIRA in a bare sense. IMHO, we should still use the present tense since no third-party source reports in a clear and definitive way the disestablishment of the organisation, and we cannot advance a position per WP:OR. We also have citations (see section "Continuing activities of IRA members") that record alleged PIRA activity as recently as 2010, two years after the IMC statement. The article, however, must reflect the fact that the group's paramilitary structures are terminated.--Darius (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
P/S: Just out of curiosity...Do you consider Martin McGuiness "an active criminal"? :)
I agree that Adams is an authoritative voice on the IRA, and also that the article must reflect the termination of the paramilitary structures of the IRA.Miles Creagh (talk) 05:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I think the lead should use the past tense as it describes what the PIRA was, but is no longer. I think the detail about whether it has been formally disbanded should not change that. To have the lead describe it in the present tense would suggest it is still an active group. The detail can record recent activities or alleged activities by former members without changing that. The article can go into that in detail.--Flexdream (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the lead should use past tense. Miles Creagh (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Republican Defence Army

Hi. Can someone look at this article and link to it if it was a real organisation? Or if not notable AfD it? Gbawden (talk) 09:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

According to CAIN
"A short-lived Dissident Republican grouping referred to by the Independent Monitoring Commission (IMC) in its seventeenth report published in November 2007. It was alleged to have carried an assault in Strabane"
Coverage of said attack. Murry1975 (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Why are UVF and other groups removed from the opponents list in the infobox?

I have put UVF and UDF in the infobox several times, and they keep getting removed. Am I missing something here?OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I must admit I'm itching to hit the revert button. The infobox is a blunt instrument, compared with the nuances (with references) that could be added to the full article (although in reality I think you would need to write a book): This article mentions "Sectarian attacks and alleged ethnic cleansing" - and "Attacks on other republican paramilitary groups". I think you should start/expand the "Conflicts with Protestant/Loyalist/Unionist paramilitary groups" - I'm sure that would extend way beyond the UVF/UDF. Just linking UVF and UDF should be able to tell you that adding these terms does not add any insight - your relying on the reader to "get your drift". When you do arrive at the relevant wiki article you will see their opponents are not (currently) listed as PIRA but Irish republicans, and Irish nationalists - and that's a gross over simplification from my perspective but hey that's the problem with infoboxes - RTFA. Stacie Croquet (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm just a Wikipedia editor, not claiming to be an expert, but when I look up UDA I find: "The UDA's/UFF's declared goal was to defend Protestant loyalist areas[1] and to combat Irish republicanism, particularly the Provisional IRA."OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ "A history of the UDA". BBC News. 6 January 2010. Retrieved 28 March 2010.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 14 external links on Provisional Irish Republican Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Polities

Mabuska, what's your objection to the use of the word "polity"? Gob Lofa (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Mabuska? Gob Lofa (talk) 13:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Anything to add, Snowded? Gob Lofa (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Make the case for your proposed change please. This constant asking of questions rather than making a case is disruptive ----Snowded TALK 20:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
That's a bit rich, coming from you. What makes you believe you're above having to answer questions about your edits? This constant reverting and associated refusal to give explanation is disruptive. Gob Lofa (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Snowded, I feel my wording is clearer. Why did you revert? Gob Lofa (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
You haven't made any case, or even hinted that you might, for including a word that is completely superfluous and adds nothing to what is already there. You have to learn to make a case for contested edits rather than simply demand that other people justify opposing you ----Snowded TALK 09:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Here's a hint for you: "Snowded, I feel my wording is clearer." You have to learn to read talk page discussions rather than simply revert when you're unsure about what changes mean. Gob Lofa (talk) 09:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I read that and noted your feeling, but a feeling is just that. If you maybe shared the reasoning behind this feeling you have? If Gob Lofa feeling something to be right is sufficient criteria for change then the rest of us might as well give up and leave everything to you. You have been opposed on this so constantly going back and making the change knowing full well (i) that you don't have agreement on the talk page and (ii) that you will be reverted is disruptive. ----Snowded TALK 09:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm using a common noun for the polities; what's your issue with that? Don't leave everything; there's quite a few topics where my knowledge is fairly superficial. I make no apologies for reverting anyone who refuses to engage in discussion, which you've been doing here for almost a month. You know that's disruptive. Gob Lofa (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
While a common noun is not that common in day to day use and in this context it really adds no meaning, nor is it helpful. The only two polities are actually named in the sentence. If you didn't mention either of the polities then the use would be OK but I don't think that would help readers. No one can engage in a discussion if you don't use the talk page to explain and justify your edits when others disagree ----Snowded TALK 10:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The sentence in question is incorrect. Éire Nua was a policy document. The IRA's goal in the period was to force British withdrawal from Northern Ireland. Why this endless arguing over a single word when either or both of you could be improving the article? FWIW, if there is to be a word used at all, I think "state" is better than "polity" simply because it is the more commonly used word in reference to NI in books, articles and web pages (including books by nationalist writers). ----Scolaire (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about 'state' because it implies a level of independence that NI never had; it's always been part of the British state. I find 'polity' a useful term because it encompasses both states and subnational entities like NI. Gob Lofa (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
It may be useful in that way, but it's less familiar to readers. But at any rate, if it's between personal preference and frequency of use in the sources I will always go with the latter. Scolaire (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I realise it's not familiar, which is why I usually link it. 'State' has POV problems that 'polity' doesn't. Gob Lofa (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I oppose the use of the word polity. It's one editor trying to push their personal preference. Snappy (talk)
I'm not crazy about the word 'push' either, unless by 'push' you mean 'make a case on the talk page for'. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
It's one editor trying to refusing to accept that they are in the minority. Snappy (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Trying to understanding your English; the majority of contributors to this discussion don't agree with your level. Are you saying I'm refusing or trying to refuse, and failing? Gob Lofa (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Though you are very trying, I have amended my previous statement. Snappy (talk) 11:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I see what you did there! Still, I dispute your contention and reiterate my previous; 'state' has POV problems that 'polity' neatly avoids. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

"was" the IRA is still active

All the citations in the first sentence particle claiming the IRA/PIRA are gone is not WP:NPOV. They are biased articles and at best threy merely depict diplomatic puffery. "Ex-IRA commando shakeshands with Queen"? Seriously? The IRA is still committing crimes, even if mostly petty these days they still do rise up. This is nonsense.--Sιgε |д･) 17:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

If you have contradictory sources then please share them. But don't mark the existing sources as "not in citation" when that's clearly not true. In response to your edit summary: a council is not an army, and a threat of a "backlash" (for which we only have one person's word anyway) is not a threat of an armed campaign. – Smyth\talk 14:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Provisional Irish Republican Army. 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:

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) 14:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Provisional Irish Republican Army. 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:

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) 15:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Where did the IRA get their military training?

The article says a lot about where they got their weapons from, but the main problem in setting up an underground army isn't weapons so much as training. It is often claimed that the IRA were indeed badly trained, but they must have had some training. How did they get it? I've read a report that members joined the British armed forces for training, but this could only have accounted for a relatively small number, I'm sure. Were there training camps within Ireland? Or were there training camps outside of Ireland? (The German Red Army Faction, for example, trained in Palestinian camps on several occasions.) These questions should be answered. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.188.186.179 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

'Active' from 1969 to 1998 in the infobox - it's wrong

I made a necessary change in the infobox where it says 'Active'. The article claimed that the (P)IRA were active until April 1998. This is wrong - April 1998 was when the Belfast Agreement was signed, but it didn't magically dissolve the group in a day. They were just on ceasefire but still 'active' as a group, and were in charge of their decommissioning process that started in 2001.

I guess someone wrote this date because it was the end of the Troubles and the definite end of PIRA's warring campaign. However, this date doesn't only concern the militarily active period, it's about the existence of the group. Look at the Ulster Volunteer Force article for example: they had their ceasefire in 1994 and ended armed campaign in 2007, but they are still active as a non-violent group, thus rightly don't have a '1966-1998' Active date. The PIRA is the same, they were active as a non-violent group (on ceasefire) until at least July 2005, when they formally called an end to its warring campaign. Let's not forget for example the Murder of Robert McCartney in 2005 which the PIRA is believed to have committed, or its alleged involvement in the Northern Bank robbery. These all show that the (P)IRA still existed. Another example from that year is https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1492929/IRA-can-change-says-Blair.html. In today's context, the PSNI have also claimed that PIRA still exists, although no longer involved with terrorism (see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-34577864).

So, the Active section in the infobox should say: December 1969 - present (on ceasefire from July 1997; ended armed campaign in July 2005). This also follows the same standard as used in the Ulster Defence Association and Ulster Volunteer Force articles in their infoboxes. --Gateshead001 (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Use of the word Terrorist

Let's take a look at the rules - WP:TERRORIST is quoted here. But it isn't a rule, it's a guideline. It clearly states that it's a guideline.
And even as a guideline it states "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution."
So, if there are numerous reliable sources referring to a group or person as terrorists, then according to that guideline - we can use the term.
There are numerous reliable sources referring to the Prov. IRA as terrorists, so following that guideline we can use the term. 124.106.132.236 (talk) 07:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not going to bother since I don't have any strong opinion either way. However others do and will likely revert your edits. Using non-neutral language will almost certainly create friction, therefore such edits should usually only be done after establishing WP:consensus first. For now I will make the section as non-neutral add will let other editors come up with however the community wanted to word the article. Travelbird (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I imagine if there is someone with pro IRA or anti British bias, they will probably object. If an editor is neutral they will see the sources and use the terms used in the media. 124.106.132.236 (talk) 07:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Generally, controversial terms should not be used in the intro. The fact that many will called the IRA a terrorist organization can and should be discussed further down in the article. But adding it where you did supports a certain POV that no everyone agrees with and should therefore be avoided.
E.g.: I would surely find numerous reliable sources stating that people love Coca-cola. But re-writing the intro "Coca-Cola is better than Pepsi" is not going to be a neutral point-of-view, regardless of whether or not I could find sources to back that up Travelbird (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree, re-writing the intro "Coca-Cola is better than Pepsi" based on sources stating that people love Coca Cola would not be neutral. You would be taking one source and then coming to your own conclusions based on that source. This isn't the case in this article. I'm taking many reliable sources that call this group "terrorists" and then using exactly the same term in the article. If I had called this group "murderers" based on sources calling them terrorists, then it would fit your coca cola analogy and would not be quite as neutral, despite the fact that many members of this group have been convicted of murder. 124.106.132.236 (talk) 08:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
There is a long-established convention that the word "terrorist" is not used in the first sentence of this article. This has been observed by Irish nationalists, Ulster unionists, British, Americans and everybody else. You appear to think that you are the first to think of this. You're not. If you want to change it you need to open a Request for comment and get a clear consensus for change.
By the way, when you say WP:TERRORIST "isn't a rule, it's a guideline", you show a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. A guideline is a rule – see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. --Scolaire (talk) 11:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
There was a sentence saying, "The IRA was designated an unlawful terrorist organisation in the United Kingdom and an unlawful organisation in the Republic of Ireland", at the end of the first paragraph until an IP deleted it last year. I have restored it. Scolaire (talk) 11:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Given the history of the IRA and the fact that there are about 10 billion sources saying they were terrorists, I think it deserves a little more prominence in the article. 124.106.132.236 (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
There is plenty of prominence in the article, and now there is prominence in the lead as well. Edit-warring to re-add the word to the first sentence of the lead – against consensus – is disruptive. Please don't do it again. Scolaire (talk) 10:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
A guideline is not a rule. "Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."—see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines Harfarhs (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

POV pushing?

The section regarding foreign connections uses the phrase "illegal armed organisations". I changed this to "other guerilla groups fighting for independence and/or socialism". How exactly is this "POV pushing"?

The phrase "illegal armed organisations" is vague my wording however is more precise How is it "POV pushing" to say a group fought for independence and socialism?80.111.179.171 (talk) 12:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

How exactly were the PIRA fighting for independence or socialism? On the former point, the (republican/nationalist/"green") Irish already had an independent republic, unlike at the time of the original IRA, and sought to force other Irish (the loyalist/unionist/"orange") ones into a nation of which they wanted no part. On the socialism front, didn't they split with the Stickies over that exact issue? Much better and more neutral as is. — Jon C.ॐ 12:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
The article states the Provisional IRA were fighting for Irish independence and socialism, this was also the stated goal of the Provos. The Provos wanted an "Independent Sovereign Socialist Irish Republic", do you really deny that? Their main aim was end British imperialism in Ireland and securing the separation of North-East Ulster from Britain. As for the split with the Stickies, the split was caused by the Stickies interpretation of the national question, not socialism.80.111.179.171 (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
The North Korean constitution says that state has full civil rights, including freedom of expression, the right to elect officials, the right to a fair trial and freedom of religion. What people say and what they do can be very different.
The fact that you're banging on about "British imperialism" and "North-East Ulster" tells me you have a specific axe to grind, so I'm not getting drawn into this any further. — Jon C.ॐ 14:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Right but we know North Korea does not really advocate that and I am sure you could provide sources that show the North Korean government does not really believe in that, can you do the same for the Provisional IRA? The answer to that question is of course, NO. 80.111.179.171 (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh! Hello, Apollo! You've not been around in a couple of weeks! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
You seem like a queer and a very paranoid individual.80.111.179.171 (talk) 09:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
@Bastun: SPI? — Jon C.ॐ 09:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
@Jon C.: Yeah, I'll pop up an SPI shortly and ping you (if you don't file it first). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

This is clearly taken from this site. I removed it because the IP is blatantly misrepresenting what it says. M.Bitton (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Article protection

Given the recent IP edits, should the article be protected or are the arbitration remedies enough? --Jamez42 (talk) 03:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Infobox image

Can we replace the image of the IRA men with an image of the Provisional IRA Phoenix logo? It has a certain teleological meaning which is important is conveyed at the top of the article. Irishpolitical (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Try reading the article before blindly reverting

"lets keep this stable - use the talk page" is not an adequate reason for reverting my edits, since it in fact offers no objection at all. As I stated in my edit summary, the IRA's allegiance is not to the Republic of Ireland but to the Irish Republic. This is made explicitly clear in the Origins section;

We declare our allegiance to the 32 county Irish republic, proclaimed at Easter 1916, established by the first Dáil Éireann in 1919, overthrown by forces of arms in 1922 and suppressed to this day by the existing British-imposed six-county and twenty-six-county partition states.[1]

I have added this reference to the infobox. FDW777 (talk) 12:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA by Richard English (ISBN 0-330-49388-4), p. 106.
Try reading WP:BRD before reverting - this is a contemporary article and a modern United Ireland would not be the historical republic proclaimed in 1916. Your are making a political point which is not what the article is about, and that text has been stable for some time. This article is under a 1rr restriction so I'll leave it for a day and see if you get any support - if not it goes back to preious version -----Snowded TALK 12:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
I would have to agree with FDW777. I never noticed that "allegiance" in the infobox before. It's completely wrong. Neither the Provisional IRA nor any other IRA ever gave any allegiance to the 26-county state, whether it was called The Irish Free State, Éire, or The Republic of Ireland. The Irish Republic is a historical state, but it's still what Irish republicans give their allegiance to. I also agree that "paramilitary" is a much more commonly used description than "revolutionary", and that Eddie Copeland doesn't belong in "See also" (nor does most of the other stuff there). @Snowded: "keeping it stable" is directly contrary to WP:BOLD. And if you want to use the talk page, there's nothing to stop you opening a discussion there yourself. Scolaire (talk) 13:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Bold is one thing, but if reverted you discuss :-) Come on Scolaire you know patrolling Troubles articles isn't exactly easy, especially with new editors. Personally I think its not an appropriate link - the whole concept of what a unitied Ireland would be post the formation of the Provos (remember their link to the Easter Rising would be disputed by some) is very different. But its not something I'm wedded to hence my comment on other editors. -----Snowded TALK 13:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Scolaire. Snowded I have read WP:BRD before, in particular the part reading "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed". No opinion was made on the merits or otherwise of my edit, it was reverted for the sake of reverting. If you had raised any objection to the merits of my edit that would be one thing, but demanding discussions are conducted before seemingly any edit can be made to the article is a needless barrier to article improvement. In future before reverting, please consider if you have any objections to contents of the edit. FDW777 (talk) 13:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Now let me see, you've been editing for three months in a narrow range of subjects :-) Forgive me but that is amusing -----Snowded TALK 14:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Snowded, "allegiance" has nothing to with possible future scenarios. Neither has it anything to do with whether someone's link to the polity they are loyal to is accepted by all or disputed by some. The Provisional IRA made clear where its allegiance lay in the 1969 statement that FDW777 quoted above. I do understand how you think that allegiance to a former country might confuse readers; perhaps we could get around that by replacing the current citation with a footnote, along the lines of {{refn|group=n 1|Irish republicans do not recognise any of the Irish states since 1922, but declare their allegiance to the Republic of 1919–21.<ref>''Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA'' by Richard English ({{ISBN|0-330-49388-4}}), p. 106.</ref>}} Scolaire (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
It needs something - I'm happy with that as a footnote -----Snowded TALK 14:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Done. Scolaire (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Irish name

Was changed here from "Óglaigh na hÉireann" to "Óglaigh na hÉireann (Sealadach)" (infobox) and "Óglaigh na hÉireann Sealadach" (lead). While the references added would source the other additions of "IRA Sealadach" and "Na Sealadaigh" they do not appear to source the addition of "Sealadach" to "Óglaigh na hÉireann", so I have removed them. FDW777 (talk) 13:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It was originally added here with different refs. One was somebody's personal webpage quoting a piece by Proinsias Mac Aonghusa, which used Óglaigh na hÉireann (Sealadach) once, and the other was a GCSE exam paper that used Óglaigh na hÉireann Sealadach once. I reverted because I didn't think either of those would count as reliable sources for the common use of either term. When she restored the content with "better sources" I left it alone. I didn't notice that those two were not in the new refs. I agree with their removal. Scolaire (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Change of "England" to "mainland Britain"

I have reverted this as being incorrect, see for example the BBC who confirm the IRA's campaign was limited to England, not Scotland or Wales. FDW777 (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Detailing each change in order (except for the infobox which I will deal with last.
  1. "It also carried out a bombing campaign in Northern Ireland and England against what it saw as political and economic targets" saw "England" changed to "mainland Britain". This is misleading and inaccurate, the IRA did not bomb anywhere in "mainland Britain" outside England.
  2. "The IRA's armed campaign, primarily in Northern Ireland but also in England and Europe, caused the deaths of approximately 1,800 people" once again saw "England" changed to "mainland Britain". This is misleading and inaccurate, the IRA's armed campaign did not take place anywhere in "mainland Britain" outside England so neither did they kill anyone in "mainland Britain" outside England.
  3. "The IRA's armed campaign, primarily in Northern Ireland but also in England and Europe, caused the deaths of approximately 1,800 people" once again saw "England" changed to "mainland Britain". Deliberate duplicate of the above point, the same sentence appears twice in the article.
  4. "The IRA was chiefly active in Northern Ireland, although it took its campaign to England and mainland Europe. The IRA also targeted certain British government officials, politicians, judges, establishment figures, British Army and police officers in England" saw the first England changed to "mainland Britain" and the second to "UK". This is misleading and inaccurate, the IRA's campaign did not take place anywhere in "mainland Britain" or the "UK" (Northern Ireland excepted, but the sentence has specified it is dealing about events outside Northern Ireland) outside England.
  5. "The bombing campaign principally targeted political, economic and military targets, and approximately 60 civilians were killed by the IRA in England during the conflict" saw "in England" changed to "on the mainland". This is misleading and inaccurate, the IRA did not take kill any civilians anywhere "on the mainland" outside England.
  6. "The IRA described its actions throughout "The Troubles" as a military campaign waged against the British Army, the RUC, other security forces, judiciary, loyalist politicians and loyalist paramilitaries in Northern Ireland, England" saw "England" changed to "mainland Britain". This is misleading and inaccurate, the IRA's self-described military campaign did not take place anywhere in "mainland Britain" outside England.
As these are all misleading and inaccurate, it logically follows the similar change to the infobox suffers from the same problem. In addition to the BBC source above Celtic Identity and the British Image by Murray Pittock (page 111) and The IRA, 1968-2000: An Analysis of a Secret Army by J. Bowyer Bell (page 202) confirm that the IRA did not carry out attacks in Scotland or Wales. FDW777 (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Changing the active years - proposal

In the infobox it says PIRA was active from "December 1969 - April 1998", and followed by many more dates of when they were on ceasefire. There are two issues with that:

  • Firstly, adding all those various ceasefire dates is unnecessary for the infobox and makes it too full. By comparison the Ulster Defence Association page has the active years very good and simple, without having all their ceasefire dates.
  • Secondly, stating April 1998 as the end date of activity is also not good, since we're talking about the organisation here. That's the date of the Good Friday Agreement, but does not necessarily denote that's when the organisation ceased to exist. The following years PIRA were decommissioning so obviously it still existed, until at least 2005. Again, the UDA page has an active date of the organisation overall and in brackets when they went on ceasefire, that's also how I think this PIRA article should be.

Looking at talk archives I noticed that this was once partly mentioned by another user (Talk:Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army/Archive_10#'Active'_from_1969_to_1998_in_the_infobox_-_it's_wrong) without any subsequent discussion. I agree with the points made in the archive, and I believe this deserves a discussion now. --MetrolandNW (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Support change. April 1998 is definitely wrong. That is when the politicians (including Sinn Féin) signed an agreement, but the IRA had no involvement in that agreement, and it did not commit itself to end its activity on that date, or any time that year. July 1997 is when it called its (final) ceasefire. July 2005 is when it announced an end to its armed campaign. One or both of those dates mark(s) the end of its active period. The 1972, 1974, 1975 and 1994 ceasefires are excessive detail for the infobox. And in case you missed my primary point, April 1998 is definitely wrong. Scolaire (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I think July 1997 would be wrong too. As I mentioned, that's when the PIRA declared its last ceasefire but does not necessarily mean the organisation ceased. The Active section is used for when the group as a whole was active, not necessarily in armed conflict - see how Active in the UDA page is structured, that's how it should be. On that basis, the PIRA existed until at least 2005, so the date should be no earlier than 2005. --MetrolandNW (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you think the UDA article is the benchmark for how infoboxes are structured, but we'll let that pass. One obvious difference between the two is that, whereas the first sentence of this one was changed from "is an Irish republican paramilitary organisation" to "was an Irish republican paramilitary organisation" five years ago, the first sentence of the UDA article still says "is", and the infobox says "Active September 1971 – present" despite the fact that there is no activity reported in the article beyond 2010. In the case of the IRA, the statement issued in July 2005 said "All volunteers have been instructed to assist the development of purely political and democratic programmes through exclusively peaceful means", and then added, "Volunteers must not engage in any other activities whatsoever" (emphasis added).[1] Therefore they ceased to be an active paramilitary organisation on that date. In this version of the article from 2014, the infobox said simply, "Active 1969–2005 (on ceasefire from 1997)". I see no reason why we shouldn't just go back to that. Scolaire (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Good find (version from 2014), "Active 1969-2005 (on ceasefire from 1997)" sounds perfect to be honest. Of course, there's the debate of whether the PIRA do still exist post-2005 but that's another story. --MetrolandNW (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support either 1997 or 2005 Either would be fine, each with a caveat referring to the other. FDW777 (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree with Scolaire 1997 marked the end of IRA active role as a paramilitary organisation. In practice, the 2005 declaration is just the formal end of a campaign already discontinued several years before. Both years should be mentioned with the proper caveat lector, as user FDW777 says.---Darius (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

We seem to have a consensus in favour of going back to the 2014 version, so I'm doing that now. Scolaire (talk) 09:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Good work, thanks. Definitely a lot better both presentation-wise and factual-wise. It's claimed PIRA as an organisation still exists, as was said by the PSNI chief in 2015 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-34026678), though I can't comment much about that and that's another story for now. --MetrolandNW (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Spades are Spades

...and I have not changed the article to avoid an edit war, but please, can we just call a spade a spade and at least once in the article acknowledge the Provisional IRA as terrorists, as the vast majority of the rest of the world has. Accurate description isn't a justification for British behavior, it is just acknowledging the asymmetrical method of resistance chosen by this particular group. The actions of the Provisional IRA clearly fall within Wikipedia's description of terrorism, (in fact it is difficult to think of a more clear cut case outside the Middle East). Terrorism was the Provisional IRA's raison d'etre. The comment about the guideline seems to have been written by someone who hasn't noted the guideline specifically isn't intended to stop you using the word 'terrorist' when it is an accurate description. I say we should just call terrorists what they were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.4.92 (talk) 07:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Relevance of Holy Wars... The Punishment Due to this article?

There are a great many songs written about the IRA, many of them actually mention the IRA in their lyrics instead of talking about religious conflicts in general without even mentioning the IRA like this song does. What justifies the inclusion of this one song while excluding others? FDW777 (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Most of the See also's are tiny (Republican Defence Army), unsourced (British military intelligence systems in Northern Ireland) and/or peripheral to the subject (Julia Pirie). In fact, they're all peripheral except List of chronologies of Provisional Irish Republican Army actions and History of Northern Ireland. I'm cutting See also down to those two. Scolaire (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Removal of "propaganda" regarding loyalist/British collusion

I certainly agree that the reverted edit regarding collusion is not a NPOV nor is it well sourced. However, I would like to see what others think about exploring this topic given the recent revelations on RTE and BBC Panorama regarding collusion during the Troubles.

Yes, the previous text regarding propaganda and British influence was far too biased and not very informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmaguire98 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Overview of strategies section

Is there any reason why Overview of strategies exists? The lead is supposed to give an overview of the article, so it seems odd the first section of the article after it is another "overview". Would anyone object if this was dispersed to relevant sections, including anything deemed relevant enough to go into the lead as well? FDW777 (talk) 16:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. We don't need two overviews. Scolaire (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Mostly removed. FDW777 (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects

After making some changes to the This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects section above, I realized that I should ask for discussion about the changes here. Please discuss the changes above, and say whether is any problem or not.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dthomsen8: The only problem I have with it is that it made a template break. FlalfTalk 15:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for answering. How do I fix the template break?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

England v 'mainland Britain'

For those who object to the use of "Northern Ireland and England" rather than "Northern Ireland and mainland Britain", here is a recent article that makes it crystal clear that only England was targeted by the IRA: Mackay, Neil (13 October 2019). "Inside story: Why the IRA never attacked Scotland". The Herald Scotland.. 81.17.242.238 (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

And probably not Wales, either.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Was or were?

@Valenciano: you have reverted a couple of the IP changes from "were" to "was", I thought those actually improved the article since the lead reads The Irish Republican Army . . . was an Irish republican paramilitary organisation. If we are using was in the lead, it would appear that be should be also saying the Provisional IRA was a group and that the Provisional IRA were considered, rather than were. FDW777 (talk) 09:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

You're right that there's probably a consistency issue there. The article is written in Irish English per the header and that mostly follows British English. In the latter, collective nouns (those which represent a group of people) are generally treated as plural ( see this link) so I feel we should be using "were" throughout. Valenciano (talk) 10:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
There is a tendency to not always view organisations as a plural entity though. I've made a couple of rather unscientific samplings. The First IMC report uses these phrasings:
  • CIRA is the military wing of RSF
  • RSF was formed in 1986 by dissident Provisionals
  • CIRA is a limited organisation
  • CIRA has access to an unknown quantity of weapons and explosives
  • The LVF was formed in 1996
  • The LVF has no political representation
  • The PIRA is a tightly knit and secure organisation
  • PIRA is a well-funded organisation
  • PIRA is not presently involved in attacks on security forces
  • PIRA is highly active in paramilitary shootings short of murder.
And so on. A search of the BBC's website for "the IRA was" returns 984 results, "the IRA were" returns 445. With regard to the latter even on the first page there are results such as Others who suffered at the hands of the IRA were less forgiving, past comments by party colleagues about the IRA were "regrettable" and Representing the IRA were Daithi O Conaill (described as David O'Connell in the papers) a senior republican strategist, and Gerry Adams which are referring to groups of people talking about the IRA or a specific group of people representing the IRA. Admittedly unscientific, but it does appear that "was" or "is" is the preferred usage in British English. FDW777 (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Though within some of them there is inconsistency. For example, one of the first in "the IRA was" search is IRA 'was a Troubles protagonist' - Kelly where his exact words are "I have no difficulty with that, because the IRA were a main protagonist." However, quite honestly, I'm really not bothered which is chosen, provided it's consistent. So if you wish to standardise the article, that's perfectly fine with me. Valenciano (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
That's true. Considering the BBC's website contains 20+ years of articles written by many different journalists and published under different editors, it would be difficult to draw any firm conclusions regarding the BBC's preferred style without a more in-depth analysis, I only sought to demonstrate that "is/was" is in widespread usage and not just the occasional anomaly or person being quoted (or misquoted, as in the Gerry Kelly example you provided). I have made the article consistent as far as I can tell, it generally involved searching for "were" or "are" with spaces before and after but if there's anything still outstanding please go ahead and change that too. FDW777 (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

General Army Conventions

I did start typing this up in an edit summary, only it got increasingly long so I decided a talk page post would be simpler. I have corrected details about General Army Councils. English says there were none between September 1970 and 1986 (not in dispute by anyone), O'Brien says there had only been two since 1969. But since the first edition of his book came out in 1995, it's quite possible that sentence didn't get updated for the 1999 edition. There's no dispute among other references that General Army Conventions took place in 1996 and 1997. I have removed the mention of a 2005 General Army Convention, although I would have no objection to it being replaced if it can be referenced. The IRA Army Council article claimed one was held in May 2005, however looking at the reference provided doesn't state a convention was held in May 2005 (the article itself is dated 1 May, making that claim highly unlikely unless the journalists had a very high level sources, and as a point of information there's no need for a General Army Convention to meet in order for changes to the Army Council to take place), it does however state "The last GAC was held in Cavan in June 2002. Another is expected to be called to ratify any change in direction by the IRA" I have added the Cavan one, but not the speculation about a future one. While it's certainly true a General Army Convention would have been needed to formally call off the armed campaign in 2005, this decision could have been taken in 2002. Or as I've read in one place, the leadership called off the campaign without a convention (Paisley and the Provos by Brian Rowan page 51, The IRA formally ordered an end to its armed campaign without such a Convention, but I don't have the book and snippet view on Google Books won't let me view the entire context). Either way, as I said no objections to a 2005 (or other date) being added, if properly referenced. FDW777 (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

SDLP claim

I've removed the claim that In Northern Ireland, the IRA are referred to as terrorists by the . . . Social Democratic and Labour Party, which was supposedly reference by this. The problem is that the phrase That this Assembly notes the decision by the Scottish Government to release the Lockerbie bomber from prison and supports the case being taken by the victims of IRA terrorism wasn't actually said by the SDLP, it was said by Jeffrey Donaldson. That the SDLP tabled an amendment to his motion and didn't choose to amend one of his sentences isn't the same as them referring to the IRA as terrorists. FDW777 (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

"the IRA was not defeated"

I have removed the following sentence Some authors, like Patrick McCarthy, Peter Taylor, and Brendan O'Brien concluded that, unlike previous IRA campaigns, the IRA was not defeated.[1][2][3]

Firstly I believe it is misplaced. It is in the section dealing with the formal end of the armed campaign in 2005, and the more observant among you will no doubt notice the references are from 1997, 2002 and 2003. I would have no problem with Taylor being used for a similar sentence in the appropriate place (the page cited is dealing with the 1994 ceasefire), but I really don't believe Language, Politics and Writing: Stolentelling in Western Europe by Patrick McCarthy and Irish on the Inside: In Search of the Soul of Irish America by Tom Hayden are appropriate references. I've tried to improve the referencing on this article, making as much use as possible of books specifically about the IRA and/or Troubles. It should be a simple enough task to cite that viewpoint to books such as those, and if nobody else does so I will do so myself time permitting. FDW777 (talk) 09:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Taylor 1997, p. 349.
  2. ^ McCarthy, Patrick (2002). Language, Politics and Writing: Stolentelling in Western Europe. Palgrave Macmillan, p. 120. ISBN 1403960240
  3. ^ Hayden, Tom (2003). Irish on the Inside: In Search of the Soul of Irish America. Verso, p. 179. ISBN 1859844774
I have looked at page 179 Hayden on Google Books. Like Taylor, this is dealing with 1994 as it's mentioned in the context of Bill Clinton giving Gerry Adams a visa. FDW777 (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion to remove or amend sentence

I did move this as it didn't really fit where it was, but I don't think it fits where I've put it either. The sentence is

During its armed campaign, the IRA had detonated 19,000 improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in the United Kingdom, it being described as "the biggest terrorist bombing campaign in history" referenced by this (the same figures appear in his book, I will deal with that later). For full transparency for reasons which will become apparent, it used to say Between 1970 and 2005, the IRA had detonated 19,000 improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in the United Kingdom, an average of one every 17 hours for three and a half decades, arguably making it "the biggest terrorist bombing campaign in history"

Long version begins My main problem with it is the claimed total just doesn't appear to be accurate. The CAIN figures provided by the PSNI only give a total of 16,209 for bombs used (in Northern Ireland only, I'll get to that shortly), and only 10,026 of them exploded. There are also 2,225 incidents involving "incendiaries", which need to be counted as even though the PSNI count them separately Oppenheimer counts them together. Even if we, not unreasonably agree, that the vast majority of them were by the IRA we're still 9,000 short of the claimed total. And yes, the PSNI figures for bombs only goes up to 1997 and there aren't figures for 1998-2003. But since the IRA weren't setting off bombs during those years (or if they were, you can probably count them on your fingers). As already said, the figures are for Northern Ireland only. Although the IRA occasionally set off bombs in the Republic (see Garryhinch ambush for example) and much more frequently did so in England, there's no way adding those to any 1998-2003 bombs (if there even wore any) we're going to get close to a the missing 9,000. I tend to trust the PSNI's figures more than Andy Oppenheimer's. His book has the following regarding the 19,000 figure

Chapter 9: The Countermeasures Arms Race and the 'Long Walk' From 1970 to the end of the Provisional IRA bombing campaign, there were 54,000 EOD call-outs. Of these, in Northern Ireland alone, some 19,000 explosions and incendiary attacks took place (which included the other paramilitaries), and some 50 tonnes of explosives detonated or neutralised in another 6,300 incidents.

Chapter 6: Deadly Ingenuity: The Bomb Technologies By the time the IRA were deploying 1,000-plus bombs a year in Northern Ireland, and had run several campaigns on the mainland, they had developed a research and developement (R&D) operation - conducted by its Engineering Department - that was, and remains, unrivalled by any other non-state group. There were, in total, 19,000 explosions and incendiary attacks using a vast array of devices.

Both of these have a footnote, both of them citing C. Ryder, A Special Kind of Courage: 321 Squadron - Battling the Bombers (London, Methuen, 2006), p. xviii I don't have the book, but the summary at Worldcat is quite intriguing. The most intriguing part is In the longest ever continuous campaign in the history of the British Army, with never more than 100 personnel on the ground at any time, they have faced an average of one bomb or incendiary attack every seventeen hours

Now the reason for me including the original text in full should become apparent. I find it extremely convenient that the "one every seventeen hours" part appears in the summary, and I believe this is where Oppenheimer obtained his 19,000 figure from. Note that Oppenheimer isn't even consistent with his 19,000 claim. In his online article he says Between 1970 and 2005, the IRA detonated a staggering 19,000 IEDs in the United Kingdom. That’s one every 17 hours. Yet in chapter 9 he says Of these, in Northern Ireland alone, some 19,000 explosions and incendiary attacks took place (which included the other paramilitaries). So is the 19,000 in the whole United Kingdom, or just Northern Ireland? And is it the IRA, or is it all paramilitaries?

35 years (1 January 1970 to 31 December 2005) is 13,149 days, or 315,576 hours. One bomb every 17 hours equals 18,563. That's near enough, if you made it so it's start of 1970 to start of 2005 it's slightly lower. The 19,000, or 18,563 isn't that dissimilar to the total figures from CAIN, 16,209 + 2,225 = 18,434.

However....as Ryder's book points out, that figure of one every 17 hours is how many bombs there were. Given the book itself is about British Army bomb disposal teams, you'd hope they managed to stop a few bombs going off every now and then. No doubt they did, and the failure of bombs to explode for other reasons is well documented. Using CAIN's figures only 61% of bombs actually exploded.

Short version begins So taking all that into account do Oppenheimer's figures stand up to scrutiny? There's no evidence the IRA detonated 19,000 bombs, or one every 17 hours as he said. There is evidence there was a bomb attack every 17 hours, but not that all those bombs exploded nor that they were all by the IRA. There's also evidence ~19,000 bombs may have been used/planted, but ~61% of them (excluding incendiaries for which data is different) exploded according to CAIN. Under the circumstances, I believe it's reasonable to remove the sentence, or bare minimum remove the 19,000 part of it. Anyone else have thoughts on this? FDW777 (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I will add that I'm fully prepared to accept Oppenheimer's figure if, and it's a big if, it's proven that page xviii of Ryder's book does indeed contain the precise claim that the IRA detonated 19,000 bombs, and not some variant of the one every 17 hours claim that's not specific about how many bombs actually exploded or who was responsible for them. FDW777 (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Removed the offending part, moved the remainder elsewhere in the article. FDW777 (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

1969 General Army Convention

I have removed the word "unanimously" relating to the passing of the motion regarding the "National Liberation Strategy". What Hanley/Miller say is The leadership motion on the National Liberation Front was passed, they don't say whether it was unanimous or the two-thirds (I think? I know the Sinn Féin change required a two-thirds majority so I'm assuming it's the same) majority. Mallie/Bishop say There was a clear majority, however, in favour of a National Liberation Front. Other references also talk about the motion passing, no mention of unanimous support. FDW777 (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I should have read the sentences following it in Hanley/Miller. They are The leadership motion on the National Liberation Front was passed. This was followed by a debate on abstentionism. This too was passed by 28 votes to 12. I will reword the sentences to match. FDW777 (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Out of the Ashes: An Oral History of the Provisional Irish Republican Movement covers it in more useful detail. He states the traditionalists didn't vote against the national liberation strategy (but doesn't say whether it was unanimous), but that they did vote against the abstentionism change which passed by 28 votes to 12. Added back using the information from this book. FDW777 (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems Hanley and White were both wrong. Proceedings of the Irish Republican Army General Army Convention, December 1969 has the minutes of the General Army Convention, including the result of the first motion. Grammatical mistakes can be attributed to the original. Where appropriate, some minor spelling mistakes have been corrected (e.g. 'delegate' instead of 'delegete', etc.) means the content can be trusted you'd think. Page 153 says After further discussions, the original resolution on electoral policy plus the addendum quoted above was passed by 27 votes to 12. FDW777 (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I realise I'm largely talking to myself based on the lack of any replies to my previous posts on this page, but I will continue. While I'm generally avoiding any in-text attribution for statements, I do believe it's necessary for the claim I'm about to attribute to her.

  • Geraghty, The Irish War An IRA apostate, Maria Maguire [sic], revealed in her memories that the Basque ETA terrorist movement had supplied the Provisionals with fifty revolvers in exchange for training in the use of explosives
  • Boyne, Gunrunners In her books about her experiences, To Take Arms, she claimed that the Basque separatist group ETA had supplied the IRA with fifty revolvers in return for training in the use of explosives
  • Mallie/Bishop, The Provisional IRA Maria McGuire reported that Basques had handed over fifty revolvers to the IRA in return for explosives training

As can be seen, references are happy to cover it but always attribute the claim to McGuire, so I think it prudent to follow their example on this occasion. FDW777 (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead section

Wikipedia guidelines on Leads suggests four brief paragraphs, and the use of references only if absolutely required (ie the detail and back up should be in the main body of the article.

This is because 60% of Wikipedia users only look at the Lead, and of those, well over 50% are using a tablet or mobile device. Its the bite-sized idea.

I have no axe to grind, so feel free to ignore me, but I can see a lot of work has been done, so its a good idea for people to read it. A better, tighter Lead, without 29 separate References, would help. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Robinvp11: Thanks for your comments. As you can probably see from the sections above, probably due to ongoing events there's not been much discussion about issues raised recently. I think the lead does need some work, especially the third paragraph. I'd be happy to remove the references from the lead, but I believe doing so might open a can of worms. People are less likely, and indeed less capable, of changing wording to what they think it should say if it's referenced. MOS:LEADCITE does say it's a matter of consensus at each article for whether citations are needed in the lead or not, while noting controversial subjects may require many citations. I don't think anyone would disagree this would tend to be classed as a "controversial subject".
That said, I do believe the four references after the word "was" in the first sentence are redundant and should be removed, unless anyone has any objections? I do have some other suggestions regarding the lead, but they are likely to be possibly more controversial so would prefer to deal with simpler issues first. FDW777 (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@FDW777: My family comes from Belfast, so I admire anyone who undertakes this :). I think as long as you include the main references somewhere in the article, and explain why, its ok. In theory, the Lead is supposed to summarise the article, so if you're rewriting it, then maybe wait.
What might help; its taken me four years to understand there are two kinds of editor; ones who want to discuss the content, and those who simply enjoy conflict. That means any changes will be resisted, so don't spend too much time trying to convince them.
Agree on the removal; in general, I agree with using multiple sources within the article, but not to verify the same point, plus there are far more controversial statements in the Lead as it currently stands than whether PIRA still exists. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@Robinvp11: I've streamlined the lead a bit, please let me know what you think. If anyone else has any objections, feel free to revert anything you disagree with and I'm happy to discuss it. FDW777 (talk) 09:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Content removed

As a reference had been requested since 2009 and not provided, I have removed the following content from the section at Provisional Irish Republican Army#Categorisation.

A process called "Criminalisation" was begun in the mid-1970s as part of a British strategy of "Criminalisation, Ulsterisation, and Normalisation". The policy was outlined in a 1975 British strategy paper titled "The Way Ahead", which was not published but was referred to by Labour's first Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Merlyn Rees, and came to be the dominant British political theme in the conflict as it raged into the 1980s.

Another categorisation avoids the terms "guerrilla" or "terrorist" but does view the conflict in military terms. The phrase originated with the British military strategist Frank Kitson who was active in Northern Ireland during the early 1970s. In Kitson's view, the violence of the IRA represented an "insurrection", with the enveloping atmosphere of belligerence representing a "low intensity conflict" – a conflict where the forces involved in fighting operate at a greatly reduced tempo, with fewer combatants, at a reduced range of tactical equipment and limited scope to operate in a military manner.

I'm not entirely sure the first paragraph would necessarily belong in that section anyway, I think the three part strategy would probably belong elsewhere, without the raged into the 1980s language. I had a quick look for references for Kitson and none were immediately available. I think the "low intensity conflict" more refers to the Troubles as a whole, rather than a categorisation of the IRA anyway, but that's just my opinion. FDW777 (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Referencing

WP:NEWSORG says Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. To that end, I believe the works listed at Provisional Irish Republican Army#Bibliography (and similar works not yet cited) are much better than brief BBC articles such as this. Obviously for more recent events news stories might be the only references available, but that generally isn't the case. Does anyone have any objections to this? FDW777 (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Pinging record article/talk editors in the hope of some form of reply. I already know Jim Michael thinks low quality references are acceptable, so @DagosNavy:, @Flalf:, @Scolaire:, @Snowded:, @Robinvp11:, any input would be helpful. FDW777 (talk) 11:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@FDW777: Hi there. First of all, we should establish what they mean by "academic topics". Reliable news outlets are pretty suitable for bare fact checking; in depth analysis are entirely another matter, and in the latter cases we should resort to bibliographical sources.--Darius (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I concur with DagosNavy. A short article by the NI Home Affairs Correspondent of the BBC – especially one that tries to condense 50 years of history into 700 words – does not constitute in-depth analysis. Scolaire (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I suppose my point is that the IRA has received a significant amount of academic coverage, thus falling under an "academic topic" as opposed to pop culture or something equally flimsy in academic terms. We don't need to rely on short BBC or newspaper articles for anything for the vast majority of the time, even uncontroversial facts, given the amount of books and journal articles written about the IRA. I've been busy working on upgrading the referencing on this article citing the many books and journals available in place of news articles where possible, and would like to come to a consensus that this is the preferred option for referencing to avoid low quality references being used in future. FDW777 (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd support that perspective -----Snowded TALK 15:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army/Archive_10&oldid=1136238976"