Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Terrorist Designation

A disagreement exists as to whether or not the Categorization section should make any mention (and if so to what extent) of the the fact that although the PIRA was illegal in the Republic and a Proscribed Terrorist group in the U.K., such was never the case in the United States. This meant tremendously less law enforcement scrutiny fell on the PIRA's American base, American sympathisers broke far fewer laws and faced punishment of far severity than they would have if the IRA was designated as a FTO (foreign terrorist group, in which case virtually any interaction, including purely peaceful would be seriously illegal). The CIA could not share any intelligence they gathered on the IRA with the FBI if it might be used directly or indirectly to prosecute Americans domestically. Groups like the NORAID and CNG were able to fundraise out in the open and could even use US banks to transfer funds. Activities like straw buying weapons and US veterans training IRA members were only on the fringe of illegal. In contrast, US federal law actually forbid govt cooperation with the RUC. IRA volunteers who restricted their activities to attacks on british combatants within Northern Ireland were initially granted asylum in the US as well. None of this would have been possible without the IRA's legal status in the US. Considering that significant amounts of aid from the middle east did not materialize until the troubles was well under way, simply put, had the IRA been designated as an FTO by the US govt like it was in the UK and Ireland, it is highly unlikely the group would've had much an impact any greater than the IRA Border Campaign in the 1950s-60s. OgamD218 (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Your addition went on for an eternity, and as I pointed out at the time we don't need to spend significantly longer talking about somewhere they weren't designated than places they were. Various other points.

I will confess to having made an educated guess as to whether it was the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 or the 1965 version, since the reference didn't specify a year. As parts of the 1952 act are still in force and it talks about banning people who advocate overthrowing governments, I took a bit of a punt (and before anyone says anything, it's the only time I did in the whole article) per WP:IAR, since I think linking to an act is useful, but happy to remove the year and link if consensus says it's not a valid use of IAR.

Your addition of Following trips both the U.S. and the continent facilitated by the Irish Government, the PIRA quickly built up a network for acquiring weapons and funding and The IRA's status as a de-facto legal entity in the U.S. meant American citizens could purchase the Armalite Assault Rifles that became synonymous with the IRA's armed campaign with relative ease is inaccurate and I would simply remove it except for the 1RR rule. The IRA already had a support network in place prior to John Kelly's trip. IRA supporters could legally buy weapons no matter that the legal status of the IRA, that's assuming they were American citizens. It's what they did with them next that was legally problematic. FDW777 (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

My add had a lot of cites maybe but especially after I rewrote was only 3-4 sentences.The PIRA wouldn't have existed as long or been nearly as effective minus its US legal status so the issue is arguably quite relevant.

I'll remove it myself but idk didn't the PIRA 1st made connects in the US and abroad during the Arms Crisis?. Where is it that they had a supply route in place prior to Kelly's trip? Regardless legally NORAID was a subsidiary of INAC-which was based in Ulster and unable to move funds freely thru US banks if an FTO, in which case also any apparatus they did have in America would've been reduced to little or nothing.

I won't hold the INA one against you, seems you've done your research but I think you're overthinking it, the law only bans those wanting to overthrow the US gov, excluding IRA members was policy decided by Pres Admins, not the INA.

Re the guns, no, in the U.S. its a capital felony to be in any way involved in the purchase of a firearm with intent to in any way aid an FTO; also to raise, spend or provide any $. But as a non FTO=US citizs could buy ARs with $ raised by CNG/NORAID, transfer them in a private transax. It all doesn't becomes illegal unitl the trafficking stage. OgamD218 (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Boyne (cited in article) pages 96-97 details the Harrison network in the USA being revived in early 1969, and some weapons were shipped to the pre-split IRA, including some weapons he had stored from his Border Campaign smuggling. When the split occurred he sided with the Provisionals. I wholly agree that US support was important, which is why there's a whole paragraph about it at Provisional Irish Republican Army#Support from other countries and organisations. But which references say its legal designation, or lack of, had any impact on arms supplied by American sympathisers? The FTO information seems meaningless as that designation wasn't even introduced until 1997, long after they had received the vast majority of the US donated weaponry (with the possible exception of some handguns in the late 90s). Also from what I've read the fund-raising was split in two, not necessarily equally. Various legitimate donations, including some for which there was a paper trail, was legitimately sent via the Green Cross to help the families of imprisoned IRA members (which is what NORAID claimed in the 1980s court case). Whereas other money, often from cash donations (not the entirety of cash donations. For example if they held a fund-raising dinner and there were cash donations some would be declared as legitimate income, and some would go elsewhere. If they didn't declare some cash donations as legitimate income it would have raised eyebrows), went towards weapons. FDW777 (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

INA is referenced by Holland, and the exact text of the Act doesn't only apply to overthrowing the US government, as it's people who "advocates or teaches, opposition to all organized government". FDW777 (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

See also for example New York Times article in 1975, quoting a State Dept official that it had used its authority to bar aliens who are believed to belong to terrorist organizations or to advocate the overthrow of any legitimate government and specifically mentions the INA. FDW777 (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

you’re misinterpreting those, re Holland, as I said earlier the only group broadly prohibited are communist/anarchists-“advocates or teaches, opposition to all organized government”, the text is defining anarchists. Sullivan article: its what I was saying, save anarchists it’s up to the discretion of the sitting Pres Administration to decide who to exclude for what causes, “quoting a State Dept official it had used ITS AUTHORITY to bar aliens...”, the INA grants them such discretion, if under the INA IRAs couldn’t come in then the state dept would not be using its own authority and Clinton would not have been able let Cahill in. OgamD218 (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Saying I'm misinterpreting Holland is a brave statement. His exact words are The Caucus sponspored two committee members, Congressmen Hamilton Fish and Joshua Eilberg, on a trip to Ireland to inquire into the United States visa policies restricting IRA and Sinn Féin spokesmen from visiting America. Denials are most often issued under Section 212(a)(28)(F) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which bars from entering the U.S. people who belong to an organisation advocating the overthrow of a government by force. How is that "misinterpreted"? FDW777 (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Lol not so much bravery as knowledge of America's layered often contradictory legal system. Though congress passed into law the INA version in question, the Supreme Court ruled they exceeded their constitutional. Think about it, how many aliens does the US allow in who advocate the overthrow of a gov somewhere by force. Such a blanket prohibition would paralyze US foreign policy, given that its perpetually trying to overthrow multiple govs all over the world, allies in those efforts wouldn't be allowed in. Generally, the US law as applied is that the Pres, via the state dept decides what groups seeking violent gov overthrow can or can't come in. I direct you once again to the fact Clinton of his own volition made "an exception" for Cahill.OgamD218 (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

A limtd exception is if the the group is an **FTO. More substantive reasons why an FTO designation would've likely crippled the IRA is, as you said, NORAID funds went mostly to non-violent support, which was still significant support. All fundraising regardless of what its used for is seriously illegal if an FTO, anyone knowingly involved faces very severe repercussions, IE all of NORAID assets would immediately be seized. Unions that gave even minor assistance would be de-registered. In 1981, DOJ successfully sued NORAID for not FARA registering and NORAID had to inform donors they were an organ of the IRA-the only repercussion, activities otherwise continued unabated. As a non FTO they were able to freely use US banks to move funds, which i think is a pretty big benefit. Technically aid for violent activity wasn't, in and of itself illegal, though not done as openly and yes cash was preferred. Americans who trained IRAs violated at worse the NA, hard to proof/minor crime/none ever even charged. If the IRA was an FTO they'd be committing a capital felony with a conviction bar so low-the SC affirmed that any and all assistance constitutes aiding terrorism-including counseling them to stop being terrorist (yes, we agree that is absolutely absurd). Harrison was acquitted by exploiting the CIA loophole-which wouldn't have been an option in an FTO case. Gun distributors have a fed obligation to report purchases they think may be connected to terrorism, no obligation ever existed re the PIRA, if a distributor had those suspicions they didn't have to do anything. I know you said what evidence is there of the significance of an FTO label itself, but that designation alone has an obvious serious chilling effect on base of support, there's a reason Irish congressmen never let it happen.OgamD218 (talk) 06:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

So you're not going to explain how I supposedly misinterpreted Holland? And Foreign Terrorist Organization non-designation is irrelevant, as already stated since that didn't begin until 1997. FDW777 (talk) 07:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I explained it but once more: That specific part of the INA, was ruled an overreach of congressional authority by the US Supreme Court, under the US constitution the President is the authority on whether or not an alien engaged in a violent struggle against a foreign govt may or may not enter the country. To an extent congress can designate a spec movement or org an FTO, please stop focusing exclusively on the FTO list initiated in the late 90s, that was only the 1st attempt at streamlining the process, it was not the inception of a legal FTO under U.S. law (otherwise the IRA would just be 1 of many foreign militants openly raising $/running guns out of the US). Even using the '97 law as a beacon it's relevant. If the PIRA fell under that in the late 90s they'd lose most of their remaining bargaining power in the peace negotiations. The UK may have turned back in some or many areas now that stripped of its US assets and base, the IRA lost it's long term viability (no USSR to turn too instead). Yes by then new guns from the US had slowed to trickle, but they still depended on US manufactured ammo for their ARs.OgamD218 (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

No, you didn't explain it. For me to have misinterpreted Holland would mean the text I added is somehow different to what Holland says. How is it so? Yes by then new guns from the US had slowed to trickle, but they still depended on US manufactured ammo for their ARs, says who? Boyne details no significant, successful importation of ammo from the USA after the 1970s. FDW777 (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

“IRA members were often refused travel visas to enter the United States, due to previous criminal convictions or because the Immigration and Nationality Act bars the entry of people who are members of an organisation which advocates the overthrow of a government by force”, should instead be closer to “prior to the initiation of peace negotiations in the mid 1990s, the US State Department used its discretionary authority, to deny entry visas to IRA volunteers and Sinn Fein representatives.” OgamD218 (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

That's not what Holland, or McElrath who references the early part of the sentence, say. FDW777 (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I never accused you of misinterpreting Holland or McElrath....Though I do not have complete copies of either's work I am familiar with McElrath's and her tone always did seem to imply that she was aware that this particular area of US policy is decided by sitting President. I ask you again to please address your prior point “quoting a State Dept official it had used ITS AUTHORITY (under the INA) to bar aliens...”, and once again the fact Bill Clinton was able unilaterally to allow Joe Cahill to enter the U.S. without amending the INA. Idk if the sources are incorrect or if you're misinterpreting them, but the law is that the sitting Presidential administration is authorized under the INA to pick and choose unilaterally what foreign militants to allow or not allow into the country and I say once again that there is zero possibility you are unaware of America's propensity to permit countless individuals to come and go from it's soil who are part of ongoing movements to topple foreign regimes. OgamD218 (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I could not find where Boyne says that? I did found sources that mention ammo importation continuing just at a slower pace by the mid 1980s, due to the IRA's capabilities declining significantly until Kadaffi boosted assistance dramatically in the late 80s. American supporters re-focused on sending small arms (handguns) and AR ammo from the late 80s onward not only bc of the Reagan era crackdown but bc the law was changed making such efforts obsolete. After 1986 it was no longer legal for American civilians to buy automatic rifles and in 1994 all assault weapons became illegal for purchase for a period of 10 years. The only concession was it became much easier to buy ammo for owners of existing AR (including armor piercing bullets). I know efforts were made at preserving bullets by the southern command but do you think most unused ammmo smuggled in the 1970s was still in good repair by the late 1990s?OgamD218 (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

You've suggested a change, without references, that completely misrepresents what the references already cited say. And you think I need to reply to this why exactly? On pages 431-438 of Boyne there is a table detailing all importations, there are no significant, successful importations of ammo from the US after the 1970s, despite your unreferenced assertion of American supporters re-focused on sending small arms (handguns) and AR ammo from the late 80s onward (the latter point is the unreferenced part). One page 283 he also says There was also a change in 'weapons culture', with the Libyan-supplied Kalashnikov succeeding the US-origin Armalite as the assault rifle most often used by the Provos, so your earlier unreferenced assertion that the IRA were actually in need of Armalite ammunition from the US does not appear to be accurate, and I doubt the US has a monopoly on ammo manufacture in the first place. See also Boyne page 275 which details the seizure in early 1986 of thirty semi-automatic rifles and 7,000 rounds of Yugoslav-made ammunition. Other countries make ammo too you know. If you haven't read McErlath I suggest you stop making assumptions about what she said, as it is absolutely nothing to do with she was aware that this particular area of US policy is decided by sitting President, as she is being used for visas being denied due to criminal convictions. If you had read McErlath, you would also know your suggested text of prior to the initiation of peace negotiations in the mid 1990s, the US State Department used its discretionary authority, to deny entry visas to IRA volunteers and Sinn Fein representatives isn't even correct in the first place. FDW777 (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I had to re-draft some of my response after you conveniently changed yours. From the beginning I’ve extended to you good faith but you’re now making that not only hard but feel redundant. This thread began to discuss the merits of my extensively refd edit. Just bc you’ve ignored what I’ve said/failed to answer inquiries and at first selectively responded with pigeon holed points now escalating to straight up falsifying what was said bc you found out I was right then changing the subject to lack of refs (after I honestly admitted not having a hard copy of a decades old book) doesn’t changed that reality. This thread also began with you complaining about length, further incentivizing me to so to keep it brief-espec after you completely ignored what I did ref (a founding PIRA member noting the significance of est US supply routes). This thread also began with you admitting you failed to adequately research your INA edit and i gave you the benefit of the doubt. The draft included the fact I didn't need ref bc you kept ignoring my attempts to get you to see that the ones already there substantiated my point, this was before I noticed you were pretending my edit that YOU reverted to an incorrect claim you stood by til now. I maintained that IRAs were blocd from entering the US by Presidential policy/at the President's discretion and not purely bounded by a specific law. I never said i didn't read McErlath, DON'T SAY OTHERWISE just bc you were wrong, my familiarity with her work made me doubt she made the same mistake you kept defending. As you say above she was aware that I was right and the US President determines this area of policy, glad we can finally move on from this issue and agree that my edit was at least substantially correct, you're welcome to pretend I didn't repeatedly say that and you denied it. There's no need for you to answer those questions anyway-they were meant to force you see you were wrong. Going forward please do not misrepresent or in this case it feels fictionalize what was said. In the hope that a lot of this has just been a big misunderstanding and i ask you clarify what you exactly you mean by i was wrong re McErlath "isn't even correct in the first place"?OgamD218 (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

after you completely ignored what I did ref (a founding PIRA member noting the significance of est US supply routes). Except I didn't ignore this, I refuted it. The relevant text you added to the article can be seen here. It says

• Following trips both the U.S. and the continent facilitated by the Irish Government, the PIRA quickly built up a network for acquiring weapons and funding

In my post above at 23:20, 2 February 2021 I said

• Boyne (cited in article) pages 96-97 details the Harrison network in the USA being revived in early 1969, and some weapons were shipped to the pre-split IRA, including some weapons he had stored from his Border Campaign smuggling. When the split occurred he sided with the Provisionals

I will provide the exact quotes from Boyne and other references

• Boyne pages 96-97 ...Harrison returned to his gunrunning activities. He was approached in early 1969 by his friend of long standing, Eoin McNamee, who had been visiting Derry, one of the main centres of civil strife. McNamee's message was simple - the movement needed weapons . . . Harrison still had about seventy weapons stashed away that had been collected in the late 1950s or early 1960s for the abortive Border Campaign, and these were quickly dispatched to Ireland . . . It is believed they reached Ireland in mid-1969 . . . This first shipment of arms went to the pre-split IRA . . . Despite his left-wing views, when the split in the IRA came, Harrison threw his weight behind the physical-force Provos rather than the Marxist-leaning Officials
• Boyne page 98 Meanwhile Sean Keenan, the Derry republican who had accompanied John Kelly on the abortive arms acquisition trip to New York in December 1969
• Holland pages 79-80 Early in 1969, the Emissary came to visit Harrison and Cotter . . . The Emissary said he was going back to Ireland and heading for Derry. The movement needed weapons . . . Harrison said he agreed to turn over whatever they still had left in their dumps to the IRA. These were weapons collected in the late 1950s for the border campaign . . . They made plans to have them taken across to Ireland, but it was not until mid-1969 that they reached the North-in time to be used in the fighting that erupted that August
• Moloney page 16 In those days guns were easy to come by. The IRA had a network in place in the United States in the 1950s and it was a simple task to reactivate it when violence erupted in 1969. Headed by George Harrison . . . Harrison was the single most important source of weapons in these years
• English page 116 The nucleus of the gun-running network was the same as with Harrison's previous arms provision

To avoid quoting excessively from Boyne, English and Holland, they all say Harrison met with Provisional Army Council member Dáithí Ó Conaill in early 1970, when Harrison's relationship with the Provisionals was formalised. None talk about John Kelly meeting Harrison in December 1969, and I will add that your Irish Times reference doesn't confirm Kelly met Harrison, nor established an arms smuggling network. What it actually says of the US importatation plan But, said Mr Kelly, Mr Blaney scuppered that plan . . . I think that with hindsight Blaney was afraid of the US connection because the government would have no control over the guns coming in. So, as Boyne says, Kelly's plan was the abortive arms acquisition trip, because it came to nothing. Per Boyne and Holland, Harrison's network had already been revived in early 1969. The Irish government may have been involved in Kelly's various trips, including to the US, but they had absolutely nothing to do with the revival of the Harrison network or its activities. That you have what can at best be described as a sloppy approach to accurately reflecting what references say, means I will be requiring direct quotes from references (which per above, I'm happy to provide) to substantiate any of your claims. FDW777 (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The IRA was banned in both the UK and Ireland but such was never the case in the U.S., where their supporters could openly fundraise on their behalf. Donations from America's large Irish-American community were often used to fund black market arms deals and helped the IRA obtain a large array of weapons such as surface-to-air missiles; M60 machine guns; ArmaLite AR-18, FN FAL, AKM and M16 rifles; DShK heavy machine guns; LPO-50 flamethrowers; and Barrett M90 sniper rifles is so laughably incorrect it's difficult to know where to start. I'll simply say that many items on the list did not come from Irish-Americans, nor were the purchases of all of them funded by Irish-Americans. You were bold, you've been reverted, and now we discuss. And by discuss I mean provide quotes from references, not your walls of text of your own arguments about the article should say. FDW777 (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

So you're now just going to completely ignore 99% the issues my response raised? Thank you for showing there was only a partial "sloppy" flaw in 1 sentence (really only 5 words) I added. Now onto every single other thing bc while I respect your commitment to ducking and hiding from the point and giving me such a lengthy analysis of a side issue, but we both no you ignored everything else. Now please as per my last post "i ask you clarify what you exactly you mean by i was wrong re McErlath "isn't even correct in the first place"?OgamD218 (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

a lengthy analysis of a side issue? You said you completely ignored what I did ref (a founding PIRA member noting the significance of est US supply routes). I demonstrated that I didn't, and provided further evidence to prove that what you added isn't correct. And yes, I'm going to ignore anything you say that isn't supported by a direct quote from the reference. partial "sloppy" flaw? Your addition said Following trips both the U.S. and the continent facilitated by the Irish Government, the PIRA quickly built up a network for acquiring weapons and funding. Your reference says nothing of the sort. Your suggested text was prior to the initiation of peace negotiations in the mid 1990s, the US State Department used its discretionary authority, to deny entry visas to IRA volunteers and Sinn Fein representatives. This implies that after the peace process began, the State Department changed its stance, it didn't. See for convenience the New York Times which states of Joe Cahill's 1994 visa (the one mentioned in the article as an example of exceptions being made) The White House ordered that the visa be issued, overruling objections from the State Department, Administration officials said. McErlath details the 1996 refusal to grant visas to three former IRA prisoners invited to address a lecture by the World Affairs Council. You see, this is why I'm insisting on direct quotes from references, as every time I independently try and verify many of your assertions they turn out to be not quite on the level. So quotes from references please, if you wish to continue this discussion. FDW777 (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for finally devoting at least some of your response to a part of the issue at hand. Good to see you're still living in denial about me being right about this. Like i said, earlier I had better faith and figured compromise on wording might just be best, this was before you chose to completely fictionalize vast portions of this. But it took you only 3X to finally answer a valid inquiry now that I trust you'll have limited room left to make up debates that never happened, the quote was prior to the initiation of peace negotiations in the mid 1990s, the US State Department used its discretionary authority, to deny entry visas to IRA volunteers and Sinn Fein representatives, i appreciate you switched from saying i said to backtracking to i implied there was some kind of change in state dept policy-I did neither however and am not bound to your fictionalizations when I was right and repeatdly said in this area the decision is made by the US President. Cahill was not the only one granted a visa to travel to the US during this time, Gerry Adams was at the start of the peace negotiations, and he was again granted a visa later that same year and yet again in 1996, more would follow but i've made my point. Him and Cahill were not alone, Martin McGuinness was granted a visa "more than half a dozen times", including in 1995 and again in 1997. . This reference , mentions and discusses how as i said a million times, these were decisions that the Presidential administration decides. There are more examples but I think i've made my point here even though I was always right on this.

You implied the State Department changed its stance and allowed IRA members in, it didn't. Per the references I've provided to you, visas were on occasion issued against the wishes of the State Department. Like Cahill, Gerry Adams' 1994 visit was opposed by the State Department, "The US State Department was against the visit but President Clinton ignored their advice" (and I note that is one the references you are using to confirm you are right, when it confirms the State Department did not change its stance at all). That you appear to be desperate to cling to to your belief that prior to the initiation of peace negotiations in the mid 1990s, the US State Department used its discretionary authority, to deny entry visas to IRA volunteers and Sinn Fein representatives is correct despite referenced evidence to the contrary is unhelpful. As proven, the US State Department continued to deny visas during the peace process, although occasional exceptions were made as documented here and in the article. Providing more evidence of occasional visas being issued does not change the fact that many references says Clinton personally intervened on two occasions, and potentially more, to overrule the State Department's refusal to issue visas.

I still don't know why you are intent on shoe-horning Irish American details in at random points in the article, when as already stated there is a section that deals with that exact subject at Provisional Irish Republican Army#Support from other countries and organisations. Should you wish to make any suggestions about additions to that, with quotes from references, you are welcome to do so. FDW777 (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

And as per your request for quotes As per your request for direct quotes you would also know your suggested text of prior to the initiation of peace negotiations in the mid 1990s, the US State Department used its discretionary authority, to deny entry visas to IRA volunteers and Sinn Fein representatives isn't even correct in the first place, it is clearly correct.......I also said excluding IRA members was policy decided by Pres Admins, not the INA. you replied INA is referenced by Holland, and the exact text of the Act doesn't only apply to overthrowing the US government, as it's people who "advocates or teaches, opposition to all organized government"."see for example quoting a State Dept official that it had used "its authority to bar aliens who are believed to belong to terrorist organizations or to advocate the overthrow of any legitimate government" and specifically mentions the INA. When I you're misinterpreting those/it’s up to the discretion of the sitting Pres Administration to decide who to exclude for what causes, “quoting a State Dept official it had used ITS AUTHORITY to bar aliens...”, the INA grants them such discretion, if under the INA IRAs couldn’t come in then the state dept would not be using its own authority and Clinton would not have been able let Cahill in. You then doubled down Saying I'm misinterpreting Holland is a brave statement. His exact words are "The Caucus sponspored two committee members, Congressmen Hamilton Fish and Joshua Eilberg, on a trip to Ireland to inquire into the United States visa policies restricting IRA and Sinn Féin spokesmen from visiting America. Denials are most often issued under Section 212(a)(28)(F) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which bars from entering the U.S. people who belong to an organisation advocating the overthrow of a government by force". How is that "misinterpreted"?OgamD218 (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Quotes from references, not quotes from your unreferenced walls of text. FDW777 (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually that was mostly a wall of you text, just happens to show that you're trying to distort the history of this dispute. Stop pretending I ever said the state dept permanently changed it's policy after the negotiations began, my point all along has been in fact that this was static, you were the one who said the law just didn't allow it. What i said was correct "prior to the initiation of peace negotiations in the mid 1990s, the US State Department used its discretionary authority, to deny entry visas to IRA volunteers and Sinn Fein representatives", the fact is once negotiations began either 1. (no need to quote from those references since you clearly read and know), the state dept had to change policy at least in those instances under orders and these changes were far from isolated but also not necessarily permanent or 2. that they no longer were able to use their discretion to always deny visa requests to IRAs and SF reps.OgamD218 (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Please ensure all future posts are in one of the following formats, or something similar

• I propose to change [this text] to [this text] with [this reference], which says [insert quote]
• I propose to add [this text] at [specific point in the article] with [this reference], which says [insert quote]

Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

For the record my point all along has been in fact that this was static is simply incorrect, or you don't understand how the English language works. The inclusion of "prior" in the phrase prior to the initiation of peace negotiations in the mid 1990s, the US State Department used its discretionary authority, to deny entry visas to IRA volunteers and Sinn Fein representatives automatically implies that after the "initiation of peace negotiations in the mid 1990s" the State Department changed its stance and did something different, when as you now admit they didn't change their stance at all. FDW777 (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

No it implies once negotiations began either the state dept had to change policy at least in some instances under orders, in other words it was no longer the absolute policy and/or 2. that they no longer were able to use their discretionary authority alone to always deny visa requests. Your point has not been static, you stuck to Joe Cahill was an isolated except, kept saying the law just said they couldnt come in, you never mentioned the state dept, I insisted it was decided by the presidential admin. Please stop pretending like you didnt think that it was just the law in the way, you never said anything about stat dept policy (which by the way it whatever the US Pres says it is ay any given moment).

Moving on, my original reverted edit suggestion: Known IRA members were often refused travel visas to enter the U.S., due in part to previous criminal convictions and because American immigration law gives the State Department broad discretion to deny foreign citizens entry on policy grounds. All along i've been trying to work with you to find some common ground, show good faith and avoid edit warring but I'm really out of patience here. I never claimed either of these was perfect, I've been attempting to be inclusive. Please tell me what you think now that WE (I always did) both now know the facts bc the current version with Cahill as a note level lone exception and ref to the wrong INA law as being the basis for visa denials is not accurate. I'm not going around in a million circles with suggestion after suggestion again with you bc look what happens. Both suggestions were closer to the truth than what's there now, either is an improvement but please by all means help with a final draft and we go from there/finally move on. Also re this issue (let's just go 1 by 1 for now), I'm not forcing the inclusion of Irish-Americans, this was always there, I edited it, i did not create it. OgamD218 (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I repeat. Please ensure all future posts are in one of the following formats, or something similar

• I propose to change [this text] to [this text] with [this reference], which says [insert quote]
• I propose to add [this text] at [specific point in the article] with [this reference], which says [insert quote]

Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for repeating that, good idea after you forgot to follow it immediately after the 1st time you posted it. Now actually give some feedback on what I saidOgamD218 (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

No, I will not. You appear to be suggesting I deviate from what the references cited say, and instead change the text in order to more accurately reflect what your unsupported assertions say. I will not do this under any circumstances. FDW777 (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

If you have actual evidence the text should refer to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 please present it, actual evidence meaning something like a link to the full text of the act or a direct quote from a reference detailing it is the 1965 act that was used to deny entry to suspected IRA members. If that is provided I will be happy to change it, or as stated right at the start I will be happy to remove the year and link entirely if consensus of uninvolved editors determines my educated guess was an invalid use of WP:IAR.

You have made many unreferenced assertions on this talk page and unreferenced additions to the article, or additions that misrepresent what the references say. Many of these have been refuted with direct quotes from the references. It is for this reason I will not discuss any more of your unreferenced assertions, since I have wasted enough time already typing up quotes from books to refute things you think are true, but are not. It is unacceptable for you to keep arguing points you believe are true and not provide the repeatedly requested quotes from references that support those points. FDW777 (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

No, all of my edits were originally fully referenced and accurately represented. Just bc it's your's doesn't mean I need scholarly source to remove "your educated guess." I am not wasting a second on that. We've already est that this is an area up to the discretion of the US President and not bound by the INA of 1952. I am going to start with re-adding this part, this time the correct way and not wasting my time attempting to compromise with you. As with all my original edit it will be well sourced, less you forget that was never your initial complaint.OgamD218 (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Just a reminder to all that this article is subject to discretionary sanctions (see the top of the talk page), and continued edit-warring is likely to trigger them. Sort this out at the dispute resolution noticeboard or via an RfC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

References

"No, all of my edits were originally fully referenced and accurately represented"

I beg to differ.

Edit at 12:30, 2 February 2021

The enabled greater flexibility for the IRA’s supporters in the U.S. than was possible in either Ireland or the U.K

Unreferenced.

Prior to the mid 1980s, IRA volunteers living in the America were often able lodge successful asylum claims against extradition requests by the British government. U.S. federal courts found depending on the circumstances that the IRA volunteer was wanted for “political offenses” and therefore could not be extradited from the U.S. Political offenses, at times included being convicted of murdering British citizens

The reference has 31 pages, unclear which page(s) references which part of that passage. The "murdering British citizens" part is particularly dubious, since the murder cases cited involve those of British soldiers, not simply citizens.

In these cases however, the IRA member was almost always deported since they still entered the U.S. illegally and the State Department refused to grant them any kind of visa

Unreferenced, despite the note and references at the end of the sentence which were pre-existing, and moved to the wrong place during the edit.

Edit at 18:44, 2 February 2021

As a result, the U.S. became an epicenter for IRA fundraising and organizing. Organizations such as NORAID and Clan Na Gael operated openly, enjoying the liberty to transfer funds through U.S. banks. American citizens were able to legally purchase the Armalite Assault Rifles that later became synonymous with the IRA's armed campaign

Unreferenced.

Prior to the mid 1980s, IRA fugitives in the U.S., were often able to claim asylum against extradition requests by the British government. In several cases, federal courts found that the charges against the volunteer, were “political offenses” and denied the request for extradition. Political offenses, at times included already being convicted of murdering British citizens

See 12:30, 2 February 2021 analysis of this passage above.

In these cases however, the IRA member was almost always deported for entering the U.S. illegally

Unreferenced.

Edit at 18:59, 2 February 2021

Known IRA members were often refused travel visas to enter the U.S., due in part to previous criminal convictions and because American immigration law gives the State Department broad discretion to deny foreign citizens entry on policy grounds

Unreferenced/distortion of existing references. McErlath emphasises that it wasn't just "known", but also "suspected".

Edit at 19:31, 2 February 2021

Following trips both the U.S. and the continent facilitated by the Irish Government, the PIRA quickly built up a network for acquiring weapons and funding

Unreferenced and incorrect. The reference is clear that the planned arms importation from the US by the Irish government never even took place. As detailed in the section above, the IRA had a network already in place before this visit.

Edit at 19:31, 2 February 2021

IRA's status as a de-facto legal entity in the U.S. meant American citizens could purchase the Armalite Assault Rifles that became synonymous with the IRA's armed campaign with relative ease. Prior to the passage of the FOPA in 1986, the purchase of fully automatic rifles was legal and often poorly regulated, a situation that facilitated the flow of battlefield effective weapons to the IRA from the United States.

First sentence is unreferenced, the second is original research. The book cited (Kruschke, Earl R. (1995). Gun Control: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 0-87436-695-X. OCLC 260209689) contains no mention of the IRA.

Edit at 17:49, 5 February 2021

The IRA was banned in both the UK and Ireland but such was never the case in the U.S., where their supporters could openly fundraise on their behalf. Donations from America's large Irish-American community were often used to fund black market arms deals and helped the IRA obtain..

Unreferenced. The addition of Irish-Americans before the list is inaccurate, since as documented above the list contains many items that were not obtained from the US but donated by Libya.

Prior to the passage of the FOPA in 1986, the purchase of fully automatic rifles by American citizens was legal and often poorly regulated, facilitating the flow of battlefield effective weapons to the IRA from the United States.

See 19:31, 2 February 2021 analysis of this passage above.

WP:V is non-negotiable. FDW777 (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

IRA's status as a de-facto legal entity in the U.S. meant American citizens could purchase the Armalite Assault Rifles that became synonymous with the IRA's armed campaign with relative ease. Prior to the passage of the FOPA in 1986, the purchase of fully automatic rifles was legal and often poorly regulated, a situation that facilitated the flow of battlefield effective weapons to the IRA from the United States.

The ref is for the Law /clarifying the legal situation. I gave cites for the IRAs status, being a legal vs illegal org objectively gives a group greater ease. If your want more refs for how they could purchase guns legally fine https://www.irishtimes.com/news/whitey-bulger-and-the-fbi-deal-that-opened-up-boston-to-the-ira-1.1314282?mode=amp

The IRA, 1968-2000: Analysis of a Secret Army, Page 183 https://books.google.com/books?id=IRqWjIVE_QUC&pg=PA183&lpg=PA183&dq=guns+purchased+for+the+ira+legally&source=bl&ots=bQt5H5dRIy&sig=ACfU3U37Dn_K3kx2Sqa0Cn2yxwwSmK6qPw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjS1-nK7tPuAhXkM1kFHXEXB8w4FBDoATAOegQIExAB#v=onepage&q=guns%20purchased%20for%20the%20ira%20legally&f=false OgamD218 (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Once again the IRA's non-designation in the US is completely tangential to the supply of guns by Irish-Americans. Taylor (1998) page 84 refers to Harrison in 1970 and says Getting weapons in America in those days was easy, as all you needed was a driving licence as proof of identity, and gun shops were everywhere. The guns were purchased by American citizens, although there were some black market arms deals done by IRA volunteers at other times. So your addition of IRA's status as a de-facto legal entity in the U.S. meant American citizens could purchase the Armalite Assault Rifles was simply wrong, because even if the IRA was illegal in the US (and it wasn't) that wouldn't have stopped US citizens being able to buy Armalites. FDW777 (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I’ll get more into this more later bc it’s just draining my energy. I’ll make it more concise since a lot of this has been my trying to comprise when I was just right. I really have zero concern that on outside review anyone but you is gonna think it was in totally “tangential” that the IRA was legal in the US vs illegal in the UK and Ireland-at the very least that you think the later merits mention in the Categorization section but not the former. OgamD218 (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I am gonna need a better explanation for why you keep on confusing the “weapons and operations” section for the Offensive Campaign one, the PIRA launched operations against other Republicans and loyalists plain and simple and the effects from those operations were not on the par with their offensive operation on the RA, RUC and UDR but weren’t of token significance OgamD218 (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that the legality, or otherwise, of the IRA had absolutely no impact on the ability of US citizens to buy guns from gun shops?

As stated already, the addition doesn't belong in that section wedged in between actual offensive operations. Do those people appears on the lists of targets detailed the references cited? FDW777 (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not "wedged in between actual offensive operations", you reverted it on the false basis that it simply wasnt part of the offensive campaign, oh not that it would be hard to find one but yes it is in the list of targets detailed-or perhaps you forgot what the intended purpose of the Shankill Bombing was..........OgamD218 (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Like I said I’ll get back to rather simple point of legal makes it easier later. It was wedged between sentences on offensive operations, it was placed at the end of a list of IRA targets. OgamD218 (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

To avoid having to just get an admin involved, please tell me what if any of these edits you would stop arguing over if the references were produced bc I'm doing work just for it to go back in circlesOgamD218 (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

You dont need to re-write all that just ping or bolden or make somekind of mark what you becomes valid for addition as an edit-assuming you're actually taking this seriously and the work of putting these together with references would be productive and move things forwardOgamD218 (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The question was Do those people appears on the lists of targets detailed the references cited? Your answer is yes it is in the list of targets detailed. So I will ask again, which of the references already cited (those being Dingley (2012) pages 130–131 and McGladdery (2006) page 77) lists them as targets? This is a straightforward request for a clarification. You have just said a reference already cited in that sentence explicitly says something. Which reference? FDW777 (talk) 07:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

As detailed above, repeatedly, this discussion will go much more smoothly and quickly if you provide quotes from references to support your assertions. As requested twice, please ensure all future posts are in one of the following formats, or something similar

• I propose to change [this text] to [this text] with [this reference], which says [insert quote]
• I propose to add [this text] at [specific point in the article] with [this reference], which says [insert quote]

I will not ask a third time. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

That section was incorrectly cited, pg52 of O'Learly makes no mention of Shankill or any of the preceding events it would be expected to cite, page 42 does though and on page 42 of O'Learly known as the shankill road bombing, in which 8 protestant civilians, 1 member of the UDA and 1 of the IRA's own members died in a botched attempt to kill the leadership of the UDA-sounds like the UDA was being targeted?OgamD218 (talk) 09:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

So you're citing a reference that's absolutely nowhere near the sentence you added the text to, and only potentially references half the sentence anyway? Unbelievable. You don't get to add sentences in random places without citations then turn round and say some other citation nowhere near the addition references it, see WP:V, All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Still waiting for a proposed changed to be requested in the correct format. FDW777 (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I support this request, too much synthesis in the original posts -----Snowded ^TALK 09:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Calm down you keep moving around the goal post then complaining when I'm at one and not the other, I am proposing, seeing as this section is for Operations-if you want an armed offensive section go to it but stop acting like the PIRA never carried out any operations against other republicans or loyalist. I suggest adding At times, IRA operations members of both loyalists and republican paramilitaries were targeted as well I get the impression you've made up your mind no matter what but given your input I am not sure if "though this was not part of the IRA's overall offensive strategy" would improve the proposed change?

I also propose that that cite be changed to pg42 bc pg52 is definitely not the page they meant to citeOgamD218 (talk) 09:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

No quote from Sawyer provided, so no. And the page was changed already, try and keep up. FDW777 (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@OgamD218: please self-revert your 1RR breach. FDW777 (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@FDW777: how am i in breach of 1RR?OgamD218 (talk) 10:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

You've restored a sentence, or substantial variant of it, twice in 24 hours. And this is despite this ongoing discussion and the rejection of the inclusion before you added it a second time. So please either self-revert, or I will be asking for discretionary sanctions to be applied. FDW777 (talk) 10:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Then how were you not in breach of that same rule when you reverted it earlier? This content was thoroughly reviewed and overhauled from anything it was. You definitely stopped behaving reasonably, there is not much use in reasoning with you. I found mistake in the citation and bring it to the talk section attention to actually improve the article, you in turn immediately challenge its validity as you sneak off to edit what I was cautiously 2X first before I did. I've been trying to respect you as an editor, and there's definitely reason too, but you keep moving the goalpost. Your insistence that a direct quote from Sawyer be given to you is not in wiki's rules. It pretty clear i'd do the work get you that quote and then you'd move the goalpost again, you never even tried in hours of this discussion to address the fact it is the "weapons and operations" section nor any alternative edit that would include the info that loyalist paramilitaries were not the foremost but far from token targets of IRA operations. Quote or no quote i do not lack any doubts in the validity of that citation.OgamD218 (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Am I in breach of this rule? If so I apologize and will immediately comply, I would prefer a third party to weigh in though.OgamD218 (talk) 10:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC) In the meantime I will revert it to avoid any issues.OgamD218 (talk) 10:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Snowded. We keep getting the repeated, unreferenced claim that the article is wrong, and that IRA members weren't banned under the section of the Immigration and Nationality Act that allows the refusal of visas to people who advocate the overthrow of government. This is despite the reference cited saying The Caucus sponsored two committee members, Congressmen Hamilton Fish and Joshua Eilberg, on a trip to Ireland to inquire into the United States visa policies restricting IRA and Sinn Féin spokesmen from visiting America. Denials are most often issued under Section 212(a)(28)(F) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which bars from entering the U.S. people who belong to an organisation advocating the overthrow of a government by force, and a contemporary New York Times reference that says The spokesman, responding to an inquiry, said that the department had acted in each case under its authority to bar aliens who are believed to belong to terrorist organizations or to advocate the overthrow of any legitimate government. The authority is stipulated by the Immigration and Nationality Act. It's quite easy for an editor to claim to be an expert in anything they like, but their claims are completely irrelevant to the content of articles. If there are references that say Holland and the State Department's own spokesman are in fact wrong about this then let's have them, but I very much doubt they exist. FDW777 (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

It's quite straightforward. You have repeatedly misrepresented what references say, and attempted to change referenced text to what you believe it should say based on little more than your own opinion. Case in point your lengthy walls of text claiming that the overthrow governments part of the Immigration and Nationality Act didn't apply to the IRA, despite Jack Holland and a State Department spokesman saying exactly that. Second case in point your Irish Times reference which you used to reference your addition of Following trips both the U.S. and the continent facilitated by the Irish Government, the PIRA quickly built up a network for acquiring weapons and funding which is firstly inaccurate, and secondly unsupported by the reference since it does not confirm the trip facilitated by the Irish government resulted in an arms network being established. Quite the opposite in fact, since it says But, said Mr Kelly, Mr Blaney scuppered that plan . . . I think that with hindsight Blaney was afraid of the US connection because the government would have no control over the guns coming in and Boyne describes that exact trip as an abortive arms acquisition trip.

Given you are either incapable of accurately reflecting what references say, or deliberately misrepresenting them, I feel I am fully justified in asking for the relevant part of WP:V to be fully complied with. This reads When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy. If you have the references in front of you (which you must have to be citing them in the first place), it's a simple task for you to provide the quotes. It is not reasonable to expect other editors to chase round after you making sure your edits are properly referenced. FDW777 (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

As for your claim of moving goalposts, no this is also quite straightforward. It is impossible to accurately evaluate the text until what the reference says is known. So it is your failure to provide the constantly requested quotes that is the only barrier to progress at present. FDW777 (talk) 11:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

No, I have not been off misrepresenting what ref said, you've been misrepresenting both my edits and refs into claims they are not, including your total obsession with your own skewed version of the Kelly issue. Tbc, I'm right about the INA.....the topic you admitted you didn't research and said i needed this absurd burden of proof to remove your "educated guess", yea ok. I would like to think that you understand due our past exchanges here on some level realize that it is a matter of prez policy and not an obligation on the part of the US State Dept to adhere to the INA's broad textual prohibition (still waiting on how you make sense of the fact as a matter of course the US lets in countless people trying to topple govt somewhere and that Clinton was able to unilaterally let in Adams without changing the INA) that determines the law. I can certainly admit that on a lot of this I was in over my head but you keep getting even your own cited refs totally wrong on this one.

The first time this entire thread I decided something was ok to put up, Not only did i find a quote/cite, I corrected a cite error on the page, you had no idea was there, i found it bc i was going through your insane goalpost moving and since you didnt have a clue it was pretty much all i needed to know you had made up your mind to obstruct. Common sense dictates the only part of that edit revertible even in your crazy system, was the part without the provided quote. But obvi doesnt matter you would still think of some reason to go against it.

still waiting on how you think operations means offensives and your reasoning that shankhill was not a targeting of loyalist by the IRA (cant wait to see how you re-write this debate)..........OgamD218 (talk) 11:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Except you did misrepresent what references said, as explained above. There is the edit. The text added was Following trips both the U.S. and the continent facilitated by the Irish Government, the PIRA quickly built up a network for acquiring weapons and funding. There is the reference. It does not confirm the IRA arms network was set up following a trip facilitated by the Irish government, since it says in black and white that the planned arms importation from the US did not take place. So either you did misrepresent what the reference said, or you are in complete and total denial about how the text you added and what the reference actually says differ from each other. Neither one fills me with any confidence about your competence to edit this article.

As above regarding loyalists. Your addition does not go in the place you added it, slap bang in the middle of two sentences that deal with the offensive campaign. Should you wish to make a suggestion about where it might be added, the format is

I propose to add [this text] at [specific point in the article] with [this reference], which says [insert quote]

Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 12:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I asked you earlier if you had any suggestions on that sentence’s location, you were useless bc you’re just thinking of new reasons to keep it out. Its fine where I put it and certainly should precede to mention of Shankill road bombing-an event you’ve pretended the whole time isn’t an offensive operation. Also I never placed that sentence in between discussions of offensive ops, it’s always been in between or at the end of a list of ira targets, which seems appropriate. OgamD218 (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Also I never placed that sentence in between discussions of offensive ops, it’s always been in between or at the end of a list of ira targets, which seems appropriate This is simply incorrect. There is your edit. I will put your addition in bold in the passage below

The IRA's offensive campaign mainly targeted the British Army (including the UDR) and the RUC, with British soldiers being the IRA's preferred target. At times, members of both loyalists and republican paramilitaries were targeted as well. Other targets included British government officials, politicians, establishment and judicial figures, and senior British Army and police officers.

You are simply confirming my suspicion you lack competence to edit this article. FDW777 (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Also you don't seem to understand the nature of the Shankill Road bombing. It was an attempt to kill the UDA leadership, specifically Johnny Adair, due to his alleged (used solely for BLP reasons, there is little doubt among references) role in the UDA's increased attacks on Catholic civilians and members of the republican movement in the early 1990s. So it is a different thing entirely from the offensive campaign, as some consider it defensive or retaliatory (see for example English/Moloney/Bowyer Bell, and those were just a few of the books I bothered to check). If you had read Dingley, who is one of the references cited for the list of offensive targets, you would see loyalist paramilitaries are a notable exception from his list. FDW777 (talk) 12:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand the nature of the Shankhill bombing, you don't seem to understand what an offensive is or at the very least the fact that's extremely subjective of you. Don't just pov push like that, claims that offensive operations were in self defense is the norm in wars and there is no question Shakhill was offensive. Its hard to really even argue it was retaliatory (i'm not saying you can't btw) bc they weren't just going for Adair, the hope was to wipe out or at least decimate the UDA command, whence the force of that bomb. Regardless either this was an offensive action against Loyalist Paramilitaries or it wasn't, in which case and it should no be there-since you're treating this like a list of of offensives and not the way it is marked for operations.

Also I never placed that sentence in between discussions of offensive ops, it’s always been in between or at the end of a list of ira targets, which seems appropriate please just re-read that, for starters this is another ex of you ignoring past version and going with one that we only ended up with bc i was trying to reason with your crazy standards. The IRA's offensive campaign mainly targeted the British Army (including the UDR) and the RUC, with British soldiers being the IRA's preferred target. At times, members of both loyalists and republican paramilitaries were targeted as well. Other targets included British government officials, politicians, establishment and judicial figures, and senior British Army and police officers.. OMG NEITHER OF THE preceding or succeeding sentence is describing a single offensive op, OMG AS I SAID, it is clearly one list of targets SEE targeted the British Army (including the UDR) and the RUC, with British soldiers being the IRA's preferred target, see look the word targeted followed by a list of (drum roll please) TARGETS--RUC, UDR etc. Zero mention is made there of any operations, just targets. The succeeding sentence literally begins OTHER TARGETS followed by, you didn't guess it no, it is NOT FOLLOWED BY an offensive op it is followed by more targets. The preceding sentences, lists offensive ops, such as bombings (like Shankill). You're simply confirming my suspicion that you lack fluency in the english language.OgamD218 (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I referred you to three references confirming the defensive/retaliatory nature of Shankill. You replied with an unreferenced wall of text. Not much changes does it? FDW777 (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

So we're not only not quoting anymore, no need to even give pages lol...So it is a different thing entirely from the offensive campaign, you're really gonna stand by that? different entirely, one could just as easily argue that entire PIRA offensive campaign was realiatory for civil rights abuses or just being occupied. Its too subjective.OgamD218 (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Given your reference doesn't say it was part of the offensive campaign to start with, there's no actual need for me to provide any quotes at present. FDW777 (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

O'Learly 50-51 describes that the IRA's official position was that the Loyalist paramilitaries were one is the same/allies of the RUC, UDR and Royal Army......

".....potential intervention by the Irish govt-some of whose officials had arranged at least 1 clandestine supply of arms to protect N. Catholics" and "They (Provos) also est NORAID, which became the best organized and funded of Irish Americans orgs to fund the PIRA" O'Learly page 54.OgamD218 (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you don't attempt to criticise my command of the English language, when you are incapable of spelling "O'Leary" correctly. It is unclear as to what, if anything, you believe the O'Learly [sic] quotes you have provided are supposed to actually reference. FDW777 (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

You're so great at English how about you just figure it out, but first please show me you know the difference between a sentence naming targets and describing an offensive operation (also retaliation can be offensive, ever hear of punitive expeditions)OgamD218 (talk) 13:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain what text you would like to add to the article using the O'Leary quote of potential intervention by the Irish govt-some of whose officials had arranged at least 1 clandestine supply of arms to protect N. Catholics, and the same for the other quote too. FDW777 (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Provisional IRA and other subversives calling themselves Oglaigh na hEireann

They are not Oglaigh na hEireann and Wikipedia must not promulgate their fantasy in that regard. It is highly offensive to all those who served honourably in the genuine Oglaigh na hEireann of the Irish State (Army, Navy and Air Corps). Referring to any one of these subversive IRA groups as Oglaigh na hEireann must not be allowed by Wikipedia.

Additionally the primary image currently on this page, the 'badge', has no provenance and should be replaced with a genuine image such as:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mk-15-BB.jpg

WP:NOTCENSORED. Óglaigh na hÉireann is their Irish name. Accept it and move on. FDW777 (talk) 07:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTANARCHY. Óglaigh na hÉireann in the name of the legitimate defence services of the Republic of Ireland, the use of the name by literal subversives is unacceptable. I don't accept Wikipedia as a platform for whitewashing subversive groups. - 74 observer (talk)

It's Wikpedia which should accept us as editors, not the opposite. WP:NOTANARCHY deals specifically with the anarchist movement as the treshold of freedom of speech, not "anarchy" in the bare sense of the word. As an example, the use of the swastika is banned in Germany, but there is no censorship that can prevent its use here in WP, as long as the organisation which is the topic of an article used/use the infamous flag.Darius (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Not anarchy was just the closest match. What is required are WP:NOTWHITEWASHING, WP:NOTSUBVERSIVE and WP:NOTMISREPRESENTIVE policies as The Troubles related wikipedia activity exemplifies these exact problems.

This precise issue here concerns a known terrorist/illegal organisation claiming the name of the legitimate defence forces of Ireland for itself - in a considered and deliberate act of subversion against an internationally recognised EU State - the Republic of Ireland. Is Wikipedia in support of that? - 74 observer (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

As long as WP:NOTWHITEWASHING and WP:NOTSUBVERSIVE policies don't exist in WP, then our guideline here is WP:NOTCENSORED. You can propose the creation of both rules at WP:NOT talk page.

Wikipedia doesn't support anything, just shows the bare facts as represented in published reliable sources. And please, keep an eye on WP:1RR or your account can be blocked. Thank you.Darius (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

There are no published reliable sources that say PIRA are the genuine Óglaigh na hÉireann. Can you point one out? Why not take a look at who Óglaigh na hÉireann really are here: https://military.ie/en/#1 (website of Óglaigh na hÉireann) - 74 observer (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Here you can find at least seven references showing that both the Provisional IRA and the so-called "dissidents" used/use "Óglaigh na hÉireann" to refer to themselves, just as the "Óglaigh na hÉireann" that achieved the independence of your country in 1921 (actually the "genuine" organisation to use that name, not the current armed forces of the Republic of Ireland). Mention of the fact that any group called itself "OnhE" by reliable, third part sources is enough for including that statement in WP.Darius (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. There is no need for the Irish, and indeed official, name to be excluded simply because they are alleged not to be the genuine Óglaigh na hÉireann. FDW777 (talk) 06:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Also if you read In 2005/6 some Provisional IRA members defected and formed Óglaigh na hÉireann, which became active in 2009 including the article linked to in the text, you might understand why it cannot be changed to In 2005/6 some Provisional IRA members defected and formed the Real IRA splinter group, which became active in 2009. FDW777 (talk) 07:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Óglaigh na hÉireann is not their name. https://military.ie/en/#1 is not their website. They have no claim on that name as explained below. If this group requires a name then 'Real IRA Splinter Group 2005' abbreviated 'R-IRA-SG-2005' is more than sufficient. Calling themselves the same name as the legitimate defence forces of the Republic of Ireland is only R-IRA-SG-2005's attempt at smart-ass subversion, it doesn't cut any ice. 74 observer (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Óglaigh na hÉireann is the name of any organisation that calls itself Óglaigh na hÉireann, just as Engelbert Humperdinck's name is Engelbert Humperdinck, even though he apropriated it from a 19th-century German composer. The fact that an individual thinks such an organisation is evil does not take from that simple fact. Wikipedia is not the place for righting great wrongs. --Scolaire (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

A false comparison to the matter in question.

A wikipedia reference is not a reference. The armed forces of the Republic of Ireland, a legitimate and internationally recognised State, are the genuine and only Óglaigh na hÉireann (https://military.ie/en/#1). Fantasist groups that seek subversion of the Republic of Ireland deliberately co-opt the name as part of their subversion process. It is one of many techniques. There is very much a need to exclude the application of those techniques and the subversion process against the Republic of Ireland must not be platformed on Wikipedia. 74 observer (talk) 10:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Darius had denied that the defence forces of the Republic of Ireland are the genuine Óglaigh na hÉireann in his comment of 02:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC) (this section). This is a major POV red flag for a Wikipedia editor in The Troubles area. That comment flies in the face of the beliefs of any knowledgeable and reasonable Irish person. It flies in the face of historical facts. It betrays approbation and common agenda with various terrorist groups on the island of Ireland. Red flag. 74 observer (talk) 10:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is using a "wikipedia reference" as a reference. What has been suggested is that you read the linked article (located at Óglaigh na hÉireann (Real IRA splinter group)) so that you might understand why your change is incorrect. And again per WP:NOTCENSORED, your reasons are invalid for the exclusion of the Irish, and furthermore official, name. FDW777 (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

You are. Can you point to the official articles of association or legal equivalent to the terrorist groups you are talking about? You can't. The changes I've made are absolutely correct. 74 observer (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Once again, nobody is using a "wikipedia reference", other than a suggestion that you read a linked article so you might learn something rather than continue to argue from a position of ignorance. Had you done so, you would have learned that the organisation in question's name is Óglaigh na hÉireann. It doesn't have any other name. The reference cited at the end of the sentence in question says The PIRA members defected and formed Óglaigh na hÉireann (ONH) in 2005-2006. As for your suggestion that I point to official articles of association or legal equivalent, had you read Moloney (conveniently cited for that very point) you would known it's quoting the IRA's own written constitution and says the very first entry in the constitution is Title: The Army shall be known as Óglaigh na hÉireann. FDW777 (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Just a question...It was the current Irish Armed Forces (founded in 1924) the first armed organisation to use the "OnhE" title, or they are just their legal heirs? The fact that the other organisations were plainly illegal in Ireland and elsewhere doesn't matter for inclusion here in WP, that is out of question.

Basic Irish history. The victory of the State in the Irish Civil War, much welcomed by the vast majority of the Irish population, resolved the issue as to who was Óglaigh na hÉireann. The defeated army in that conflict consequently had no claim to that name to pass on. 74 observer (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question...The Irish Civil War happened well after the establishment of the first organisation calling themselves "Óglaigh na hÉireann" (composed by both sides of the future civil war) and which fought against British forces for the Independence of Ireland.----Darius (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

You asked your own question to give your own answer which does not clarify the issue at hand. You cannot get around the fact that the Defence Forces of the Republic of Ireland legitimately bear the exclusive name Óglaigh na hÉireann. You cannot undo the Irish Civil War result. I've placed a quote at the end of this section to assist your understanding (it seems I can safely assume no-one on this Wikipedia page outranks a Lieutenant Colonel). 74 observer (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Nope, you didn't ask a question I made, namely: "What was the first entity to use the name Óglaigh na hÉireann?" I repeat that I am not against the legal Armed Forces of the Republic of Ireland in any way, but the statement of a Lt.Col. of any army has the same value that, to say, that of a politician; they are primary sources, WP prefers to give primacy to secondary and tertiary sources (read WP:PRIMARY)----Darius (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

This statement is not intended to insult the Irish Armed Forced, which I admire for their sixty-year old efforts in keeping the peace in several parts of the world, and their gallant role played in Niemba, Jadotville, and At Tiri, it's just to keep Wikipedia away for censorship.

You should know that the statement is highly offensive and ignorant. It promotes the cause terrorist fantasists whilst undermining the legitimacy of the faithful, professional and genuine defence forces of the Republic of Ireland. 74 observer (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't promote anything, I actually agree with you on the still active organisations (CIRA, RIRA,etc.) promoting fantasies through terrorism (and not only the republican ones). And keep an eye on WP:CIVIL, please.----Darius (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

And for your comments of "PoV red flag", WP:NPOV only applies to articles' contents, not talk pages. I condemn the so-called "dissident republicans", they are actually an obstacle to stability, justice and peace in the north. The OIRA and the PIRA are a different issue, a different period of history, and, seeing the provisions of the GFA, it seem that both governments in the Island of Ireland also betrayed "(at least some degree of) approbation and common agenda with various terrorist groups" by negotiating with them. Was that international treaty also a "Red flag"?.---- Darius (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

The Defence Forces are rightly very proud of their exclusive historic title, Óglaigh na hÉireann. No other body, grouping or organisation is legally, morally or constitutionally entitled to misappropriate that title.

— J.P.DUGGAN (Lt Col), (retd), "OGLAIGH NA hEIREANN", The Irish Times (Mar 1, 1996)

Provisional IRA - Enemies of the Republic of Ireland

It is deceptive and inaccurate by Wikipedia not to list the Republic of Ireland as an enemy of the Provisional IRA. They claimed the State was illegitimate and attacked the security forces killing a number of Gardaí (e.g. the Killing_of_Jerry_McCabe) and also an Irish soldier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74 observer (talk • contribs) 23:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The relationship is also too complex to be explained by a bare infobox entry. FDW777 (talk) 07:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTANARCHY. It's not complicated. Anyone who lived in Ireland knows PIRA were enemies of the State. They don't even deny it. It should not be whitewashed off Wikipedia - 74 observer (talk)

WP:WEIGHT. An overwhelming number of published, reliable sources, reported that the main enemies of the PIRA on the ground were the British security forces, the British justice system in NI and the Loyalist organisations, just read the bibliography. There are plenty of respectable authors mentioning the IRA systematic policy of avoiding incidents with Gardaí and other security forces inthe Republic. There was some degree of contempt with the RoI, specially at the beginning of this conflict, but it gradually cooled down as the 1990s Peace Proccess began to take shape.Darius (talk) 13:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The bibliography and citation list on the page flatters to deceive by design (it's an absolute mess in fact). The PIRA attacked the Republic of Ireland when it suited them, such as in the following example cases: Garryhinch ambush, Killing of Jerry McCabe, Frank Hand, Shooting of Brian Stack. They never respected the laws or people of the State - they intimidated, racketeered, embezzled and stole. PIRA deny the Republic of Ireland's legitimacy - it is in fact their ultimate target. We all, who live in Ireland, know this very well (if we're honest) - 74 observer (talk)

Those incidents get a sentence or two (if they get covered at all) in most books on the IRA. Per @DagosNavy:, according to pretty much every reference the IRA's cmapaign was directed at British targets for the overwheleming majority of the time, and it's wholly misleading to present them alongside the Republic of Ireland as it's a false equivalence. FDW777 (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

No one could suggest that Ireland was the main enemy of the IRA. It was however an enemy. There is no attempt to draw an equivalence but to simply pretend that in denying the legitimacy of the state and attacking state security forces they were not one of the enemies of the IRA is blatantly false? Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE]. For the second time. FDW777 (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Ballymurphy massacre

I've reworded this slightly, it now reads Twenty-two people were killed in the next three days, including six civilians killed by the British Army as part of the Ballymurphy massacre on 9 August (previously the bolded words said simply "in". The difficulty is that various authors define the Ballymurphy Massacre differently, one seeing it as simply the first six, another seeing it as ten deaths (presumably Paddy McCarthy is excluded), and others as all eleven. Obviously yesterday's inquest has changed things a bit, but I think a nine versus ten versus eleven deaths argument in this article is potentially outside its scope. Since the disputed tenth shooting victim was John McKerr who was killed on 10 August, it is undisputed that six died on 9 August. If anyone has any suggestions about how this can be handled better feel free to make suggestions. FDW777 (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that you removed the word atrocity from the Claudy bombing article as it was too emotive. Should the word “massacre” be removed from this article for the same reason?

Notice I am discussing these issues on talk pages as opposed to making the changes myself in an effort to achieve consensus. Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The name of the Ballymurphy massacre is not something than can be changed here. FDW777 (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

IRA categorisation

This statement, under the categorisation section is opinion.

American TV news broadcasts tended to describe IRA members as "activists" and "guerrillas", while British TV news broadcasts commonly used the term "terrorists",

A quick scan of US media turned up several descriptions of the IRA as terrorists, I found no references to them being Guerrillas though I imagine there are some. Should this be removed in its entirety or altered in some way? Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

No. Your original research is irrelevant compared to a properly referenced claim. FDW777 (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that my own cursory look trumps a published study, however, the original research you refer to is from 1988. It’s not current. Furthermore it has a chart showing that the terms Guerrilla or activist were used five times as opposed to terrorist or suspected terrorist which were used four times. I hardly think that a study of terms used over thirty years ago (using just March 1988), quoting such a small sample amount is sufficient to draw the conclusion that US media had a tendency in how they referred to the IRA. The most frequent description of them was as not as either terrorists or Guerrillas, but simply IRA (a total of 26 times). I can provide screenshots of the page in question from the book if you wish to see it yourself? Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I suggest reading the pages cited. FDW777 (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but you are asking me to accept someone’s interpretation of a report as opposed to accepting the actual report itself. I have read both. The interpretation of what the report states is incorrect. May I suggest that you read the actual report, once you’ve done so I have no doubt you will agree with me that the interpretation is incorrect and that the article should be revised to acknowledge the actual findings as opposed to someone’s else’s interpretation. Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The secondary reference's view is that the claim about IRA weaponry in the assessment is precisely that, a claim. Not a fact. FDW777 (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, that was not clear. Let me try and summarise:

The book cited is 30 years out of date. It’s sample size was small. Five references to one set of terms versus four references to another does not indicate a tendency.

Three points, any of which should be sufficient to remove the opinion under discussion. Can you refute these or will you accept them?

I think I may need to escalate this revision as I do not believe we will be able to achieve a consensus. Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The period in question is from while the IRA was active (a particularly active time for news in Northern Ireland as it transpires), not some post-9/11 historial revisionist view of events. FDW777 (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I would agree that in this section there is a lot of opinions in this section should be reviewed as they are not properly sourced. For example, the use of the word 'tended' is open to interpretation and the statement is not referenced or corroborated with any research. I would suggest removing that bit entirely Jdaly81 (talk)

FDW777 just to clarify, you believe that 5 vs 4 statements taken over a one month period 30+years ago is enough to use the term tendency in describing how American news referred to the IRA? If there is any revisionism going on, it’s in that statement. It needs removed or reworded. Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe that the author is reliable enough to make judgements, and to select a time period that there is sufficient data available for reliable judgements to be made. You also appear to be attributing something to me that isn't actually true. FDW777 (talk) 13:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Socialism

When you say things like "since they didnt have an oficial socialist ideology , such as OIRA , which was openly socialist . So provisionals , in an effort to convince irish americans to help with funds , did not assume a socialist ideology ( wich caused the 1969 anti-treaty partition" it only demonstrates you don't actually know what you're talking about. What on earth is the 1969 anti-treaty partition? The IRA very much did have an official socialist ideology, as evidenced not only by the section at Provisional Irish Republican Army#Political ideology but by the IRA's own constitution which says their second objective is "To support the establishment of an Irish Socialist Republic based on the 1916 Proclamation. Also edits such as this not only misrepresent the existing reference but cause a broken reference later in the article. Please stop disrupting the article based on an erroneous understanding of the subject matter. FDW777 (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

The claim that "the reason of the 1969 partition in anti treaty was that OIRA wanted to be openly socialist , and PIRA to recieve american money" is not one that appears in any of the vast amount of books that cover the 1969 split in the IRA. Please stop disrupting the article based on a faulty understanding of the subject matter. FDW777 (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with FDW777 and idk why this IP user keeps insisting on restoring edits otherwise. It seems they might be confusing communism with socialism (a careless but common mistake); as the OIRA's communist sympathies were at least a contributing factor to the 1969 split. With regards to the other claims, though it is very likely American support for the PIRA would've been drastically reduced had the organization been ideologically communist, I have never heard of this being a stated or implied reason / in any way a proximate cause of the 1969 split. In fact, it runs redundant to the reasons I long understood to have caused the schism that led to the PIRA's founding. OgamD218 (talk) 07:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

That's true, it would appear the IP editor is unaware the Provisionals were socialist while the Officials were Marxist. With regards to American funding there is some information in the references about some people in American not wanting money and/or arms to go to the Goulding faction (that's the soon-to-be Officials, most people probably know but just to be clear) around the time of the split, whether this was due to their failure to defend nationalist areas in 1969 or because of a dislike of their Marxist thinking isn't something I can remember off the top of my head and it isn't essential for the purposes of this discussion anyway. There is some other information about people from Ireland visiting the USA for fundraising purposes playing down the Provisionals socialist ideology and talking about more military than political subjects, again not essential for the purposes of this discussion but like the former point it's possible the IP editor has heard a rather garbled version of either. Or possibly they have failed to comprehend something written in English, since they refer to things like the 1969 anti-treaty partition I don't believe I'm too far out a limb by suggesting their understanding of English might not be at a professional level... FDW777 (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Lead

The argument The article mentions how many British soldiers the PIRA killed. So mentioning the civilians they killed makes sense and is referenced makes no sense, since the lead already says The IRA's armed campaign, primarily in Northern Ireland but also in England and mainland Europe, killed over 1,700 people, including roughly 1,000 members of the British security forces, and 500–644 civilians (my emphasis). Also as my edit summary when reverting the first attempt at adding this factoid said, rv. WP:LEAD. Unclear why we'd need to point out one category, when they were the deadliest in many categories. See WP:ONUS. FDW777 (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The number of deaths between respective belligerents should be included, but it is POV to state that one party killed more civilians than another unless we state for proportion how many civilians all parties killed, which is, in my view, WO:UNDUE for the lead. SN54129 15:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. The data is correct and is referenced. It's POV to exclude referenced relevant facts. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, especially when it's a violation of WP:LEAD and a highly selective presentation of statistics. FDW777 (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Just as a point of information, I own 40 of the books listed at Provisional Irish Republican Army#Bibliography (yes, I did just count them). I am sure I could come up with many "relevant facts" from them, would they all belong in the article simply because they can be referenced? FDW777 (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)