Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:24, 7 August 2009

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Northern Ireland Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Irish republicanism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Irish republicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish republicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish republicanismIrish republicanism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ireland High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

This article is currently subject to Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case, as laid out during a previous WP:AE case that closed October 05, 2008. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out in the above link. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on July 28, 2008 and July 28, 2009.

Archives

Archive 1. Archive 2. Archive 3. Archive 4.

US proscribed list

The link to the US illegal organisations list is out of date, it appears that it gets a new url for each re-issue so I am not sure how to get around this other than keep checking it. http://www.state.gov/s/ct/list/ is a level up and may be more permanent but the current list itself today is http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/08/103392.htm. It doesn't change the fact that the PIRA is not on the list but ought to be corrected anyway. Also note that in order to be on the list you 'must threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security (national defense, foreign relations, or the economic interests) of the United States'. - Iain Kennedy

Referencing

This article is one of the better referenced on this subject matter. Adding unreferenced material lends nothing to the article, and should be removed. --Domer48 (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing extremely well known facts, on the other hand, such as the fact that the IRA have killed 6 Gardaí and carried out numerous bank and post office robberies and kidnappings, would suggest to some observers that an element of whitewashing is going on. The information you removed was very easily referenced, as you are aware. Bastun 10:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately you only sourced the deaths in many cases, not the circumstances of them or the additional commentary. Please ensure citations provided match the text you are adding. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no commentary, merely statement of facts. If you actually read the references, ONiH, the circumsatnces are covered in most cases... the removed text states the IRA were responsible for bank & PO robberies, kidnappings, the deaths of six gardaí... the references include the circumstances (e.g., shootout after the kidnapping of Don Tidey) and in one case are a statement from the perpetrators of a killing and robbery! I invite you to self-revert. Bastun 10:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I invite you to follow non-negotiable Misplaced Pages policy. Let's look at the exact text you added back:

The IRA has carried out many kidnappings and robberies of bank and post offices North and South of the Irish border during its existence. The IRA have killed six Gardaí and one Irish Army soldier, mostly during such activities.

The sentence "The IRA has carried out many kidnappings and robberies of bank and post offices North and South of the Irish border during its existence" is completely unsourced. If as you say "The information you removed was very easily referenced", please source it properly before adding it back. Although the McCabe reference doesn't actually source the circumstances of his death, but as I actually know about that one I'm not going to be too picky, as that's easily rectified. The 1984 reference has a Garda member "Shot during attempted armed robbery at post office, Drumcree, County Meath". The 1983 reference has an Irish Army and Garda member "Shot during gun battle between the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and Irish forces, at the release of kidnap victim Don Tidey, near Ballinamore, County Leitrim". The 1980 reference has a Garda member "Shot during exchange of gunfire, shortly after stopping vehicle while on Garda mobile patrol, Ballyconnick, near Cleariestown, County Wexford". The 1976 reference has a Garda member "Killed by booby trap bomb in derelict house, Mountmellick, near Portlaoise, County Laois". The 1972 reference has a Garda member "Killed by booby trap bomb left by side of road, Legakelly, near Newtownbutler, County Fermanagh. Garda Donegan had strayed a few yards over the border into Northern Ireland". Now as you can see, you've got two (including McCabe) shot during robberies, two shot during a kidnapping, one shot in circumstances which seem unrelated to robberies or kidnappings, and two killed in explosions which seem unrelated to robberies or kidnappings. So you'd agree that just over 50% were verifiably killed during "such activities", in contrast to the claim of "most"? And that the initial sentence about carrying out many robberies and kidnappings isn't sourced by any of the sources you've provided? By all means put the information on deaths back into say the "Casualties" section, but not back where it was with the commentary. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

And so any mention of the IRA carrying out robberies and kidnappings gets expunged from the article, when you, Domer and I all know that they did carry out many such activities - its perfectly common knowledge... Unless of course I go and find references. Which will then be challenged somehow as not being good enough references... What would be much easier (and allay my concerns about whitewashing) would be to reword the sentences in question. How about:

The IRA has carried out kidnappings and robberies of bank and post offices North and South of the Irish border during its existence. They have killed six Gardaí and one Irish Army soldier, some during such activities.

All of which are backed up by the references already supplied. Bastun 12:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom principle #2 - Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources requires that information be supported by a reliable source. It'd be far better if a properly sourced section was written, ie one that doesn't rely on what bits and pieces you can cobble together from a Google search. As you can tell by the sourcing for many Troubles related articles the sources are quite often books, so it'd be easier for you if you obtained some. Although I haven't read it, Hostage: Notorious Irish Kidnappings by Paul Howard (O'Brien Press) is supposed to be pretty good. It's got all sorts of information, like how the Army Council called a halt to kidnappings in 1983, as they were causing too much disruption with the Garda and Army turning over safe houses and arms dumps while searching. Apparently it also states that the cause of death of the two people in the Tidey kidnapping is still unresolved, there's a good chance it was actually "friendly fire" not the IRA that killed them. As for your proposed text above, I don't see how it's supported by the references provided. IRA members quite often carried out unsanctioned operations, so simply looking at a particular event where an IRA member did something doesn't make "The IRA has carried out kidnappings and robberies of bank and post offices North and South of the Irish border" true, especially when that sentence isn't fully sourced by the references in question to begin with. Far better to find a decent book that deals with the issue of funding properly and go from there. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Instead of the current section title of "Fundraising vio organised crime", why don't we make it into a general "Fundraising" section. That way it can include the robberies, kidnappings, alleged (ahem!) funding from NORAID, the black taxis etc etc. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. Bastun 10:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

After some reflection, it'd need a slight amount of re-organisation in addition. It can't really be a sub-section of "Other activities", I recommend merging it into this section and retitling it "Funding and support from other countries and organisations". Otherwise it seems dubious to duplicate the information, but the existing section really needs to stay where it is. In addition I recommend some information is added to this section about the ongoing activity, ideally with some information from the IMC reports not just McDowell. Sound ok? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge of TUAS

I have proposed merging TUAS to this article: the subject seems to be covered at Provisional Irish Republican Army#.22TUAS.22_-_peace_strategy just as well as in the TUAS article, and possibly a bit better, since the TUAS article is unreferenced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Support: The acronym would not be familiar to anybody who isn't well up on Irish republicanism, and there isn't enough in the subject to merit its own article. Scolaire (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There probably could be a decent article written about TUAS, but I don't have the time or energy to do it. The section in this article needs sorting out anyway, as it's a bit dubious. Example - "When this did not prove successful, republican leaders increasingly looked for a political compromise to end the conflict" which leads into the Hume-Adams talks. Hume-Adams was seen slightly differently by both sides - Hume was attempting to get the Republican Movement to move away from violence, whereas Adams was attempting to create a broad pan-nationalist front. The political clout of SF grew throughout the 80s, and the talks were just a logical extension of this. The increased political activity was happening anyway, so to try portray the winding down of the armed campaign (which arguably increased in intensity with more devastating attacks, eg 1992 Baltic Exchange bomb caused £200m more damage than the total caused by the 10,000 explosions that had occurred in Northern Ireland during the entire Troubles up to that point) as a result of failure of the Tet Offensive and increased political activity is misleading, the twin track strategy was continuing. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be inclined to go ahead with the merge anyway. If it was recreated, I'd prefer to see it at Tactical use of the armed struggle. TUAS to me looks too much like a tram system to take it seriously as a strategy. Scolaire (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, it's just that the merger was done under the impression it had been outstanding for a year. Unless someone steps up to the plate and sorts the article I'd be in favour of a merger anyway. And TUAS is the correct name for it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd support the merge, no real problem there at all. --Domer48 (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Support. It was important, but probably not important enough to warrant an article.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Should be merged. As a "phrase", it doesn't really warrant it's own article. But definitely should be mentioned here. Merge and redirect soon? (Proposal has been open for nearly 6 months)Guliolopez (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and completed the merge. General consensus seems to be that, in its current form, the TUAS text probably doesn't warrant a separate article. So have merged it into the "ceasefires" section. Guliolopez (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Gulio, I've been "going to do it" for months! Scolaire (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops! I just realised you put the info in the "ceasefires" section, when TUAS already had a section of its own (see discussion above). I've taken the whole lot back out because I don't think there's anything in it that isn't already in the TUAS section. Scolaire (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well. Would you look at that. Not sure how I missed that. Have removed the cyclical reference link, and updated the redirect accordingly. Guliolopez (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Opponents

Gavin Lisburn (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC) The main article states " ... Because of their campaign, the organisation is classified as a proscribed terrorist group in the United Kingdom and as an illegal organisation in the Republic of Ireland.... " Therefore, it must be deduced that PIRA is 'opposed' by the Irish Government. This is not a 'personal opinion'.

Sources please

Please provide a source that the IRA was at war with the Republic of Ireland, as the current statement is grossly misleading without any clarification and has been removed accordingly. Also the IRA were not illegal in the south because of their campaign that is factually incorrect, as is usually the case when editors add things based on their own opinion not sources. Any additions to this article must be properly cited. 15 cans of Stella₃₀₃ 15:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear! This is an encyclopedia and we have to strive for accuracy, not just make things up and add them. Sources should always be cited. And, contrary to what some may think, anything added without a source is simply an opinion, not a fact. -RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"Since its emergence in 1969, its stated aim has been the overthrow of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and their replacement by a sovereign socialist all-island Irish state." would seem to cover it? (And OniH - Stella?! For shame! ;-) ) Bastun 18:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

What does the source say please? In fact I'll even make it easy for you, it's here. As you can see it's a SF policy document and doesn't mention the IRA once. On that basis I'll replace that existing reference with one from the IRA's constitution later. 15 cans of Stella₃₀₃ 18:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Stop playing games, ONiH. "The constitution of Sinn Féin advocates not merely the complete overthrow of British rule in Ireland but also the setting up of a federal, democratic socialist republic based on the Proclamation of 1916." Bastun 19:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop adding unsourced disputed content which is blatant OR - SF policy is not IRA policy. 15 cans of Stella₃₀₃ 19:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Right. Meanwhile, I see BigDunc managed to catch his "auto-revert non-WP:IR member edits of our articles" just in time... Bastun 19:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

IRA politics

Bobby Sands was not an IRA candidate in the strict sense. If he was, then so is Paul Butler, Martina Anderson, Martin McGuinness etc etc.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain how the IRA sought to achieve their aims by political persuasion? It wouldn't have been through... Sinn Féin, by any chance? Bastun 23:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see the new reference. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

For those who don't have a copy of Moloney, could you tell us what the reference says? Mooretwin (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello? Mooretwin (talk) 07:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV in "Escalation, escalation and escalation"

On 9 August the opening of this section was reworded by an IP. The new wording appeared to be stable, but now it has been reverted and the question has arisen as to which wording is more NPOV. My issues with the original wording are as follows:

• "However, this policy failed to take into account the strong unionist commitment to remain within the United Kingdom and the risk that an armed campaign would result not in a united Ireland, but in a sectarian civil war": This is unsourced, the policy almost certainly did take account of unionist "committment" given the violence against the civil rights movement, and there was no certainty then, in 1969, that an armed campaign would not end in a United Ireland (capitalised or not).
• "At the time of the Irish War of Independence in the 1920s, IRA actions in the north had been responded to with widespread random attacks on Catholic nationalists by loyalists.": Unsourced. Cause and effect have not been established since there had been a threat of violence against nationalists since 1912 at least, and its relevance to 1969 is not strong enough to advance it as an argument here.
• "The Provisional IRA's determination to carry out such a campaign and risk escalating sectarian violence was one of the principal areas of disagreement between the Provisional and Official IRAs.": The disagreement between the IRAs was far more complex than that, and idealogical in nature; it was certainly not based on a fear of a sectarian backlash. In any case, it did not prevent the Officials from killing soldiers, police and civilians.
• Attacks on people and property in 1969, and the failure of the IRA to defend "its own people", were major factors in the formation of the Provisionals. There is no need to delete all reference to those factors.

If editors have POV issues with the second wording, then the obvious thing to is to re-word it again so that it is truly NPOV. If nobody is bothered to do that, then the edit of 9 August is the status quo and should be left. Scolaire (talk) 09:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• • "However, this policy failed to take into account the strong unionist commitment to remain within the United Kingdom and the risk that an armed campaign would result not in a united Ireland, but in a sectarian civil war": I think without a source there's no basis for keeping the sentence. It's too complex an area to allow unverifiable comment. Mooretwin (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "At the time of the Irish War of Independence in the 1920s, IRA actions in the north had been responded to with widespread random attacks on Catholic nationalists by loyalists.": Agree - this bit should go. Mooretwin (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • A major part of the disagreement actually was to do with issues of sectarianism - the reason the (O)IRA was reluctant to engage in an offensive campaign was because they did not wish there to be a sectarian conflict. The Provos were prepared to accept sectarian conflict. But it's not sourced, so may needs to go. Mooretwin (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with what you say there, but the sentence in the article was worded in such a way as to make it appear that they were motivated by fear of a sectarian backlash. Official IRA strategy was to try to break down sectarian barriers as a first step in achieving a united Ireland. It was they who were naïve in thinking that they could mount a "defensive" campaign and at the same time attract working-class unionists to their cause. The differences between Officials and Provisionals are probably worth a section of their own (suitably referenced of course) but the sentence as it stands does not belong where it is (was). Scolaire (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

So what changes do you propose? Mooretwin (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, until somebody details their problem with the 9 August edit it should be left. When somebody does say why the 9 August edit is not NPOV then that somebody should be able to write a new opening that keeps the good parts of both edits and leaves out the unnecessary parts. That's what we call consensus. Simply restoring an edit in its entirety after saying you agree that large parts of it should be removed is lazy editing. Scolaire (talk) 10:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that 9 August edit should stay until we have an alternative, but you have raised issues with that edit above, so I'm wondering what changes YOU would make to it. I'm happy to work with you to edit the 9 August version. Mooretwin (talk) 10:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Mooretwin, the 9 August edit is the one that that you reverted this morning as an "arbitrary POV edit" - the one that replaced the old one. What I would do with the old one is take out all the things I said - what I would do with the current one is leave it as it is until I know what's wrong with it. Scolaire (talk) 11:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I disagree. Someone changed the article on 9 August without explaining what was wrong with the old article. Therefore we need to revert to the pre-9 August edit until we know what was wrong with it. I'm happy to edit the pre-9 August article along the lines you are proposing, but it can't be right to allow the new edit to remain when it was imposed without discussion. Mooretwin (talk) 11:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong! Somebody made a bona fide edit on 9 August which was left for three weeks without any objection. On a page as watched as this one, that makes it a consensus edit and a stable edit. It must be left until the NPOV discussion is resolved. Besides which, there has still not been a single word about why the edit is wrong, so why should it be reverted? Scolaire (talk) 11:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've gota few things to say here.

• First, the section as it now stands has to change. Not only for reasons of pov but because it no longer gets across the necessary information. The section is subsection of 'strategy' and is suppose to talk about the Provisionals strategy in the early 1970s. MacStiofain described this as 'escalation escalation and escalation'. Put another way, the provos wanted to wage, as far as they were able, all out war on the British presence in Northern Ireland. This involved recruiting as many volenteers as possible, arming them however and basically letting them at it. There were over 1,000 pIRA volunteers in Belfast alone in the early 1970s. The point here is that this strategy (which the British called, 'the insurgency phase) was quite different from the 'long war' that they pursued later.

• Another point that has top go back in is that the object of this strategy was to inflict enough casualties to force British public opinion to demand withdrawal. The provos were realistic enough to know that they weren't capable of a conventional military victory.

• The sectarian aspect. First, the way it's written now is just the republican party line -'nationalists were on the streets and loyalists attacked them leading to the birth of the provisionals'. I'm not saying that there is no truth in this, but this is a complex issue and better dealt with elsewhere. From the point of view of the two IRAs in the early 70s, i think its important to point out that the risk of sectarian conflict was prominent in the thinking of the official leadership and that this was a major reason for their failure to act as defenders in august 1969.

Personally I think that the 'armed struggle' route was bound to fail simply because of demography -there were too many unionists, but again, that's just pov. What should be in the article is that the early provos simply didn't take the unionists into account at all. They thought only of 'Brits Out' and it won't be hard to find sources taht back this up.

• Finally, if you look at the Irish War of Independence and Chronology of the Irish War of Independence articles you will find ample sourced examples of the sectarian reprisals carried out on Catholics at that time and the efforts of the old IRA to to defend against them. It was the fact that the IRA had failed in what is was _expected_ to do in 1969 that enraged the future provos so much.

Jdorney (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• • On the first two points I have no objection.
  • On the third, you are saying that the "defend Catholic areas" issue is complex and better dealt with elsewhere; I am saying that the differences between Provisionals and Officials is a complex issue and better dealt with elsewhere. Maybe they should both be dealt with elsewhere?
  • If you can find sources that say that "the early provos simply didn't take the unionists into account at all" then fine, but make sure that's what they say! That they might have treated unionists as irrelevant is one thing, but loyalist paramilitaries were already shooting and bombing in 1970, so to plan a campaign without taking them into account at all would have required a magical pair of blinkers!
  • I am aware of attacks on Catholics in 1919-22, but were they necessarily a response to IRA actions in the north? Circumstances were different then, so as I've said, and Mooretwin has agreed, its relevance to this section of this article is not strong enough to merit inclusion. To put it another way, if you take it out the argument is not noticeably weaker.

Scolaire (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I want to deal with the "differences" issue separately because I believe it is a different issue. The IRA (Goulding's IRA) failed to defend nationalists in 1969 because it had no weapons. Goulding had wound the Army down and was concentrating on political and social action. That failure led to the birth of the Provisionals, yes, but both IRAs geared up and embarked on a defensive campaign. The Provisionals planned for an offensive campaign; the Officials were opposed to this because it would lead to sectarian conflict, which would defeat the Marxist strategy of uniting the workers from both sides of the sectarian divide. To say that they did not want to "risk escalating sectarian violence" is to misrepresent their position completely. No IRA man was ever afraid of being shot at by a loyalist. That's why putting that sentence where it is (was) gives the wrong impression, and why the differences between the IRAs should be dealt with separately. Scolaire (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well let's look at what we agree on first. The section should say that the provisionals strategy in the early 1970s differed from their later strategy, how it differed and what it hopped to achieve.

It should say something about the sectarian aspect to the conflict and the pIRA's strategy with relation to this. I think that the split between the officials and provisionals should be dealt with elsewhere, like in the 'split' section in this article. but this paragraph should say that they pursued different strategies, one defensive, the other offensive.

I'll sind sources on the provo's attitude to the unionists in the early days, and then I'll edit. But from a pov angle, I would say that the organisation suffered from a kind of double vision at the time. On the ohand insisting that they needed to exist to defend nationalist areas from loyalists and on the other hand insisting that the real problem was the Brits and that the loyalists would come around once the British withdrew. Just as unrealistic as the oIRA's hopes of converting them to socialist republicanism in my opinion.

Re the 20s, true, not just actions in the north provoked reprisals, but the sectarian warfare the IRA of that time got dragged into was a problem for republicans - Joe McKelvey for instance. I would argue that this played a big part in republican thinking, but fair enough, maybe not strong enough fact to go in the article.

Jdorney (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've done an edit based on what you said there. In the course of doing it I discovered a couple of things that surprised me: one, Google was unable to find any reference to either "escalation, escalation and escalation" or "Victory 1972" that was not traceable back to this article - the latter can just be dropped but the former is more serious since it's the title of this section; second, the Border Campaign (IRA) article directly contradicts this paragraph - it says "Belfast...was excluded because Paddy Doyle, the Belfast O/C and a member of the Army Council, was arrested and the unit was disorganized" (source: Bowyer Bell), although it goes on to say "Because of this, IRA actions did not provoke reprisals by loyalists against the Catholic/nationalist population there" (unsourced). The other thing that struck me forcibly was that there is absolutely no mention of how they pursued their strategy i.e. the bombing campaign. It just jumps straight to the 1972 talks. I'm going to do no more for the moment, but the section could do with a substantial expansion. Scolaire (talk) 08:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's a start, needs some more work and refs and some cleaning up though. I'll get on it.

Jdorney (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Scolaire and others, how do you feel about the current version?

Jdorney (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Just re-reading some of your previous comments, I wasn't suggesting that the Official IRA were 'afraid' of sectarian conflict exactly, in the sense that they weren't prepared to take on loyalist paramilitaries. (Although I don't think they actually did this very often). The point I was making was that they didn't want to get involved in this type of action because they felt it was counter-productive to their objective of uniting Catholic and Protestant workers. Jdorney (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Jdorney, I missed both your edits and your questions until now. I think the section is much better now, in terms of both content and citations. My comments on the Officials was really to do with the phrase "risk sectarian violence", which to my mind suggested fear of violence rather than a strategy of avoiding conflict. Since that phrase is gone it's no longer relevant. Well done! Scolaire (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article has been selected for Misplaced Pages 0.7. While most of the article is well worth its B rating, some sections could do with considerable cleanup, including the lead, the first section (Origins) and the last three or four (from Belfast Agreement down). I wouldn't be comfortable releasing it on DVD in its present shape. Scolaire (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be comfortable having this piece of IRA propaganda on a DVD either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.191.223.74 (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Casualties

We can see an estimate of the breakdown of casualties caused by the IRA. However, what were the casualties caused a) by the British Army b) by the Protestant / Unionist paramilitaries? Or have I missed something obvious? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

My interpretation of this page from CAIN is that 12 members were killed by the RUC, 96 by the Brits, 1 by the British police (Diarmuid O'Neill if you're interested) and 19 (I think!) by Loyalists. Interestingly, 132 are listed as being killed by the IRA (not including 3 killed by the Officials)-I imagine this is informers but also the ridiculously high number killed by their own bombs.GiollaUidir (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

103 killed by their own bombs, mostly in the early years. Jdorney (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The numbers don't add up: a rough synthesis gives a figure of 1,800 deaths. Of these, roughly 1,100 were members of the security forces - British Army, Royal Ulster Constabulary and Ulster Defence Regiment, between 600 and 650 were civilians and the remainder were either loyalist or republican paramilitaries (including over 100 IRA members accidentally killed by their own bombs). That's 1,800 or more already, before we add in the paramilitaries killed by their opponents. Barnabypage (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

19th IMC

The newest ad hoc report deals specifically with the transformation of the PIRA and it's leadership. Could be useful here. I was wondering if anyone else has read it? Lihaas (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed intro NPOV violations

The introduction that was added by (obvious) Republican sympathizers is extremely partisan and therefore needed to be removed. It made references to "British Rule" and "British oppression" that have no place in a Misplaced Pages article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunyip-Sun (talk • contribs) 16:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You did not fix anything. Your edit summary, and the message you've left here, do not match the edit you actually made. Oh, and please learn how to make a proper entry on the talk page. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You're just trying to be difficult because you are a Republican sympathizer. Your bias has no place here, either. The edit summary is quite clear to anyone with common sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunyip-Sun (talk • contribs) 16:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Listen to me very clearly. You have no idea what my political sympathies are, so keep your speculation to yourself. Your most recent edit summary said: "edit summary is fine; the intro I am replacing has partisan language, whereas the previous introduction is more neutral." This is false on its face. You did not replace any partisan language, all you did was revert to an earlier version of the lede with the phrase "left-wing," which is unnecessary. So, what POV language is it that you were getting rid of? Where is it? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Your profile says you support a United Ireland and a breakup of the U.K. Yes, I am speculating, but I don't think my speculation is unreasonable given what you have left me with. The fact that you are attempting to preserve a partisan introduction would make my conclusion seem reasonable even if I am incorrect.

Anyway, to answer your question, here is what the previous introduction says: " an Irish republican paramilitary organisation that sought to end British Rule in Northern Ireland and bring about a united Ireland by use of violence. Since its emergence in 1969, its stated aim was end the legacy of British oppression in Ireland, and make Ireland one country and one Republic. The organisation is classified as a proscribed terrorist group in the United Kingdom and as an illegal organisation in the Republic of Ireland."

The parts I have put in bold are the NPOV violations, and which I object to, because they are clearly intended to bias readers in favor of the PIRA by referencing (debatable) British "rule" and "oppression". As far as the PIRA's "left-wing" sentiments go, my main objections to the newer introduction were the bold parts above - so I reverted to the older intro which has the "left-wing" stuff. That is a separate issue, but I don't think describing the PIRA as "left-wing" is completely unreasonable given the fact that they have called for a 32-county socialist republic in their own literature and public statements.

I've place a tag on the top of the Talk page informing editors that this article is under a WP:1RR ruling. That is we are all limited to 1RR. Sanctions will be used if we breach these restrictions. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with Domer's action on this issue. Bunyip-Sun, stop casting aspersions on other editors. SirFozzie (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not beyond the realms of reason that the user has a point.Traditional unionist (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? I'm not the one who was violating NPOV rules, whereas RepublicanJacobite clearly was. And in case you haven't noticed, it would appear that Domer stands by my position.Bunyip-Sun (talk) 03:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Bunyip-Sun

On a point of information, Bunyip-Sun, in what sense is British "rule" debatable? I would have thought that the fact that British rule extends into Northern Ireland was one of the few facts that are agreed by all parties. Oh, and Domer was very kind to warn you that you were in danger of violating 1RR, but I don't see him "standing by your position"! Scolaire (talk) 07:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The term "rule" implies Britain presides over NI like a dictatorship, as opposed to the devolved government which actually exists. And like most Republican apologists, it seems you ignored the crucial part of my grievance - which is the fact that the biased introduction specifically referred to a "legacy of British oppression", which is non-neutral language. Whatever, because the fact that you're a Republican sympathizer means I don't think too much of your opinion. -Bunyip-Sun —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC).

I simply removed un-referenced text from the Lead. Like I said there are plenty of sources, and I have agreed to source it. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys. Until the most recent edit war started I had no strong feelings on this issue. However, I can understand why some editors may consider the lead to have POV issues. The recently added statements like "they have one clear objective" are easily read with a POV slant. Surely "their stated objective" would be less problematic. There are similar examples in the body text also. Like the first section in "Origins" which describes the "theory of modern republicanism" from a specific perspective. ("The real Irish state was the Irish Republic, unilaterally declared in 1919")

It may seem like simple semantics, word placement, or an aspect of narrative style but - overall - these add up to affect the tone substantially. In a way that is possibly not entirely in keeping with the NPOV guidelines.

These issues are possibly easily addressed (without materially affecting the content, refs and verifiability). In a lot of cases it's a simple question of avoiding unnecessary adjectives. Like changing "one clear objective", to "stated objective". Or to avoid telling the story from the PIRA POV. EG: change "The IRA sees itself as an extension of the army of the Irish Republic" to a neutral observers POV. Rather than the IRA's POV. Guliolopez (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify my recent contribution. I was asked to check out a reference, and possibly reference some information. When I checked the reference I could not find the text indicated. There may be a number of reasons for this, such as different editions of the book being one, and different page numbers? So I researched one of a number of books and while all saying the same thing, found one which said it succinctly.

Brendan O’Brien is an award winning journalist who has reported on Northern Ireland for twenty years. That I disagree with a lot of his analysis, he dose strive towards impartiality unlike some authors. This information, is not controversial, or disputed so I find it difficult to understand its removal. If it helps I can supplement it with additional sources?

“THE REPUBLICAN ARMY HAVE existed since the Easter Rising of l916 in Dublin. They have had one clear objective, to end British rule in Ireland and, according to their Constitution, ‘to establish an Irish Socialist Republic, based on the Proclamation of 1916.’” Pg. 9 (Upper case is the authors)

“This was the illegal guerrilla army which had sustained a long war, almost twenty-five years long, against British rule with seemingly unending persistency.” Pg.13

On the issue of NPOV, is that not directed at editors and not sources? Brendan O'Brien would hardly be considered a Republican, or Republican supporter. I would have no problem with the insertion of "their stated objective" and thanks Guliolopez for the suggestion, --Domer48_'fenian' 12:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

OK Domer48. Some of the other issues which Bunyip-Sun has raised still remain. Not least that the opening sentence is not complete. The first sentence opens with a definite article (as if it's about to define something) and then just trails off. Leaving an open bracket, and no definition or anything. Guliolopez (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Why RepublicanJacobite keeps leaving problematic edits behind, when it's obvious to anyone with common sense what's wrong with them, proves his bias. In my opinion, he deserves to be flagged for having a pro-IRA bias. Bunyip-Sun (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok Guliolopez, I've addressed that, is there anything else in the lead you would like addressed, or possible expanded upon? I think the origional oversights were mine and not RJ's, they like me probably over looked them, sorry about that. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Why did the intro need to be edited so much in the first place? Aside from the citation issue, which could have been addressed in a much simpler way, it was fine the way it was. Now, it doesn't even say what the IRA is - a paramilitary organization seeking a united socialist Ireland. Bunyip-Sun (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

If you read the Lead it actually dose mention all that. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It isn't even a complete sentence. The previous version was fine; this version is not. Bunyip-Sun (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

All has now been addressed? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's at least a complete sentence, but I've made a small edit incorporating part of the first sentence from the previous version, just to make clear what type of paramilitary organization it is. Isn't that better? Also, if the PIRA fights for a socialist Ireland, then wouldn't it be appropriate to also characterize them as "left-wing", without a citation? Bunyip-Sun (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Your edit simply repeated information that was already present. I fail to see the purpose of that. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The question is, would it not be better to have the information of the second paragraph in the first sentence? I was presenting an alternative option. You love being difficult don't you? Bunyip-Sun (talk) 03:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) OK. It looks like we're getting places - the reintroduction of the "the IRA are a paramilitary org" text (conspicuous by its absence) was certainly needed. We do need to be careful about duplicating content however (per RJ). Also - to help avoid editwarring - any additional changes should probably be introduced here before making them in the article. That said, there is still some POV tempering to be done. Per my note above, the article still uses a tone which asks the user to see things from a republican POV - where a neutral POV would be more in keeping with the guidelines. The "Origins" section, for example, starts out by asking the reader to consider the republican/nationalist POV, and then the subsequent paragraphs continue in the context of that POV. Again, while this is a narrative device that may seem reasonable, it does seem to be contributing to the NPOV challenges raised here. And should possibly be reviewed. Guliolopez (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Oglaigh na hEireann

The use of the Irish translation after the name Provisional Irish Republican Army is incorrect. That's for several reasons. Firstly, it gives the impression to the reader that Oglaigh na hEireann is a direct Irish translation of "Provisional Irish Republican Army". Secondly it insinuates that this is the correct name for PIRA. Neither of those two things are true.

What is true is that the IRA's have all called themselves Oglaigh na hEireann. In the third paragraph of the introduction there is a neat explanation of this and I have inserted the ref for the (real) Oglaigh na hEireann (The Irish Defence Forces). Thunderer (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

That is the name of the IRA in Irish, even according to their own constitution. O Fenian (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty and in good faith, it isn't. It's the name they have claimed. Bear in mind that the IRA's are all essentially "anti-treaty" and in the style of the times (1916-22) they claimed the name as they claimed the right to be the recognised successors of the First Dail. Claiming it doesn't make it true. Nor does "Oglaigh na hEireann" mean Provisional IRA. It means "Army of Ireland". To leave it in the two places I have removed it from is not correct for encyclopedic purposes. Go and read the third paragraph of the intro and see the excellent explanation there.Thunderer (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The name was claimed in 1916 because of the First Dáil? I see it isn't a direct translsation of Irish Defence Forces either, but I do not see you removing it there. The name of the IRA in Irish is Óglaigh na hÉireann, always has been and always will be. Even the Free State government recognise that. O Fenian (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The state has the right to the name, the IRA's don't, although they can claim whatever they wish. The Free State government doesn't recognise that. The IDF website here makes it quite clear that the state claim the name for the Defence Forces. I say to you again that Oglaigh na hEireann is not the official name of the Provos and it shouldn't be represented in the article in this way. It should be noted, even highlighted, that they claim the name and the reasons why. Educating the uneducated is what the wiki is about - not pushing something you wish to be true. Thunderer (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The name of the IRA in Irish is Óglaigh na hÉireann. If you say it is not, then what is? Also please stop lying, the facts prove you wrong. O Fenian (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

What is an official name? One given to the Army by others, or the one in their own constitution? The very first point of the "Constitution of Óglaigh na hÉireann" says "The army shall be known as Óglaigh na hÉireann". You can peddle your own opinion till the cows come home, but it is not supported by official documents be they the IRA's or the Free State governments. O Fenian (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an Irish speaker but I do know that Oglaigh na hEireann means Army of Ireland. Something which none of the IRA's have been since 1921(ish). It isn't the done thing on Misplaced Pages to accuse someone of being a liar btw. It's perceived as incivility. The simple facts of the matter are that this is not a correct translation and it is not an official name so please don't try to introduce it as such. Use the correct paragraph to show historically how the name was claimed and used. Thunderer (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"The Free State government doesn't recognise that." is not true. "Oglaigh na hEireann is not the official name of the Provos" is not true. If you object to anything said when you make untrue statements, it might be best if you stop making untrue statements? Would you like to answer all the questions you have not answered so far, I can make a list if you like? O Fenian (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thunderer, you have not provided a single source for your claim. Numerous sources, including the one noted above by O Fenian, show that the IRA does use this name. The statements you claim are made by the IDF and the Irish gov't. are not relevant here. We have notable sources that show the IRA used the name, therefore it stays. It would be a good idea, though, for a ref to be provided in the lede, beside the Gaelic name, that indicates its use over many decades, the translation, and any controversy there may be as to its use. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

RJ, let me try and explain please. My observations are in good faith. The IRA's, post 1920 are all anti-treaty, can we agree on that? The IRA and volunteers who were pro-treaty became the Irish Army and subsequently the Irish Defence Forces - anyone disagree? You can't have two Irish Armies but what you can have is the IRA's all claiming that they are the successors to the army of 1916 and the rightful successors to the First Dail. On the other hand you have Rialtas na hÉireann saying the IRA aren't that they are the true legislative power in Ireland and the IDF is Oglaigh na hEireann. That's the reality of the situation. Therefore it is absolutely correct in the article to note the PIRA claim to the title and why. It would also be perfectly legitimate to explain the title to the reader. What I can't see as acceptable from an encyclopedic POV is the use of the title officially and as if it were a literal translation into Irish from English which we know it isn't. You have notable sources that the IRA's have used the name, which is fine but you don't have any sources at all which make the name official, except in the eyes of the IRA. Am I right or am I wrong? Thunderer (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And yes, I did provide a source. I provided the link to Oglaigh na hEireann. The official one that is, not the claimants. www.military.ie/ Thunderer (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The official name of the IRA is Óglaigh na hÉireann, which is recognised by Irish government legislsation and the IRA's own constitution. Anything else is just opinion. Only the IRA can decide their official name. O Fenian (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid it isn't recognised by the Irish Government. On the contrary the IRA is a proscribed organisation in the Republic of Ireland. The IRA is not an official organisation, it has no mandate. All it can decide it what it does itself. That doesn't create validity. I can call myself the High Commissioner of Wexford if I want, I can even have my own "official" constitution. It doesn't mean it's valid. I'm afraid you're not proving your case. I have provided proof of the official Oglaigh na hEireann, you have provided nothing, just your opinion. That's not good enough here I'm afraid. Thunderer (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is. I've asked you to stop lying once, consider this a second warning. O Fenian (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read Óglaigh na hÉireann and Óglaigh na hÉireann (CIRA splinter group). Also http://irelandsown.net/IRA.htm and http://www.irishelection.com/03/oglaigh-na-heireann/, also here and what about Bertie Ahern who says "Mr Ahern described the Army last week as "the one and only Oglaigh na hEireann" and the "true descendants" of the men of 1916." or the Justice Minister, Michael O'Donnell, "We have one Oglaigh na hEireann. The Defence Forces are our Defence Forces and they are the successors to the volunteers. We have to remember that there is one State, one Army, one Constitution." both quotes from the Irish Independent here. So everyone in the Irish Government says the IRA is not the true Oglaigh na hEireann but you say I must accept your word that it is without any proof?

Also, I must thank you for the quote which says categorically "AND WHEREAS the Government are of opinion that the organisation styling itself the Irish Republican Army (also the I.R.A. and Oglaigh na hÉireann) is an unlawful organisation". Note the words styling itself. You've just proven me 100% absolutely and totally correct without realising it. Thunderer (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You are confusing quotes from politicans with actual legislation. Also you are wrong, as you have been all day. Irish Government legislation recognises the name of the IRA as Óglaigh na hÉireann. Also if that document only recognises the "styling", then it does not prove the offical name is IRA either. Therefore we are left solely with the official document, the Constution of Óglaigh na hÉireann. 20:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)I should also strongly suggest here that you read WP:Civil which you are very much in breach of. I'm afraid you don't have the authority to warn anyone here. Thunderer (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Try reading it yourself.."Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors". O Fenian (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Given that you have provided absolute and positive proof that Oglaigh na hEireann is not recognised by the Irish Government as a title for the IRA may I suggest you self revert on the matter. If you don't do so without further discussion I will take it that you and other participants in the discussion now accept the word of the Irish Statute Book and revert it myself with no fear of repercussion under the ArbCom sanctions on Troubles related articles. Thunderer (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Third and final warning. O Fenian (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

What is it you intend to do to me old chap - write something unkind? You yourself have provided the link which says the IRA are not entitled to use the term Oglaigh na hEireann. It's now an open and shut case and I hope Republican Jacobite takes note of how much patience and good faith I've exercised with you. We were all new once you know but you're not going to learn by trying to bully people. Try and take in some of what I've said. The Troubles is a minefield, one that everyone here is very aware of. Many of us are Irish and know our history. Take your time and get to know how to navigate Wikpedia before you get yourself blocked or something. If this was a more experienced editor that would have already happened so don't let yourself fall into the trap. I can't be kinder than that. Thunderer (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Go patronise someone else. My source for the official name is the IRA's own constitution, what's yours? Not just the Irish name, the official name of the Army. O Fenian (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not patronising you. I'm trying to help you if only you'd realise it. You need to recognise as well that the source I'm using is actually one you provided yourself. The Government of the Republic of Ireland. I'm afraid their constitution is the one which matters in the 26 Counties, not the IRA's. Thunderer (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You still are, I do not need or require your "help". What is your source for the official name of the Army this article is about? Mine is their own Constitution, now your turn? Link and/or exact wording that you claim gives the official name of this Army. O Fenian (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The Government of the Republic of Ireland. on this page which you kindly provided. The IRA is a proscribed terrorist organisation in the Republic of Ireland. It doesn't have the legal right to usurp the name of the Irish Defence Forces. Simple as that. The Provisional IRA is not an army. It is a terrorist organisation which styles itself as an army using the name of another organisation from the early 20th Century. Thunderer (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of discussion, we will assume you are correct even though you are not, but that still does not prove what the official name is, only what it isn't. So I ask again, what is your source for any other "official" name? Also I do not see the word "terrorist" anywhere on that link, have you not have sufficient warning about posting misleading information yet? O Fenian (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

A) It's now protected for six hours because of this dispute, and Thunderer, don't do that. I'm going to engage your mentor to try to get to the bottom of this, in the case that I do not have the time to. SirFozzie (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem appears to be the fact that the name Óglaigh na hÉireann is listed directly after the title and preceded by a link to the Irish language. The implication, then, is that Óglaigh na hÉireann is the direct Irish translation of the English language Provisional IRA. I think its fair to say we can all agree that it isn't. However. Óglaigh na hÉireann is indeed the Irish language name that organization uses to refer to itself. So you are both correct in the thrust of your arguments, but you are arguing different points. The question is how to we ensure that the article notes the information without being misleading. One solution, I would suggest, is to link Óglaigh na hÉireann and note that the name is claimed not only by PIRA, but also by other organizations. You'll note that that is already provided a few sentences down. While that info could be moved up into the opening sentence, I would suggest that would make it somewhat unwieldy. Instead, why don't we swap around paragraph two and three. In that way the name issue is dealt with immediately after the opening sentence? Rockpocket 21:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Óglaigh na hÉireann is the Irish language (and indeed official) name of the IRA, that cannot be denied. Translations do not need to be literal. Malvinas is not a literal translation of Falklands, yet it is the name in Spanish of the islands in question. O Fenian (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it is also the Irish language (and indeed official) name claimed by a number of other IRAs. That is incredibly confusing to 99% of those Misplaced Pages readers who are not familiar with the idiosyncrasies of Irish politics. Surely that too cannot be denied? Its therefore somewhat misleading to claim, without qualification, that Óglaigh na hÉireann is the "Irish language" name for the PIRA, because its actually the Irish language name for lots of similar organizations. Being misled by omission is still being misled. That said, if you can come up with some way of clarifying that distinction in the confines of the opening sentence, then please let us know. Rockpocket 22:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason not to include the official name of an organisation in the opening sentence, do you? O Fenian (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Rock this is what I've been saying all along. Paragraph three of the introduction does a great job of covering this. Pipelinks would be equally acceptable. I removed the Irish from the intro because it looks to the reader like it is a direct translation of "Irish Republican Army" which it isn't. It's also in the info panel which makes it look like an official name - which it isn't. The name is adopted by the Provisional IRA ( as well as others) and they style themselves Oglaigh na hEireann. As that is the name of the IDF it just can't be an official name, especially given the statute which O Fenian provided which states categorically that It is hereby declared that the organisation styling itself the Irish Republican Army (also the I.R.A. and Oglaigh na héireann) is an unlawful organisation and ought, in the public interest, to be suppressed. My problem isn't with the terminology itself, we all know the Provos use it, it's more to do with context and accuracy. We can't present something which is innaccurate as a reference piece to a worldwide audience.

O'F your parallel doesn't work for so many reasons. You've actually proved yourself wrong. Nobody's trying to stop the terminology being used in the article. I'm just trying to get it in context and it ISN'T an official title. Unless you;re in the IRA.Thunderer (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW Dun Laoghaire isn't a literal translation of Kingstown either but it's still used, for exactly the same reason as Falkland Islands is used instead of Malvinas. Thunderer (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

How about a compromise here guys? Say that the IRA call themselves Oglaigh na hEireann, but also make it clear that this is a name they have given themselves, not one that is accepted by the Irish government. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

But Ryan that's my point. Paragraph three of the intro already contains that information. There's no need to mislead the reader by placing the Irish language name the organisation claims in positions which make it look like a literal translation and an official name. Furthermore paragraph three contains the information about the Irish Defence Forces who are the official holders of the Irish name "Oglaigh na hEireann". I had placed a ref there to show that but it might have been removed by now. I don't feel I have been unreasonable in this.Thunderer (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I personally thing the current version of paragraph 3 gives enough information and it doesn't really need to change from that. Perhaps we could specifically state that this is a name they give themselves and not an officially accepted title? Ryan Postlethwaite 22:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Their official name is Óglaigh na hÉireann according to their own consitution, thus is belongs in the opening sentence. If you actually have a source for what you think their official name is, please speak up. Their official name is acknowledged by official government legislation and their own consitution. O Fenian (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not correct O Fenian. It's the name they have adopted in defiance of the official (pro treaty) state forces. This name is only acknowledged in government legislation to say that anyone using it is not allowed to and will be suppressed. They actual don't have an official name, only what they give themselves and what has become common parlance. That is the Provisional IRA.Thunderer (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If they give themselves an official title, that isn't accepted by the official governement in Ireland, then you can't really say they have a right to use that title. The neutral way of dealing with this point is to make it clear that they call themselves Oglaigh na hEireann, yet this isn't recognised by all other authorities. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Is is accepted by the government in Ireland, despite them not liking it. Official government legislation (which obviously takes precedence over quotes in the media) acknowledges that there are 3 names for the organisation - Óglaigh na hÉireann, Irish Republican Army and IRA. Their official name is not, and has never been the Provisional IRA. Even according to the UK government their name is the Irish Republican Army. O Fenian (talk) 23:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, O Fenian, but the version you prefer does not state it is "their official name" in the opening sentence, it stated it was the "Irish " name. Let me put it another way: in Irish there must be some way of disambiguating between the various IRAs that claim to be Oglaigh na hEireann. So, assuming you speak Irish, if you were discussing the Irish Volunteers, the Irish Republican Army, the Irish Defence Forces and the various paramilitary groups, what terms would you use to ensure the person you were speaking to would known which was which? Surely those are the terms we should use as the Irish language equivalent, while noting that each of them makes the claim to the generic Oglaigh na hEireann in their official title. Rockpocket 22:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

That is the Irish language name of the IRA, it always has been. O Fenian (talk) 23:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Which IRA? The Provos? If so, what is the Irish language name of the others I mention (because our articles suggests it is also Oglaigh na hEireann, so again, how so you distinguish between them in Irish?) Rockpocket 23:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

How do you distinguish between the IRA's in English? To the best of my knowledge, there is no other Irish language name other than Oglaigh na hEireann. O Fenian (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Original IRA, Official IRA, Provisional IRA, Continuity IRA, Real IRA. The Brits liked to know exactly who was bombing them ;) Are you seriously suggesting there is no linguistic way to distinguish between these in the Irish language? What does the Irish Misplaced Pages do then? Rockpocket 00:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ryan and Rock, I agree with both your sentiments. O Fenian, after the split of the IRA the name officially became used by the state. The state army was formed from the IRA and the Irish Volunteers. Anti-treaty forces are a breakaway group of dissenters who only claim the name because they didn't win the right democratically to use it. No-one is saying the IRA can't call themselves whatever they want but you have to respect the state of the Republic of Ireland, whether you agree with them or not. Thunderer (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

None of which changes the official name of the IRA. Why should Free Staters and/or Brits be able to censor the official name? The IRA are not a solely Republic of Ireland based organisation, therefore I fail to you seer points. O Fenian (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)"Free Staters"! I feel I've gone back in time. The Free State hasn't existed since 1949. It was abolished by the arch anti-treatyite de Valera - who also banned the IRA and the use of the name and introduced internment against his former comrades. Isn't Irish history wonderful? Thunderer (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Irony Alert. The Govt of Ireland (and the Constitution) call our country "Ireland" yet Wiki calls it the RoI. But if a spokesman Govt spokesman says he doesn't like the name the IRA call themselves it becomes sacred writ! And is defended by some of the same editors who are so dismissive of the right of the Govt and people of Ireland to name their own country. O the beauty of "consensus" by !vote! Sarah777 (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)You disagree with Irish Government legislation then? Just because it suits you to get a barb in? How productive.Thunderer (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wiki-test: Ask the average man-in-the-street "What is the Capital of Ireland?". They will say "Dublin", they won't ask you to disambiguate the question. Ask the average Irish person who "Oglaigh na hEireann" are and (if they have a clue) they'll say "the IRA" or "the Provos". Sarah777 (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thunderer, I disagree with double standards and British POV masquerading as "consensus" on Wiki. Sarah777 (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If the 1939 Offences Against the State Act is to be used to remove the official name of the IRA from the first sentence of the article, please make sure your approach is consistent. As well as removing Óglaigh na hÉireann, you will also need to remove IRA and Irish Republican Army, as they are equally affected by your "logic". O Fenian (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Tosh and piffle. The IDF has laid specific claim to the name Oglaigh na hEireann and that's the entire point here. Nor do I base my opinions on any act alone. I have correspondence here from the Chief of Staff of the IDF which quite clearly says "Oglaigh na hEireann" on the letterheading. Would you like a copy? Thunderer (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I have books containing the official constitution of Óglaigh na hÉireann, which quite clearly say what the official name is. Would you like a copy? O Fenian (talk) 23:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Continuation

And what would your books prove? That the IRA and its factions throughout the years have laid claim to the name Oglaigh na hEireann? I have books which sugggest that horseballs are lemons - care to suck one?Thunderer (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it maybe needs a little more background. There's no doubt that the Irish Volunteers called themselves Oglaigh na hEireann and it's probably the most correct version but the 1916 (post Easter) IRA adopted the name too. The original problem comes with the split after the Anglo Irish Treaty. From then onwards it becomes confusing with every splinter group in the country, particularly from 1970 onwards, claiming the right to be recognised as the true successor to the First Dail and Provisional Government. If that was fully explored it might give the reader a better perspective on the various claims made by the various IRA's since 1916. To makr it even worse there's actually an organisation just called Oglaigh na hEireann, and they say they own the name and are the true successors.....yadayadayada. Thunderer (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Rather than argue about this for another day, I propose we reorder the lead as follows as a way of addressing the issues raised here:

The Provisional Irish Republican Army or IRA; is an Irish republican paramilitary organisation that considers itself a direct continuation of the Irish Republican Army (the army of the Irish Republic — 1919–1921) that fought in the Irish War of Independence. Like all other organisations calling themselves the IRA (see List of IRAs), the Provisionals refer to themselves as Óglaigh na hÉireann ("The Irish Volunteers") in the Irish language, which is also the title of the Irish Defence Forces. The Provisional Irish Republican Army is sometimes referred to as the PIRA, the Provos, or by some of its supporters as the Army or the 'RA.

The IRA's stated objective is to end "British rule in Ireland," and according to their Constitution, they want "to establish an Irish Socialist Republic, based on the Proclamation of 1916." Until the Belfast Agreement, they sought to end Northern Ireland's status within the United Kingdom and bring about a united Ireland by force of arms and political persuasion. The organisation is classified as a proscribed terrorist group in the United Kingdom and as an illegal organisation in the Republic of Ireland. Unlike other paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland, it is not listed as an illegal organisation in the United States....

This, I think, makes O'F's point in the opening paragraph, while also being explicit in addressing the confusing use of the shared Irish title. Thoughts? Rockpocket 07:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree.Thunderer (talk) 11:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

They do not refer to themselves, that is their official name according to their own Consitution. Come up with something that makes that clear, as that is not acceptable. O Fenian (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You;re missing the point. They're not sovereign. The government is.Thunderer (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What's that got to do with anything? The Free State government can only claim use of a name in their jurisdiction, whereas the Army are an all-Ireland organisation. O Fenian (talk) 13:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

They're not sovereign in the North either. You're right that they can call themselves anything they want but because the name is used by the Irish Government it is not recognised as an official name. For that reason it needs to be in the article that they claim the name. It also needs to be pointed out that so does every other IRA since the Civil War. For the purposes of the encyclopedia it would be very strange to have two or more articles all showing the name name as the official name. The Stickies used it too - long before PIRA, so who has the right to the name. Are you saying that the Irish Government can't claim it? Oh, and under Article 2, which was still in force in 1969, the Irish Government still claimed jurisdiction of the whole island. Thunderer (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to bad of a rewrite Rock but it is not a claim the IRA are known as Óglaigh na hÉireann it is fact and O Fenian has provided WP:V and WP:RS sources to back up wht they are saying. BigDunc 14:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No he hasn't actually. What he provided was a Government of Ireland statute which said they "styled" themselves as such and that is the Gospel truth. They claim the name for historical reasons but it isn't the name they are known by. Thunderer (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No, what I provided was the Army's own consutiton which gives their official name. I've warned you before about posting misinformation in an attempt to subvert discussion to suit your own ends, kindly desist. O Fenian (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No, you posted a link to a 1939 Government of Ireland statute. It's still there - above. I've asked you before not to be uncivil but just so's you know - your warnings don't mean anything to anyone here so do save yourself the trouble old chap. It would be appropriate at this point to tell you to get stuffed as you're flogging a dead horse but I'm far too polite to do that. Thunderer (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Is nobody going to do anything about this constant lying and trolling? O Fenian (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, guys. Instead of bickering with each other or deeming my suggestions "unacceptable" and instructing me to try again, you could try and work together to improve my proposal! Point taken about how this is the "official" name (i.e. that established by the PIRA Constitution). With that in mind, here is another attempt:

The Provisional Irish Republican Army or IRA; is an Irish republican paramilitary organisation that considers itself a direct continuation of the Irish Republican Army (the army of the Irish Republic — 1919–1921) that fought in the Irish War of Independence. Like other organisations calling themselves the IRA (see List of IRAs), the Provisional's constitution establishes them as Óglaigh na hÉireann ("The Irish Volunteers") in the Irish language, which is also the title of the Irish Defence Forces. The Provisional Irish Republican Army is sometimes referred to as the PIRA, the Provos, or by some of its supporters as the Army or the 'RA.

Rockpocket 16:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Equally fine by me. Thunderer (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Their official name be given equal precedence, as at present. O Fenian (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly this is the English Misplaced Pages, therefore the Irish name will never be given "equal precedence" However, the official name is now given due precedence. It is, afterall, now the first bit of information we provide after the mandatory lead sentence. A significant number of editors have now expressed concern that we need to better explain the idiosyncratic naming of IRAs. So either you can work together to address that, or you can stubbornly refuse to budge from your favoured position. Currently you have offered nothing except "its my way, or the highway". If you continue on this stance you are very likely to be maginalized as a WP:SPA, while the rest of us who do understand the concept of compromise move forward. Rockpocket 23:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You are confusing the Irish name with the official name. Óglaigh na hÉireann is the official name, in addition to being the Irish name. I have attempted to be reasonable, but ommitting the official name from the first sentence seemingly based on a piece of local legislation from 1939 which also prevents use of the names "Irish Republican Army" and "IRA" (neither of which is being removed from the first sentence) is hardly appropriate. The multiple use of the name is adequately addressed afterwards, so I do not see any reason for marginalising their official name. O Fenian (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

In addition the Consitution of Óglaigh na hÉireann is in English, and states their name is Óglaigh na hÉireann. O Fenian (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

And yet, the version you kept reverting to didn't list it as the "official name" it listed it as the Irish language name. So were you also confusing them? Look, no one is suggesting we "marginalize" the official name, simply that we explain its disambiguity clearly, since it is also the official name of countless other groups. As I said before, if you can do that in the opening sentence and still work within MoS, then please show me how. You have yet to offer any attempt at that.

The reason Provisional Irish Republican Army remains in the opening sentence is because it is the name of the article. It seems your argument, now, is that we should refer to this article as Óglaigh na hÉireann since that is the official name. If so, feel free to propose a move to that title. If that succeeds then Óglaigh na hÉireann will not only be in the first sentence, but will be the first words! If it doesn't, then your point is moot, since we always lead with the title of the article. Rockpocket 00:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

As I just said, the official name and the Irish name are one and the same. O Fenian (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that it? Still unwilling to offer a suggestion towards compromise? Ok, well I guess we just wait for further opinion. Rockpocket 00:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not follow you. Your definition of compromise seems to be "remove the official name from the first sentence to reduce its prominence". What would you like adding to the first sentence? O Fenian (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No, my definition of compromise is to engage with the editors who have different points of view and try to find a neutral, informative and sensible solution consistent with our policies. What we need is to note what the PIRA's official name is, but also note that it is one is just of a number of different organisations that have that name, otherwise its confusing to our readers. For the 4th time now (and I'm going to bold it since you seem to miss it each time): If you can can somehow manage to work that into the opening sentence while sticking to our Maunual of style for the WP:LEAD, then by all means show us. I can't find a way of doing that, hence why I moved it to the second sentence. Its nothing to do with prominence and everything to do with clarity. So, do you have a solution to offer or not? Rockpocket 02:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

All that information is adequately covered in the lead, and I see nothing that says in needs to be covered in the first sentence. O Fenian (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. My proposal has the opening sentence stating what the PIRA is for the casual reader (using their common name), we then immediately address how they see themselves, and how they (and others) chose an official title to further that (this is key to understanding the whole point of the IRAs purpose). We then state other nicknames they have picked up. Seems to have covered the whole name issue both comprehensively and with clarity. Do you have any other suggestions to clarify the issue further, or shall we go with that? Rockpocket 19:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This is so sad it's almost funny. A bunch of identity-challenged Irishmen and Irish-Americans talking about a little Catholic gang of sectarian socialist thugs as if they deserve to be called an "army", or as if their so-called "constitution" even means anything. I stand by my belief that Irish Republican sympathizers cannot be trusted to edit articles on Irish Republican-related topics, any more than Loyalist sympathizers can be trusted to edit articles on Loyalist-related topics. Bunyip-Sun (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with every word you say.Thunderer (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thunderer, step back, NOW. Bunyip-Sun, that applies for you as well. All of you. ALL of you will treat other editors with respect even if there's disagreement. SirFozzie (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The question is, how do we deny what is in front of us? Is it not obvious that some of the editors here have a pro-IRA bias? Have you seen their User pages where they announce their views? It is not disrespectful to point out that many of these editors are acting in NPOV ways, and it is not constructive when they are allowed to get their way like this. Bunyip-Sun (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No. The question in this section is: how can we improve the article, specifically in addressing our treatment of Óglaigh na hÉireann. If you have something to contribute to that, then please do so. If all you are interested in is speculating about the motives other other editors, then you are not being helpful. So, do you have an opinion on the proposals already made, and can you improve them? Rockpocket 23:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

And is it really appropriate to delete my comments on the DISCUSSION page? This peculiar double-standard of censorship has got to stop. Bunyip-Sun (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

If that is addressed to me, I didn't remove your comments. Do I think its appropriate they were removed? Well they weren't particularly relevant to addressing the content of the article and therefore this page was not the appropriate place for them.

Since this no-one else offered any further improvements, I have gone ahead and reworked the lead as proposed. You will note I discussed this extensively before editing the article, therefore I expect the same courtesy from anyone who decides the previous version was better. Remember this article is under sanctions. Rockpocket 20:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, I purposefully left Óglaigh na hÉireann in the infobox. On this subject balance and compromise is important to keep editors working together. Rockpocket 21:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy with that except I made a small amendment to balance the PIRA POV (continuation of old IRA) with the fact that PIRA was founded in 1969. Mooretwin (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Agree - fair compromise. Thunderer (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted that change. Please discuss it here before making changes of that nature. If something "was founded in 1969" it cannot be a continuation of something earlier, which is the core of the argument. Obviously people who claim continuation don't agree that it was founded in 1969 but rather that the earlier Management Team simply left. Sarah777 (talk) 11:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

By your own logic, then, the current text is completely POV! PIRA was verifiably founded in 1969. It is also verifiable that they claim to be a continuation of the 1919 IRA. Both statements need to be included. Mooretwin (talk) 11:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. One is presented as a claim, the other as a "fact". PIRA was verifiably founded in 1969? There is no organisation that calls itself "PIRA". Sarah777 (talk) 11:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Er, only the claim is presented. There is no mention of 1969 foundation! Hence you are supporting a POV text. 2. There may be no organisation which calls itself PIRA, but there is an organisation which is called PIRA. I assume you know this. That organisation was formed in 1969 and that is verifiable. Mooretwin (talk) 11:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Btw, on this specific issue (continuity) I don't care too much either way. But it is obvious that other editors will have difficulty with your statment of "fact"; what I am saying is don't make changes you know will be controversial without discussion - Arbcom and associated rulings are specific about this article in relation to that. Sarah777 (talk) 11:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I have reverted to Mooretwin's version. Sarah your logic is severely flawed and I don't understand why you have made an issue of this. PIRA (an acronym of Provisional IRA) was formed in 1969 after a split in the IRA which left two organisations. One calling itself "Official" the other "Provisional". The Provos don't claim to be a continuation of the original IRA but instead claim to be the rightful successors to the 1st Dail. In this case I have reffed the statement from "Armed Struggle". I cannot understand why you made an issue of this on such a contentious article.Thunderer (talk) 12:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The reference you give doesn't link to anything. I've asked Rockpocket to rule on whether what you've (both) done constitutes edit-warring. Sarah777 (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Be my guest. Your edit was one of the most uncalled for I have ever seen. What on earth was wrong with Mooretwin putting in the year the Provos's were formed? As for the link not going anywhere. English is listed in the bibliography for the article. Go to that page on Armed Struggle and you'll get the information. Do try to remember that the wiki is here to inform people and to be used as a source of reference. If PIRA didn't exist before 1969 then that's when it was formed and that is reference material.Thunderer (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You should wait until other editors on this article have had a chance to debate your claim before engaging in edit-warring. Sarah777 (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not a claim. It's a non-controversial fact. You should take your own advice and not revert good faith edits by others without discussion. You should also learn how to use a bibliography.Thunderer (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

We'll see later today whether is is non-controversial or not. My fear is that it might be. Controversial. Sarah777 (talk) 13:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that PIRA wasn't formed in December 1969?Thunderer (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If I could draw your attention to this WP:3 discussion here and my contribution in particular here. Mooretwin who is also a party to WP:3 and aware of differing views is inserting information which they know is disputed. I don’t think it is being particularly helpful bring this dispute across a number of articles when a forum has been provided to address it. While I understand it can be a slow process, it is a process none the less. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 14:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Continuation 2

I've speed read those links you've given me and from that your own comments seem to support the contention by Richard English in Armed Struggle (which is the ref I've used) that PIRA was formed (he uses the word "born") in December 1969. As far as I can see this article is about PIRA not Sinn Fein, although if asked I would say that the post-split faction of SF did use the nomenclature "Provsional" for a short while. I do defer to your superior knowledge on this particular issue however as it isn't an area I have studied in any great depth, although I have read some books to be sure I have an understanding of the Republican movement. Maybe you'd be kind enough to give your opinion on the December 1969 formation of PIRA? Am I not right that GA and others are referred to as 69er's because they were part of the team who manned the barricades during the defence of west Belfast during the sectarian rioting and because they were founder members of PIRA?Thunderer (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read it again, "Provsional" means exactly what is says, the referenced sources I used do not support it.--Domer48_'fenian' 15:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I've read it again. I do understand that Provisional is a well used term when associated with the Republican movement. It has kudos because it's associated with the Provisional Government of 1916. I do well remember "Provisional Sinn Fein" being used as a term of reference in the media but this could come down to the same thing as some UDR chaps objecting to the term "UDR men", which I could never understand because every man, woman and child (and their dogs) called them UDR men. Look, there's absolutely no reason for me to remain on this article now because I was only here discussing the point which has now been rectified. This isn't my area of interest so I'm withdrawing from the article. I have you and BigDunc who can help me if I need any further information not on my own bookshelf regarding the Republican movement. Thank you for the discussion and your knowledge on the movement. Thunderer (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

AHEM

To quote from the template linked at the top of the page:

• "All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related. "

I count three editors having violated the 1RR on this article in the last 36 hours, and that was with a period of protection in the middle of it, and repeated reverting following that. Is there any reason why I should not be blocking here? Risker (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If all the editors involved are aware of the sanctions and understand them, then there is no reason not too. BigDunc 19:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I am one of the editors referred to above. However, I was under the impression that this did not apply to the simple reversion of vandalism, such as the unilateral deletion of information whilst the discussion was underway here on the talk page. If I am incorrect in that assumption, I stand corrected. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It refers to ALL REVERSIONS OF CONTENT. Vandalism is "Your mother wears army boots" or page blanking. Vandalism is NOT removal or insertion of a select portion of content; that is content editing. If you disagree with the way someone is editing content, BRING IT TO THE TALK PAGE. Period. Risker (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that the capital letters are necessary. I am, and others are, capable of understanding what you are saying without them. As to the matter, it was being discussed on the talk page, and, despite the disagreement of other editors, Thunderer removed the information again, which seems to me to be an act of spite. That is not simply content editing, that is editing to prove, or push, a point. That sounds like vandalism to me. I fail to see how reverting such an edit, while discussion is still taking place, can be considered outside the bounds. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I explained my reasons for removing that part of the content and none of you have been able to repudiate it. No-one, certainly not me, is trying to harm the article, on the contrary my assertion would improve it because it would then be more accurate and could not be accused of being POV with regards to the "Onh" suggestions. As for the man typoing in caps; I can well understand his frustration. Thunderer (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism." The charge of vandalism is never to be used in a content dispute. Apparently the capital letters were in fact needed, because you are still not getting it. Look at this, Misplaced Pages:VAND#NOT. I will make this explicitly clear:whatever you think of the Thunderer's edits, they were not vandalism, it was content editing. You may disagree with it and find it irritating and rude, or whatever, but it was not vandalism. --Tznkai (talk) 02:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Tzankai my reasoning is all over this section and no sane person could examine it and find and underlying cause other than an attempt at accuracy.Thunderer (talk) 02:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Thunderer that his reasoning is all over the place. Sarah777 (talk) 08:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Pathetic.Thunderer (talk) 12:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

What the hell are "Onh" suggestions? BigDunc 16:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I wondered the same thing, Dunc, and then realized he meant Óglaigh na hÉireann. Of course, that's not the first thought I had. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks RJ for the clarification. BigDunc 16:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) RJ can you enlighten me - have I been naive and quoted something which has an alternative (filthy) meaning or something LOLThunderer (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism

Active

I have removed the date in the infobox as it is POV, because when the were "active" can't be narrowed down to one particular date. I could find a source for 3 different dates. Some people would see it as 1997, when the ceasefire was called. Others would see it as 2005, when the armed campaign was formally ended. Others would see it as 2008, when the Army Council ceased operating allegedly. Picking one is pov. BigDunc 12:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. For some reason this was added back claiming the armed campaign ended in 2005, when there are two possible dates and one should not be arbitrarily chosen. O Fenian (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

United States

"Unlike other paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland, it is not listed as an illegal organisation in the United States"

There are only two paramilitary organisations from Northern Ireland on the list, the UDA and UVF are absent as are the INLA, LVF and the various smaller Loyalist and Republican splinter groups. This seems to be someone's personal observation about the list, and I do not see why what the IRA are not is important enough to be mentioned in the introduction. Any thoughts? O Fenian (talk) 06:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Since there has been no objection to this or reason provided why someone's personal observation should be in the introduction, I have removed it. O Fenian (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Volunteer V. Member

In articles relating to IRA members, they are frequently referred to as "Volunteers". While this may be the technically correct term within the organisation, is it the correct term for Misplaced Pages? Does anyone think that replacing this with "Member" would make articles seem more neutral? GainLine ♠ 17:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GainLine (talk • contribs)

This has been discussed quite extensively in the past and the general consensus was that "volunteer" (linked, but with as small "v") was the most appropriate term. Rockpocket 06:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

European Union

"The European Union has removed the IRA from their list of terrorist organisations". I have removed this incorrect information, as according to my research the IRA were never on it. The EU list was first adopted in December 2001. All lists up to March 2005;

• http://www.statewatch.org/news/2004/jun/2001-931-terr-lists.pdf
• http://www.statewatch.org/news/2002/jun/terB180602.pdf
• http://www.statewatch.org/news/2002/oct/terlist1.pdf
• http://www.statewatch.org/news/2002/dec/terr213dec02.pdf
• http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/jul/terrlist2jun03.pdf
• http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/sep/terrlistEUSept03.pdf
• http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/dec/terrlist2.pdf
• http://www.statewatch.org/news/2004/apr/eu-terr-list2.pdf
• http://www.statewatch.org/news/2005/mar/terr-list1.pdf

If anyone has evidence that the IRA were on the EU's list this may go back, but according to my research they were not. O Fenian (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Which IRA would that be, IRA, CIRA, RIRA, INLA ? --De Unionist (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

O Fenian, the EU's website at says "The list includes ETA (Basque Fatherland and Liberty), the IRA (Irish Republican Army), GRAPO (the First of October Anti-Fascist Resistance Group), the terrorist wing of HAMAS, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other revolutionary activist groups, as well as the names of individuals belonging to such groups." --Flexdream (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Not clear which IRA is being talked about, please provide an actual list that has them on. O Fenian (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Catholic and nationalist

Replacing the term 'Catholic' with 'Catholic and nationalist' throughout the article seems to me to be factually incorrect. The loyalists didn't just go after hardline political types, they engaged in explicit sectarian violence against Catholics- regardless of what their victims politics happened to be. The Squicks (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the talk page rather than simply reverting. I'm fully aware that loyalists targeted civilians purely because they were Catholic. If you re-read the sentences I changed, you'll see that I only added "and nationalist" in instances where it was necessary. I think it's important to note that not all nationalists were Catholic/not all Catholics were nationalists. ~Asarlaí 01:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's look at each change specially. You described the Northern Ireland riots of August 1969 as against 'Catholic and nationalist' people and not just against 'Catholics'. That to me seems factually inaccurate. The Squicks (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

A better wording would be that they were against Catholic homes as well as nationalist homes or something like that. The hooligans attacked both nationalist Catholics and non-nationalist Catholics alike. The Squicks (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I'd be happy with that wording. Are there any other changes you disagree with? ~Asarlaí 02:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I have some other thoughts. (I know this sounds like nitpicking but bear with me as I think we both have the best intentions in mind)

IRA had not been armed or organised to defend the nationalist and Catholic communit Plural, since the terms are not the same

The Provisionals, by contrast, advocated a robust armed defence of nationalists and Catholics in the north is clearer

in protest at their failure to defend nationalist and Catholic areas is clearer since even though areas are/were often the same thing with 'nationalist = catholic' there are/were individual blocks and neighboorhoods that were Catholic but not politically active. The Squicks (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

£100,000 was donated by the Irish government to "Defense Committees" in nationalist and Catholic areas is clearer

as being defenders of Irish nationalist and Catholic people against aggression is clearer

Governmental apparatus in Northern Ireland were biased against the nationalist and Catholic members of the community is clearer The Squicks (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll start editing this into the article, if that's alright. ~Asarlaí 02:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I think that there's some other things that should probably be looked at later. The Squicks (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The constant addition of "nationalist and Catholic" is appalling, please stop. O Fenian (talk) 08:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do you see it as "appalling"? Also, please do not revert changes without discussion. The Squicks (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? It is bold, revert, discuss. Superfopp was bold, he was correctly reverted, and he chose to keep making the same disputed edit. Kindly address your ire at the person repeatedly making the disputed changes. I consider people putting their own interpretation on what sources say appalling, capeesh? O Fenian (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

When I made the changes, I did so without using the talk page first, that was a mistake on my part. The Squicks reverted my edit, and rightly so. We discussed the changes here and came to an agreement. So what's the problem? ~Asarlaí 21:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware you two had any right to come to a binding agreement when other editors have not commented, especially when you have made similar tendentious edits on this and similar articles and already been reverted by editors not involved in your little twosome. Could you tell us what the already cited sources say in the sentences you changed? O Fenian (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Please have another look at the sentences that were changed. None of them are directly sourced. ~Asarlaí 21:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

None of them? Are you sure? I do believe you're telling porkies there! Also first edit and first revert, or had you forgotten that too? O Fenian (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

That edit was made before the discussion between myself and The Squick (directly above). We don't intend to use that wording, we intend to use this wording. ~Asarlaí 21:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

And knowing your previous edit you made this edit without discussion. Please do not attempt to transfer the blame for your tendentious edit warring onto others. Would you like to answer my other questions? O Fenian (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

O Fenian, you continue referring to edits made before my agreement with The Squick. I acknowledge they weren't completely accurate, but they're irrelevant now. We intend to use this wording. What are your objections to this wording? ~Asarlaí 21:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Am I to take the lack of reply to mean you haven't got any objections? ~Asarlaí 16:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Any edits, such as that one, that are counter to Misplaced Pages policy will be reveted. O Fenian (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What Misplaced Pages policy does it go against? ~Asarlaí 17:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Since you still haven't provided any arguments, I've changed the wording again. ~Asarlaí 01:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have, and so have others. Mine are Misplaced Pages policies, please read them before editing. O Fenian (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No you have not. Explain your reasons here rather than simply stating "original research" or "unsourced claims". ~Asarlaí 02:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It will be Protestant and Loyalist next, where does it end? --De Unionist (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC) To be totally correct, it should be Roman Catholic and Nationalist. --De Unionist (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Catholic and Nationalist are not the same thing it implies that they are one and the same this is not the fact no more than every Protestant is a Loyalist. BigDunc 20:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. We should make it clear that not all nationalists are Catholic, and not all unionists ate Protestant. Some of them are non-practising or simply don't follow a religion. ~Asarlaí 20:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, quite a few Unionists are Roman Catholics as are a few Nationalists Protestants or other faith. --De Unionist (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, not all nationalists are Catholic and not all unionists are Protestant. ~Asarlaí 21:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

IMO, "Catholic" and "Protestant" is always wrong. The strife between the two communities had nothing to do with justification by faith alone or veneration of the Blessed Virgin; it was about adherence to the United Kingdom (unionism) or to a United Ireland (nationalism). The fact that the two communities were referred to at the time as "Catholic" and "Protestant" is not a reason to use those terms today. I believe they should be removed from the article altogether. Scolaire (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Not correct because you can be a protestant without being a Unionist or a Loyalist. You can also be a Roman Catholic without being a Nationalist or a Republican. You can also be a Nationalist or a Loyalist whilst being an agnostic or an atheist. The strife in Ireland is between Republicans and non Republicans. --De Unionist (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Scolaire, while I'd tend to agree with you there, I don't think the terms should be removed altogether. They could be used less though. During the conflict there was a number of attacks on people purely because they were believed to be Catholics / Protestants. ~Asarlaí 17:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

That may be relevant to other articles; I've checked this one and there is no instance where "Catholic" or "Protestant" is appropriate. Scolaire (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? It's a matter of fact that many loyalists targeted people just for being Catholic, regardless of their politics. As for your statement "strife between the two communities had nothing to do with", I agree somewhat but that is a hasty generalization and an oversimplification. The spirituality does matter. After all, Ian Paisley called my spiritual leader "the anti-Christ". I could come up similar statements by lower-level loyalists about their fight against the 'enemies of the real Christians' and so on. The Squicks (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, I am talking about this article, and not Ian Paisley. Obviously, " favoured building up a political base among the working class, both Catholic and Protestant" or "Father Alec Reid, a Roman Catholic priest" is appropriate. Otherwise all I can see is phrases such as "to defend the Catholic community". That community was under threat, not because its members went to mass, but because they opposed the Unionist régime and aspired to a United Ireland. Or am I wrong? Scolaire (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No, many of them were under threat just for being Catholic. For example, see Ulster_Volunteer_Force#History. The Squicks (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. I read: "In its announcement on 21 May 1966, the UVF declared war on the Irish Republican Army" and "This circle of attack by the IRA...would be followed by counter-attack on the people the UVF saw as 'hosting' the IRA: Roman Catholic civilians" (my italics). I don't see any mention of spirituality, or of doctrinal differences. Nor have I ever read that victims were selected on the basis of frequency of church attendance or other evidence of devotion. AFAIK they were chosen simply because they lived in a "Catholic" (which actually means nationalist) area. To repeat myself, the fact that the UVF, the politicians and the media referred to those people as "Catholics" is not a reason for us to do so. The UVF article needs tidying up in that respect as much as this article does. Scolaire (talk) 08:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me put it another way: how many instances were there of loyalist attacks on Catholics who were known unionist supporters, or who were outspoken against republicans or civil rights activists? In such instances—and I don't know of any—it would be reasonable to assume that they were attacked for their religion; otherwise there must be the presumption that any attacks were on the basis of the equation "Catholics" = "IRA supporters" i.e. not religious but political. Scolaire (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Categorisation

Hi,

under 'Categorisation' it says "the IRA are referred to as terrorists by the Ulster Unionist Party, the Democratic Unionist Party, and the Progressive Unionist Party".

To me that implies that that Alliance Party and the SDLP did not.

I changed this to "the IRA are referred to as terrorists by the Ulster Unionist Party, the Democratic Unionist Party, the Progressive Unionist Party, the non-sectarian Alliance Party of Northern Ireland, and the nationalist Social Democratic and Labour Party, which parties all condemned all paramilitary violence" which I think is correct. However, this has been undone by people who disagree.

So I'd like to ask, did the Alliance Party and the SDLP refer to the IRA as terrorists?

seems clear to me for the Alliance Party. seems to put the SDLP view.

Whatever their position was, I think it should be stated, not implied. I think this is important for context. I couldn't have named all 3 Unionist parties, but someone thinks it necessary to name each one and say they referred to the IRA as terrorists, but not to say anything at all about the other main parties.

If I've got my facts wrong on the positions of the parties, then that just shows even more that the present article is deficient.

thanks

--Flexdream (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Those are primary sources for the views of political parties, or in fact for the views of the person writing. There is no evidence that as a party those views are held, and independent secondary sources would be needed to draw such a conclusion. O Fenian (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You are saying that there is no evidence the Alliance Party considered the IRA a terrorist organisation, and that even if they said so (such as the news release I've quoted from their own website) you'd need someone else saying it before you'd be convinced? That's perverse.--Flexdream (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The sources do not source the parties as a whole holding that view, only the people who wrote the articles. O Fenian (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

New discussion

"It is estimated that between 1969 and 1997, the IRA were responsible for the death or injury of over 20,000 men, woman and children. Over 14,000 of these being civilians." - text added. "It has also been estimated that the IRA injured 6,000 British Army, UDR and RUC and up to 14,000 civilians, during the Troubles." - original text. Anyone can see the emotive attempt at bias with "men, women and children", and the misleading combination of death and injury. Its addition currently violates Misplaced Pages:Lead also. O Fenian (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really. The IRA killed and injured men, women and children. It's a fact. What's the problem ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.101.139 (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, it doesn't violate Misplaced Pages:Lead is any way. The death and injury of over 20,000 men, women and children is an important part of the IRA story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.101.139 (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a biased and misleading presentation of an estimation. I welcome discussion here about how, if at all, and where this information should be added. O Fenian (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a biased addition and combining the figures is misleading, and it's also a violation of WP:LEAD. BigDunc 22:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

How can a fact be biased? The IRA murdered or maimed over 20,000 people. This included men, women and children. It may be unpalatable to people with a republican viewpoint, however it is still a fact. So.... what is the problem ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.101.139 (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's worth getting an editor who isn't sympathetic towards the IRA's aims and methods to look at this. I can't see how placing an important fact about the IRA on the IRA Wiki page is such a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.101.139 (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, its a misleading presentation of an estimation.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I substituted "people" for the allegedly "emotive" "men, woman and children" in light of the concern expressed above. It may be useful also to include specific reference to those actually killed by PIRA as well as those injured. Mooretwin (talk) 09:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC) {{editprotected}}

 Not done Please formulate the exact change. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks DJ. Consensus is being developed below for replacement wording that settles the content dispute. There won't be any edits until that is accomplished. Nja 13:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That's what you think, but Misplaced Pages is not a dictatorship! O Fenian (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please remove the disputed addition made in this edit. The reasons for this are as follows:

• The addition is a violation of Misplaced Pages:Lead, as it introduces information that is not in this article.
• The addition contains weasel words leading to unattributed point of view. "It is estimated", estimated by who?
• The addition does not accurately reflect what the source says. The original text in another article read "Lost Lives therefore concludes that the Provisional IRA was responsible for a total of 1,781 deaths to date. It has also been estimated that the IRA injured 6,000 British Army, UDR and RUC and up to 14,000 civilians, during the Troubles". Note "up to 14,000 civilians", while this article says "over 14,000". Deaths + injuries may mean "over 14,000", but it may not.
• It is misleading to combine deaths and injuries in this way.

This IP editor has already been blocked twice for disruption on this article, and as their edits and the discussion above show they are not interested in adhering to policy, consensus building or resolving any dispute, and leaving this article protected will achieve nothing. O Fenian (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm content for the edit to be made so as it reflects what the source says as noted above. Content also for the estimation to be attributed to Lost Lives. Not content for it to be removed from the lead. If the info isn't in the article, then it ought to go in, rather than be censored altogether. It is important, relevant and useful information. Mooretwin (talk) 09:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Good, so we can remove the disputed and incorrect addition until we have discussed how it goes into the article, which is what I said originally. But that never happened. O Fenian (talk) 09:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Just edit the addition so that it corresponds to what the source says, and attribute it. As I said it above, it should not be removed as it is important, relevant and useful. Mooretwin (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Exact quote from the source needed. O Fenian (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No there isn't. I see nothing wrong with the text you noted above: just attribute it. Mooretwin (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You cannot attribute it until you know what the source says. So provide an exact quote from the source. O Fenian (talk) 10:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you not trust how the source has been represented in the article which you quoted? Mooretwin (talk) 10:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The estimate is not directly attributed to anyone in the other article. You cannot directly attribute the estimate unless you know its provenance, therefore a quote from the source is needed to determine it. O Fenian (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I'll be able to look up the source later, but I suggest that in the meantime we work on a text on the assumption that Lost Lives will ultimately provide the source. If not, we can look at it again. Mooretwin (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see what you mean. The estimates are directly attributable: the deaths to McKittrick et al and the injuries to Brendan O'Brien. Mooretwin (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was was it their estimate, or the estimate of someone else they were quoting. But that is largely academic now, since the figures are from 1986. O Fenian (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Please collaboratively draft a proposal for the text you wish to replace. Once the replacement text is agreed then this request can be honoured. Cheers, Nja 09:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Then why not remove the unacceptable text for now? I said I was happy to discuss a proposed version at 22:14 last night. O Fenian (talk) 09:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The sooner we agree to the edited text, the sooner the "unacceptable" text will be removed. Mooretwin (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No. We should not leave incorrect information in the article, it should be removed. O Fenian (talk) 10:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It only needs to be rephrased. The only possible incorrect bit is where it says "over" - that can be changed to "up to" to reflect the source as you have suggested. Mooretwin (talk) 10:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There are various issues to be resolved, none of which are resolved. Therefore it should be removed until they are, as it is incorrect and misleading. O Fenian (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

See my response above. Let's work on something and hopefully I'll have the source later today. Mooretwin (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I had not realised the second part was sourced to O'Brien, as I could have told you what that said. The figures are from 1986, therefore partial figures are no use for the lead. O Fenian (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• No, the article is protected as there's a dispute and reverting to your version would defeat the entire purpose of page protection. Please stop moaning about the text currently there and show me how it can be fixed so that this issue is resolved. One editor seems willing, so get stuck in with them and sort it please, as there won't be any edits until consensus is reached. Nja 11:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggested new text

• McKittrick et al estimated in 1999 that the Provisional IRA was responsible for a total of 1,781 deaths to date and O'Brien has estimated that the IRA injured 6,000 British Army, UDR and RUC and up to 14,000 civilians, during the Troubles.

Mooretwin (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No, O'Brien's figures are from 1986 O Fenian (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

In that case the "over 14,000" reference was almost certainly correct. Anyway - easily fixed:

• • McKittrick et al estimated in 1999 that the Provisional IRA was responsible for a total of 1,781 deaths to date and O'Brien has estimated that by 1986 the IRA had injured 6,000 British Army, UDR and RUC and up to 14,000 civilians, during the Troubles.

Mooretwin (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Find complete figures, anything else is pointless. O Fenian (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That isn't how things work. If something is sourced and is presented correctly and given appropriate weight it can be included in the article. Nja 15:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice of you to involve yourself in the dispute with that post, I assume you are familiar with WP:INVOLVED. I feel like I'm speaking a different language here. What I said is that complete figures are needed, not partial figures. You know, as we're dealing about their campaign as a whole, not just part of it. So partial figures are no use, get it? O Fenian (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Not pointless at all. On the contrary, the figures tell the reader that mid-way through the Troubles, the PIRA had injured up to 14,000 people. Just because we don't know how many people they went on to injure during the rest of the Troubles doesn't seem like a good reason to censor the information. WP is here to provide information, not withhold it. Mooretwin (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Which means it would belong in the part that deals with action up to that point. And as the lead is dealing with the article and campaign as a whole, it makes sense for a whole figure to be included not a partial one. So why don't you run along and find the complete figures? O Fenian (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

This edit request is disputed

• (disputed by the "admin" who protected the page on an inaccurate version, so much for impartiality! O Fenian (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC))

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Provisional Irish Republican Army. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

See below for reason for dispute

Since the last one was ignored without looking at who actually made the request and what it was. Please remove the disputed addition made in this edit. The reasons for this are as follows:

• The addition is a violation of Misplaced Pages:Lead, as it introduces information that is not in this article.
• The addition contains weasel words leading to unattributed point of view. "It is estimated", estimated by who?
• The addition does not accurately reflect what the source says. The original text in another article read "Lost Lives therefore concludes that the Provisional IRA was responsible for a total of 1,781 deaths to date. It has also been estimated that the IRA injured 6,000 British Army, UDR and RUC and up to 14,000 civilians, during the Troubles". Note "up to 14,000 civilians", while this article says "over 14,000". Deaths + injuries may mean "over 14,000", but it may not.
• It is misleading to combine deaths and injuries in this way.
• Last but not least, in fact the most important reason - The figures in the article which this addition was taken from are wrong. The figures referred to in O'Brien (the source for the original second sentence) are from 1986, while The Troubles were still ongoing. Therefore the statement is totally and utterly wrong. The reader is being done a disservice if incorrect information is being presented in this way, and it makes no sense to talk about "total" figures in the lead when they are nothing of the sort.

Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Not done Your request is declined for the same reasons it was by another admin earlier, and further you are completely ignoring my attempts to resolve this dispute. Simply saying 'no, from 1986' isn't really being active in reaching a consensus. Again, this article is protected due to the content dispute and reversion to your preferred edit defeats the purpose. You need to start actively trying to come to a result. A solution may be to state the date of those figures in the sentence, or find better figures, etc. Nja 15:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Get a fucking grip. If you had read my replies (all of them), you would have seen my replies were more substantial than just that brief reply to that point. If you had read the request in full, in particular the NEW point (conveniently with bold next to it), you would actually understand what has changed since earlier and why this edit will be made. O Fenian (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't edit war on a talk page. That is beyond pointless. You were edit warring on the article, and now you are here. Nja 15:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What the fuck? The earlier request was declined because he thought Mooretwin's comments were the edit request. How else can you explain "Please formulate the exact change" when my request made the exact change clear, it said which edit to revert. Not only that, but his reply is under Mooretwin's post not mine! Now you are saying it was declined for the same reason, which also ignores that the request is different in one substantial yet very important point. Did you read the request in full? Yes/No. Assuming you did, what do you actually think of the last point? O Fenian (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Nja247, you are a joke. O Fenian is not edit warring and has made a reasonable request.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks mate, I enjoy a good tag team of insults. Essentially there's no consensus for his request, and the box clearly says only those requests with consensus will be considered. So how's that reasonable? Shall I send in another admin to decline, or will you both start being part of the solution rather than the problem? Nja 15:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It is perfectly reasonable to reinstate the request if the admin has not even bothered to read it. Unless this factual accuracy is dealt with soon this will be dealt with elsewhere, there is no reason for this article to remain inaccurate. O Fenian (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I read the entire bloody page mate. Do you really think I've just stumbled upon this article today and decided to protect it so as to lock you out? Or that I purposefully declined your request again just because I felt like it? Well, no. I cannot understand why you're even arguing with me as all I've been saying to you is that you need to work with others to come to a compromise so that the article can be unprotected and the dispute resolved. For hopefully the last time, I want to note that your request is not going to get anywhere. It doesn't have consensus. Read the box, it says specifically only requests that have consensus will be considered. So let's stop this back and forth repetition and actually work to seek that consensus that is required for your request to be considered, and for this page to be unprotected.

Thus you can start to help, or you can continue not to and end up being referred elsewhere for disruption. I hope you decide to choose the former by giving some actual feedback and suggesting compromises/rewording for the draft given above. Nja 15:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

So, to sum up. You cannot answer most of my questions, because you have realised that you are totally wrong. The only disruption round here is being caused by your incompetence, it is you who will come out of this worse mark my words. Now will someone please remove the inaccurate information from the lead, or will some jobsworth now say consensus is needed to remove inaccurate information? O Fenian (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No, essentially you have no consensus (as you haven't tried to resolve the dispute) thus I cannot understand why you're seeking an protected edit request which requires consensus. You can't just ask for the article to edited to your liking and bypass the whole working with others thing. I haven't any time for this repetition, so for the last time please start to help resolve the dispute with constructive input and/or compromised wording, etc. Also it's sourced, and just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it's inaccurate. Your points above have some validity, thus figure out how to get your points in whilst reconciling them with what's already there. Finally, don't insult me as I'm doing the best I can and you're the one who's being completely un-cooperative. Nja 16:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

So rather than revert to the pre-edit war version (which has consensus) you're prepared to maintain an inaccurate version, despite it being pointed out that it's inaccurate, are you even familiar with the protection policy? O Fenian (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Get consensus for any change. Period. If you want to revert to a pre-edit war version, post the diff to this page and ask the various parties in the edit war if they will agree to revert to that version while discussion is ongoing. Have them sign off on the revert. Then post the edit request template. Thatcher 16:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You don’t get consensus from a POV edit warrior! Period!! The inaccuracies in the Lead have been made clear to all concerned, so what is the problem? Which is worse, the IP edit warrior, the Admin who has not got a clue on policy, or the Admin having the fact that they have not got a clue pointed on policy out to them? Round one to the IP edit warrior, and who is that down too. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for the removal of incorrect information while the page is protected

Revert to this version to be precise (note, people proposing the article should willingly contain inaccurate information for the next two weeks should be ignored, as their argument holds no weight)

For

1. O Fenian (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Moronic use of admin tools - ney shock der den!--Vintagekits (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Lets not rewards edit warring. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Against not that it matters it seems

1. locked pages stay locked at whatever they ended up on else the admin would have had to take a side before they locked a page and then locked it at a particular version and that would certainly be showing bias. Sometimes you are lucky, sometimes not so you live with it and identify the correct wording that the admins feel would have a broad support. Given that the article claims that this group have been classified as a proscribed terrorist group in the United Kingdom and as an illegal organisation in the Republic of Ireland then it is very relevant to the LEDE to show what this means in human terms. It would be an emotional bias if they mentioned animals killed but I think we can live with just listing a round figure of humans injured and killed with further detail on exact body-counts in the main text. Ttiotsw (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"locked pages stay locked at whatever they ended up" - not true, read the protection policy. It says "Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists." Therefore there is no reason to maintain an incorrect version is there? O Fenian (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I also said "identify the correct wording that the admins feel would have a broad support". I think the current version supports the lede. It makes little sense having a group that has been classified as terrorist/illegal by all the authorities involved without us referring to a summary of the reason why they have been proscribed, which for terrorism etc, is usually either a list of bombings or if it is easier summary of kills and injuries. Given the complaint just seems to be a subtle difference in some numbers it seems fine for the next two weeks. If the reference is unreliable then show how it is wrong. Ttiotsw (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

So you are in favour of the article underestimating the number of people injured by using 1986 figures that exclude certain areas? O Fenian (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Mate, what I've been saying is we can edit the article promptly to include that the figures are only up to 1986 and exclude certain areas if you can come up with wording that is agreeable to the other party in dispute. We want the article to be clear, and the sooner we have agreed wording the sooner that can happen. Nja 17:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Then put it where it belongs, ie at the start of this section maybe, and remove it from this incorrect section. Nobody is saying the information shouldn't be in the article somewhere, but why should the reader be misled while we are discussing where? O Fenian (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Come up with actual wording and where you'd put it and ask the other editor on their talk page to look at it. If it's agreed then we're done here and can move on. Nja 17:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Mooretwin will disagree with anything I propose, he always does. So we will just be stuck here, and the reader suffers. Hurray for Misplaced Pages! O Fenian (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It's worth a go. I'd really like to see what you come up with. I can't comment on any other issues this article may have, but on this one I'll do my best to get it sorted. Do take a stab at it. Nja 17:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The two issues are separate anyway. The first issue is whether a factually inaccurate statement should be removed from the lead, the second issue is the wording of a new statement and where it should go in the article. One can be solved without solving the other, so how about improving the encyclopedia for our readers someone? O Fenian (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I may not entirely agree with your assessment of the issues, however if you come up with new wording and it's agreed it's not to be in the lead then it will be removed. Thus the quicker it's sorted the quicker both issues can be resolved. Please do provide your draft as soon as practicable, as I'd like to see it. Nja 18:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll come up with a new wording once the reader is no longer misled, and not before. O Fenian (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Then you truly do not care about having this 'misleading' info removed, as if you did you would work to sorting the dispute so that the article could be unprotected to the new agreed version promptly. Nja 18:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. I know that as long as incorrect information remains in the article and will not be removed until there is agreement, then Mooretwin will not agree. Until you take away his power to stall by refusing to agree, nothing will happen. So we can sit here and twiddle our thumbs for the next ten years, or the issue can be forced by removing the incorrect information? And to think, doing so would benefit the encyclopedia by not misleading the reader too! O Fenian (talk)

1. David McKittrick, Seamus Kelters, Brian Feeney and Chris Thornton (1999) ‘’Lost Lives: The stories of the men, women and children who died as a result of the Northern Ireland troubles’’. Edinburgh: Mainstream Publishing Company Ltd. ISBN 1 84018 227 X
2. Brendan O'Brien, The Long War - The IRA and Sinn Féin
3. David McKittrick, Seamus Kelters, Brian Feeney and Chris Thornton (1999) ‘’Lost Lives: The stories of the men, women and children who died as a result of the Northern Ireland troubles’’. Edinburgh: Mainstream Publishing Company Ltd. ISBN 1 84018 227 X
4. Brendan O'Brien, The Long War - The IRA and Sinn Féin

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Northern Ireland-related articles
• Top-importance Northern Ireland-related articles
• All WikiProject Northern Ireland pages
• B-Class Irish republicanism articles
• Top-importance Irish republicanism articles
• WikiProject Irish republicanism articles
• B-Class Ireland articles
• High-importance Ireland articles
• B-Class Ireland articles of High-importance
• All WikiProject Ireland pages
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• Unassessed Terrorism articles
• Mid-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• Selected anniversaries (July 2008)
• Selected anniversaries (July 2009)
• Misplaced Pages semi-protected edit requests