Wikipedia

Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army/Archive 7

< Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Throwaway85 in topic British Army v British Armed Forces
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

European Union

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

"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;

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 [1] 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

Latest comment: 15 years ago39 comments6 people in discussion

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[ies] Plural, since the terms are not the same
The Provisionals, by contrast, advocated a robust armed defence of nationalists and [of] Catholics in the north is clearer
in protest at their failure to defend nationalist and[/or] 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 [in] Catholic areas is clearer
as being defenders of Irish nationalist and [of] Catholic people against aggression is clearer
Governmental apparatus in Northern Ireland were biased against the nationalist [members] and [the] 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 Wikipedia policy will be reveted. O Fenian (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
What Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. BigDuncTalk 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, "[the Officials] 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

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

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?

[2] seems clear to me for the Alliance Party. [3] 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)
An official news release from an agent authorized to speak on behalf of the organization as a whole should count as representative of the official views of the organization. In fact, I believe that's the whole point of a news release. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Lede redraft complete

Latest comment: 15 years ago19 comments8 people in discussion

Right, I declare that we're done (enough to implement the redraft and go from there). The draft is archived at PIRA/PIRAlededraft (later mvoed to Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army/draft). The article is unprotected. I've copied the Consequent Corrections section below. Rd232 talk 19:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Im ok with the current wording, its certainly far better than the previous intro. Will need to see how others feel about the lenght though, if different people raise concerns it may need to be looked into again. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Of course. Wikipedia is always a work in progress. Rd232 talk 22:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
There was disagreement about the inclusion of the word 'responsible' in the lede. 'Implicated', or 'connected with' were the less pov terms. Don't know how that got back in when there was no consensus for it. Tfz 12:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
That's not what I recall from the discussion, but you can re-open the issue if you think it necessary. Rd232 talk 13:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I strongly opposed the term implicated of connected with are far to weak terms to use, and they are not what the source says. As an example i made before the BBC were implicated in the dead of Dr David Kelly, it doesnt mean they murdered him. The source for the figures talks of the people they killed so saying "believed to be responsible for the deaths of.." seems like a reasonable way of presenting the information. It was originally just that they killed so and so many people, we added believed which people from all sides seemed to support. But again, i strongly oppose "Connected with" or "implicated" these are totally unacceptable terms. In truth the IRA are connected with or implicated in the deaths of many more people than we list. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Harry Truman had a motto on his desk in the Oval Office that read "the buck stops here". My interpretation is that the Westminster government was responsible for all that happened in NI, for not ensuring that civil rights were afforded to the nationalist community. Westminster cannot be absolved to the events of the war there, as they are very culpable for the conditions that led up to the troubles. That is my 'point of view', so the lede is not npov, in my opinion. Tfz 14:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
A sovereign state has the right to defend its citizens and territory. There is only one side to blame for the people who murdered 1800 people, thats the murderers themselves that were part of this group. That is ofcourse my opinion and there are bits in the introduction id like to see changed too, but i think the current intro is fairly reasonable, its certainly more informative. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
@tfz - In context it's clear what "responsible for" means - direct and proximate responsibility; any indirect historical government responsibility is clearly separate. @ BritishWatcher - can you avoid using emotive terms like "murderers"? It's not helpful. Rd232 talk 14:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, couldnt help myself. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm very neutral on all this period, and can see from all sides on this issue, so relax BW. To quote, "direct and proximate responsibility", unquote, is implicit in the sentence? Could be, but it is 'open' to reader interpretaion. Tfz 15:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I expect that most "readers" will be able to work out that the PIRA murdered many innocent people, whichever way you want to dress it up.

TfZ's comments indicate why "responsible for" is inadequate, as it has a much wider meaning than "killed", which is what the figures relate to. As TfZ points out, it is possible to argue that, say, the Government was responsible for all the deaths in the Troubles, yet this would not mean that the Government killed everyone in the conflict. Mooretwin (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The people who planted the bombs, and pulled the triggers are responsible for the deaths and injuries. It's as simple as that. Anyone who argues otherwise needs their lumps checked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.165.28 (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the attempts to water down the sentence on the death toll. "Is believed to.." deals with the original concerns raised, there is no further need to waterdown the statement. The current agreed wording should remain. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose all you like if it is not an exact number then it can only be believed that they may have...BigDunc 18:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
no, it is believed they are responsible for the deaths of 1800 people, there is no need for adding "they may". They may have been responsible for a hell of alot more deaths, this is not an estimate.. its based on extensive research which gets used by mainstream organisations and reliable 3rd parties. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If there is no exact number it can only be believed that they may have..., what we believed they are responsible for is of no import. 1800is an estimate. --Domer48'fenian' 09:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

As can be seen from the footnotes from that sentence, there are two exact numbers, which are fairly similar and therefore merged in the lede for brevity whilst specified in detail in the footnotes - we debated this at length. Neither number is an estimate - they are intended to be precise. And the phrasing "is believed to have been responsible for" refers to what those two reliable sources say, not what "we"(who? editors here?) believe. By all means re-debate this again (the cows will come home eventually), but don't do so from incorrect premises, or with wording that would strip the sentence of all meaning ("may have" would suggest they may not have been responsible for any). Rd232 talk 09:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with the current wording. If someone wants to say that the IRA, Sinn Fein, or any nationalist organization disputes the totals, then I'm good with that too, provided that it's properly sourced. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Origins

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The current "Origins" section is divided into two sub-sections with a lot of overlap and a lot of redundancy. Both sections - but particularly the first - are poorly written and poorly sourced. I would like to combine them, trim them and polish them. First, however, there are several things taken for granted in the article that I think are worthy of closer examination and some discussion: (1) When did the split occur? (2) Were there differences over the question of how to respond to the violence of August? (3) What were the causes of the split? and (4) How did the Provisional IRA actually originate? I will be referring to four books: Bowyer Bell, The Secret Army, Bishop and Mallie, The Provisional IRA, Taylor, Provos and the first edition of Coogan, The IRA. If anything I say is contradicted by other sources please let me know.

  1. In general, the books do not say that there were two IRAs from the date of the Army Convention or the formation of the Provisional Army Council. What they do say is open to interpretation, but I would read all of them as saying that at that time there was one IRA and two groups fighting for control of it. If Mac Stíofáin and other IRA members had completely sundered their connection with that organisation, would they have attended a Sinn Féin Ard Fheis convened by the leadership of that organisation? Obviously they intended to sunder the connection at the Ard Fheis, and did. And that is the sense that I get from the sources. Bowyer Bell does (pp. 366-7) refer to the "Provisional IRA" and the "other IRA" when talking of December 1969, but later on p. 367, while talking of the Ard Fheis in January 1970, he says "Those opposed to the IRA policy realized they could not secure control of the Ard Fheis...", "If the IRA persisted...then the true, traditional republicans would not follow", and "The anti-abstentionists called for a resolution supporting IRA policy..." IRA is singular and unqualified every time. Taylor (p. 67), also talking about the Ard Fheis, says simply, "The historic split was complete. The 'Provos' were born." Seán Mac Stíofáin, in an interview with PBS, when asked with reference to the Ard Fheis, "And that's how the provisional IRA was born?", replied "Born, no, that's Sinn Fein. Three weeks before the IRA."[4] What I am suggesting here is that the split was a process that didn't end until January 1970.
  2. None of the four books make any mention of differences over the question of how to respond to the violence of August 1969. What all of them do say is that the Dublin leadership, for political reasons, refused to prepare for aggressive action in advance of the violence, and that the leadership was heavily criticised for that. But when the violence happened, the response of everyone in the movement was the same: to arm and get out and make sure it couldn't happen again. Bishop and Mallie tell us that Billy McMillen (later OC of the Officials) was arrested on 15 August "at home where he was snatching a few hours sleep after organising the IRA actions through the night" (p. 115). Jim Sullivan (later 2IC of the Officials) "took the lead in organising the Catholic defences once calm had returned" (p. 122). Everybody, up to and including Cathal Goulding, set about getting arms into the North (p. 121). After an initial stand-off, McMillen and the traditionalists worked together for the defence of West Belfast (Taylor, pp. 61-3). Recriminations, then, but no differences over how to respond.
  3. According to all the books, the issues behind the split were two-fold: the ending of abstention and the formation of a 'National Liberation Front' i.e. a formal alliance with parties of the far left. Coogan says, "the idea of a 'National Liberation Front' had come very close to giving Moscow a voice in an Irish national movement for the first time in history" p. 429). The Sinn Féin Caretaker Executive gave the reasons for the split "other than the resolution on abstentionism: the leadership's support of extreme socialism leading to totalitarian dictatorship, the failure to protect the people of the North in August, the suggestion that Stormont should be abolished and the North come under direct Westminster rule, and finally the internal methods of operation within the Movement since 1964 which expelled the faithful and replaced them with people interested 'in a more radical form of movement'" (An Phoblacht, quoted in Bowyer Bell, p. 368) According to that, the 'failure to protect the people of the North' was only one of a number of causes of the split, but according to Billy McKee, interviewed by Peter Taylor, it wasn't a cause at all! "(Taylor) So the real reason for the split was ideological. It wasn't anything to do with the failure to defend nationalists? (McKee) No, no, it was nothing to do with that" (Taylor, p. 86).
  4. So, if the violence of August wasn't the cause of the split, was the split the origin of the Provisionals. I don't think it was. I believe what became "the IRA" arose directly out of the violence of August and would have arisen regardless of any split. The split only provided it with a moniker and a rival army. Many retired or semi-retired IRA men came back to the fold after August and formed the nucleus of what would become the Provisionals. The organisation was in place long before the split occurred. Joe Cahill, Seamus Twomey, Dáithí Ó Conaill and several other future leaders came together in Belfast on 24 August, a week after the fighting ended and four months before the Army Convention, intending to remove the Belfast leadership and turn back to traditional republicanism. Although McMillen stayed in command on that occasion, he was told it was only for three months and he was not to have any communication with Dublin (Bishop and Mallie, p. 125).

To sum up, rather than say, as our fine new lead has it, "It emerged out of the December 1969 split of the Irish Republican Army due to differences over ideology and over how to respond to violence against the nationalist community", it would be more accurate to say "It emerged in response to violence against the nationalist community in August 1969, and a split in the Irish Republican Army over ideological issues - the ending of abstentionism and the adoption of Marxist policies - following the Army Convention of December 1969." Scolaire (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, but let's be sure to clarify who was advocating the end of absentionism and who had adopted Marxist policies. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
That will be clear, don't worry :-) Scolaire (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Remuneration

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Were volunteers paid? I know that's an oxymoron, but bear with me. I'm not talking about the alleged profiting by leaders, but the rank file volunteers. Obviously most had normal lives and careers away from their IRA involvement, but would they have been officially paid or compensated? Or would this have just been limited to supporting the on the runs? This is more out of interest than anything, I doubt it could be sourced. Does the Green Book mention anything like this? Stu ’Bout ye! 12:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No Volunteers were never paid anything and I am almost certain that the Green Book says nothing about monies being paid either. And volunteers on the run lived off the generosity of supporters and most found work while on the run in the 26 counties or America. BigDunc 12:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Something outlining the communal benefits of membership (lodging, food, etc) may be appropriate to include, but it would need a good source due to the POV accusations that would arise. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I have seen more than one source say Volunteers were paid £20 a week. This may be northern based ones as due to their security situation they were unable to sign on, even ones who were not OTR were reluctant to do so as it gave surveillance operators a chance to pick them up. O Fenian (talk) 22:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Current IRA activity

Latest comment: 15 years ago162 comments13 people in discussion

Added the word "unsuccessfully" as Northern Ireland remains within the United Kingdom, hence PIRA's abandoned military campaign was obviously unsuccessful, if the aims ascribed to PIRA by the article are accurate. Irvine22 (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That is your opinion which does not belong in this article. The IRA still exists, and still seeks to change the status of Northern Ireland only in different ways. O Fenian (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The Provisional IRA may still exist, but it has abandoned its military campaign, as the article currently notes. Northern Ireland remains within the United Kingdom today, and remained within the U.K. at the date of PIRA's announcement of an end to its armed struggle. Northern Ireland's status within the U.K. is univerally recognized by international bodies and other states, including the Irish Republic. Therefore, it seems clear that while, as the article currently states, PIRA sought by force of arms to remove N.I. from the U.K., it was ultimately unsuccessful in that aim. That is a matter of fact, not opinion. JonnieIrvine (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

O Fenian, I suggest we not try and discuss anything with someone who feels the need to use sockpuppets to support their POV-warring. "Both" users have a history of disruptive and insulting editting, and we shouldn't encourage "them" in the meantime. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Throwaway85, I regret that you seem to be unable to conduct a civil discussion and assume good faith. I shall assume that you are unable to contest my comment about Northern Ireland's status with the U.K. on its merits. JonnieIrvine (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

As anyone who has been involved in the recent debates on this page can tell you, I have no problem either debating or compromising with those whose opinions differ from my own. I strongly dislike POV warriors, however, and your attempts to WP:GAME are rather transparent. If you would like me to AGF, then edit in good faith to begin with. Otherwise, perhaps some other page might benefit from your collaboration. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
There is no need to assume good faith with editors who abuse sockpuppets. Your comments deliberately leave out the IRA's twin strategy, namely the use of political persuasion. As the IMC notes the IRA is committed to the political path, meaning even they recognise that the IRA's struggle has not ended but merely transformed. Thus any talk of success or failure is premature. O Fenian (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I was going to say something similar, but I didn't want to feed the troll. Now that he's banned it's a non-issue.Throwaway85 (talk) 01:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

O Fenian, I understand your concern about taking PIRA's new strategy of political persuasion into account. I just don't agree that it's any longer a twin strategy as such. In 2005 - as the article currently states - PIRA officially gave up armed struggle without attaining its goal of a united Ireland, and became EXCLUSIVELY committed to peaceful means of persuasion. I would like to see the opening sentence of the article reflect this fact. So I would like to solicit opinions on possibly replacing the current first sentence with these two new sentences: "The Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) is an Irish republican paramilitary organisation which sought unsuccessfully to remove Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom and bring about a united Ireland by force of arms. It continues to pursue these aims by exclusively peaceful means." I feel this accurately reflects the violent history of PIRA, and also it's later abandonment of violence to pursue peaceful means of resolution. Irvine22 (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No.Throwaway85 (talk) 04:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I am ok with the current wording and see no need for change which would be highly controversial and problematic. Ofcourse the IRA failed and were unsuccesful, but thats pointed out by the fact they disarmed despite Northern Ireland remaining part of the UK. its clear they failed. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Come on now, there's no need for that. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Just pointing out that what Irvine is suggesting is true, but its already pointed out in the intro that they failed in their primary goal and disarmed so there is no need for a change. There clearly is justification to say "Unsuccessfully", in the first sentence but considering we recently re did the whole intro i dont think we should make such a big change now which clearly some are going to oppose. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
As far as I am aware the PIRA (or other republic movements for that matter) have not given up the goal of a united Ireland, but the tactics have (thankfully) changed. That also required changes in Unionist goals and tactics. To call any of that a failure is specious, at attempt to impose a POV onto an evolving political situation. --Snowded TALK 11:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that's a fair assessment of things. I really didn't want to get into a debate on this due to the idiocy/trolltacularity of the editor who brought it up, but I think it's clear from the article that the military campaign did not directly result in complete and utter dissociation from NI on the part of the UK. The "unsuccessfully" addition, however, reeks of POV. Furthermore, I don't think it adds anything to the lede that is not already spelled out fairly clearly. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
It would ofcourse depend on the wording. They sought to remove Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom, by use of violence. This approach was 100% unsuccessful, and there would be no POV issues by putting that in the introduction (not that im asking for it to be added). Im sorry but there is no wishy washy way around this. These people attempted to use violence to bring about a united Ireland, and yet the union flag flys in Belfast to this day, the majority wish to remain part of the United Kingdom, and this illegal group has disarmed despite its primary goal not being achieved. Only in the 21st century Western world could we not describe that as a defeat for this group or at the very least say it was "unsuccessful"!
Unionist goals and tactics did have to change, but be under no illusion which side caved the most. Whilst loyalist groups have rightly started to disarm now they no longer need to defend themselves from attacks, i fail to see the big concessions by Her Majesty's Government that isnt repeated in Scotland where no violence was used. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
BritishWatcher, I think you are basically right about this, but I also think you were right when you previously indicated that it would be too controversial at this time to charcterize PIRA's armed campaign as "unsuccessful" or "failed" in the text of the article. It is increasingly viewed in those terms, however, even by those who supported it, and I don't doubt that after a few more years have passed it will be no more controversial to say PIRA failed than it is to say the Stickies failed. (As the article does at present). Irvine22 (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


To be clear, I am not suggesting that the new lede should use the word "failed" or "failure" about PIRA's abandoned campaign of armed force. (Although I do note the article currently characterizes the IRA's prior "Border Campaign" as "failed".) I am happy also to do without "unsuccessful" as there seems to be no consensus around it. I think ultimately my concern can be narrowed down to a question of tense - the current first sentence of the article says that PIRA "sought...by force of arms and political persuasion." The past tense is correct as applied to PIRA's use of force of arms, as the article goes on to make clear PIRA has given up armed struggle, but incorrect as applied to PIRA's use of political persuasion which, as O Fenian points out, is an on-going effort. So how about this as a compromise:

"The Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) is an Irish republican paramilitary organisation which previously sought to remove Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom and bring about a united Ireland by force of arms, and which currently seeks to pursue these aims by exclusively peaceful and democratic means."

I think this deals with the issue of tense, and encapsulates the journey taken by PIRA over the past decade, from traditional physical-force republicanism to something very like constitutional nationalism, in the context of on-going partition. Irvine22 (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think when you abuse sockpuppets, you lose the right to be taken seriously. Bye now. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Throwaway85 - Okay, so you have no substantive arguments against my new proposed first sentence above. Still, I'll wait a couple of days to allow others to comment before making the edit. (And you say "bye now" like you're going somewhere?) Irvine22 (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. Allow me to clarify: By "lose the right to be taken seriously", I mean you don't deserve to have your point considered or addressed. This article has recently been the victim of POV edit-warring, which took some time to clean up. You came in with your POV warrior nonsense and your sockpuppetry, and now when that's been exposed you expect to be taken seriously? I repeat: You have lost that right. Your argument doesn't matter. I don't care what your point is, you have lost the right to have it be discussed. I claim no disagreement with your central thesis. I simply will not reward your behaviour by acknowledging your points. You don't get to act like an ass then try and start a normal conversation when your behaviour is exposed. If you were to act like a normal person, come in here and start a reasonable discussion about your proposed edit, then I would have had no problem discussing it and implementing something. Instead, you acted like a jackass. If you would like to explain and apologize for your behaviour, then I don't think anyone would have a problem forgiving you and moving forward. Until then, no, you do not deserve to have your point discussed. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your clarification has merely sown more confusion. One the one hand you claim that you will not acknowledge my points, on the other you claim that you do not disagree with my central thesis. How that becomes a coherent position is unclear to me. In any case, I feel I should point out that this page is for discussion of the PIRA article. If you would rather discuss me, you may do so on my talk page.Irvine22 (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I made no such claim. Read again. "I claim no disagreement with your central thesis." I'm not responding to your argument at all. If you would like to discuss the points you have raised, I would be more than happy to do so once you apologize for your previous behaviour. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, you claim no disagreement with my central thesis, which is that the current first sentence of the article has an inherent problem of tense that affects accuracy and clarity, and should be tweaked along the lines I have suggested above. I will continue to wait before making the edit, to give others a chance to comment also. Irvine22 (talk) 04:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Absence of dissent is not the same as consent. I'm pointedly ignoring your argument until you apologize, because to do otherwise would be to tacitly condone your behaviour, which I do not. I encourage others to similarly refuse to engage you until you apologize, publicly and unequivocally.Throwaway85 (talk) 05:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You have already engaged my point above, but of course you are under no obligation to further engage, and it's fine with me if you choose not to. Irvine22 (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You do not have agreement to make any change - lets make that clear. Otherwise will someone tell me why this guy is still editing when his user page says he has been blocked indefinitely? --Snowded TALK 05:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, this page is for discussion of the PIRA article. If you prefer to discuss me, you may do so on my talk page. Irvine22 (talk) 06:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't try to game us. I, for one, will make damned sure that anybody who reads your contributions knows the behaviour of the person making them. What you did was unacceptable; you don't get to pretend that it didn't happen. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Fine by me, as long as your efforts to do so don't constitute harrassment. Irvine22 (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
If you are editing the page, and you are creating socks its very relevant. To be honest I can't see how this has been allowed, normally the ban is immediate and indefinite --Snowded TALK 06:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Look, I understand that the arcane procedures of Wikipedia are of great import to some around here. Personally, I'm more interested in substance.Irvine22 (talk) 06:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
A sock is a sock, and without an apology I would expect your ban to be permanent. Issues of substance include attempting to cheat the system. As it is your arguments have been answered. One bit of advice, an apology now on your talk page would be advisable, without that I think the case can be made for your ban to be permanent. --Snowded TALK 07:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Obviously, I can't be responsible for your expectations. And no, my point about the clear problem with the use of past tense in the first sentence of the article hasn't been answered. Irvine22 (talk) 13:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you would find you would more enjoy contributing to a site without such "arcane procedures". As for continuing to try and push your edit without taking responsibility for your behaviour, I can tell you that I, for one, will actively oppose it.
Man up, or get out. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that's the second time you've suggested I leave the site and/or this article. I understand if you feel proprietorial about the article, as you have evidently been working on it for a while, but I think you might reflect that Wikipedia aspires to be a cooperative project, accessible to anyone with an internet connection. I am informed by Wikipedia that my constructive edits are welcome, and I intend to continue to make them. Irvine22 (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
We should just clear up this past tense matter as it is an important issue. Today, does the PIRA actively seek to bring about a united Ireland through peaceful / political means? or do its former members just do that through other means (not in the name of PIRA)? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, in its 2005 statement PIRA said that it would work exclusively through such means in the future. User O Fenian may have information about how PIRA does/has done so?Irvine22 (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
As was famously stated before, they haven't gone away you know, so to try and imply that the IRA were unsuccessful is premature in the extreme. BigDunc 16:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I understand that they haven't gone away. But they have given up the attempt to remove N.I. from the U.K. by armed struggle and disarmed. They have stated that they are now pursuing that goal through exclusively peaceful and democratic means. A bit like the SDLP, but in balaclavas. Britishwatcher, addressing my concern about the use of past tense in the first sentence of the article, is asking how PIRA is currently working through peaceful means. I think it's a good question, and one that O Fenian, who made claims about the present activities of PIRA above, can presumably answer?Irvine22 (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I did not make any claims, other than reporting what reliable sources say. Given you cannot produce any reliable sources to confirm what you say, that would seem to make you wrong? O Fenian (talk)17:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, O Fenian, you made the follwoing claim: "The IRA still exists, and still seeks to change the status of Northern Ireland only in different ways". If you were able to provide us information about the ways PIRA is active on an ongoing basis, it might be helpful as we grope towards consensus on the question of tense. Irvine22 (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

A statement that PIRA was unsuccessful can only go in if there is a source to support it. Editors' individual understandings of the success or otherwise of the PIRA campaign are not relevant. Mooretwin (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Lets please forget about the "unsuccessful" bit and deal with the past tense issue.
BigDunc has just said: "As was famously stated before, they haven't gone away you know, so to try and imply that the IRA were unsuccessful is premature in the extreme."
If that is the case this article is incorrect and misleading in the introduction and something does need to be urgently changed. If this is still an active organisation which simply has given up violence, why does the introduction not clearly state this?
It currently says "The Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) is an Irish republican paramilitary organisation which sought to remove Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom and bring about a united Ireland by force of arms and political persuasion" "which sought" as mentioned by Irvine is only in the past tense. This matter needs to be clarified, and it can no longer simply be dismissed because it was raised by Irvine. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. To debate his point now without him acknowledging his behaviour tacitly condones said behaviour. I have no problem debating the point, but he needs to take responsibility, and stop trying to game the debate. I was unhappy with the fact that Cromwellian Conquest came in here, doing many of the same things as Irvine22, and still managed to get his points included. It shows a fundamental disrespect for other editors, and for the process that leads to good articles. It should not be encouraged by acknowledging his points. Looking at Irvine22's previous contributions and talk page, he has been completely unrepentant in his behaviour, and seems to believe that the rules do not apply to him. The rules exist specifically to stop behaviour like his. I, for one, will actively block any attempt to include Irvine22's points before he takes responsibility for his unacceptable behaviour. If he is unwilling to do so, then I suggest we ignore him until he goes away. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
He has been punished for his original actions and i hope he does not engage in them again, id rather he avoid making any edits to the article and just raise his concerns here first to get feedback, also he has accepted there is no agreement here to add "unsuccessfully" to the article, which was his original change. However the issue raised is a very important one which does put into doubt the accuracy of the introduction. If we are simply going to block any further action on this matter because it was raised by Irvine, i think we will need a tag or two on the article, because at the moment it appears to be incorrect or misleading. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm simply more concerned about allowing POV editors and sockers to get their way without any real consequence, which he seems to be doing a good job of so far. If he were to simply copy/paste the following "I'm sorry for my previous actions. In the future I will show more respect for my fellow editors and attempt to seek consensus on the talk page, rather than unilaterally edit a contentious article to fit my views and use sockpuppets to avoid blocks" then I would have no problem talking about his points. I think that's pretty fair. Throwaway85 (talk)
Thanks for the suggestion, but I prefer to put my money where my mouth is.(You don't know many Ulstermen, do you?) Irvine22 (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I know many. Most of them care more about personal honour and integrity than you seem to. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
It's a pity you are reduced to personal attacks. I suppose that's what happens when you opt out of substantive discussion of the article, and just can't seem to sit on your hands Irvine22 (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
My "attacks", as you call them, are based solely on your behaviour and attempts to whitewash it. I feel no reservation in calling a spade a spade, nor do I feel embarassment in calling you out. I would like to say that I'm sure you are a very nice person in real life, but your behaviour and shameless attempts to claim the moral high ground while standing nowhere in sight of it would make that claim dishonest. If, as you say, you are only interested in the quality of the article, then I'm sure you will have no problem accepting responsibility and showing contrition for actions you have taken to undermine it. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, no, I'm not a very nice person in real life. Not at all. But neither am I claiming the moral high ground. I'm claiming the first sentence of the article has problems and I'm offering solutions to those problems. I'll say again - if you want to "call me out" as you put it, the place to do so would be my talk page. Irvine22 (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

19:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Well in that case, I'm sure you wouldn't object to an apology in the interests of moving forward and improving the article. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
No, if you want to make an apology I have no objection at all. Irvine22 (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
lmao, Throwaway walked right into that one with the wording in the previous post :) BritishWatcher (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I think this is a valid question, and there's probably no easy answer. To what extent does the (P)IRA now still exist as an active organisation? To the extent it does, it clearly is pursuing its stated goals by political means; but isn't the political route largely if not entirely borne by Sinn Fein? If the organisation is semi-dormant then the correct tense is rather hard to determine (possibly rephrasing the sentence would help then). I think this is the nub of the matter, and it's on these issues that sources should be sought, but others may differ. Rd232 talk 19:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I know very little about this matter and the article doesnt appear to answer the question either. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, absent sources for PIRA's on-going peaceful political activities maybe the quickest fix here would be to tweak the first sentence of the article to read:
""The Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) WAS an Irish republican paramilitary organisation which sought to remove Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom and bring about a united Ireland by force of arms and political persuasion"?Irvine22 (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Per Throwaway, I will not debate with an unrepentant puppetmaster. In answer to Rd32, the best solution might be to say only, "...which seeks to remove Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom and bring about a united Ireland." Force of arms and political persuasion are both dealt with in the lead, and also in the first paragraph of the lead. The sources do not say that the IRA is in the past, nor that its aims have changed. Scolaire (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Scolaire, I agree that the tense should be tweaked so that it agrees throughout the sentence. The problem with making it all agree in present tense, as you suggest, is that PIRA has given up trying to remove NI from the UK by force of arms. Unless you are perhaps also suggesting removing any reference to PIRA's past use of force from the first sentence? Irvine22 (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Per Throwaway, I will not debate with an unrepentant puppetmaster. Scolaire (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
And, like Throwaway, you are under no obligation so to do. There seem to be plenty of other people who do want to move the discussion forward. Irvine22 (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
So that would make it "The Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) is an Irish republican paramilitary organisation which seeks to remove Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom and bring about a united Ireland." An alternative might be adding dates: "The Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) is an Irish republican paramilitary organisation which from 1969 to 2005 sought to remove Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom and bring about a united Ireland by force of arms and political persuasion; and continues to seek those goals by political persuasion." Bit clumsy though. Rd232 talk 20:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea of specifying dates - although I'm not sure 2005 is the right one. The IRA's ceasefire of 1997 is the end-date currently used in the Wikipedia article on PIRA's 1969-97 campaign of armed force. And of course the Belfast Agreement came in 1998. Also, the question of precisely how PIRA continues to seek those goals through political persuasion remains unanswered. Does PIRA actually do anything anymore? If so, what? Irvine22 (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
@Rd232, the shorter sentence is what I am suggesting. I think it says everything that needs to be said. The rest is said elsewhere. Scolaire (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually the on-going political activities of PIRA (if such there are) are not detailed elsewhere in the article. So the shorter sentence would have a problem of verifiablity at present. Irvine22 (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I strongly oppose removing the fact they used violence from the first sentence. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose the use of violence was the defining feature of PIRA for much of its existence. And once it abandoned violence, as we are discovering in our discussions here, it becomes quite hard to define. What does PIRA actually do, these days, on a day-to-day basis? The article gives us no real information on that at present. Irvine22 (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Once again, Irvine, you've shown your lack of maturity through your disruptive edits. You've already been blocked once, and you just got reported again. Seriously, find something better to do with your time until you grow up. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I take that back. I take it all back. You're actually a fairly highly skilled troll, and I respect that. You blew your cover with that last edit. Had you continued in your prior course of action, you likely could have succeeded in dividing the editors here and resuming the flame war that was previously going on. Unfortunately, you jumped the gun. Pity.Throwaway85 (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
You mean the insertion of "moribund"? That seems to me to reflect where we are in this discussion, as no one seems to be able to say what PIRA actually does anymore, if anything. We know it has given up violence and disarmed, but we don't have any information (and the article doesn't make clear) how it is presently engaged in political persuasion. Irvine22 (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

So what are we going to do about this article introduction, its getting close to the stage were some tags will have to be added to warn people the information could be incorrect. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions? There's been a few, why don't we pick the one we like the best and modify it so it sounds right. I think Rd232 had one that would provide a good starting point. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I also like Rd232's terminology that PIRA is "dormant" (or perhaps "moribund")? So that would be a new first sentence beginning:

"The Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) is a (dormant?/moribund?) Irish republican paramilitary organisation..." Irvine22 (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't imply I'm supporting your view. I said "If the organisation is semi-dormant then the correct tense is rather hard to determine..." I didn't say it was or wasn't - we don't have sources for that. Rd232 talk 19:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
And neither do we have sources for its on-going actvities in the area of political persuasion (or indeed any on-going actvities at all, it would seem.) Hence the problem with the use of present tense in the first sentence. Irvine22 (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
In the absence of evidence that they've closed up shop, the present language must remain- changing it now would certainly be an unsourced addition to the article. --King Öomie 19:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
How very NPOV of you. Also appreciate how you went ahead and editted that without consulting anyone, especially after what happened last time you did that.Throwaway85 (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I liked "The Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) is an Irish republican paramilitary organisation which from 1969 to 2005 sought to remove Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom and bring about a united Ireland by force of arms and political persuasion;" it was the last bit i didnt like where it talks about what they do today. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, although I would like to see a source which details their current activities, as they should get a mention.Throwaway85 (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Also looking at another bit of that first paragraph.. "It formally ended its campaign in 2005", perhaps that needs to be changed to armed struggle or violent campaign? Maybe we could move up the bit about "Until 2005 when they".. and attach that onto the end of the proposed wording above for the first sentence. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Right, what do they do today? If nothing, then surely PIRA is dormant? Or moribund? Irvine22 (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Ive no idea, if they dont do anything today then we should be saying it was paramilitary group, if they do do something we need more details, sources and should explain it in the intro aswell as in far more detail in the article itself. One of those two things is needed, otherwise it just doesnt explain the situation properly and needs some tags. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, the IMC report, linked to below, says that PIRA's "so called military departments have ceased to function and have been disbanded." So it seems pretty clear that we can't say it *is* a paramilitary organisation. It was one once, but it evidently no longer has military capability. Irvine22 (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with that source, but I wouldn't mind a republican one as well. It still is a paramilitary organization, with some, albeit diminished, military capability. I think something along the lines of saying that it is no longer militarily active should suffice. We have sources that say they vowed to focus on political means, but no recent sources to say what those means have been, shy of individual members joining Sinn Fein. Thus it is premature to say they are a "were", as it were. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I would be in favor of describing PIRA as an "inactive Irish republican paramilitary organisation". I'd even be content to say it *is* an inactive paramilitary organisation. Irvine22 (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Part of the problem in rewording the sentence stems from identifying the date when they ceased to be militarily active. Do you take 2005, or 1997? I think the best approach would be to say that they have been militarily inactive since the 1997 ceasefire, and that they disarmed and committed to pursue purely peaceful means of unification in 2005. That's wordy as hell though, and it doesn't address the first sentence. I would like to say something along the lines of "The Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) is an Irish republican paramilitary organisation, no longer militarily active, which sought to remove Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom and bring about a united Ireland by force of arms and political persuasion. In 2005, it ended its armed campaign and pledged to pursue purely peaceful means of unifications." Or thereabouts. Simply saying that they are inactive ignores the commitment to pursue unification through peaceful means. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I think "no longer militarily active" is a good formulation. There remains the question of precisely how PIRA is pursuing unification by peaceful means.Irvine22 (talk) 05:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The only source we have on the matter tells of them ending their armed campaign to pursue peaceful unification in 2005. I don't think we have a more recent source that details what they, as an organization, are currently up to in that regard. If one could be found, then that question could be answered. As it is, I think we have to stick to what our current sources say. Also, we need to be sticking to what the article itself says, as the lede is merely a summary of the main article. Any substantive changes we make to the lede need to be reflected in the article. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, we have the Sept 2008 report of the IMC, which questions what PIRA membership means "in the absence of activity". Said report also states that the so-called military departments of PIRA have been shut down, which presents another problem for the article, as the "Organisation" section currently refers to those structures in the present tense. Irvine22 (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

'Moribund'

Loaded term. I'd suggest a more neutral adjective, like 'declining' or 'inactive'- if either of those are sourced. --King Öomie 19:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed i dont like Moribund. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I like "inactive" too. Irvine22 (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It's pointless to discuss terminology for a claim which is unsourced. I suggest adding dates to the opening sentence, and leaving it open-ended, until clarifying sources are forthcoming. Rd232 talk 19:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm currently searching through the Sinn Fein archive to see if they mention anything about the PIRA's current activities.Throwaway85 (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I found what I think is the latest report of the International Monitoring Commission (Hope it's okay to link to it?):

http://www.independentmonitoringcommission.org/documents/uploads/ACF1599.pdf from 2008 Irvine22 (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be saying that PIRA members are migrating to join Sinn Fein, and that is how they are becoming involved in peaceful political activity. So the question arises - is it accurate to say that PIRA as an organisation is involved in political persuasion when its members have to leave to join Sinn Fein to do it? Irvine22 (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Sinn Fein and the IRA have never, to my knowledge, had mutually exclusive membership. Perhaps officially, but there was always some overlap. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean when you say "Perhaps officially..."? Irvine22 (talk) 05:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
They may have denied overlapping membership, but there clearly was some.Throwaway85 (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah, yes - "was": how easily we slip into past tense when discussing PIRA. And when you say "they" denied something that was "clearly" true do you mean PIRA did? Or Sinn Fein? And how did you do at finding sources from the Sinn Fein archive, BTW?Irvine22 (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
This kind of "gotcha" remark is really unnecessary. --King Öomie 19:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. For someone who claims to be only interested in substantive debate, your comments both here and on my talk page are making that rather difficult. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC
It seems very relevant that you should choose to discuss PIRA in the past tense, as the problem we have identified with the first sentence of the article is one of tense. Also, you were saying you wanted some republican sources, and that you were searching the Sinn Fein archive for some infromation about the on-going actvities of PIRA. How does your point about Sinn Fein's "official" denial of overlapping membership with PIRA affect the credibility of Sinn Fein as a source?Irvine22 (talk) 23:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't. The BBC had many one-sided, and indeed false depictions of events in Northern Ireland. That doesn't make them an invalid source. See Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. Also, my predilection for careless typing in no way affects the metaphysical status of the PIRA as a "was" or an "is". I would like to note also that it is often when one tries hardest to be clever that one most fails to do so. Let's stick to substantive debate and set aside questions of semantics. As for Sinn Fein's website, it seems to be the result of a deliberate and determined attempt to suck. I gave up trying to find any information on it.Throwaway85 (talk) 23:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Surely questions of "is" and "was" are more existential than metaphysical? But I hear what one is saying about one trying hard to be clever. I have noticed that about one also.Irvine22 (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, see that's what I was talking about. That cringe-inducing effect you feel when you see someone trying to be clever, but failing. Metaphysics is the study of what is, being qua (as) being, whereas "existential" is most commonly used in reference to existentialism, which is concerned with the subjective experience of being. Also, you misused "one". Twice. No, you weren't trying to be ironic. You may have been attempting sarcasm, but that hardly flies as an excuse for poor grammar. Please stop trying to be clever, it's sophomoric. I consider my point made, and this conversation over. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Scientia est celare scientiam. Irvine22 (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

From section 2.8 of the report:

"2.8 Has PIRA abandoned its terrorist structures, preparations and capability? We believe that it has. The so-called “military” departments have ceased to function and have been disbanded. It has been put to us that these structural changes have had a profound and debilitating effect on the organisational capacity of PIRA. We share that view and consider that the organisation’s former terrorist capability has been lost. PIRA is not recruiting or training members and the membership continues to decline, and there is some issue as to what membership means in the absence of activity."

This does appear to offer support for the inclusion of the descriptor "declining" in the first sentence of the article? (As in "The Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) is a declining Irish republican paramilitary organisation...") Also note the question as to what PIRA "membership means in the absence of activity". A good question, I feel.Irvine22 (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

PIRA is complying with the GFA, disbanding its command structures, ceasing to recruit and is committed to a peaceful path, any edit should reflect that to provide the full context Terms like Moribund are as is said above highly loaded--Snowded TALK 04:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we can fit all that into the first sentence, but I looking forward I would agree that the article needs a much more extensive re-write. Irvine22 (talk) 05:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Does this article need warning tags??

We seem to be going round and round in circles above, and the main issue which is causing the problem has still yet to be clearly addressed. We need to be clear on if this is an active organisation that is doing other things but has given up on violence, or if its dormant / inactive or what ever term we want to use to describe it as.

This really is a very important matter, and as someone who thinks there should be a disclaimer above every single article on wikipedia to remind people this website is edited by random people, i am getting very close to adding a couple of tags to the article to warn people about potential problems. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. Sure, it's a work in progress, but it's coming along. I sympathize, however. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think warning tags are probably necessary about now. Irvine22 (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, it continues to go round and round in circles whilst this matter is not clearly addressed. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Organisation section

The "Organisation" section of the article currently refers to the military structures of PIRA in the present tense. The Sept 2008 report of the International Monitoring Commission (currently listed at 16 in the article's sources)states that those structures have "ceased to function and been disbanded"..

I therefore propose that the "Organisation" section should be edited to reflect this. Irvine22 (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, that section on military structure should all be in past tense.BritishWatcher (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
The source does not seem to say any particular structure mentioned in this article is no longer in existence. O Fenian (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually at Section 2.14 the source says: "Now that that campaign is well and truly over, the Army Council by deliberate choice is no longer operational or functional." Irvine22 (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Not "operational or functional" does not mean it is not still at the top of the hierarchy. If the organisation became active again, the Army Council would be in charge. It's current state of dormancy does not mean it no longer exists. So, I have reverted your change from "is" to "was" as it is not justified. In addition, you still have not figured out the proper way to format a reference. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 14:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
So do you perhaps think we should rewrite the "Organisation" section in the conditional tense? Irvine22 (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
See WP:Footnotes on how to format references. Rd232 talk 16:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Agree they have not been disbanded so structures I assume are still in place. BigDunc 14:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
The source says they have been disbanded. Irvine22 (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
No it does not. It says the "military structures" have, which might mean any, all or none of ASUs, Northern Command, Southern Command, GHQ, England Department, Engineering Department, Internal Security Unit, Army Executive, Army Council and so on. It does not say which structures have been disbanded. O Fenian (talk) 08:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Right it says "military" structures and all you mention are clearly military structures. (Source also specifically says that PIRA is no longer recruiting or training.) Irvine22 (talk) 13:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
In your opinion. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research to see why your opinion does not belong in this article. O Fenian (talk) 06:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
No, in the opinion of the International Monitoring Commission. Do you have a source from after 2005 that says PIRA military structures are still active? Irvine22 (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
No, in your opinion. The IMC only talk in vague terms and do not go into specifics, it is your opinion that what they say applies to any part of the IRA's organisational structure. If you had read Wikipedia:Verifiability you would have seen that the source "must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article", which the IMC report does not. You are interpreting the source and deciding what they mean, which fails Wikipedia:No original research. O Fenian (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree! --Domer48'fenian' 14:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

By the by, the infobox, I note, says, "Active 1969–1997 (formal end to the armed campaign was declared in 2005)". Rd232 talk 16:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and that hardly seems consistent with the present tense description of the military structues described in the "Organisation" section. Irvine22 (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Not sure why, organisations can be inactive but still exist. If conditions changed (and lets hope they don't) then I am sure it would become active again --Snowded TALK 08:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
So do you favor using the conditional tense about PIRA military structures in the article? Irvine22 (talk) 13:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Not in the case above no and with the odd exception your edits this morning were ungrammatical and/or the insertion of POV material. Given that a discussion is taking place here you should have waiting for agreement to be reached first before making those edits --Snowded TALK 06:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
If they are inactive meaning we cant have "was" and must have "is" then we need to use that term "inactive" or something similar the introduction and when dealing with organisaton structure. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Most of this is a matter of grammar, unfortunately there appears to be a POV use of tense which is confusing things. Inactive needs to be upfront, it does not need to be constantly reiterated. --Snowded TALK 07:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree the use of tense is confusing things. If we agree, and I think we do, that PIRA's armed campaign has passed into history, and its military structures are inactive, then the proper way to refer to it and them throughout the article is surely in the past tense, instead of the mixture of past and present that currently renders the article confusing and inaccurate. Irvine22 (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree it doesnt need to be repeated throughout, but at the moment we do have an intro that doesnt clearly state if this group is still around, if its active just in non violent areas or if its inactive completly. I dont mind which of those it is, but it seems like important info the article is missing. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Well its in the info box and the lede already --Snowded TALK 07:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
No it doesnt, thats the problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

2005

Do we have any sources from after 2005 which state that PIRA's military structures do in fact continue to do what the "Organisation" section says they do? We certainly have later sources that say they no longer function or are inactive. And PIRA itself said in 2005 that it wasn't going to be engaging in any activities at all, except facilitating peaceful politics. Irvine22 (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

yes all i find is sources saying they no longer function, but not that they are disbanded. This really needs to be cleared up. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Disputed

Ok as i mentioned a few days ago i was close to adding some tags to this article, the matter has not been resolved at all so i have gone ahead and added the accuracy tag. Its clearly from the conversation on this page in recent days that very important information is either missing from the article or is currently being presented incorrectly in the article.

Here is the basic problem incase people have not been following this correctly:

We all accept that from 1969 up until 2005 (leaving aside the ceasefire) the IRA sought to remove Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom by violence and political pressure.

The introduction and the article itself does not currently point out what is happening now. So some questions that must be answered and addressed with alterations to the article before that accuracy tag should be removed...

  • Is the PIRA still an organisation - If YES why does it not state what they are now doing in the intro. If NO why do we talk in present tense instead of past tense in the article (WAS instead of IS).
  • Even if the IRA is still active, we all accept it has now rejected violence, so is it right to say in the intro that it IS a paramilitary group?

Clarification on these matters is clearly needed before that tag should be removed. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree those are some of the issues that need to be clarified and resolved before the tag can be removed. Irvine22 (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
There is no dispute over its accuracy, since those claiming the article is inaccurate have failed to provide reliable sources that clearly and unambiguously support the changes they wish to make, which are required by the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. The introduction does state what the IRA have done since 2005. If sources are provided then there may be a case for further discussion, but since all you two have is opinion there is nothing to discuss at present. O Fenian (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I don't think adding tags is really helping matters, and nor is changing the tense [5]. What's needed are more sources on what, if anything the organisation is actually doing these days. But in any case, unless or until the organisation officially disbands itself, or perhaps a WP:RS considers it effectively disbanded, the past tense should only be applied to specific activities or events for which there are reliable sources justifying it. Rd232 talk 17:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with RD an O Fenian above. BigDunc 18:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree that there is no need for making changes before agreement is reached, However this article is currently not answering some serious questions and could mislead people about the status of this group. The above conversation was going round and round in circles, with little progress. i see no reason why a tag should not be kept on the article until its resolved. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
If you have sources that dispute the current text please provide them, but you cannot dispute anything based on your own opinion. O Fenian (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, no sources = no changes. --Domer48'fenian' 18:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Rd232, now the tag has been removed and they are digging their heels in there will be no change at all despite you originally saying this was a legitamate question which needs answering. It hasnt been answered or addressed, there for the factual accuracy tag seems reasonable until it is. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a legitimate question, but that doesn't mean a tag is justified. The current version isn't inaccurate or misleading - it just leaves certain questions unanswered. It's not clear whether anybody has (WP:RS) answers for those questions at the moment, but the solution is to add reliable sources if/when they turn up. Rd232 talk 18:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
So we just ignore the fact that there is a huge flaw in the article because it doesnt accurately explain what this group is doing today. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Incompleteness (in this way) is not inaccuracy. You might find a more appropriate tag here - Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup but I'm not sure that's necessary/helpful either. Really, nothing can be achieved on this issue without WP:RS that speak to it. Rd232 talk 19:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
So there will be a dispute until you provide sources to support your opinion? Might I suggest finding sources that support your opinion first, then we can have a dispute? I cannot speak for everyone, but I have no interest in your opinion of the current status of the IRA, only what reliable sources have said. O Fenian (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
This is not about my opinion of the IRA status, im saying the article doesnt clearly state the IRAs current status in the introduction or throughout the article itself, with only a couple of random reports hinting at activities. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes it does. It states they formally ended their armed campaign in 2005, and that it is now "committed to the political path". O Fenian (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
The introduction needs more detail than that. It doesnt state what they are actually doing today. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Take the statement "All volunteers have been instructed to assist the development of purely political and democratic programmes through exclusively peaceful means." Do they do this as active members of the IRA, or incompletly non related ways? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
It is our job to report what reliable sources say, not interpret what they say. O Fenian (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Thats the problem. The introduction clearly doesnt define this groups current activities enough if we have to leave it up to the reader to interpret if they are doing this in the name of the organisation or simply through different means. You did not answer the question. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I did answer the question, if you actually read what I wrote. You are asking for my interpretation of what a source says, but that is of no relevance. I will not be responding any further unless reliable sources are provided, as this is going round in circles and has become pointless. O Fenian (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Where are the sources or are we talking opinions? BigDunc 18:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Reversions

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, a suggestion regarding recent edits to this article: if you disagree with an established editor, please leave a full summary of your reasoning in the edit summary when you believe an edit needs to be reverted. Twinkle has a convenient feature that makes it easy to do this. The Wikipedia default rollback is intended for clear instances of vandalism. With regard to long term dispute topics it's always better to leave an edit summary, even if someone's edit actually is vandalism. Less chance of the dispute heating up that way. Best wishes, Durova320 18:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Irvine22 'Infiltration' edit.

Latest comment: 15 years ago24 comments6 people in discussion

Once again, editing the page without discussing it first is both disrespectful to your fellow editors and not in keeping with wikipedia norms. Seriously, stop it.

On another note, the section in question currently appears to be unsourced. Is anyone familiar with what source the material came from? I propose that whatever terminology was used in the source should be carried over to the article. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree: the source says the IRA Army Council is"no longer operational or functional" so that's the language I have put into the article.Irvine22 (talk) 02:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Read the title of this section. I was referring to the "NPOV" edit you made from executed to killed. You implied "executed" was POV, because it suggested that their was a process, then replaced it with killed, which implied there was none. Either way, it's a claim that needs to be sourced. So, barring your introduction of a reliable source, don't go making POV changes, especially without consulting anyone. You have been told this many, many times now. You are either deliberately ignoring what people are telling you, are uncommonly thick, or some mixture of the two. Stop it. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
What is the sourcing for the claim that the IRA "executed" these people? At present, I don't see any sources for the "informers" subsection at all. Irvine22 (talk) 06:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Hence my question. Your edit was no better, and was clearly upon POV lines. I'm asking if anyone knows where that statement came from so it can be properly sourced or altered/deleted, if need be. That's how we do things around here. Once again, do not make edits without discussing them first, or at the very least providing sources to justify your edit. On a page as contentious as this, you should generally not make any edits without first reaching something approximating consensus (no, that doesn't mean you and BrittishWatcher) on the talk page. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Executed is used by many sources - Coogan, Moloney, Bishop/Mallie, Geraghty, Dillon, and more I am sure if I check. O Fenian (talk) 10:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Could you give page references for that, O Fenian? I have most of those books. Thanks! Irvine22 (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with Throwaway we need to discuss before changes which are likely to be controversial, so I have restored stable version. BigDunc 09:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Irvine - if you can't get a grip on this and start discussing what you know are controversial changes then you run the risk of a ban, remember there are general restrictions on articles associated with the Troubles. If I had more time this morning I would have taken it to ANI, I probably will next time.--Snowded TALK 09:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Snowded - it seems to me we have been discussing the changes. I think arbitration is probably a good idea. Irvine22 (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Arbitration don't deal with content disputes which this is. BigDunc 13:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's obviously something Snowded needs to know. Irvine22 (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
It would be, except he never used the word. O Fenian (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The addition of the text "the military structures of the IRA are either shut down or inactive" right at the top of the "Organisation" section was unacceptable, since that suggests to the reader it is referring to everything belief it when there is no proof of that. O Fenian (talk) 10:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
O Fenian - fair enough. Where do you think that sourced information about PIRA military structures should be placed in the article? Perhaps in the lede? Irvine22 (talk) 13:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
No. O Fenian (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I take you can't provide the page references I was asking for either? Irvine22 (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I could, but since all you do is disrupt I have no interest in doing anything for your benefit. O Fenian (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
So you are unable to source your claims about the use of the word "executed"? Ok, we'll go with killed. Much more NPOV. Irvine22 (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Try using an index. O Fenian (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm looking through the Moloney book right now and I just don't see the references you have claimed. Have you actually read it? Irvine22 (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Irvine, do you notice how you're the only one here that people are getting angry at? Does it connect, somewhere in your mind, that your behaviour is the cause of this anger? Do you similarly realize that no one else is behaving the way you are? Do you think that might be a hint? Just wondering. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't notice any anger. Just constructive discussion about how we can improve the article.Irvine22 (talk) 02:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
'Tis best to discuss, then cause a fuss. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward in the best interests of the article

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Now that we are working from a (hopefully) more stable version of the article, I suggest we use the opportunity to find out what, if anything, the IRA is up to these days. Note that a lack of sources does not constitute a lack of activity. We need a source to justify a change in the article, one way or the other. I would also contend that the IMC source is incomplete at best. Serious questions have been raised as to its impartiality, and it really only talks about the Army Council and its military preparedness. I will endeavour to find better sources, and I entreat upon the rest of you to do likewise. Let's try and settle this point sooner, rather than later. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above, and look forward to a civil collaboration as we move forward in good faith.Irvine22 (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

To the IP editor making the changes re: stances towards communism:

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

Sorry, but Wikipedia is not an adequate reference. Also, I'm sorry that you feel your addition was well-written, but it would need re-wording to meet encyclopedic standards. The editors on this page would be more than willing to discuss your edit and help make the necessary changes. If you could provide a reliable source to back up your edit, then we could get to discussing wording and where it could best fit in the article. Also, it's clear that you have an interest in this area. Perhaps you'd like to create an account and become a regular contributor? Account creation, though unnecessary for the purposes of editting, helps other editors better communicate with you and introduce you to Wikipedia editting, which, speaking from recent experience, can be a daunting first step. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, there's nothin to it. Come on in, the water's fine! Irvine22 (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


Consequent corrections to the article

Here is a place to list all of the changes tot he article that need to happen because of things that we learned asnd improved while writing the lede. Lot 49atalk 13:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Cost of damage. Currently we have estimates for the cost of two bombings together. Estimates covering the whole period would be a useful addition to the article, and possibly the lede.
    • If we are to have (economic) cost of damage in the lede, then surely human cost should also be there in terms of injuries as well as deaths? I know this started a big argument, but did we ever get it resolved (we now have the actual text)? Mooretwin (talk) 11:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Consistency of terminology: the article has just one use of PIRA outside direct quotation. Try and standardise. done
  • Sinn Fein "refusing to comment on IRA actions". See section above "refusing to comment on IRA actions" done
  • 1975 ceasefire (also Provisional IRA campaign 1969–1997#Ceasefires - 1972 and 1975) - see section above "What is going on here?"
  • PIRA denials of responsibility in some cases seems to have been an issue, but isn't mentioned in the article
  • Policing activity can probably be expanded - see "Policing activity" above, which has some sources
  • "between eight and ten thousand members of the organisation had been imprisoned by the mid-1980s" - not correct. See "Arrest totals". done
  • There's some serious issues with sourcing in the article, here and here (addressed in part by Mooretwin's "Armed Struggle"), for starters. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
For any of the "See X" or "see Y" that Throwaway85 mentions, see the archived discussion at Talk:PIRA/PIRAlededraft. Lots of potential new sources/explanation in there.Lot 49atalk 17:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

How about tackling some of the issues above? Anyone? Rd232 talk 18:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Per discussion at WP:VPP#Advice needed on moving draft from mainspace, the draft has been moved to Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army/draft and the draft's former talk page to Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army/draft-talk. Anomie⚔ 03:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Latest comment: 15 years ago40 comments10 people in discussion

Centralised discussion, since this affects more than one article for the same reasons...

I've removed the wholly misleading claim that the IRA (and other groups) were opposed to loyalist paramilitaries. I do not know whether this was included as a result of ignorance, wishful thinking, delusion or some other reason, but it has to go.

The relationship, for want of a better word, between the IRA and loyalist paramilitaries is too complex to be boldly classed as the IRA being opposed to them. For the most part, the IRA avoided getting involved in conflict with loyalist paramilitaries, as doing so dragged them into what could be portrayed as a sectarian war and allowed the British security forces to increasingly class themselves as the neutral peacemakers attempting to keep the warring factions apart. Yes there were exceptions to this, but certainly post-1976 they tended to be almost exclusively ones in a pre-emptive defence of the Catholic community such as Bratty/Elder or the failed attempts on Johnny Adair. This is not something that is easily explained in two words in an infobox, and gives the very misleading impression that the IRA were constantly opposed to, and targeting, loyalist paramilitaries as well as the British Army/RUC.

The same applies to the CIRA and INLA also, but I will expand on both of those a little.

If anyone thinks the CIRA are opposed to loyalist paramilitaries, then I'd suggest giving up drugs. How many loyalist paramilitaries have they attacked in fifteen years? Zero by any chance?

So because the INLA shot Billy Wright they are opposed to loyalist paramilitaries? Even ignoring the whole possible state involvement in his death angle, that still doesn't wash. They didn't even shoot another LVF member sat next to him in the van! They shot prison officers too, I don't see them in the infobox. They killed Airey Neave, I don't see "British politicians" or "Tories" in the infobox. The same complex relationship applies. As for their "main targets" apart from the security forces being loyalist paramilitaries, you must be joking? What's that based on? They killed more of their own members than they did loyalist paramilitaries ffs!

Let's just stick to who they actually had a full-on armed campaign against (or a part-time one in the Contos case....), and not imply that the IRA, CIRA or INLA were out attacking loyalist paramilitaries with anything like the same frequency as they attacked British security forces, or for the same reasons. Infoboxes are not the correct place to cover information which requires explanation. 2 lines of K303 13:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think your argument is not NPOV insofar as it attempts to portray the IRA as engaged mainly against the British security services. That may be how the IRA wished to see itself when it was an active organization, but the reality is a more complex story of sectarianism, inter-paramilitary feuds, and even attacks on the Garda Siochana in the South. And certainly, Loyalist paramilitaries considered themselves engaged against the IRA. In fact, they reckon they defeated it. Irvine22 (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
"the IRA as engaged mainly against the British security services" - that's what they were. Got any sources to say otherwise? No, then shush. 2 lines of K303 14:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you should 'shush' and then remember to make the assumption that other editors might actually be acting in good faith, just as you are. The casualty stats (cf FAIR, CAIN etc) would suggest that the IRA was in fact mainly engaged against the civilian populations of these islands. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 14:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
You seem to have missed the salient part of WP:AGF, the bit about not needing to assume good faith "in the presence of contrary evidence". 2 lines of K303 12:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Despite the IRA's main target being the BA/RUC, it was also a sectarian conflict, on all sides. You're right Hackney, you can't easily explain anything in a couple of words. So why try? "Opponents" should be replaced with "Aim". As per the lead, that can simply be stated as a United Ireland. Stu ’Bout ye! 14:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with this. Because of the complexities of the conflict, the 'opponents' bit of the info box comes across as glib and inaccurate. 'Aim' would be a better alternative as would, I think, 'status' as used in the ETA article. If 'aim' is used, might this might be a way of highlighting the (sometimes subtle) differences between IRA, INLA etc? 80.176.88.21 (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I suppose adding "AIM - United Ireland" tends to underline the IRA's failure to acheive that. Irvine22 (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I fail to see how that comment is conducive to the improvement of the article, or to a substantive discussion on the matter. Please limit your comments to the issue at hand, and not to a matter that has already been identified as inappropriate for inclusion. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ed Moloney, page 321. "Army Council policy in relation to reprisals had changed significantly by this stage. Retaliations of the Kingsmills and Stronge variety were banned, as one IRA source familiar with the policy change explained: "John Davey was the first Sinn Féin councillor to be shot, but there was to be no retaliation because of [an Army council directive] against political assassinations. Although there could be exceptions-Ken Maginnis [ex-UDR captain and the former Fermanagh-South Tyrone unionist MP] was one-and there could be special requests, basically that type of reprisal was politically unacceptable to Adams and company." Instead the IRA was allowed to strike back only at named, identified targets, and this meant that only those who could be show to have been directly involved in the loyalist killings or who were known to be pulling the strings were legitimate targets. Again Northern Command would vet each operation, and local brigades would have to justify the choice of targets. That was a necessarily drawn-out process that delayed the IRA response."

Ed Moloney, page 166. "McKee, the Adams camp said, had fallen into a double British trap. The sectarian killings allowed Britain to say that the Troubles were a communal conflict, not an anticolonial war.."

What 2 lines of K said is backed up by sources (because they don't make things up when on a talk page, They argue from what the sources say), yet Irvine when asked for sources didn't produce any and decided to add back the disputed content.Their stable version is nothing of the sort either. --Domer48'fenian' 22:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The argument is simplistic, and doesn't take account of a number of issues, prime amongst them the issue of collusion between Loyalist paramilitaries and the security services. I have little doubt that there was coordination between elements of Loyalism and elements of the security forces to pile pressure on the IRA from the late 80s through to the IRA ceasefires of the 90s. Remember, in the period from, roughly, the UFF's execution of Pat Finucane until the end of the conflict, Loyalist paramilitaries were outkilling the IRA almost two-to-one, and their targeting improved, although they also remained enthusiastic sectarian killers. The shadow of a gunman fell longest over the Nationalist community, and it became clear the IRA couldn't defend it. It was a desperate, bloody business - but it worked. So, no, I don't see how it is accurate to say that the IRA weren't engaged against Loyalists, when it was largely Loyalists who escalated the conflict to the point where the IRA just couldn't keep up. Irvine22 (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Is not "aim" a bit too broad as well? Now that the point has been brought up, I agree with "opponents" being a poor choice of word. Besides, any complete telling of their "aim" would have to include some version of "to bring about a united Ireland by force of arms and politcal persuasion", which is already in the opening sentence. How do other articles on paramilitary groups deal with this issue? Throwaway85 (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Which brings us back to the question of precisely how, now that the IRA has given up pursuing a united Ireland by force of arms, it is doing so by political persuasion. Did Sinn Fein ever get back to you on that, Throwaway?Irvine22 (talk) 01:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Irvine, do you intend at any stage to argue from sources rather than your own interpretation of events as you do above? At the moment it looks like every week you pick another article or set of articles to make a political point Irish Criminals being one of the latest plus multiple attempts on this page). WP:AGF does not require tolerance of disruptive editing in pursuit of a sectarian perspective. --Snowded TALK 06:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a certain body of knowledge I take for granted in my interlocutors - about collusion for example. The point here is that, if Loyalists colluded with the security services to target the IRA, how can the article say that one but not the other were opponents of the IRA? Irvine22 (talk) 06:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Any body of knowledge will have citations to support it, the request here is for you to use citations rather than treating people to your own opinions and OR. The alternative at some stage is to assemble a "body of knowledge" relating to a pattern of disruptive editing, albeit it polite. --Snowded TALK 06:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I suppose it's easier to resort to the worn old accusation that I am a disruptive editor, or to the reflexive sophistry of the appeal for "sources", than to address my point about collusion. I mean, do you really dispute that there was collusion between Loyalist paramilitaries and the security services? Irvine22 (talk) 06:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec)My concern at the moment is your failure to use sources, a key element of Wikipedia, and your derivation of unsupported interpretations from selecting facts (OR). Serial disputes of this nature seem to characterise your overall behaviour as an editor. i suggest you take this as a polite request to conform to Wikipedia policy. --Snowded TALK 07:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
We're on a discussion page, discussing whether it is appropriate to remove "Loyalists" from the list of the IRA's "opponents". I say it isn't, for reasons I have given above. You are apparently unable to engage substantially with my point, or even to say if you dispute it, preferring to press your own interpretation of my behavior as an editor and make veiled threats of reports etc. Much like Throwaway85 before you. Didn't work out so well for him, did it? Irvine22 (talk) 07:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
This is simply the latest incident in many, but its the one that prompted me to make a polite request that your change your behaviour. It's your call if you choose to take it seriously or not. --Snowded TALK 07:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that it is more appropriate to use the 'militant organisation' infobox (as per the articles on ETA and the Tamil Tigers) rather than the 'war faction' template that we have at present. Any list of 'opponents' that excludes those opposed to an organisation is meaningless and 'unencyclopaedic' to the point where we might as well just omit it. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 07:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Irvine22 (talk) 07:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Discusion based on WP:OR and editors personal opinion is just a waste of time. Its either a sourced based discussion, or a chat room. --Domer48'fenian' 08:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. You helpfully provided some sources that describe IRA policy on target selection. Unfortunately these tell us nothing at all about who was an opponent of the IRA. Are you suggesting that the only people and/or organisations that were opposed to the IRA were those that the IRA selected as targets? 80.176.88.21 (talk) 08:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Provide sources that tell us something about who was an opponent of the IRA then. I'm not suggesting anything, I provided a sourced reference to support a view. If you are suggesting that it was not only people and/or organisations that were opposed to the IRA were those that the IRA selected as targets then provide a source to support this view. --Domer48'fenian' 09:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think some confusion might be arrising due to differing defitions of "opponent". Is an opponent merely an entity that the organization actively targets, in which case the list would be quite small, or rather does the category include all entities opposed to the organization, in which case it would be quite large? Perhaps a "Primary targets" category would be more appropriate, as I believe the broader definition would include too many entities for an info box. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, to expand on that, I think that an "aim" category and a "primary targets" category would probably be best. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Example: On 16 December 1983, an IRA unit was engaged in a gun battle in Ballinamore. Their opponents: the Gardaí and the Irish Army. Should we therefore list the Gardaí and the Irish Defence Forces as opponents of the IRA? I think we should. As an illegal organisation in the Republic of Ireland, the operations of the IRA south of the border were opposed by the security forces of the Republic (even if the IRA might not have considered them to be 'targets'). 80.176.88.21 (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Should we list interpol and the FBI as well? I contend that we should not. Yes, there were many organizations that opposed the IRA, but not every one needs a mention in the infobox. This is why I believe my suggestion, of having an "aim" category as well as a "primary targets" category is probably best. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
So then we should list Libya as an ally? Opponents were British forces (which obviously includes the RUC). The rest were collateral or incidental. Sarah777 (talk) 06:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Not sure that the relatives of the people blown up in pubs and shopping centers would consider their deaths as "collateral or incidental". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.221.138 (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the article on the the Afghan War we could add, after the primary opponents "and 34 other countries and organisations". The flip side is that the infobox is longer than the article:) Sarah777 (talk) 06:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I think your point mirrors my own. Let's find a more appropriate category for the infobox, if it is to be included (which I'm ambivalent about) Throwaway85 (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
If PIRA had active service units operating in the United States and had been involved in gun battles with the FBI, then yes I would suggest including American security forces as opponents. I think that the 'allies', 'opponents' and 'battles' sections of the infobox are not helpful to this article. The 'motives' and 'status' options offered by militant organisation infobox seem more appropriate. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 07:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I am fine with saying that the IRA is 'dormant', or some variation thereof, in the infobox, I think the "aim" and "primary target" categories would deal with the rest quite succinctly. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) As Domer correctly says, anything I say on a talk page is from a source, in this case the Moloney examples he mentions and also Taylor, and others as well if I do some reading. Other people seem fine with arguing based on their own opinions or drawing conclusions based on events, so I'll just stick to adding sources and you can keep arguing amongst yourself. 2 lines of K303 12:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Still to simplistic. Could you do a footnote mentioning loyalists? Stu ’Bout ye! 13:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that dealing with any inter-paramlitary conflicts in the article itself is probably the best idea. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
The whole issue is better dealt with in the main body of the article. The security forces were the main opponents, but not listing the loyalists is misleading. Either a footnote mentioning the loyalists should go in (see the Northern Ireland article's main infobox for an example) or we shouldn't try to sum up a complicated issue in a few words. Stu ’Bout ye! 21:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I still think "Primary Targets/Antagonists/Opponents/whatever" would help to clear this up and make it easier on the reader. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

British Army v British Armed Forces

Latest comment: 14 years ago18 comments5 people in discussion

The Provisional IRA waged a campaign against all three branches of the British Armed Forces (Army, Navy, Airforce). That's a fact. The reason it launched fewer attacks on the Navy and Airforce is obvious – they were deployed in fewer numbers and weren't as active. So, why has "British Armed Forces" been changed twice to just "British Army"?
Also, I don't think we need to have the bit about its "nicknames" in the introduction. It's long enough already.
~Asarlaí 18:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it to conform to the sources that were added by ONiH, you reverted it to conform to your own opinion instead of what the sources say. BigDunc 18:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
It's hardly my own personal opinion that the Provisionals targeted and attacked the British Navy and Airforce. It's a fact and it's supported by numerous sources in Timeline of Provisional Irish Republican Army actions. ~Asarlaí 19:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I see you are drawing your own conclusions from events, which don't seem to justify describing them as "Opponents". BigDunc 19:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh come on now. Are you saying the Provisionals attacked British military ships and aircraft "just for the craic"? Do you think they were fine with having Royal Navy warships docked in the harbours at Belfast and Derry? That they were fine with the RAF flying chinooks and planes wherever they wished? Of course not. ~Asarlaí 19:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Whatever inferences one may derive from past events, only claims made by reputable secondary sources may be included. Also, I assum you're talking about the infobox, whose purpose is to give a very brief overview of the organization, not detail its every action. That's what the article is for, and that's where further exposition belongs. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Here are some sources that refer to the Provisionals campaign being against the "British military" as a whole, rather than just the British Army. I'm sure there are plenty more, but I haven't got the time to hunt for them right now...
  • [6]
  • [7]
  • IRA, the Bombs and the Bullets: A History of Deadly Ingenuity
    A R Oppenheimer & Richard English
    Irish Academic Press (2008)
    Page 102
  • Making Peace with the Past? – Memory, Trauma and the Irish Troubles
    Graham Dawson
    Manchester University Press (2007)
    Page 94
  • Security Forces in Northern Ireland 1969-1992
    Tim Ripley & Mike Chappell
    Osprey Publishing (1993)
    Page 8, Page 30
  • The IRA 1968-2000: Analysis of a Secret Army
    J Bowyer Bell
    Taylor & Francis Publishing (2000)
    Page 228
    ~Asarlaí 21:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll take your word. If the sources say that the military as a whole, rather than the army, was there primary target, then I'm fine with that. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I suggested referring to the armed forces at the time of the intro re-write. Others preferred to refer only to the Army. Can't remember the reasons given. Mooretwin (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
It probably had to do with the necessary sparsity of information in the info box. I'm ambivalent, just so long as it doesn't appear that the IRA were engaging in naval battles and dogfights. My only knowledge of anti-air operations comes from that paragon of due diligence, Patriot Games, so I'm open to any sources. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
From memory, I think they attacked air force personnel (possibly in the Netherlands?), and at least one member of the RN was murdered in Northern Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 12:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I wouldn't take his word for anything, you can see for yourself how dishonest or just plain ignorant of policy he is based on the links you can click for yourself. None of the sources say the campaign was 'against the "British military" as a whole'. "British military targets" does not equal "British Armed Forces", it is interpretation to suggest it is. Same for "British Forces", with the added qualifier that it is talking about the IRA's campaign in Northern Ireland between 7 October 1996 and 27 March 1997. So tell me, exactly how many attacks were made on the RAF and Royal Navy during that time period? I'd wait with baited breath for an answer, but I doubt one that supports your assertion will be coming any time soon. Want to know what the books say? Making Peace with the Past? – Memory, Trauma and the Irish Troubles says "the IRA waging an increasingly effective guerrilla campaign, with enthusiastic local support, against the British military occupation". Same as before, with the addition that it isn't even talking about the IRA's campaign as a whole but it is specific to Derry. Page 30 of Security Forces in Northern Ireland 1969-1992 does not source the assertion being made that the IRA's campaign was directed at the British Armed Forces as a whole, it merely deals with a few incidents on which ships and helicopters were attacked, and generally when other sources refer to helicopter attacks they are referred to as "British Army helicopters" due to their actual operational role. Page 8 says the IRA's campaign "is intended to force British public opinion against the British military presence in Northern Ireland", so same as before again. Neither The IRA 1968-2000: Analysis of a Secret Army or IRA, the Bombs and the Bullets: A History of Deadly Ingenuity seem to contain the phrase "British Armed Forces", and I challenge you right now to provide exact quotes from those pages of those books that source the text you want to add. No interpretations of text, no ambiguous text, either comply with policy or stop wasting time. All we have is your opinion that whenever "British military" is used it refers to "British Armed Forces", and given you consider a bombing (with a warning no less, the IRA never gave warnings for attacks on military targets) of a ship that's still being built to be an attack on the Royal Navy your opinion is pretty much worthless in my opinion. The IRA probably carried out more attacks on the Europa Hotel than the Navy and Air Force combined, shall we add the Europa Hotel to opponents too? Shall we add construction workers working on British Army bases? Shall we add businessmen such as Jeffrey Agate and co? The sources I cited are specific, unambiguous and involve no interpretation, pity other editors persist in wasting time by violating content policy and making other editors chase around to prove what they say is violating policy. Unless you provide reliable sources that clearly and unambiguously says the IRA's campaign was directed at "British Armed Forces" this discussion will go nowhere. 2 lines of K303 13:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

In fairness, it would seem very odd that the PIRA would launch a campaign against one arm only of the British armed forces. Doesn't make much logical or ideological sense. That said, we go with the sources. Mooretwin (talk) 13:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Good work ONiH, I was going to check the sources provided but you saved me the hassell, I droped out of the thread last night as no matter what was said it kept going back to the opinion of the editor and not the sources. BigDunc 14:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I think all of this goes back to the ambiguity of the "opponents" label. It can be seen as either incredibly inclusive, or incredibly exclusive. Given the nature of an infobox, I would argue that the exclusive sense is needed. A couple of attacks here and there do not a primary opponent make. Throwaway85 (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Well never mind then. I was unaware that the infobox is not adjustable. I vote to leave it as is, unless a more appropriate infobox can be used. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) As an aside, in the early 1990s the UFF issued a statement saying that all 40,000 members of the GAA were legitimate targets, I assume every realises how ridiculous it would be to add that to their infobox? 2 lines of K303 15:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that primary targets that they were actively engaged with is in keeping with the spirit of the infobox. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army/Archive_7&oldid=1146511366"