TheSquareMile

Welcome

Hi! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Some other site policies and guidelines you may find useful

• "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:

• "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
• Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
• A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
• Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
• We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. We're not a directory, nor a forum, nor a place for you to "spread the word".

If you are here to promote pseudoscience, extremism, fundamentalism or conspiracy theories, we're not interested in what you have to say.

Happy Editing! OgamD218 (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Troubles discretionary sanctions notification

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Troubles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

OgamD218 (talk) 06:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Provisional Irish Republican Army, you may be blocked from editing. Whether you're acting out of ideological malice or simply reckless ignorance, it is unacceptable to edits articles solely to incorporate your own POV. This is especially true with regards to articles related to The Troubles-all of which are subject to a longstanding arbitration enforcement policy which includes a 1RR. Accordingly please immediately self-revert your most recent changes at PIRA as well as any others related to The Troubles that violate policy.

With specific regards to your most recent edit on PIRA-please stop defending these edits by calling the 1939 Irish Offenses Against the State Act-passed at the outbreak of WWII intended to suppress dissident activity as "anti terrorism legislation"-though broadly worded amendments added decades later certainly to apply to acts of terrorism, the context presented is designation as a terrorist organization, something completely different. Moreover, the wording that this has been the case "since 1939" is absurd as the PIRA did not come into existence until 1969.

I understand that you are new to editing wiki-as we all were at some point. Before wading into articles on hyper controversial subjects please review both the general and topic specific policies and procedures including the above reference arbitration policy and MOS:TERRORISM. OgamD218 (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm not sure what POV I am pushing? I have edited both loyalist and republican pages to help improve them - for example all the loyalist pages referred to them being as "designated terrorist organisations" in Ireland, as you have gone to great lengths on different pages to state that groups cannot be considered to be terrorist organisations in Ireland (because the legislation doesn't specify or define a terrorist group presumably - your argument is not clear), this is somewhat confusing. Please can you provide the source that states the UDA, UVF and LVF are designated terrorist organisations in Ireland as I cannot find any. There appears to be only 2 suppression orders in effect in Ireland - one for the IRA (in all its manifestations) and one for the INLA.

The edits to the PIRA page was inserting 2 little flags to show it is a designated terrorist organisation in Ireland and the UK (similar to how all the loyalist paramilitary pages) - indeed you helpfully changed my edits on loyalist pages and provided a source to the US list of designated groups. What is the issue with updating the PIRA page for consistency and clarity that the organisation is currently illegal in UK and Ireland?

In respect of the 1939 Irish Offenses Against the State Act, it is still valid law in Ireland. The Irish government (not me) says it was intended to suppress the IRA (in all its manifestations) - this includes the PIRA and the newer dissident groups. The Irish government (not me) says it is counter-terrorist legislation.

From the Irish Government website here https://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/terrorism (if you haven't looked at it):

"These Acts were introduced and have been primarily used to counter the threat posed by the IRA in all its manifestations, including, latterly, the dissident republican terrorist organisations of the so-called Real IRA and Continuity IRA. The Offences against the State Acts provide for a range of terrorist-related offences, with maximum court-imposed sentences varying according to the specific offence."

You state that the original 1939 Act was not meant to suppress terrorism - can you please provide a source for your assertion? The Irish Government above is clear as to the purpose of such legislation. The advent of WW2 is irrelevant and you ignore the fact that the suppression of terrorism (domestic) and the IRA was of vital importance around the time Ireland declared a Republic (much more significant).

The 1939 Act applies equally to the PIRA and the newer dissident IRA organisations, if you are not aware unless a law is repealed it still remains in force - in any event the Irish Government (and court cases) are clear that it covers dissident IRA groups despite your weak argument (with no sources).

The wording "as has been the case since 1939" provides the context i.e. the IRA in all its manifestations is an illegal organisation (because it is a terrorist organisation). This provides clarity and a wider context to the organisation.

There have not been that many edits throughout the years to this act (indeed only 3!) so your argument about cusp of WW2 seems a diversionary tactic:

• Offences Against the State Act, 1939
• Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act, 1972
• Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act, 1985
• Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act, 1998

TheSquareMile (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to further update my comment: According to the Irish Republican Army Wikipedia page that entity existed until it split into the Provisional IRA and the Official IRA therefore the 1939 Act was specifically relevant to the PIRA as a successor to the IRA (1922 - 1969). Again - this is not my views, thoughts or original research but what Wikipedia says on the matter.

Further, the Special Criminal Court was set up to deal with terrorist related crime (Wikipedia page on the topic) therefore, the only organisation which it applied to (at the time) was the IRA (in all its manifestations). It was later extended to organised crime offences as well (Wikipedia page).

Can you please provide me with any source, and not your opinion, which states the IRA (in all its guises) is not a terrorist organisation in Ireland? Thanks TheSquareMile (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi there - apologies for the multiple posts. I came across your response to another editor:

"Once again, this subject while complicated has been thoroughly reviewed and decided-if you wish to change this policy you may propose such through the appropriate channels. Once again, I really am assuming good faith but in order to do so you are forcing me to conclude that you are not well versed in either this area of the law or the The Troubles. The PIRA has never at any point been a designated terrorist group in the United States, nor was it deemed an illegal org-enabling the PIRA's US supporters much greater freedom to raise support for the group in stark contrast to the Republic where PIRA was illegal. Until the 1980s it was not even possible for the UK to extradite PIRA members from the US on terrorism charges due to the very real difference in legal recognition. The CIRA and RIRA are designated by the US-bu these are completely different groups. The PIRA status as a "proscribed organization" vs a terrorist org was of incredible importance as it meant that the Irish government did not extradite PIRA members to the UK for actions deemed terrorist activity by UK law (such as bombings and the killing of security forces)-however PIRA membership often did result in a modest prison term (~2-5 years in gaol). Accordingly please do not so summarily dismiss that the difference between merely "illegal" "designated terrorist" is one of semantics."

Firstly, your statement of "the PIRA status as a "proscribed organization" vs a terrorist org was of incredible importance as it meant that the Irish Government did not extradite PIRA members to the UK for actions deemed terrorist activity by UK law (such as bombings and the killing of security forces)". With the greatest amount of respect, this statement is just wrong. (1) the status of the PIRA in Ireland was irrelevant when it came to a court (or other relevant official) in deciding whether to grant a rendition (not an extradition) request. (2) in determining a rendition request the court (or other relevant official) had to determine whether the crime the person was wanted for was a "political crime" or not - the concept of terrorist crime did not enter the equation - that 'incredible importance' as you claim is unfounded, unsubstantiated and fundamentally flawed (in Ireland or UK). The factual case is that it had zero importance on the extradition request - the status of the PIRA in Ireland was irrelevant for a Judge or other official in determining whether to send a person to the UK (or elsewhere) for trial for offences in that specific country. (3) rendition requests were granted for crimes such as murder (as that could not be classed as a political crime), but usually were not granted for crimes such as possession of semi-automatic weapons (automatic weapons could not be classed as a political crime). (4) presumably you are referring to the Finucane case in 1990 (which related to rendition requests prior to Ireland and the UK changing its extradition laws to the EU terrorist extradition laws which would have prevented most crime being classed as political crimes). In that Finucance case the High Court ruled his crimes were not political crimes and he could be rendited, but the Supreme Court over ruled that decision and held he could not be extradited because it would infringe his human rights on the basis (as an escaped prisoner) he would like be subject to abuse or torture by the prison authorities (not that the PIRA was an illegal organisation in Ireland, rather than a terrorist organisation).

There is not a single Irish case that prevented (or even considered the argument of the technicality of the description of the organisation) on the basis the PIRA was described as an illegal organisation rather than a terrorist organisation. If I am wrong on this please can you provide your source(s) that you are relying upon?

There is absolutely no arguable legal basis, nor sources provided, to state or claim that there is a (real world 'incredible importance') technical legal difference between an entity being described as "illegal" or being described as a "designated terrorist organisation" in Ireland. With respect, this is an attempt to play on words (at best semantics) coupled with your alleged expertise, with no sources provided, on (1) extradition law, (2) international law, (3) Irish law, (4) the provisional IRA and (5) the definition of "designated terrorist organisation" in Ireland and globally.

By way of example, in the UK there is no such thing as a "designated terrorist organisation", there is a list of "proscribed terrorist groups or organisations" - however, there is no definition of "terrorist organisation" (there is a definition of "terrorism"), significantly the UK legislative framework sets out the process by which an individual or a terrorist group can be proscribed. Do you see the semantics here and how it applies equally to Ireland? i.e. the Irish legislative framework sets out the process by which an individual or a terrorist group can be proscribed as an unlawful organisation (under counter-terrorism laws).

I am genuinely at a loss to understand your arguments and would appreciate a respectful discussion - can you please provide any source at all to support your assertions that an unlawful organisation in Ireland under the 1939 Act is not a terrorist organisation? (in the exact same way a proscribed organisation in the UK under its legislation is considered as a 'designated terrorist organisation' by Wikipedia standards?)

In the real world and in the Wikipedia world it is abundantly clear that illegal organisations in countries (whether they are defined legally as terrorist organisations, proscribed organisations, designated organisations, listed organisations, unlawful organisations etc) are universally considered to be designated terrorist organisations.

Indeed the United Nations Security Council Consolidated List is simply that - a list, but it is universally accepted to mean 'designated terrorist organisations'.TheSquareMile (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)