| Revision as of 03:57, 2 September 2022 editOgamD218 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,230 edits →Reverts to description of PIRA being an illegal organisation in Ireland: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 20:07, 26 November 2024 edit undo2a02:c7c:37d6:c100:885e:f169:ee60:f3f7 (talk) →"Officially known as"?: Reply |
| (40 intermediate revisions by 25 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{Troubles restriction}} |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{tmbox|type=content|text=There is a clear guideline on Misplaced Pages about the use of the word '''Terrorism'''. Please read it before editing: ].}} |
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes|archive_age=3|archive_units=months|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}} |
|
|
{{article history |
|
|
|action1=GAN |
|
|action1=GAN |
|
|action1date=03:31, 1 June 2012 |
|
|action1date=03:31, 1 June 2012 |
| Line 18: |
Line 16: |
|
|topic=Politics and government |
|
|topic=Politics and government |
|
|otddate=2008-07-28|otdoldid=228331687|otd2date=2009-07-28|otd2oldid=304667090|otd3date=2010-07-28|otd3oldid=375667788|otd4date=2013-07-28|otd4oldid=566132273|otd5date=2015-07-28|otd5oldid=673497862|otd6date=2018-07-28|otd6oldid=852420436|otd7date=2020-07-28|otd7oldid=970048976 |
|
|otddate=2008-07-28|otdoldid=228331687|otd2date=2009-07-28|otd2oldid=304667090|otd3date=2010-07-28|otd3oldid=375667788|otd4date=2013-07-28|otd4oldid=566132273|otd5date=2015-07-28|otd5oldid=673497862|otd6date=2018-07-28|otd6oldid=852420436|otd7date=2020-07-28|otd7oldid=970048976 |
|
|
|otd8date=2024-07-28|otd8oldid=1237264870 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|1= |
|
{{WikiProject British crime|class=B|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|terrorism=yes|terrorism-imp=Mid|importance=Low| organizedcrime=yes | organizedcrime-imp=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Crime|class=B|importance=Low |
|
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Ireland|importance=High|attention=yes}} |
|
| b1=yes <!--Referencing & citations--> |
|
|
| b2=yes <!--Coverage & accuracy--> |
|
|
| b3=yes <!--Structure--> |
|
|
| b4=yes <!--Grammar & style--> |
|
|
| b5=yes <!--Supporting materials-->}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject International relations|class=B|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Ireland|class=B|importance=High|attention=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Irish Republicanism|class=B|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B|British-task-force=yes |
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B|British-task-force=yes |
|
|1=<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |
|
|1=<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |
| Line 41: |
Line 33: |
|
<!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |
|
<!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |
|
|B-Class-5=yes}} |
|
|B-Class-5=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Northern Ireland|class=B|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Northern Ireland|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Organizations|class=B|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Organizations|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Organized Crime|class=B|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom|importance=Mid|attention=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom|class=B|importance=Mid|attention=yes |
|
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Irish republicanism|importance=top}} |
|
| b1=yes <!--Referencing & citations--> |
|
|
| b2=yes <!--Coverage & accuracy--> |
|
|
| b3=yes <!--Structure--> |
|
|
| b4=yes <!--Grammar & style--> |
|
|
| b5=yes <!--Supporting materials--> |
|
|
| b6=yes <!--Accessibility-->}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Terrorism|class=B|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Troubles restriction}} |
|
|
{{tmbox|type=content|text=There is a clear guideline on Misplaced Pages about the use of the word '''Terrorism'''. Please read it before editing: ].}} |
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|counter = 12 |
|
|counter = 13 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|algo = old(90d) |
| Line 63: |
Line 51: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
I've reworded this slightly, it now reads {{tq|Twenty-two people were killed in the next three days, including six civilians killed by the British Army '''as part of''' the Ballymurphy massacre on 9 August}} (previously the bolded words said simply "in". The difficulty is that various authors define the Ballymurphy Massacre differently, one seeing it as simply the first six, another seeing it as ten deaths (presumably Paddy McCarthy is excluded), and others as all eleven. Obviously yesterday's inquest has changed things a bit, but I think a nine versus ten versus eleven deaths argument in this article is potentially outside its scope. Since the disputed tenth shooting victim was who was killed on 10 August, it is undisputed that six died on 9 August. If anyone has any suggestions about how this can be handled better feel free to make suggestions. ] (]) 11:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I noticed that you removed the word atrocity from the Claudy bombing article as it was too emotive. Should the word “massacre” be removed from this article for the same reason? |
|
|
|
|
|
Notice I am discussing these issues on talk pages as opposed to making the changes myself in an effort to achieve consensus. ] (]) 20:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The name of the Ballymurphy massacre is not something than can be changed here. ] (]) 22:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== IRA still possess weaponry == |
|
|
|
|
|
My edit was reverted. I had stated, as per the cited report, that the IRA retained some of its weaponry. The preceding paragraphs deal extensively with the amount of guns and explosives held by the organisation. There is also significant information on the decommissioning. The page at the minute, reads as if the IRA has completely decommissioned its weaponry. The already cited Assessment_on_Paramilitary_Groups_in_Northern_Ireland states that they have retained some weapons. I’m unsure of how best to seek consensus on this when I have quoted the latest report and it does not seem to be enough. |
|
|
|
|
|
It is my opinion, looking at the edits of fdw777, that there is significant bias in his editing. While I understand that this is is a highly emotive subject, I think it may be useful if some others maybe took an interest in the subject to enhance the impartiality of the page. ] (]) 19:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The assessment is not cited. A secondary reference is cited, that deals with the key points of the assessment. That the IRA may (as Armstrong et al are at pains to point out) still possess some weapons is already adequately covered by the final sentence of the paragraph before. ] (]) 19:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the explanation, if I cite the following document which states that the IRA retained some weaponry would that be sufficient? Armstrong use the word “may”, the report does not contain that ambiguity, it states clearly they do have weaponry. There’s a world Of difference between someone maybe having something and actually having something. |
|
|
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/469548/Paramilitary_Groups_in_Northern_Ireland_-_20_Oct_2015.pdf |
|
|
] (]) 20:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The article relies on secondary references for the overwhelming majority of the time. I see no reason why this standard should be discarded on this occasion. ] (]) 20:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
So you believe that someone’s interpretation of the report is actually more factual that the actual report itself, even when the interpretation draws a conclusion that is contrary to the primary source? You’ve lost me, how does that make sense? The primary references states they have retained arms, the secondary states they may have. The secondary has introduced ambiguity where there was previously none. ] (]) 22:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Yes, I do. ] backs this up completely. ] (]) 22:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I understand that in some cases primary sources may be by people who are close to an event and therefore are bias. In this case we are dealing with a government report. It is a legitimate source of greater worth that an individuals interpretation. ] (]) 22:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:If it's as good as you say, why do Armstrong et al refuse to accept its contents at face value? ] (]) 22:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I have no idea why Armstrong refuses to accept he entirety of a government report, one which has been referenced in the media by both the UK and the Irish governments. Armstrong does seem to accept those parts of the report which could be deemed as favourable to republicanism so maybe there is a deliberate bias there. Regardless of his interpretation and reasons behind it, the report is clear, arms have been retained. A government report which is held up as the truth by both the UK and Irish governments and incidentally both the UK and the Irish police forces (who can be relied on to know more of the actual situation on the ground than Armstrong) has to be more reliable than an interpretation by a third party with unknown bias. Not sure why you are supporting Armstrong unsubstantiated beliefs and ignoring the stated legal position of two governments? ] (]) 23:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The report can say the moon is made of green cheese, it does not make it a fact. That applies to any intelligence report produced by any government, they are not necessarily facts. ] (]) 19:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Surely if that was the case, then neither is someone’s interpretation of the report. You can’t ignore the findings of the most recent report and insist on using the findings of a historical report, as if they are current, by the same government just because you don’t like the findings. ] (]) 15:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:We're not ignoring any findings. It's already been included in the article that some IRA weaponry may be outstanding. We don't need a new sentence every time someone makes a similar redundant claim or some rusty bullets get dug up. ] (]) 13:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::] when can I come train and work for my money I own Ireland co Fermanagh and EU bit I can call this all euro ] (]) 02:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::On the basis of your argument FDW777 then this entire article and all sources are not factual. What do you consider factual? |
|
|
::An intelligence report is certainly a stronger material source than most journalists (who are either actively biased or, as we all do, suffer from unconscious bias). To argue that an intelligence report published by a Western country cannot be factual (or is at least of more quality than someone penning an article referring to it - without any investigative journalism) is quite frankly absurd. If that logic is followed through to conclusion, as I said originally, then every single source referred to in this article cannot be factual. If Armstrong said the moon was made of green cheese would that be considered a fact by you? Just trying to understand the logic here as there appears to be a very strong case of POV here rather than the impartiality required. |
|
|
::"The report can say the moon is made of green cheese, it does not make it a fact. That applies to any intelligence report produced by any government, they are not necessarily facts. ] (]) 19:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)" ] (]) 23:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== IRA categorisation == |
|
|
|
|
|
This statement, under the categorisation section is opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
American TV news broadcasts tended to describe IRA members as "activists" and "guerrillas", while British TV news broadcasts commonly used the term "terrorists", |
|
|
|
|
|
A quick scan of US media turned up several descriptions of the IRA as terrorists, I found no references to them being Guerrillas though I imagine there are some. |
|
|
Should this be removed in its entirety or altered in some way? ] (]) 20:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:No. ]. ] (]) 20:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I am not suggesting that my own cursory look trumps a published study, however, the original research you refer to is from 1988. It’s not current. |
|
|
Furthermore it has a chart showing that the terms Guerrilla or activist were used five times as opposed to terrorist or suspected terrorist which were used four times. I hardly think that a study of terms used over thirty years ago (using just March 1988), quoting such a small sample amount is sufficient to draw the conclusion that US media had a tendency in how they referred to the IRA. The most frequent description of them was as not as either terrorists or Guerrillas, but simply IRA (a total of 26 times). I can provide screenshots of the page in question from the book if you wish to see it yourself? ] (]) 21:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I suggest reading the pages cited. ] (]) 22:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry but you are asking me to accept someone’s interpretation of a report as opposed to accepting the actual report itself. I have read both. The interpretation of what the report states is incorrect. May I suggest that you read the actual report, once you’ve done so I have no doubt you will agree with me that the interpretation is incorrect and that the article should be revised to acknowledge the actual findings as opposed to someone’s else’s interpretation. ] (]) 22:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The secondary reference's view is that the claim about IRA weaponry in the assessment is precisely that, a claim. Not a fact. ] (]) 22:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Apologies, that was not clear. Let me try and summarise: |
|
|
|
|
|
The book cited is 30 years out of date. |
|
|
It’s sample size was small. |
|
|
Five references to one set of terms versus four references to another does not indicate a tendency. |
|
|
|
|
|
Three points, any of which should be sufficient to remove the opinion under discussion. Can you refute these or will you accept them? |
|
|
|
|
|
I think I may need to escalate this revision as I do not believe we will be able to achieve a consensus. ] (]) 22:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The period in question is from while the IRA was active (a particularly active time for news in Northern Ireland as it transpires), not some post-9/11 historial revisionist view of events. ] (]) 19:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I would agree that in this section there is a lot of opinions in this section should be reviewed as they are not properly sourced. For example, the use of the word 'tended' is open to interpretation and the statement is not referenced or corroborated with any research. I would suggest removing that bit entirely ] (]) |
|
|
|
|
|
FDW777 just to clarify, you believe that 5 vs 4 statements taken over a one month period 30+years ago is enough to use the term tendency in describing how American news referred to the IRA? If there is any revisionism going on, it’s in that statement. It needs removed or reworded. ] (]) 15:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I believe that the author is reliable enough to make judgements, and to select a time period that there is sufficient data available for reliable judgements to be made. You also appear to be attributing something to me that isn't actually true. ] (]) 13:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Socialism == |
|
|
|
|
|
When you say things like it only demonstrates you don't actually know what you're talking about. What on earth is the {{tq|1969 anti-treaty partition}}? The IRA very much did have an official socialist ideology, as evidenced not only by the section at ] but by the IRA's own constitution which says their second objective is . Also edits such as not only misrepresent the existing reference but cause a broken reference later in the article. Please stop disrupting the article based on an erroneous understanding of the subject matter. ] (]) 20:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The claim that is not one that appears in any of the vast amount of books that cover the 1969 split in the IRA. Please stop disrupting the article based on a faulty understanding of the subject matter. ] (]) 22:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: I agree with ] and idk why this IP user keeps insisting on restoring edits otherwise. It seems they might be confusing communism with socialism (a careless but common mistake); as the OIRA's communist sympathies were at least a contributing factor to the 1969 split. With regards to the other claims, though it is very likely American support for the PIRA would've been drastically reduced had the organization been ideologically communist, I have never heard of this being a stated or implied reason / in any way a proximate cause of the 1969 split. In fact, it runs redundant to the reasons I long understood to have caused the schism that led to the PIRA's founding. ] (]) 07:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::That's true, it would appear the IP editor is unaware the Provisionals were socialist while the Officials were Marxist. With regards to American funding there is some information in the references about some people in American not wanting money and/or arms to go to the Goulding faction (that's the soon-to-be Officials, most people probably know but just to be clear) around the time of the split, whether this was due to their failure to defend nationalist areas in 1969 or because of a dislike of their Marxist thinking isn't something I can remember off the top of my head and it isn't essential for the purposes of this discussion anyway. There is some other information about people from Ireland visiting the USA for fundraising purposes playing down the Provisionals socialist ideology and talking about more military than political subjects, again not essential for the purposes of this discussion but like the former point it's possible the IP editor has heard a rather garbled version of either. Or possibly they have failed to comprehend something written in English, since they refer to things like the {{tq|1969 anti-treaty partition}} I don't believe I'm too far out a limb by suggesting their understanding of English might not be at a professional level... ] (]) 18:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Lead == |
|
== Shanahan citation == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't edit the article since I don't have a user, but I just wanted to draw attention to a problem in a source cited in support of the claim that "Following partition, Northern Ireland became a de facto one-party state governed by the Ulster Unionist Party in the Parliament of Northern Ireland, in which Catholics were viewed as second-class citizens." The footnote cites p. 12 of Timothy Shanahan's book "The Provisional Irish Republican Army and the Morality of Terrorism". On that page, however, the author describes the "Standard Republican Narrative" of which he says that "I will not argue that these myths are false in all respects, but rather that they contain partial-truths at best and that the reality is considerably more complicated" (p. 11). |
|
The argument {{tq|The article mentions how many British soldiers the PIRA killed. So mentioning the civilians they killed makes sense and is referenced}} makes no sense, since the lead already says {{tq| The IRA's armed campaign, primarily in Northern Ireland but also in England and mainland Europe, killed over 1,700 people, including roughly 1,000 members of the British security forces, and '''500–644 civilians'''}} (my emphasis). Also as my edit summary when reverting the first attempt at adding this factoid said, {{tq|rv. ]. Unclear why we'd need to point out one category, when they were the deadliest in many categories. See ]}}. ] (]) 15:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree. The number of deaths between respective belligerents should be included, but it is POV to state that one party killed more civilians than another unless we state for proportion how many civilians ''all'' parties killed, which is, in my view, WO:UNDUE for the lead. ] 15:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Should the category " casualties " not be titled " victims ". == |
|
:Disagree. The data is correct and is referenced. It's POV to exclude referenced relevant facts. ] (]) 17:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
category description ] (]) 16:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
::], especially when it's a violation of ] and a highly selective presentation of statistics. ] (]) 17:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Since the section also includes the IRA's casualties, no. ] (]) 10:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
::Just as a point of information, I own 40 of the books listed at ] (yes, I did just count them). I am sure I could come up with many "relevant facts" from them, would they all belong in the article simply because they can be referenced? ] (]) 18:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2023 == |
|
== Reverts to description of PIRA being an illegal organisation in Ireland == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Provisional Irish Republican Army|answered=yes}} |
|
Hi there, I edited the intro to help improve the article to provide additional context the its designation as an unlawful organisation in Ireland. |
|
|
|
When talking about IRA targets it must be pointed out that they targeted civilians not connected with the military. For instance the Warrington Town centre bombing and the Arndale Shopping centre amongst others. They also targeted children and young people. ] (]) 15:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:Evidence? <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 15:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::If you genuinely believe that then you are either insane (in the legal definition under the ] in which an individual is deemed to be insane if they cannot distinguish right from wrong), a propagandist, or know absolutely nothing. In any of these cases I suggest you stop editing articles connected with this topic. The IP editor literally listed examples but you do not appear to care. ] (]) 22:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Actually, they didn't examples. They detailed two incidents, then ]. I recommend reading what Martin Dillon and Andy Oppenheimer (both cited in the article) have said about Warrington, you might learn that your own beliefs are very mistaken. ] (]) 10:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> This is not an uncontroversial edit which can be applied via an edit request. (It's also not in a "change x to y" format) ] (]) 21:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:The IRA's attacks on civilians are already mentioned = approximately 25 times in the article, including twice in the lead. Would you perhaps also like a banner saying "These guys were bad!"? ]<sup>]</sup> 22:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
(i) it is technically an unlawful organisation (rather than "illegal"); |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2024 == |
|
(ii) it is still a proscribed organisation in the UK and an unlawful organisation in ROI (rather than "was"); |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Provisional Irish Republican Army|answered=yes}} |
|
(iii) the UK and ROI both have outlawed the IRA (in all its manifestations) - included for background here; |
|
|
|
Add the "anti-imperialist organization" tag ] (]) 01:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> The article makes no mention of the IRA having an anti-imperialist stance. Although sources appear to exist that could support such a claim in the article, I also doubt that it would be considered a ]; it might be an aspect of their motivations, but it's probably far from being their central ideology. ] (]) 10:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2024 == |
|
(iv) reference to the 1939 Act is factual and sourced (the IRA in all its manifestations was outlawed under this Act by a Suppression Order) - included for background here; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Provisional Irish Republican Army|answered=yes}} |
|
(v) as it was/is a direct descendant from the 'IRA' the technicality that the 'PIRA' did not exist in 1969 is a moot point and one of semantics but agree if this is an issue the drafting can be clarified if needed. There is no constitutional document or formal organisation incorporation - the group just splintered and formed two competing factions (Misplaced Pages source on the 'IRA' for context); and |
|
|
|
The provisional IRA was NOT a “terrorist organisation,” it was the only defence Irish Catholic people had against the RUC and British Army, who were placing these innocent people in internment centres without crime or without trial simply for being Irish. ] (]) 19:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 17:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
(vi) the 1939 Act is counter-terrorist legislation (according to the Irish Government Department of Justice 'Terrorism' web-page: https://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/terrorism). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "Officially known as"? == |
|
] (]) 14:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What does this phrase mean? Does it mean "self-described as"? In fact they self-described as "Óglaigh na hÉireann" (which does not translate as "Irish Republican Army" either but as "younglings of Ireland" or more idiomatically "Irish volunteers", IRA merely being a euphemism of no status from 1919 onwards). And that is also the title of the Irish Defence Forces, which surely have a higher claim on "officially" etc. ] (]) 11:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:This discussion has already taken place previously and been resolved. I direct you to please refer and review the page's discussion archive as well as the other topics still present on the page itself. In addition the main article has been reviewed and critiqued as part of GAN at least 2X and the issue you claim to be addressing did not come up-because the idea that the PIRA was designated by law a terrorist group in The Republic is incorrect. You did not improve the lead, you change longstanding content multiple editors worked on to not only reflect a personal position but not even make sense. It is not semantics that the PIRA, in existence since 1969, could not be designated a terrorist group "since 1939" under a law that never even uses the word terrorism. What is semantics is is your: (i)-those words are literally synonyms of one another. To be clear the PIRA is a proscribed *terrorist group in the UK and an unlawful group in the ROI. Whether or not the PIRA is a direct descendent of the IRA is a claim I'm not prepared to affirm or contest but is irrelevant to the fact you've once again shown that you do not appear to have a strong enough grasp of this subject area to so boldly keep making serious changes. To clarify-following the split, the PIRA founders held a convention where they debate and agreed upon formal policies and structure of the new organization and elected a "Provisional" 7 man Army Council. I ask that you AGAIN, please re-read the link you provided, upon doing so you will note specific mention is made of the CIRA and RIRA but NOT PIRA. On the same website reference is made both to Northern Ireland and the Good Friday Agreement. In these areas they refer to groups engaged in the conflict from 1969-2005 as paramilitaries-not terrorists. ] (]) 02:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:See the history section about their origins. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 12:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
::Hi there, the link is to the official Irish Government's terrorist page which includes reference to the IRA (in all its manifestations). If you are so keen to be factually correct then reference shouldn't be to an 'illegal' organisation but to an 'unlawful' organisation. The Irish Government and United Nations Security Council made it clear that the 1939 Act is counter-terrorist legislation under which the IRA (in all its manifestations) are covered by - this includes the PIRA, CIRA and RIRA. You appear to ignore the fact that the United Nations Security Council and European Union do not give any entity the legal term 'terrorist organisation' but are rather groups, organisations or entities which have sanctions applied to them. The exact same interpretation and synonyms is that this means 'terrorist organisation' in the exact same way as the Irish counter-terrorist legislation applies to terrorist organisations. |
|
|
|
::That has nothing to do with the "officially known as" though - "officially" by what? What office or officer calls them this? ] (]) 20:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
::I never asked you to affirm or contest anything but am referencing the Misplaced Pages page in respect of the IRA. Please stop making personal attacks and assuming you are the fountain of all knowledge in respect of the IRA with unsourced arguments and pushing your own agenda. |
|
|
::I am trying to be factual and reflecting the position in academic articles, textbooks, journals, newspapers, government papers etc etc. |
|
|
::Please provide the source and links to which you say this issue has been well settled. |
|
|
::Sorry, what is the relevance the provisional 7 man council - where you there? ] (]) 22:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I'm not exactly sure if "{{tq|the official Irish Government's terrorist page}}" is the title they were going for. At your insistence, I have changed "illegal" to "unlawful" in the lead. Upon acceding to the UNSC anti-terrorism program, the body asked the ROI how they would address the matter of Clandestine Terrorist Orgs (the IRA would be a domestic org in the ROI) and the Irish DOJ responded that longstanding anti-sedition legislation including the 1939-1998/2005 Offenses Against the State Act (amendments)-the 2005 alone even contained the word terrorism. The irish govt affirming that their justice system is equipped to handle the issue of terrorism within the rule of law is not the equivalent re-legislating the 1939 OSA as anti-terrorism legislation and modern statements by politicians re that act cannot change the fact no contemporary source so described it as such and the law itself makes no mention of terrorism. I will give you that the irish govt calls the modern body of law in question as serving an anti-terrorism purpose. The modern statement by the ROI DOJ is that these laws "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". This is not a legal designation that the PIRA is a terrorist group. I'm not really sure how to address you final points bc both the EU and UNSC do have list of designated terrorist orgs-the PIRA is not on either btws. Please note a very clear pattern: the EU, USA, UK, UNSC, NATO, NZ, Canada, Israel etc all maintain actual lists that name specific groups as terrorist orgs-with regards to these other countries these same debates are not taking place because no one is trying to claim their interpretation of broad language referencing no particular means one org or another is a terrorist group. ] (]) 03:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
I can't edit the article since I don't have a user, but I just wanted to draw attention to a problem in a source cited in support of the claim that "Following partition, Northern Ireland became a de facto one-party state governed by the Ulster Unionist Party in the Parliament of Northern Ireland, in which Catholics were viewed as second-class citizens." The footnote cites p. 12 of Timothy Shanahan's book "The Provisional Irish Republican Army and the Morality of Terrorism". On that page, however, the author describes the "Standard Republican Narrative" of which he says that "I will not argue that these myths are false in all respects, but rather that they contain partial-truths at best and that the reality is considerably more complicated" (p. 11).
When talking about IRA targets it must be pointed out that they targeted civilians not connected with the military. For instance the Warrington Town centre bombing and the Arndale Shopping centre amongst others. They also targeted children and young people. 2A00:23C8:2455:4301:EA:900A:F8C6:2E00 (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
The provisional IRA was NOT a “terrorist organisation,” it was the only defence Irish Catholic people had against the RUC and British Army, who were placing these innocent people in internment centres without crime or without trial simply for being Irish. Cárthach Leahy (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
What does this phrase mean? Does it mean "self-described as"? In fact they self-described as "Óglaigh na hÉireann" (which does not translate as "Irish Republican Army" either but as "younglings of Ireland" or more idiomatically "Irish volunteers", IRA merely being a euphemism of no status from 1919 onwards). And that is also the title of the Irish Defence Forces, which surely have a higher claim on "officially" etc. 185.60.76.112 (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Referencing and citation: criterion met.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the