Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:43, 1 September 2022

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Neutrality: All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

There is a clear guideline on Misplaced Pages about the use of the word Terrorism. Please read it before editing: Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid#Contentious labels.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Provisional Irish Republican Army article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	Provisional Irish Republican Army was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 1, 2012 Good article nominee Not listed March 9, 2021 Good article nominee Not listed
	Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 28, 2008, July 28, 2009, July 28, 2010, July 28, 2013, July 28, 2015, July 28, 2018, and July 28, 2020.
Current status: Former good article nominee

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

British crime (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject British crime, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.British crimeWikipedia:WikiProject British crimeTemplate:WikiProject British crimeBritish crime Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International relations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ireland High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Irish republicanism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Irish republicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish republicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish republicanismIrish republicanism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: British / European This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Northern Ireland Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Organizations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. {{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|class=B|organizedcrime=yes|organizedcrime-imp=Low}}Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics of the United Kingdom Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. More information: /  This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Ballymurphy massacre

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

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

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

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

IRA 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. Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 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. FDW777 (talk) 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 Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 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. FDW777 (talk) 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. Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I do. WP:PSTS backs this up completely. FDW777 (talk) 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. Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 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? FDW777 (talk) 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? Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 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. FDW777 (talk) 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. Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 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. FDW777 (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Fletcherchristian101 when can I come train and work for my money I own Ireland co Fermanagh and EU bit I can call this all euro 82.132.218.134 (talk) 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. FDW777 (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)" TheSquareMile (talk) 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? Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Socialism

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

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

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

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

Lead

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

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

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

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

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

Reverts to description of PIRA being an illegal organisation in Ireland

Hi there, I edited the intro to help improve the article to provide additional context the its designation as an unlawful organisation in Ireland.

(i) it is technically an unlawful organisation (rather than "illegal");

(ii) it is still a proscribed organisation in the UK and an unlawful organisation in ROI (rather than "was");

(iii) the UK and ROI both have outlawed the IRA (in all its manifestations) - included for background here;

(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;

(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

(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).

TheSquareMile (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2022 (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. OgamD218 (talk) 02:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• B-Class Crime-related articles
• Low-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• B-Class International relations articles
• Low-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• B-Class Ireland articles
• High-importance Ireland articles
• B-Class Ireland articles of High-importance
• Ireland articles needing attention
• All WikiProject Ireland pages
• B-Class Irish republicanism articles
• Top-importance Irish republicanism articles
• WikiProject Irish republicanism articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class British military history articles
• British military history task force articles
• B-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• B-Class Northern Ireland-related articles
• Top-importance Northern Ireland-related articles
• All WikiProject Northern Ireland pages
• B-Class organization articles
• Low-importance organization articles
• WikiProject Organizations articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• Mid-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• Politics of the United Kingdom articles needing attention
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• Unassessed Terrorism articles
• Mid-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles