Jump to content

Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{talkheader}}
{{Article history
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1={{WPNI|class=B|importance=Top}}
|action1=GAN
{{WP IR|class=B|importance=top}}
|action1date=03:31, 1 June 2012
{{WikiProject Ireland |class=B|importance=High}}
|action1link=Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army/GA1
{{WikiProject Terrorism|class=B|importance=mid}}
|action1result=not listed
}}
|action1oldid=495273436
{{Consensus|This article is currently subject to '''[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case]]''', as laid out during a previous [[WP:AE]] case that closed October 05, 2008. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out in the above link. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first.}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2008-07-28|oldid1=228331687|date2=2009-07-28|oldid2=304667090}}
<center><font color=red>There is a clear guideline on Wikipedia about the use of the word '''Terrorism'''. Please read it before editing.</font>
*[[Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Extremist, terrorist and freedom fighter]]</center>


| action2 = GAN
==European Union==
| action2date = 07:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
"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 [http://www.statewatch.org/news/2005/mar/06terrlists.htm was first adopted in December 2001]. All lists up to March 2005;
| action2link = Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army/GA2
| action2result = not listed
| action2oldid =


|currentstatus=FGAN
*http://www.statewatch.org/news/2004/jun/2001-931-terr-lists.pdf
|topic=Politics and government
*http://www.statewatch.org/news/2002/jun/terB180602.pdf
|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
*http://www.statewatch.org/news/2002/oct/terlist1.pdf
|otd8date=2024-07-28|otd8oldid=1237264870
*http://www.statewatch.org/news/2002/dec/terr213dec02.pdf
}}
*http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/jul/terrlist2jun03.pdf
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|1=
*http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/sep/terrlistEUSept03.pdf
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|terrorism=yes|terrorism-imp=Mid|importance=Low| organizedcrime=yes | organizedcrime-imp=Low}}
*http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/dec/terrlist2.pdf
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=Low}}
*http://www.statewatch.org/news/2004/apr/eu-terr-list2.pdf
{{WikiProject Ireland|importance=High|attention=yes}}
*http://www.statewatch.org/news/2005/mar/terr-list1.pdf
{{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. -->
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. [[User:O Fenian|O Fenian]] ([[User talk:O Fenian|talk]]) 18:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
|B-Class-1=yes

<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. -->
Which IRA would that be, IRA, CIRA, RIRA, INLA ? --[[User:De Unionist|De Unionist]] ([[User talk:De Unionist|talk]]) 21:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
|B-Class-2=yes

<!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
O Fenian, the EU's website at [http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/fight_against_terrorism/l33208_en.htm] 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."
|B-Class-3=yes
--[[User:Flexdream|Flexdream]] ([[User talk:Flexdream|talk]]) 13:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
<!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->

|B-Class-4=yes
:Not clear which IRA is being talked about, please provide an actual list that has them on. [[User:O Fenian|O Fenian]] ([[User talk:O Fenian|talk]]) 16:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
<!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->

|B-Class-5=yes}}
== Catholic and nationalist ==
{{WikiProject Northern Ireland|importance=Top}}

{{WikiProject Organizations|importance=Low}}
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. [[User:The Squicks|The Squicks]] ([[User talk:The Squicks|talk]]) 01:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom|importance=Mid|attention=yes}}
: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army&diff=297470271&oldid=297455672 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. [[User:Superfopp|<i>~Asarlaí</i>]] 01:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=}}

{{WikiProject Irish republicanism|importance=top}}
::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. [[User:The Squicks|The Squicks]] ([[User talk:The Squicks|talk]]) 02:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
}}

{{Troubles restriction}}
::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. [[User:The Squicks|The Squicks]] ([[User talk:The Squicks|talk]]) 02:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
{{tmbox|type=content|text=There is a clear guideline on Wikipedia about the use of the word '''Terrorism'''. Please read it before editing: [[Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Contentious labels]].}}

{{Annual readership}}
:::Yes I'd be happy with that wording. Are there any other changes you disagree with? [[User:Superfopp|<i>~Asarlaí</i>]] 02:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{aan}}
::::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)
|maxarchivesize = 100K
::::''IRA had not been armed or organised to defend the nationalist and Catholic communit[ies]'' Plural, since the terms are not the same
|counter = 13
::::''The Provisionals, by contrast, advocated a robust armed defence of nationalists and [of] Catholics in the north'' is clearer
|minthreadsleft = 5
::::''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. [[User:The Squicks|The Squicks]] ([[User talk:The Squicks|talk]]) 02:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
|algo = old(90d)

|archive = Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army/Archive %(counter)d
::::''£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] [[Catholicism|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 [[User:The Squicks|The Squicks]] ([[User talk:The Squicks|talk]]) 02:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::Agreed. I'll start editing this into the article, if that's alright. [[User:Superfopp|<i>~Asarlaí</i>]] 02:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::Okay. I think that there's some other things that should probably be looked at later. [[User:The Squicks|The Squicks]] ([[User talk:The Squicks|talk]]) 02:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::The constant addition of "nationalist and Catholic" is appalling, please stop. [[User:O Fenian|O Fenian]] ([[User talk:O Fenian|talk]]) 08:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Why do you see it as "appalling"? Also, please do not revert changes without discussion. [[User:The Squicks|The Squicks]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:O Fenian|O Fenian]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Superfopp|<i>~Asarlaí</i>]] 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? [[User:O Fenian|O Fenian]] ([[User talk:O Fenian|talk]]) 21:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::Please have another look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army&diff=297480974&oldid=297471297 the sentences that were changed]. None of them are directly sourced. [[User:Superfopp|<i>~Asarlaí</i>]] 21:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::::None of them? Are you sure? I do believe you're telling porkies there! Also [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army&diff=296661510&oldid=296649938 first edit] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army&diff=296717004&oldid=296661510 first revert], or had you forgotten that too? [[User:O Fenian|O Fenian]] ([[User talk: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army&diff=297480974&oldid=297471297 this wording]. [[User:Superfopp|<i>~Asarlaí</i>]] 21:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::And knowing your previous edit you made [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army&diff=297470271&oldid=297455672 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? [[User:O Fenian|O Fenian]] ([[User talk: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 '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army&diff=297480974&oldid=297471297 this]''' wording. What are your objections to '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army&diff=297480974&oldid=297471297 this]''' wording? [[User:Superfopp|<i>~Asarlaí</i>]] 21:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
::Am I to take the lack of reply to mean you ''haven't'' got any objections? [[User:Superfopp|<i>~Asarlaí</i>]] 16:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Any edits, such as that one, that are counter to Wikipedia policy will be reveted. [[User:O Fenian|O Fenian]] ([[User talk:O Fenian|talk]]) 17:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
::::What Wikipedia policy does it go against? [[User:Superfopp|<i>~Asarlaí</i>]] 17:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
::::Since you still haven't provided any arguments, I've changed the wording again. [[User:Superfopp|<i>~Asarlaí</i>]] 01:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::I have, and so have others. Mine are Wikipedia policies, please read them before editing. [[User:O Fenian|O Fenian]] ([[User talk: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". [[User:Superfopp|<i>~Asarlaí</i>]] 02:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It will be Protestant and Loyalist next, where does it end? --[[User:De Unionist|De Unionist]] ([[User talk:De Unionist|talk]]) 20:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
To be totally correct, it should be '''Roman Catholic''' and '''Nationalist'''. --[[User:De Unionist|De Unionist]] ([[User talk: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. <strong>[[User:BigDunc|<span style="font-family:Ariel Black;color:Green">BigDunc</span>]]</strong>[[User_talk:BigDunc|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:Orange">Talk</span></sup>]] 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. [[User:Superfopp|<i>~Asarlaí</i>]] 20:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Actually, quite a few Unionists are Roman Catholics as are a few Nationalists Protestants or other faith. --[[User:De Unionist|De Unionist]] ([[User talk:De Unionist|talk]]) 21:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
::::Exactly, not all nationalists are Catholic and not all unionists are Protestant. [[User:Superfopp|<i>~Asarlaí</i>]] 21:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

IMO, "Catholic" and "Protestant" is ''always'' wrong. The strife between the two communities had nothing to do with [[Sola fide|justification by faith alone]] or [[Blessed Virgin Mary|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. [[User:Scolaire|Scolaire]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:De Unionist|De Unionist]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Superfopp|<i>~Asarlaí</i>]] 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. [[User:Scolaire|Scolaire]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:The Squicks|The Squicks]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Scolaire|Scolaire]] ([[User talk: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]]. [[User:The Squicks|The Squicks]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Scolaire|Scolaire]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Scolaire|Scolaire]] ([[User talk:Scolaire|talk]]) 09:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

== Categorisation ==

Hi,

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

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


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


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


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).
[http://www.allianceparty.org/news/000560/close_slams_short_for_excusing_ira_slaughter.html] seems clear to me for the Alliance Party. [http://sdlpyouth.com/news/2009/01/08/sdlp-youth-withdraw-from-ogra-shinn-fein-debate/] seems to put the SDLP view.


== Should the category " casualties " not be titled " victims ". ==
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.


category description [[Special:Contributions/94.173.17.182|94.173.17.182]] ([[User talk:94.173.17.182|talk]]) 16:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
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.


:Since the section also includes the IRA's casualties, no. [[User:Kathleen&#39;s bike|Kathleen&#39;s bike]] ([[User talk:Kathleen&#39;s bike|talk]]) 10:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
thanks


== Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2023 ==
--[[User:Flexdream|Flexdream]] ([[User talk:Flexdream|talk]]) 13:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


{{edit semi-protected|Provisional Irish Republican Army|answered=yes}}
: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. [[User:O Fenian|O Fenian]] ([[User talk:O Fenian|talk]]) 16:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
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. [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C8:2455:4301:EA:900A:F8C6:2E00|2A00:23C8:2455:4301:EA:900A:F8C6:2E00]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C8:2455:4301:EA:900A:F8C6:2E00|talk]]) 15:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:Evidence? <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="color:green">The&nbsp;Banner</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 15:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
::If you genuinely believe that then you are either insane (in the legal definition under the [[M'Naghten Rules]] 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. [[Special:Contributions/82.16.150.34|82.16.150.34]] ([[User talk:82.16.150.34|talk]]) 22:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Actually, they didn't examples. They detailed two incidents, then [[WP:NOR|drew their own conclusions about the targets of those incidents]]. 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. [[User:FDW777|FDW777]] ([[User talk:FDW777|talk]]) 10:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for this alteration '''[[Wikipedia:Edit requests|before]]''' 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) [[User:PianoDan|PianoDan]] ([[User talk:PianoDan|talk]]) 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!"? [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 22:33, 26 October 2023 (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.--[[User:Flexdream|Flexdream]] ([[User talk:Flexdream|talk]]) 19:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2024 ==
:::The sources do not source the parties as a whole holding that view, only the people who wrote the articles. [[User:O Fenian|O Fenian]] ([[User talk:O Fenian|talk]]) 21:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


{{Edit semi-protected|Provisional Irish Republican Army|answered=yes}}
== Lede redraft complete ==
Add the "anti-imperialist organization" tag [[User:Lajward.Candango|Lajward.Candango]] ([[User talk:Lajward.Candango|talk]]) 01:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''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 [[WP:DEFCAT]]; it might be an aspect of their motivations, but it's probably far from being their central ideology. [[User:Liu1126|Liu1126]] ([[User talk:Liu1126|talk]]) 10:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2024 ==
Right, I declare that we're done (enough to implement the redraft and go from there). The draft is archived at [[PIRA/PIRAlededraft]]. The article is unprotected. I've copied the Consequent Corrections section below. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 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. [[User:BritishWatcher|BritishWatcher]] ([[User talk:BritishWatcher|talk]]) 22:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
:: Of course. Wikipedia is always a work in progress. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 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. [[User:Tfz|<font color="Blue" face="Comic sans">''Tfz''</font>]] [[User talk:Tfz|<font color="Blue"> <small></small> </font>]] 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. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 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. [[User:BritishWatcher|BritishWatcher]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Tfz|<font color="Blue" face="Comic sans">''Tfz''</font>]] [[User talk:Tfz|<font color="Blue"> <small></small> </font>]] 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. [[User:BritishWatcher|BritishWatcher]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 14:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::::: Sorry, couldnt help myself. [[User:BritishWatcher|BritishWatcher]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Tfz|<font color="Blue" face="Comic sans">''Tfz''</font>]] [[User talk:Tfz|<font color="Blue"> <small></small> </font>]] 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. [[User:Mooretwin|Mooretwin]] ([[User talk:Mooretwin|talk]]) 21:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


{{edit semi-protected|Provisional Irish Republican Army|answered=yes}}
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.
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. [[User:Cárthach Leahy|Cárthach Leahy]] ([[User talk:Cárthach Leahy|talk]]) 19:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for this alteration '''[[Wikipedia:Edit requests|before]]''' using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:PianoDan|PianoDan]] ([[User talk:PianoDan|talk]]) 17:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


== "Officially known as"? ==
=== 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. [[User:Lot49a|<span style="color:blue">Lot</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Lot49a|<span style="color:orange">'''49a'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Lot49a|<span style="color:blue">talk</span>]]</sup> 13:54, 30 August 2009 (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. [[Special:Contributions/185.60.76.112|185.60.76.112]] ([[User talk:185.60.76.112|talk]]) 11:35, 26 November 2024 (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.
:See the history section about their origins. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="color:green">The&nbsp;Banner</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 12:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
** 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)? [[User:Mooretwin|Mooretwin]] ([[User talk:Mooretwin|talk]]) 11:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
::That has nothing to do with the "officially known as" though - "officially" by what? What office or officer calls them this? [[Special:Contributions/2A02:C7C:37D6:C100:885E:F169:EE60:F3F7|2A02:C7C:37D6:C100:885E:F169:EE60:F3F7]] ([[User talk:2A02:C7C:37D6:C100:885E:F169:EE60:F3F7|talk]]) 20:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
* Consistency of terminology: the article has just one use of PIRA outside direct quotation. Try and standardise.
* Sinn Fein "refusing to comment on IRA actions". See section above "refusing to comment on IRA actions"
* 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".
* There's some serious issues with sourcing in the article, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIRA#cite_note-63 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIRA#cite_note-68 here] (addressed in part by Mooretwin's "Armed Struggle"), for starters. [[User:Throwaway85|Throwaway85]] ([[User talk:Throwaway85|talk]]) 20:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:07, 26 November 2024

Former good article nomineeProvisional 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
DateProcessResult
June 1, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
March 9, 2021Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia'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, July 28, 2020, and July 28, 2024.
Current status: Former good article nominee


Shanahan citation

[edit]

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).

Should the category " casualties " not be titled " victims ".

[edit]

category description 94.173.17.182 (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the section also includes the IRA's casualties, no. Kathleen's bike (talk) 10:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2023

[edit]

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)[reply]

Evidence? The Banner talk 15:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you genuinely believe that then you are either insane (in the legal definition under the M'Naghten Rules 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. 82.16.150.34 (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they didn't examples. They detailed two incidents, then drew their own conclusions about the targets of those incidents. 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. FDW777 (talk) 10:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. 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) PianoDan (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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!"? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2024

[edit]

Add the "anti-imperialist organization" tag Lajward.Candango (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: 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 WP:DEFCAT; it might be an aspect of their motivations, but it's probably far from being their central ideology. Liu1126 (talk) 10:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2024

[edit]

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)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. PianoDan (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Officially known as"?

[edit]

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)[reply]

See the history section about their origins. The Banner talk 12:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That has nothing to do with the "officially known as" though - "officially" by what? What office or officer calls them this? 2A02:C7C:37D6:C100:885E:F169:EE60:F3F7 (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]