Jump to content

Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.142.165.28 (talk) at 21:37, 7 September 2009 (→Lede redraft complete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

There is a clear guideline on Wikipedia about the use of the word Terrorism. Please read it before editing.

European Union

"The European Union has removed the IRA from their list of terrorist organisations". I have removed this incorrect information, as according to my research the IRA were never on it. The EU list was first adopted in December 2001. All lists up to March 2005;

If anyone has evidence that the IRA were on the EU's list this may go back, but according to my research they were not. O Fenian (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which IRA would that be, IRA, CIRA, RIRA, INLA ? --De Unionist (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O Fenian, the EU's website at [1] says "The list includes ETA (Basque Fatherland and Liberty), the IRA (Irish Republican Army), GRAPO (the First of October Anti-Fascist Resistance Group), the terrorist wing of HAMAS, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other revolutionary activist groups, as well as the names of individuals belonging to such groups." --Flexdream (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear which IRA is being talked about, please provide an actual list that has them on. O Fenian (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic and nationalist

Replacing the term 'Catholic' with 'Catholic and nationalist' throughout the article seems to me to be factually incorrect. The loyalists didn't just go after hardline political types, they engaged in explicit sectarian violence against Catholics- regardless of what their victims politics happened to be. The Squicks (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to the talk page rather than simply reverting. I'm fully aware that loyalists targeted civilians purely because they were Catholic. If you re-read the sentences I changed, you'll see that I only added "and nationalist" in instances where it was necessary. I think it's important to note that not all nationalists were Catholic/not all Catholics were nationalists. ~Asarlaí 01:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's look at each change specially. You described the Northern Ireland riots of August 1969 as against 'Catholic and nationalist' people and not just against 'Catholics'. That to me seems factually inaccurate. The Squicks (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A better wording would be that they were against Catholic homes as well as nationalist homes or something like that. The hooligans attacked both nationalist Catholics and non-nationalist Catholics alike. The Squicks (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'd be happy with that wording. Are there any other changes you disagree with? ~Asarlaí 02:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have some other thoughts. (I know this sounds like nitpicking but bear with me as I think we both have the best intentions in mind)
IRA had not been armed or organised to defend the nationalist and Catholic communit[ies] Plural, since the terms are not the same
The Provisionals, by contrast, advocated a robust armed defence of nationalists and [of] Catholics in the north is clearer
in protest at their failure to defend nationalist and[/or] Catholic areas is clearer since even though areas are/were often the same thing with 'nationalist = catholic' there are/were individual blocks and neighboorhoods that were Catholic but not politically active. The Squicks (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
£100,000 was donated by the Irish government to "Defense Committees" in nationalist and [in] Catholic areas is clearer
as being defenders of Irish nationalist and [of] Catholic people against aggression is clearer
Governmental apparatus in Northern Ireland were biased against the nationalist [members] and [the] Catholic members of the community is clearer The Squicks (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'll start editing this into the article, if that's alright. ~Asarlaí 02:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I think that there's some other things that should probably be looked at later. The Squicks (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The constant addition of "nationalist and Catholic" is appalling, please stop. O Fenian (talk) 08:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you see it as "appalling"? Also, please do not revert changes without discussion. The Squicks (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth are you talking about? It is bold, revert, discuss. Superfopp was bold, he was correctly reverted, and he chose to keep making the same disputed edit. Kindly address your ire at the person repeatedly making the disputed changes. I consider people putting their own interpretation on what sources say appalling, capeesh? O Fenian (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I made the changes, I did so without using the talk page first, that was a mistake on my part. The Squicks reverted my edit, and rightly so. We discussed the changes here and came to an agreement. So what's the problem? ~Asarlaí 21:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware you two had any right to come to a binding agreement when other editors have not commented, especially when you have made similar tendentious edits on this and similar articles and already been reverted by editors not involved in your little twosome. Could you tell us what the already cited sources say in the sentences you changed? O Fenian (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please have another look at the sentences that were changed. None of them are directly sourced. ~Asarlaí 21:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of them? Are you sure? I do believe you're telling porkies there! Also first edit and first revert, or had you forgotten that too? O Fenian (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That edit was made before the discussion between myself and The Squick (directly above). We don't intend to use that wording, we intend to use this wording. ~Asarlaí 21:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And knowing your previous edit you made this edit without discussion. Please do not attempt to transfer the blame for your tendentious edit warring onto others. Would you like to answer my other questions? O Fenian (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
O Fenian, you continue referring to edits made before my agreement with The Squick. I acknowledge they weren't completely accurate, but they're irrelevant now. We intend to use this wording. What are your objections to this wording? ~Asarlaí 21:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Am I to take the lack of reply to mean you haven't got any objections? ~Asarlaí 16:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any edits, such as that one, that are counter to Wikipedia policy will be reveted. O Fenian (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What Wikipedia policy does it go against? ~Asarlaí 17:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since you still haven't provided any arguments, I've changed the wording again. ~Asarlaí 01:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have, and so have others. Mine are Wikipedia policies, please read them before editing. O Fenian (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No you have not. Explain your reasons here rather than simply stating "original research" or "unsourced claims". ~Asarlaí 02:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It will be Protestant and Loyalist next, where does it end? --De Unionist (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC) To be totally correct, it should be Roman Catholic and Nationalist. --De Unionist (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic and Nationalist are not the same thing it implies that they are one and the same this is not the fact no more than every Protestant is a Loyalist. BigDuncTalk 20:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. We should make it clear that not all nationalists are Catholic, and not all unionists ate Protestant. Some of them are non-practising or simply don't follow a religion. ~Asarlaí 20:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, quite a few Unionists are Roman Catholics as are a few Nationalists Protestants or other faith. --De Unionist (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, not all nationalists are Catholic and not all unionists are Protestant. ~Asarlaí 21:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, "Catholic" and "Protestant" is always wrong. The strife between the two communities had nothing to do with justification by faith alone or veneration of the Blessed Virgin; it was about adherence to the United Kingdom (unionism) or to a United Ireland (nationalism). The fact that the two communities were referred to at the time as "Catholic" and "Protestant" is not a reason to use those terms today. I believe they should be removed from the article altogether. Scolaire (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not correct because you can be a protestant without being a Unionist or a Loyalist. You can also be a Roman Catholic without being a Nationalist or a Republican. You can also be a Nationalist or a Loyalist whilst being an agnostic or an atheist. The strife in Ireland is between Republicans and non Republicans. --De Unionist (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scolaire, while I'd tend to agree with you there, I don't think the terms should be removed altogether. They could be used less though. During the conflict there was a number of attacks on people purely because they were believed to be Catholics / Protestants. ~Asarlaí 17:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That may be relevant to other articles; I've checked this one and there is no instance where "Catholic" or "Protestant" is appropriate. Scolaire (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? It's a matter of fact that many loyalists targeted people just for being Catholic, regardless of their politics. As for your statement "strife between the two communities had nothing to do with", I agree somewhat but that is a hasty generalization and an oversimplification. The spirituality does matter. After all, Ian Paisley called my spiritual leader "the anti-Christ". I could come up similar statements by lower-level loyalists about their fight against the 'enemies of the real Christians' and so on. The Squicks (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I am talking about this article, and not Ian Paisley. Obviously, "[the Officials] favoured building up a political base among the working class, both Catholic and Protestant" or "Father Alec Reid, a Roman Catholic priest" is appropriate. Otherwise all I can see is phrases such as "to defend the Catholic community". That community was under threat, not because its members went to mass, but because they opposed the Unionist régime and aspired to a United Ireland. Or am I wrong? Scolaire (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, many of them were under threat just for being Catholic. For example, see Ulster_Volunteer_Force#History. The Squicks (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link. I read: "In its announcement on 21 May 1966, the UVF declared war on the Irish Republican Army" and "This circle of attack by the IRA...would be followed by counter-attack on the people the UVF saw as 'hosting' the IRA: Roman Catholic civilians" (my italics). I don't see any mention of spirituality, or of doctrinal differences. Nor have I ever read that victims were selected on the basis of frequency of church attendance or other evidence of devotion. AFAIK they were chosen simply because they lived in a "Catholic" (which actually means nationalist) area. To repeat myself, the fact that the UVF, the politicians and the media referred to those people as "Catholics" is not a reason for us to do so. The UVF article needs tidying up in that respect as much as this article does. Scolaire (talk) 08:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put it another way: how many instances were there of loyalist attacks on Catholics who were known unionist supporters, or who were outspoken against republicans or civil rights activists? In such instances—and I don't know of any—it would be reasonable to assume that they were attacked for their religion; otherwise there must be the presumption that any attacks were on the basis of the equation "Catholics" = "IRA supporters" i.e. not religious but political. Scolaire (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

[2] seems clear to me for the Alliance Party. [3] seems to put the SDLP view.

Whatever their position was, I think it should be stated, not implied. I think this is important for context. I couldn't have named all 3 Unionist parties, but someone thinks it necessary to name each one and say they referred to the IRA as terrorists, but not to say anything at all about the other main parties.

If I've got my facts wrong on the positions of the parties, then that just shows even more that the present article is deficient.

thanks

--Flexdream (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are primary sources for the views of political parties, or in fact for the views of the person writing. There is no evidence that as a party those views are held, and independent secondary sources would be needed to draw such a conclusion. O Fenian (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying that there is no evidence the Alliance Party considered the IRA a terrorist organisation, and that even if they said so (such as the news release I've quoted from their own website) you'd need someone else saying it before you'd be convinced? That's perverse.--Flexdream (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sources do not source the parties as a whole holding that view, only the people who wrote the articles. O Fenian (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lede redraft complete

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. Rd232 talk 19:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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.


Consequent corrections to the article

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

  • Cost of damage. Currently we have estimates for the cost of two bombings together. Estimates covering the whole period would be a useful addition to the article, and possibly the lede.
    • If we are to have (economic) cost of damage in the lede, then surely human cost should also be there in terms of injuries as well as deaths? I know this started a big argument, but did we ever get it resolved (we now have the actual text)? Mooretwin (talk) 11:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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, here and here (addressed in part by Mooretwin's "Armed Struggle"), for starters. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army&oldid=312467569"