This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The Second Dáil was not legally an 'all-Ireland' parliament. Its membership was technically chosen in the election to the House of Commons of Southern Ireland chosen under the Better Government of Ireland Act, 1920. Politicians elected to the House of Commons of Northern Ireland were allowed to sit, but their full status was disputed. The Second Dáil ceased to exist in 1922 and has had no relevance whatsoever to modern Irish history, nor has anyone who sat in it. The people of Ireland, north and south, having been electing TDs, MPs, MLAs, etc for over eighty years. Continuity Sinn Féin's claim to legitimacy, based on a long gone parliament whose membership is long dead is plain ludicrous, but then that is what the 99% of the people of the island of Ireland think Continuity Sinn Féin is, a ludicrous bunch of non-entities who could be laughed at if they stopped thinking that they had a right to 'kill for Ireland', when Ireland has in every single election held in living memory had said the opposite. Of course the real reason this rediculous continuity 'movement' don't contest elections is that in reality they'd have a snowballs chance in hell of ever getting elected to anything. JTD
Correction its Republican Sinn Féin.
I propose that CIRA redirects to Canadian Internet Registration Authority. Upon doing a google search for CIRA, I found that the Canadian Internet Registration Authority was first on the list.
I might have missed it, but I couldn't find the continuity irish republican army among the first 10. To the best of my knowledge, CIRA is more commonly used for the Canadian Internet Registration Authority than the Continuity Irish Republican Army. I'm fine with making CIRA a disambiguation page. - Frazzydee| ✍ 23:54, 3 April 2005 (UTC)
The Continuity Irish Republican Army (CIRA) is an Irish Republican paramilitary organisation from which the Provisional IRA split in 1986 in a dispute over the attendance of the elected representatives of Sinn Féin
This is POV, and a minority POV at that. Although Republican theology is necessarily obscure, any reasonable observer would hold that the CIRA split from the Provos rather than the other way around, as the CIRA represented at best a tiny minority of IRA members. -- Ryano 10:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
The current edit reads The Continuity Irish Republican Army (CIRA) is an Irish Republican paramilitary organisation which, although it split from the Provisional IRA in 1986 in a dispute over the attendance of the elected representatives of Sinn Féin (the political party affiliated to the Provisional IRA) at Dáil Éireann (the lower house of parliament of the Republic of Ireland), remained a part of that organisation until the latter's endorsement of the Belfast Agreement in 1998.
The CIRA may not have been heard of much before the Provo ceasefire etc., but I don't believe they remained part of the Provisionals until 1998. Are there any sources to back this up? -- Ryano 18:27, 26 June 2005 (UTC)
This article was written by one of Republican Sinn Fein's armchair warriors. It needs to be cleaned up considerably, because right now it is essentially CIRA propaganda. The Politics.ie wikipedia has a far more balanced article on the Contos, which could serve as an example of how to approach the subject. Just a small example of the article's bias: note that they call the RIRA the "Real" IRA, because they view that organization as late-comers at best and opportunists at worst. mbari hogun
Well, the Politics.ie page on CIRA was written by a PSF member who is not well know for his sense of balance.-- 86.43.78.21 ( talk) 21:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I note that Jayjg has protected this page. May I just ask for an opinion on the definition of NPOV? The | Irish Defence Forces are termed as Óglaigh_na_ hÉireann in Irish law. As illustrated, it is on the cap badge worn by every soldier in the Irish army The Continuity Irish Republican Army is a terrorist organisation of perhaps a hundred members. They decide to call themselves “Óglaigh_na_ hÉireann” I edited the article to read: “However there is only one Óglaigh na hÉireann – it is the Irish Defence Forces. “ This was amended and now reads: “and Óglaigh na hÉireann is the Irish language name of the Irish Defence Forces, which considers itself to be the sole legitimate "Irish army".”
My question to you is: does NPOV require us to ignore legal accuracy? Imagine saying: “the United States Army considers itself to be the sole legitimate Army of the United States” “considers itself”? Just asking your opinion-- ClemMcGann 19:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Both the 217.* edits and the reverts are no where near to NPOV. We need to include a good portion of what the 217.* editor said, but in the form of The CIRA/supporters belive that... For example the 'official army' issue, we cannot pass judgement on whether the cuurents 26 county elected governments army is the 'official' army, as opposed to one that claims decedence from the 1921 32 county dail. If even a tiny minority believe something, its a POV matter not one of fact. The fact that weve got an editor here which clearly has this POV, thats enough for me to consider it a POV that cannot just be dismissed. We cannot even ignore the edits about the provos having branched from the CIRA not the other way around, I don't have very good information about the exact details of high level internal IRA affairs, and I don't think anyone else here does, and if they do, they can't prove it, so that means we can't say which one branched from the other, as the only evidence either way is names, the provos kept the same name, so that would suggest they are the truck while CIRA is the branch, but according to the 217.* editor they lost there legitimacy by supporting a government which they claim to be illegitmate, and claims they are not the official army, thus making themselves unable to claim to be official from the last all ireland election (at least thats what I got from it). I'm not sure if thats what 217.* was getting at, but I think its got enough of a argument to be a matter of POV, so I think we gotta have a he thinks she thinks thing the CIRA claim/believe that the PIRA branched from them... while the PIRA claim that the CIRA branched from them, we just gotta clean that up, its alot of work, but someone needs to write a true NPOV article.
I'm fine with the "..which under the Constitution of Ireland is the sole legitimate Irish Army" formulation. My POV problem is with the unnecessary suggestion that CIRA and Provo use of the name "Irish Republican Army" is illegitimate. That struck me as unnecessary POV, even though I agree that these theories of succession from the Second Dail are total poppycock - which is why I'm one of the people reverting the edits of our anonymous CIRA sympathiser. It's just that the whole question of who is legitimate is always POV, and should always be presented as something like X claims that X is legitimate and Y is not; while Y sees it the opposite way.
To answer the original question, no, Wikipedia does not have to differ to legal accuracy on matters of pure symbolism. What is legal depends on what one takes to be legitimate, and legitimacy is intrinsically POV.
As for the administrator protection, the real issue here is a single anonymous user who has not engaged in any discussion here on the talk page and whose edits are transparently and unacceptably POV. Those who are actually here seem able to deal with disputes. What is the procedure in a case like this? With a non-anonymous user, it goes to dispute resolution, but what is to be done with an anonymous user? -- Diderot 10:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Could an admin please change the tag to {{cleanup-date|June 2005}}? -- Beland 02:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
The CIRA's believed political wing, Republican Sinn Fein was formed in 1986, although the Continuity IRA is thought to of not formed, or not became active until 1998.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jah69uk ( talk • contribs) 22:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Not true. It was the Cokes who were formed around 1997/1998 as a split from the Provisionals. Óglaigh na hÉireann (CIRA) have continuity from 1916 and as such did not discontinue in 1986.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.62.147 ( talk) 16:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
If anyone has information on this new group calling itself Oglaigh na hEireann could they please add it to this page rather than the actual Oglaigh na hEireann page
Heard there is a new group called Republican Defence Association.Not sure but this could be the splinter group the IMC was referring to. Dermo69 22:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
This user pushing that the CIRA are the official army of the 32 County Republic and whatnot, how about we get this page semi-protected for a while? -- Pauric ( talk- contributions) 23:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
An Phoblacht Abú! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.95.231 ( talk)
Hi all, I'm rather new to the Wiki (just joined up a few days ago), but the whole WikiProject concept seems like an effective tool for gathering a group of people together to work on a specific subject. I'm primarily interested in contributing to areas related to Irish nationalism, and the Irish Republican Army, and I've noticed a few of you have quite a lot of involvement in the same area. So, I wonder if anyone would be interested in forming a WikiProject focusing on Irish Nationalism? Wikipeda:WikiProject Irish Republican Army seems like a good title to me! WP:WPIRA would be a great shortcut! I'm posting this up on many different pages, so I would especially appreciate it if, if you're interested, you would join me at User talk:Johnathan Swift#WikiProject IRA. Erin Go Bragh 06:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
IRA & INLA were in the CAT already, I just added PIRA, OIRA, and RIRA. There is a link to List of IRAs appearing but im not sure what purpose it serves if there are only 4-5 armed groups that attempted insurgency. Speaking of which, inclusion in CAT Revolutions might also be considered since the iraq insurgency is listed in there. Or perhaps iraq insurgency is in the wrong CAT. Fluffy999 12:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The attacks and incidents section is getting rather long, especially after I finished sourcing most of it and started adding more. I propose the significant attacks are mentioned briefly in a paragraph, and everything else is forked off into an article similar to Chronology of Provisional IRA actions. Any objections? One Night In Hackney 303 07:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
For the Continuity IRA, Maguire's support conferred on their activity a legitimacy that makes potentially lethal actions moral and justified, and (for them) delegitimated and questioned the morality of post-September 1986 activity by the Provisional IRA.
This is referenced from the 1979 edition of The Secret Army, which is prior to the Continuity IRA existing and therefore not acceptable. One Night In Hackney 303 00:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Your point is irrelevant; Maguire supported these folks in 1938, 1969, and 1986. Additional citation will be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.14.6 ( talk) 00:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Citations have been added. Please do not delete them because you do not like what is said. This is not original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.14.6 ( talk) 00:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Read the citations, PLEASE! 24.166.14.6 00:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
If it's ok, I changed the wording to delete the word "effective". Someone, presumably, can be effective, but not directly involved in the day to day work of a guerrilla. For example, someone was running guns from South to North, and, presumably, effective at it. But it's a different role vs. active service in Belfast, Fermanagh, etc. This is not to slight anyone. It just is more accurate. -- 134.68.47.173 17:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The change is undone. -- 134.68.47.173 18:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, prove it. Read Bell, White, O Bradaigh, and Maguire's statement, and come up with your proof. But until you prove it, please don't change the article. Letting 3rd parties decide is fine by me.-- 24.166.14.6 00:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)-- 24.166.14.6 00:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
This is absurd. You can't pick and choose. Look at all of the citations, which show that morality informed the decision in 1938, 1969, and 1986. On all three occasions, Tom Maguire was a key actor. You are penalizing Maguire for being consistent over time; three times he was involved in historic decisions related to the IRA, and each time he made the same "moral" choice, in his view. It is appropriate to cite all three choices in presenting information. You have deleted a quotation from him in which he makes specific reference to the Continuity Executive and their Army Council as "lawful". What more proof do you need than that?-- 24.166.14.6 13:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
At least as early as 1987 there was a Continuity IRA, a witnessed by Maguire's statement that year. The Continuity Army Council run the Continuity IRA. In 1986, Maguire delegitimated (in his eyes at least), the Provisionals. You are forcing a point of view here that is inappropriate.-- 24.166.14.6 21:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
As you know more about Wikipedia than I, here is a question for you or others. Should this statement in the article have a reference? "...As further justification for this claim, which is rejected not only by most Irish Republicans but by the vast majority of the Irish people..." I am unaware of an opinion poll, for example, demonstrating this. And one cannot rely on elections, as the Continuity IRA has not engaged in them. Any guidance will be appreciated. As it is, it's probably best that the statement remain in the article, but it is not supported with a reference.-- 24.166.14.6 21:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
So what is the problem with my edits? Maybe I just don't get it, but if the Continuity IRA folks consider the Provisional IRA lacking in legitimacy, "illicit" and Maguire says that they have lost the right to wage war and refers to a "moral principle", what is the problem? I don't see a need to flag it, as the point is accurate, if not cited. But you seem to require a citation for every point I've made, but not for those made by others. -- 134.68.47.173 15:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a need to flag the sentence about the vast majority of the Irish people, and Republicans, not accepting Maguire's view, is what was meant.-- 134.68.47.173 15:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
But my point is that supporters of the Continuity IRA view themselves as on a higher legal and moral plain than the Provisionals. That's all. As for 1993 and the quotation, Maguire wrote statements in 1986 and 1987, he knew that there was a Continuity IRA, or else he could not have named them in 1987, right? The 1993 book has a quotation from Maguire, i.e., quoting the guy who named the organization in 1986-87. How is that out of line, is it? Certainly members of the organization new they existed, and there would have been people, like Maguire, who supported them. Hence, the rumors in various Irish newspapers between 1986 and 1994. In any event, I added a quotation from 1996. OK?-- 134.68.47.173 15:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Restating the above -- Maguire was a supporter of the Continuity IRA, who he named, and he questioned the moral and legal authority of the Provisionals. Hence, the statement that we have been arguing over should be ok, right? It's a statement about the opinion of supporters of the CIRA, that's all.-- 134.68.47.173 15:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
As always, you lose me. What does misguided and illicit mean to you?-- 134.68.47.173 19:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Can you please explain how it is unsupported?-- 134.68.47.173 19:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
All IRA meetings by their very nature are held in secret. Republicans, regardless of affiliation still refer to Government Buildings as Leinster House. Éire Nua, which had been dropped by Sinn Fein, long before the split, was adopted by Republican Sinn Fein as their party policy. The split had more to it then the conventions, and this is not present in the article. The IRA which convened the meetings were the IRA. I have referenced that information. I removed some of the information in the last quote in the section, and referenced the quote that is there. -- Domer48 11:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Daithi O'Connell named them the Provisionals until a formal IRA convention could be called, which took place in September 1970. They were "Provisional" until then; see Robert White, Ruairi O Bradaigh, The Life and Politics of an Irish Revolutionary, p. 151.-- 134.68.47.173 12:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, but were the soldiers of the "Provisional" Army Council: 1) or regular IRA under the director of the Provisional Army Council; 2) regular IRA under the command of an illegal Army Council; or 3) regular IRA under the command of no one? Thanks. -- 134.68.47.173 13:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Based on this discussion, by 1986, we are talking about the IRA. Disambiguation is therefore not necessary. As per Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army as pointed out by Bastun BaStun not BaTsun. So were are talking about two groups, the IRA and CIRA. In the lead the term Provisional is used. After that, IRA, "dismabiguating where necessary" - its clearly not necessary in this article. If you want IRA linked after the lead, that should not be a problem, i.e IRA-- Domer48 15:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I have no problems with any of the above, just curiousity: between December 1969 and September 1970, wouldn't soldiers in the IRA who were allegiant to the Provisional IRA Army Council have been members of the "Provisional" IRA? That's all. Thank you again.-- 134.68.47.173 17:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by "disambiguation"? And, if they weren't Provisional IRA volunteers, what were they? Independents?-- 134.68.47.173 17:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry ?-- 134.68.47.173 , what I want to do is replace Provisional IRA with IRA. But when you click on the word IRA, it goes to the Provisional Article. There was a discussion on this here, if you want to read through it. Take care, Regards -- Domer48 17:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I have no issues with what you propose: Can anyone answer my question, though? What was the affiliation of "IRA" volunteers between Dec. 1969 and Sept. 1970, if they were aligned with the Provisional Army Council?-- 134.68.47.173 17:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
If it's ok, I changed the wording to delete the word "effective". Someone, presumably, can be effective, but not directly involved in the day to day work of a guerrilla. For example, someone was running guns from South to North, and, presumably, effective at it. But it's a different role vs. active service in Belfast, Fermanagh, etc. This is not to slight anyone. It just is more accurate. --134.68.47.173 17:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
134.68.47.173 (
talk)
In his memoir, Sean Mac Stiofain, first C/S of the Provisional Army Council, refers to the "Provisional IRA."-- 24.166.14.6 23:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
"Notable supporters of RSF include key people who formed the Provisional IRA..." - page 310 does not say these people are supporters of RSF.It says they "attended Republican Sinn Fein's first Wolfe Tone Commemoration in June 1987". Please stick to what the sources say instead of your own interpretation of the sources. One Night In Hackney 303 12:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
People who are not supporters are not often found participating in events sponsored by the organization they do not support.-- 12.185.225.127 ( talk) 22:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Simple question - CIRA or RSF? One Night In Hackney 303 13:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying that Bodenstown is not a key event on the calendar for Irish Republicans?-- 134.68.47.173 17:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with ONIH, what is this article about, is it CIRA or RSF? -- Domer48 08:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Do the articles about the Provisional IRA also mention Provisional Sinn Fein? If no, then perhaps you have a point. But, clearly, there is a relationship between RSF and the CIRA. Indeed, the article notes that Daithi O'Connell, who was appointed Cathaoirleach at the West County Hotel, was first C/S of the CIRA. It is a disservice to the uninformed to not mention the connection, in my opinion.-- 134.68.47.173 14:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
In a situation like this, would a separate article describing the RSF-CIRA relationship be in order?-- 134.68.47.173 18:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
First of the Bodenstown bit has to be referenced. I know its true, but all the same. The use of the word “was” could be construed as it being just this particular meeting. Which is not the case, all the meetings are secret, obviously. And I removed the information, which was added to the reference, which is not contained in the reference. -- Domer48 17:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Bodenstown has now been referenced; Bell, 1979, Secret Army.-- 24.166.14.6 21:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Because it's an excellent description. As it is, the actual 1987 is available on line if you would like to cite that. Do a Google search on the IUPUI digital collection and Saoirse, and you'll find it. -- 134.68.47.173 14:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
PS -- the reference does not support, or deny, the CIRA, it's about Bodenstown.-- 134.68.47.173 17:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The citation is now to the 1997 edition of Bell's The Secret Army.-- 24.166.14.6 20:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I suggest going with two sentences, one about Bodenstown, and the other about RSF. Otherwise, there may be too much information for one sentence. You make the point, but it reads a bit long.-- 24.166.14.6 21:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Due to the non-stop addition of information that isn't supported by sources. I'll go through the article later and remove irrelevant and unsupported text that has been added recently, as this article is becoming a joke right now. One Night In Hackney 303 17:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I changed it back. Sorry. I see your point. Still getting used to Wikipedia.-- 134.68.47.173 18:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
My sincere apology to Domer48, if s/he is the person whose sentence I changed. The way it is written, it was not clear (to me at least), that the two sentences went with the citation of the 1997 Secret Army. The only part in quotation marks is in the second sentence, the word solid. My recommendation (and if you ignore I don't blame you" is that the words lifted in the first sentence should be in quotation marks, indicating that both sentences are referenced by the citation. Bell does say that they took fewer from the "Southern Provisionals" rather than the Provisional IRA, by the way. A minor point, but the former would refer to both IRA and SF. Again, my apologies.-- 24.166.14.6 20:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
"The core of the new Republican Sinn FEin was from the old Southern Provisionals, who unable..." is what my edition reads, p. 576. I have no issue with this, and I really do not intend to be a pain. Rather, I'm upset (with myself) at editing something that shouldn't have been.
As for the last part and the threat, it does seem important.-- 24.166.14.6 21:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. The article reads: The core membership of Republican Sinn Féin were from the old southern Provisional IRA, who were unable to play an effective part in the armed struggle, and had been moved from the center stage." They took fewer people with them than they had thought from the split, and the Provisional IRA remained "solid."[5] The citation is to Bell, 1997, p. 576, and on that page the phrase "Provisional IRA" does not appear. Bell starts a paragraph with, "The core of the new Republican Sinn Fein was from the old Southern Provisionals, who...." The article lifts from this specific sentence, yet, Provisionals, without the IRA, suggests both Southern PSF and PIRA, who went into RSF/CIRA -- including people like Sean O Bradaigh, who were important in PSF and RSF. The article, potentially, does not quite jive with Bell. This is an exceptionally minor point and, in part, I raise it because it seems that when I've done the same thing my edits get hammered. Not sure if my e fada worked, but thank you for the information. Might be this computer.-- 24.166.14.6 21:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
We agree, it was the article that said "Provisional IRA. I agree, putting words into referenced quote is bad. Still working on e fada.-- 24.166.14.6 01:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
e fada will work if you press Ctrl Alt Gr and then e should give you é. BigDunc 12:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Can we find some way to improve the applicability of the images to the article? Wikipedia policy says images should be relevant to the text and properly identified. The two rather vaguely labelled propaganda stills don't add much to the article, and the graffiti photo could at least be better labelled and incorporated into the structure of the text. Nimmo 08:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
This article is very poorly written, and, I imagine, very misleading to anyone who is not knowledgeable in Irish history. I would be inclined to make some corrections, but going on past experiance, each little correction then becomes a battle field for a the various propagandists that haunt the Irish Republican pages.
Just a couple of notes:
1) CIRA regards itself as The IRA. It does not see itself as having been founded in 1986, but as a continuation of that part of the IRA that always gave its loyalty to the Irish Republic. Comdt. General Tom Maguire gave the IRA the extra name 'Continuity' in recognition and appreciation of its unbroken service to the Irish Republic and its unflinching bearing of the great burden placed on it by Dáil Éireann in the 1938 Proclamation.
2) Comdt. General Tom Maguire did not give any legitimacy to the IRA in 1969 or 1986. He recognised an already established fact, i.e. that the IRA is the Army of the Irish Republic, and not a group of armed civil rights protesters looking for equal rights as British citizens.
3) The IRA does not recognise Leinster House as housing Dáil Éireann. Dáil Éireann passed its Governmental Authority to the Army Council of the IRA in 1938, then ceased to function pending the institution of the Third Dáil Éireann.
-- 86.43.78.21 ( talk) 21:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Might I suggest that you at least read the talk page first. One thing you will notice straight off, is the number of IP’s instead of user accounts. This subject is well covered, and you have not really raised anything new. CIRA split from the IRA, not the other way round. -- Domer48 ( talk) 21:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
A realistic estimate would be 70-80 max besides those in prision, but the anti-GFA republicans are gaining massive support day by day and it will rise.
Has anyone a different estimate on how many numbers the CIRA have??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irish Republican rpt ( talk • contribs) 21:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I reinserted the removed WikiProject templatess that were deleted without any reason or discussion. WikiProject templates are used throughout the wiki on article talk pages to track articles and create assessment statistics based on the article quality and importance within each project. Please do not remove them. Based on the terrorism note above, I have not reinserted the Terrorism project template and will defer that decision to that project. ww2censor ( talk) 17:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Can someone please add that this terrorist group has claimed responsibility for the murder of a police man. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7934426.stm thanks BritishWatcher ( talk) 10:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I came away from it very confused about the split and who did what and what side they were on. Could an more knowledgeable editor take a pass at making the section more obvious to the uninformed? Lot 49a talk 02:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
There was an article in the times as of 28/07/10 interviewing cira members who claimed to have replaced the old leadership, sighting discontent with the lack of understanding of the southern leaders. I dont know specifics and i'm not experienced in editing wiki does someone want to update this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.140.209.51 ( talk) 22:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
No as its seems to be entirely bogus given that RSF released a statement on behalf of the legitimate leadership of the CIRA refuting it, and indeed they were aware it was going to happen. See link.
http://rsf.ie/saoirse/current/jun10.pdf —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Markievicz (
talk •
contribs)
20:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I recently added criticism of the CIRA by Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness to the "relations with other organisations" section of the article. This was reverted on the grounds that it "doesn't fit" with the section. I have to disagree: the attitude of Adams and McGuinness is surely indicative of the present state of relations between CIRA and the "mainstream" Republican Movement, and most especially Sinn Fein. The quotes also provide much-needed balance to the various assertions, presently in the article, to the effect that CIRA regards itself, or is regarded by (unamed) supporters, as the legitimate army of the Irish Republic and successor of the IRA Army Council of 1938. Generally WP:Balance requires that the viewpoint of supporters should be balanced by opposing views, in proportion to their prominence. The critical statements by figures of the prominence of Adams and McGuinness fit that bill nicely, and I have restored them. Ivor Stoughton ( talk) 03:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
While there may or may not be a place for some criticism in the article, the current section isn't acceptable. Are we planning to add quotes for every time the Continuity IRA have been criticised, by all people? If not, what is the particular significance of those quotes? The significance in preference to say quotes by the British PM, or other people of a similar stature? Rather than attempting to distill the section out of various quotes that are liked by a particular editor, I'd hope that some secondary source has written a coherent summary of what has been said. I also note the addition significantly distorted the content of a source on at least one occasion, if not more. More discussion about what should be in a section, and whether it should exist, is welcome here.
On a side note, it's also time for a particular charade to end. That will be happening early next week. 2 lines of K 303 13:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The file File:Continuity IRA 2006.jpg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:Continuity IRA 2006.jpg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. Commons fair use upload bot ( talk) 08:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Under which section should the murder of Crossan be included? Thoughts? TheWarOfArt ( talk) 02:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Continuity Irish Republican Army. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The active group now calls itself the New IRA. ( 217.42.28.51 ( talk) 16:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC))
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Continuity Irish Republican Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Is this noteworthy? http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm
The US State Department is quite well considered in many parts of the world. 78.19.233.190 ( talk) 14:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Continuity Irish Republican Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Continuity Irish Republican Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Its almost never called the Continuity Irish Repiblcan Army. Apollo The Logician ( talk) 20:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Bastun: How is the section I added "Unreliable and unencyclopedic"? 15:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Continuity Irish Republican Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Continuity Irish Republican Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZSI162Y1939.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Bastun https://www.irishnews.com/news/2018/01/26/news/republican-groups-have-no-plans-o-nh-ceasefire-style-ceasefire-1242024/ With that article in mind; I placed a question mark which linked to the CIRA timeline. They have not committed attacks for several years, and of 50 members, 25 have been arrested, this coupled with major weapons seizures, the mass arrest of top leaders in Newry, and 4 splits within the already small group demonstrate to me a highly diminshed capacity. Simon Levchenko ( talk) 18:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
As for 25 arrests:
- [1] Thursday, Jan. 14, 1999. 4 Men arrested by RUC in connection with a gun attack.
- [2] 2 Men caught in connection with an attempted pipe bombing.
- [3] 1 Man jailed for transporting an explosive device.
- [4], 9 Arrested by Gardai, Comeragh Mtns, RoI.
- [5]: 9 Men arrested in Newry, Northern Ireland, by PSNI. Every suspect in both cases was named, with their age and address listed. There is absolutely no overlap.
Some other incidents include the arrest of 4 for a shooting linked by the IMC to the CIRA: [6]
And a further 2 arrested for the bombing of an army barracks [7], thus the number is actually 31. Simon Levchenko ( talk) 18:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
References
Regarding this revert - CIRA officially calls itself "Irish Republican Army" in English and "Óglaigh na hÉireann" in Irish. In practice, these phrases are translations of one other. There is no agreed Irish-language version of the specific name "Continuity Irish Republican Army". WP:IMOS does recommend giving the Irish version of an English-language name in the opening sentence of an article, but that obviously cannot pertain when the relevant English-language name is not in that sentence. "Óglaigh na hÉireann" should be introduced in this article at the same time that "Irish Republican Army" (sic) is introduced. -- Kwekubo ( talk) 20:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Like the Provisional IRA that it split from, the CIRA sees itself as the direct continuation of the original Irish Republican Army and styles itself as "the Irish Republican Army".( t · c) buidhe 21:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The Second Dáil was not legally an 'all-Ireland' parliament. Its membership was technically chosen in the election to the House of Commons of Southern Ireland chosen under the Better Government of Ireland Act, 1920. Politicians elected to the House of Commons of Northern Ireland were allowed to sit, but their full status was disputed. The Second Dáil ceased to exist in 1922 and has had no relevance whatsoever to modern Irish history, nor has anyone who sat in it. The people of Ireland, north and south, having been electing TDs, MPs, MLAs, etc for over eighty years. Continuity Sinn Féin's claim to legitimacy, based on a long gone parliament whose membership is long dead is plain ludicrous, but then that is what the 99% of the people of the island of Ireland think Continuity Sinn Féin is, a ludicrous bunch of non-entities who could be laughed at if they stopped thinking that they had a right to 'kill for Ireland', when Ireland has in every single election held in living memory had said the opposite. Of course the real reason this rediculous continuity 'movement' don't contest elections is that in reality they'd have a snowballs chance in hell of ever getting elected to anything. JTD
Correction its Republican Sinn Féin.
I propose that CIRA redirects to Canadian Internet Registration Authority. Upon doing a google search for CIRA, I found that the Canadian Internet Registration Authority was first on the list.
I might have missed it, but I couldn't find the continuity irish republican army among the first 10. To the best of my knowledge, CIRA is more commonly used for the Canadian Internet Registration Authority than the Continuity Irish Republican Army. I'm fine with making CIRA a disambiguation page. - Frazzydee| ✍ 23:54, 3 April 2005 (UTC)
The Continuity Irish Republican Army (CIRA) is an Irish Republican paramilitary organisation from which the Provisional IRA split in 1986 in a dispute over the attendance of the elected representatives of Sinn Féin
This is POV, and a minority POV at that. Although Republican theology is necessarily obscure, any reasonable observer would hold that the CIRA split from the Provos rather than the other way around, as the CIRA represented at best a tiny minority of IRA members. -- Ryano 10:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
The current edit reads The Continuity Irish Republican Army (CIRA) is an Irish Republican paramilitary organisation which, although it split from the Provisional IRA in 1986 in a dispute over the attendance of the elected representatives of Sinn Féin (the political party affiliated to the Provisional IRA) at Dáil Éireann (the lower house of parliament of the Republic of Ireland), remained a part of that organisation until the latter's endorsement of the Belfast Agreement in 1998.
The CIRA may not have been heard of much before the Provo ceasefire etc., but I don't believe they remained part of the Provisionals until 1998. Are there any sources to back this up? -- Ryano 18:27, 26 June 2005 (UTC)
This article was written by one of Republican Sinn Fein's armchair warriors. It needs to be cleaned up considerably, because right now it is essentially CIRA propaganda. The Politics.ie wikipedia has a far more balanced article on the Contos, which could serve as an example of how to approach the subject. Just a small example of the article's bias: note that they call the RIRA the "Real" IRA, because they view that organization as late-comers at best and opportunists at worst. mbari hogun
Well, the Politics.ie page on CIRA was written by a PSF member who is not well know for his sense of balance.-- 86.43.78.21 ( talk) 21:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I note that Jayjg has protected this page. May I just ask for an opinion on the definition of NPOV? The | Irish Defence Forces are termed as Óglaigh_na_ hÉireann in Irish law. As illustrated, it is on the cap badge worn by every soldier in the Irish army The Continuity Irish Republican Army is a terrorist organisation of perhaps a hundred members. They decide to call themselves “Óglaigh_na_ hÉireann” I edited the article to read: “However there is only one Óglaigh na hÉireann – it is the Irish Defence Forces. “ This was amended and now reads: “and Óglaigh na hÉireann is the Irish language name of the Irish Defence Forces, which considers itself to be the sole legitimate "Irish army".”
My question to you is: does NPOV require us to ignore legal accuracy? Imagine saying: “the United States Army considers itself to be the sole legitimate Army of the United States” “considers itself”? Just asking your opinion-- ClemMcGann 19:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Both the 217.* edits and the reverts are no where near to NPOV. We need to include a good portion of what the 217.* editor said, but in the form of The CIRA/supporters belive that... For example the 'official army' issue, we cannot pass judgement on whether the cuurents 26 county elected governments army is the 'official' army, as opposed to one that claims decedence from the 1921 32 county dail. If even a tiny minority believe something, its a POV matter not one of fact. The fact that weve got an editor here which clearly has this POV, thats enough for me to consider it a POV that cannot just be dismissed. We cannot even ignore the edits about the provos having branched from the CIRA not the other way around, I don't have very good information about the exact details of high level internal IRA affairs, and I don't think anyone else here does, and if they do, they can't prove it, so that means we can't say which one branched from the other, as the only evidence either way is names, the provos kept the same name, so that would suggest they are the truck while CIRA is the branch, but according to the 217.* editor they lost there legitimacy by supporting a government which they claim to be illegitmate, and claims they are not the official army, thus making themselves unable to claim to be official from the last all ireland election (at least thats what I got from it). I'm not sure if thats what 217.* was getting at, but I think its got enough of a argument to be a matter of POV, so I think we gotta have a he thinks she thinks thing the CIRA claim/believe that the PIRA branched from them... while the PIRA claim that the CIRA branched from them, we just gotta clean that up, its alot of work, but someone needs to write a true NPOV article.
I'm fine with the "..which under the Constitution of Ireland is the sole legitimate Irish Army" formulation. My POV problem is with the unnecessary suggestion that CIRA and Provo use of the name "Irish Republican Army" is illegitimate. That struck me as unnecessary POV, even though I agree that these theories of succession from the Second Dail are total poppycock - which is why I'm one of the people reverting the edits of our anonymous CIRA sympathiser. It's just that the whole question of who is legitimate is always POV, and should always be presented as something like X claims that X is legitimate and Y is not; while Y sees it the opposite way.
To answer the original question, no, Wikipedia does not have to differ to legal accuracy on matters of pure symbolism. What is legal depends on what one takes to be legitimate, and legitimacy is intrinsically POV.
As for the administrator protection, the real issue here is a single anonymous user who has not engaged in any discussion here on the talk page and whose edits are transparently and unacceptably POV. Those who are actually here seem able to deal with disputes. What is the procedure in a case like this? With a non-anonymous user, it goes to dispute resolution, but what is to be done with an anonymous user? -- Diderot 10:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Could an admin please change the tag to {{cleanup-date|June 2005}}? -- Beland 02:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
The CIRA's believed political wing, Republican Sinn Fein was formed in 1986, although the Continuity IRA is thought to of not formed, or not became active until 1998.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jah69uk ( talk • contribs) 22:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Not true. It was the Cokes who were formed around 1997/1998 as a split from the Provisionals. Óglaigh na hÉireann (CIRA) have continuity from 1916 and as such did not discontinue in 1986.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.62.147 ( talk) 16:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
If anyone has information on this new group calling itself Oglaigh na hEireann could they please add it to this page rather than the actual Oglaigh na hEireann page
Heard there is a new group called Republican Defence Association.Not sure but this could be the splinter group the IMC was referring to. Dermo69 22:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
This user pushing that the CIRA are the official army of the 32 County Republic and whatnot, how about we get this page semi-protected for a while? -- Pauric ( talk- contributions) 23:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
An Phoblacht Abú! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.95.231 ( talk)
Hi all, I'm rather new to the Wiki (just joined up a few days ago), but the whole WikiProject concept seems like an effective tool for gathering a group of people together to work on a specific subject. I'm primarily interested in contributing to areas related to Irish nationalism, and the Irish Republican Army, and I've noticed a few of you have quite a lot of involvement in the same area. So, I wonder if anyone would be interested in forming a WikiProject focusing on Irish Nationalism? Wikipeda:WikiProject Irish Republican Army seems like a good title to me! WP:WPIRA would be a great shortcut! I'm posting this up on many different pages, so I would especially appreciate it if, if you're interested, you would join me at User talk:Johnathan Swift#WikiProject IRA. Erin Go Bragh 06:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
IRA & INLA were in the CAT already, I just added PIRA, OIRA, and RIRA. There is a link to List of IRAs appearing but im not sure what purpose it serves if there are only 4-5 armed groups that attempted insurgency. Speaking of which, inclusion in CAT Revolutions might also be considered since the iraq insurgency is listed in there. Or perhaps iraq insurgency is in the wrong CAT. Fluffy999 12:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The attacks and incidents section is getting rather long, especially after I finished sourcing most of it and started adding more. I propose the significant attacks are mentioned briefly in a paragraph, and everything else is forked off into an article similar to Chronology of Provisional IRA actions. Any objections? One Night In Hackney 303 07:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
For the Continuity IRA, Maguire's support conferred on their activity a legitimacy that makes potentially lethal actions moral and justified, and (for them) delegitimated and questioned the morality of post-September 1986 activity by the Provisional IRA.
This is referenced from the 1979 edition of The Secret Army, which is prior to the Continuity IRA existing and therefore not acceptable. One Night In Hackney 303 00:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Your point is irrelevant; Maguire supported these folks in 1938, 1969, and 1986. Additional citation will be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.14.6 ( talk) 00:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Citations have been added. Please do not delete them because you do not like what is said. This is not original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.14.6 ( talk) 00:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Read the citations, PLEASE! 24.166.14.6 00:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
If it's ok, I changed the wording to delete the word "effective". Someone, presumably, can be effective, but not directly involved in the day to day work of a guerrilla. For example, someone was running guns from South to North, and, presumably, effective at it. But it's a different role vs. active service in Belfast, Fermanagh, etc. This is not to slight anyone. It just is more accurate. -- 134.68.47.173 17:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The change is undone. -- 134.68.47.173 18:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, prove it. Read Bell, White, O Bradaigh, and Maguire's statement, and come up with your proof. But until you prove it, please don't change the article. Letting 3rd parties decide is fine by me.-- 24.166.14.6 00:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)-- 24.166.14.6 00:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
This is absurd. You can't pick and choose. Look at all of the citations, which show that morality informed the decision in 1938, 1969, and 1986. On all three occasions, Tom Maguire was a key actor. You are penalizing Maguire for being consistent over time; three times he was involved in historic decisions related to the IRA, and each time he made the same "moral" choice, in his view. It is appropriate to cite all three choices in presenting information. You have deleted a quotation from him in which he makes specific reference to the Continuity Executive and their Army Council as "lawful". What more proof do you need than that?-- 24.166.14.6 13:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
At least as early as 1987 there was a Continuity IRA, a witnessed by Maguire's statement that year. The Continuity Army Council run the Continuity IRA. In 1986, Maguire delegitimated (in his eyes at least), the Provisionals. You are forcing a point of view here that is inappropriate.-- 24.166.14.6 21:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
As you know more about Wikipedia than I, here is a question for you or others. Should this statement in the article have a reference? "...As further justification for this claim, which is rejected not only by most Irish Republicans but by the vast majority of the Irish people..." I am unaware of an opinion poll, for example, demonstrating this. And one cannot rely on elections, as the Continuity IRA has not engaged in them. Any guidance will be appreciated. As it is, it's probably best that the statement remain in the article, but it is not supported with a reference.-- 24.166.14.6 21:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
So what is the problem with my edits? Maybe I just don't get it, but if the Continuity IRA folks consider the Provisional IRA lacking in legitimacy, "illicit" and Maguire says that they have lost the right to wage war and refers to a "moral principle", what is the problem? I don't see a need to flag it, as the point is accurate, if not cited. But you seem to require a citation for every point I've made, but not for those made by others. -- 134.68.47.173 15:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a need to flag the sentence about the vast majority of the Irish people, and Republicans, not accepting Maguire's view, is what was meant.-- 134.68.47.173 15:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
But my point is that supporters of the Continuity IRA view themselves as on a higher legal and moral plain than the Provisionals. That's all. As for 1993 and the quotation, Maguire wrote statements in 1986 and 1987, he knew that there was a Continuity IRA, or else he could not have named them in 1987, right? The 1993 book has a quotation from Maguire, i.e., quoting the guy who named the organization in 1986-87. How is that out of line, is it? Certainly members of the organization new they existed, and there would have been people, like Maguire, who supported them. Hence, the rumors in various Irish newspapers between 1986 and 1994. In any event, I added a quotation from 1996. OK?-- 134.68.47.173 15:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Restating the above -- Maguire was a supporter of the Continuity IRA, who he named, and he questioned the moral and legal authority of the Provisionals. Hence, the statement that we have been arguing over should be ok, right? It's a statement about the opinion of supporters of the CIRA, that's all.-- 134.68.47.173 15:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
As always, you lose me. What does misguided and illicit mean to you?-- 134.68.47.173 19:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Can you please explain how it is unsupported?-- 134.68.47.173 19:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
All IRA meetings by their very nature are held in secret. Republicans, regardless of affiliation still refer to Government Buildings as Leinster House. Éire Nua, which had been dropped by Sinn Fein, long before the split, was adopted by Republican Sinn Fein as their party policy. The split had more to it then the conventions, and this is not present in the article. The IRA which convened the meetings were the IRA. I have referenced that information. I removed some of the information in the last quote in the section, and referenced the quote that is there. -- Domer48 11:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Daithi O'Connell named them the Provisionals until a formal IRA convention could be called, which took place in September 1970. They were "Provisional" until then; see Robert White, Ruairi O Bradaigh, The Life and Politics of an Irish Revolutionary, p. 151.-- 134.68.47.173 12:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, but were the soldiers of the "Provisional" Army Council: 1) or regular IRA under the director of the Provisional Army Council; 2) regular IRA under the command of an illegal Army Council; or 3) regular IRA under the command of no one? Thanks. -- 134.68.47.173 13:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Based on this discussion, by 1986, we are talking about the IRA. Disambiguation is therefore not necessary. As per Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army as pointed out by Bastun BaStun not BaTsun. So were are talking about two groups, the IRA and CIRA. In the lead the term Provisional is used. After that, IRA, "dismabiguating where necessary" - its clearly not necessary in this article. If you want IRA linked after the lead, that should not be a problem, i.e IRA-- Domer48 15:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I have no problems with any of the above, just curiousity: between December 1969 and September 1970, wouldn't soldiers in the IRA who were allegiant to the Provisional IRA Army Council have been members of the "Provisional" IRA? That's all. Thank you again.-- 134.68.47.173 17:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by "disambiguation"? And, if they weren't Provisional IRA volunteers, what were they? Independents?-- 134.68.47.173 17:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry ?-- 134.68.47.173 , what I want to do is replace Provisional IRA with IRA. But when you click on the word IRA, it goes to the Provisional Article. There was a discussion on this here, if you want to read through it. Take care, Regards -- Domer48 17:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I have no issues with what you propose: Can anyone answer my question, though? What was the affiliation of "IRA" volunteers between Dec. 1969 and Sept. 1970, if they were aligned with the Provisional Army Council?-- 134.68.47.173 17:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
If it's ok, I changed the wording to delete the word "effective". Someone, presumably, can be effective, but not directly involved in the day to day work of a guerrilla. For example, someone was running guns from South to North, and, presumably, effective at it. But it's a different role vs. active service in Belfast, Fermanagh, etc. This is not to slight anyone. It just is more accurate. --134.68.47.173 17:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
134.68.47.173 (
talk)
In his memoir, Sean Mac Stiofain, first C/S of the Provisional Army Council, refers to the "Provisional IRA."-- 24.166.14.6 23:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
"Notable supporters of RSF include key people who formed the Provisional IRA..." - page 310 does not say these people are supporters of RSF.It says they "attended Republican Sinn Fein's first Wolfe Tone Commemoration in June 1987". Please stick to what the sources say instead of your own interpretation of the sources. One Night In Hackney 303 12:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
People who are not supporters are not often found participating in events sponsored by the organization they do not support.-- 12.185.225.127 ( talk) 22:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Simple question - CIRA or RSF? One Night In Hackney 303 13:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying that Bodenstown is not a key event on the calendar for Irish Republicans?-- 134.68.47.173 17:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with ONIH, what is this article about, is it CIRA or RSF? -- Domer48 08:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Do the articles about the Provisional IRA also mention Provisional Sinn Fein? If no, then perhaps you have a point. But, clearly, there is a relationship between RSF and the CIRA. Indeed, the article notes that Daithi O'Connell, who was appointed Cathaoirleach at the West County Hotel, was first C/S of the CIRA. It is a disservice to the uninformed to not mention the connection, in my opinion.-- 134.68.47.173 14:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
In a situation like this, would a separate article describing the RSF-CIRA relationship be in order?-- 134.68.47.173 18:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
First of the Bodenstown bit has to be referenced. I know its true, but all the same. The use of the word “was” could be construed as it being just this particular meeting. Which is not the case, all the meetings are secret, obviously. And I removed the information, which was added to the reference, which is not contained in the reference. -- Domer48 17:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Bodenstown has now been referenced; Bell, 1979, Secret Army.-- 24.166.14.6 21:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Because it's an excellent description. As it is, the actual 1987 is available on line if you would like to cite that. Do a Google search on the IUPUI digital collection and Saoirse, and you'll find it. -- 134.68.47.173 14:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
PS -- the reference does not support, or deny, the CIRA, it's about Bodenstown.-- 134.68.47.173 17:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The citation is now to the 1997 edition of Bell's The Secret Army.-- 24.166.14.6 20:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I suggest going with two sentences, one about Bodenstown, and the other about RSF. Otherwise, there may be too much information for one sentence. You make the point, but it reads a bit long.-- 24.166.14.6 21:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Due to the non-stop addition of information that isn't supported by sources. I'll go through the article later and remove irrelevant and unsupported text that has been added recently, as this article is becoming a joke right now. One Night In Hackney 303 17:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I changed it back. Sorry. I see your point. Still getting used to Wikipedia.-- 134.68.47.173 18:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
My sincere apology to Domer48, if s/he is the person whose sentence I changed. The way it is written, it was not clear (to me at least), that the two sentences went with the citation of the 1997 Secret Army. The only part in quotation marks is in the second sentence, the word solid. My recommendation (and if you ignore I don't blame you" is that the words lifted in the first sentence should be in quotation marks, indicating that both sentences are referenced by the citation. Bell does say that they took fewer from the "Southern Provisionals" rather than the Provisional IRA, by the way. A minor point, but the former would refer to both IRA and SF. Again, my apologies.-- 24.166.14.6 20:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
"The core of the new Republican Sinn FEin was from the old Southern Provisionals, who unable..." is what my edition reads, p. 576. I have no issue with this, and I really do not intend to be a pain. Rather, I'm upset (with myself) at editing something that shouldn't have been.
As for the last part and the threat, it does seem important.-- 24.166.14.6 21:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. The article reads: The core membership of Republican Sinn Féin were from the old southern Provisional IRA, who were unable to play an effective part in the armed struggle, and had been moved from the center stage." They took fewer people with them than they had thought from the split, and the Provisional IRA remained "solid."[5] The citation is to Bell, 1997, p. 576, and on that page the phrase "Provisional IRA" does not appear. Bell starts a paragraph with, "The core of the new Republican Sinn Fein was from the old Southern Provisionals, who...." The article lifts from this specific sentence, yet, Provisionals, without the IRA, suggests both Southern PSF and PIRA, who went into RSF/CIRA -- including people like Sean O Bradaigh, who were important in PSF and RSF. The article, potentially, does not quite jive with Bell. This is an exceptionally minor point and, in part, I raise it because it seems that when I've done the same thing my edits get hammered. Not sure if my e fada worked, but thank you for the information. Might be this computer.-- 24.166.14.6 21:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
We agree, it was the article that said "Provisional IRA. I agree, putting words into referenced quote is bad. Still working on e fada.-- 24.166.14.6 01:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
e fada will work if you press Ctrl Alt Gr and then e should give you é. BigDunc 12:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Can we find some way to improve the applicability of the images to the article? Wikipedia policy says images should be relevant to the text and properly identified. The two rather vaguely labelled propaganda stills don't add much to the article, and the graffiti photo could at least be better labelled and incorporated into the structure of the text. Nimmo 08:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
This article is very poorly written, and, I imagine, very misleading to anyone who is not knowledgeable in Irish history. I would be inclined to make some corrections, but going on past experiance, each little correction then becomes a battle field for a the various propagandists that haunt the Irish Republican pages.
Just a couple of notes:
1) CIRA regards itself as The IRA. It does not see itself as having been founded in 1986, but as a continuation of that part of the IRA that always gave its loyalty to the Irish Republic. Comdt. General Tom Maguire gave the IRA the extra name 'Continuity' in recognition and appreciation of its unbroken service to the Irish Republic and its unflinching bearing of the great burden placed on it by Dáil Éireann in the 1938 Proclamation.
2) Comdt. General Tom Maguire did not give any legitimacy to the IRA in 1969 or 1986. He recognised an already established fact, i.e. that the IRA is the Army of the Irish Republic, and not a group of armed civil rights protesters looking for equal rights as British citizens.
3) The IRA does not recognise Leinster House as housing Dáil Éireann. Dáil Éireann passed its Governmental Authority to the Army Council of the IRA in 1938, then ceased to function pending the institution of the Third Dáil Éireann.
-- 86.43.78.21 ( talk) 21:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Might I suggest that you at least read the talk page first. One thing you will notice straight off, is the number of IP’s instead of user accounts. This subject is well covered, and you have not really raised anything new. CIRA split from the IRA, not the other way round. -- Domer48 ( talk) 21:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
A realistic estimate would be 70-80 max besides those in prision, but the anti-GFA republicans are gaining massive support day by day and it will rise.
Has anyone a different estimate on how many numbers the CIRA have??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irish Republican rpt ( talk • contribs) 21:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I reinserted the removed WikiProject templatess that were deleted without any reason or discussion. WikiProject templates are used throughout the wiki on article talk pages to track articles and create assessment statistics based on the article quality and importance within each project. Please do not remove them. Based on the terrorism note above, I have not reinserted the Terrorism project template and will defer that decision to that project. ww2censor ( talk) 17:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Can someone please add that this terrorist group has claimed responsibility for the murder of a police man. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7934426.stm thanks BritishWatcher ( talk) 10:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I came away from it very confused about the split and who did what and what side they were on. Could an more knowledgeable editor take a pass at making the section more obvious to the uninformed? Lot 49a talk 02:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
There was an article in the times as of 28/07/10 interviewing cira members who claimed to have replaced the old leadership, sighting discontent with the lack of understanding of the southern leaders. I dont know specifics and i'm not experienced in editing wiki does someone want to update this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.140.209.51 ( talk) 22:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
No as its seems to be entirely bogus given that RSF released a statement on behalf of the legitimate leadership of the CIRA refuting it, and indeed they were aware it was going to happen. See link.
http://rsf.ie/saoirse/current/jun10.pdf —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Markievicz (
talk •
contribs)
20:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I recently added criticism of the CIRA by Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness to the "relations with other organisations" section of the article. This was reverted on the grounds that it "doesn't fit" with the section. I have to disagree: the attitude of Adams and McGuinness is surely indicative of the present state of relations between CIRA and the "mainstream" Republican Movement, and most especially Sinn Fein. The quotes also provide much-needed balance to the various assertions, presently in the article, to the effect that CIRA regards itself, or is regarded by (unamed) supporters, as the legitimate army of the Irish Republic and successor of the IRA Army Council of 1938. Generally WP:Balance requires that the viewpoint of supporters should be balanced by opposing views, in proportion to their prominence. The critical statements by figures of the prominence of Adams and McGuinness fit that bill nicely, and I have restored them. Ivor Stoughton ( talk) 03:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
While there may or may not be a place for some criticism in the article, the current section isn't acceptable. Are we planning to add quotes for every time the Continuity IRA have been criticised, by all people? If not, what is the particular significance of those quotes? The significance in preference to say quotes by the British PM, or other people of a similar stature? Rather than attempting to distill the section out of various quotes that are liked by a particular editor, I'd hope that some secondary source has written a coherent summary of what has been said. I also note the addition significantly distorted the content of a source on at least one occasion, if not more. More discussion about what should be in a section, and whether it should exist, is welcome here.
On a side note, it's also time for a particular charade to end. That will be happening early next week. 2 lines of K 303 13:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The file File:Continuity IRA 2006.jpg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:Continuity IRA 2006.jpg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. Commons fair use upload bot ( talk) 08:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Under which section should the murder of Crossan be included? Thoughts? TheWarOfArt ( talk) 02:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Continuity Irish Republican Army. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The active group now calls itself the New IRA. ( 217.42.28.51 ( talk) 16:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC))
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Continuity Irish Republican Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Is this noteworthy? http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm
The US State Department is quite well considered in many parts of the world. 78.19.233.190 ( talk) 14:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Continuity Irish Republican Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Continuity Irish Republican Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Its almost never called the Continuity Irish Repiblcan Army. Apollo The Logician ( talk) 20:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Bastun: How is the section I added "Unreliable and unencyclopedic"? 15:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Continuity Irish Republican Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Continuity Irish Republican Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZSI162Y1939.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Bastun https://www.irishnews.com/news/2018/01/26/news/republican-groups-have-no-plans-o-nh-ceasefire-style-ceasefire-1242024/ With that article in mind; I placed a question mark which linked to the CIRA timeline. They have not committed attacks for several years, and of 50 members, 25 have been arrested, this coupled with major weapons seizures, the mass arrest of top leaders in Newry, and 4 splits within the already small group demonstrate to me a highly diminshed capacity. Simon Levchenko ( talk) 18:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
As for 25 arrests:
- [1] Thursday, Jan. 14, 1999. 4 Men arrested by RUC in connection with a gun attack.
- [2] 2 Men caught in connection with an attempted pipe bombing.
- [3] 1 Man jailed for transporting an explosive device.
- [4], 9 Arrested by Gardai, Comeragh Mtns, RoI.
- [5]: 9 Men arrested in Newry, Northern Ireland, by PSNI. Every suspect in both cases was named, with their age and address listed. There is absolutely no overlap.
Some other incidents include the arrest of 4 for a shooting linked by the IMC to the CIRA: [6]
And a further 2 arrested for the bombing of an army barracks [7], thus the number is actually 31. Simon Levchenko ( talk) 18:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
References
Regarding this revert - CIRA officially calls itself "Irish Republican Army" in English and "Óglaigh na hÉireann" in Irish. In practice, these phrases are translations of one other. There is no agreed Irish-language version of the specific name "Continuity Irish Republican Army". WP:IMOS does recommend giving the Irish version of an English-language name in the opening sentence of an article, but that obviously cannot pertain when the relevant English-language name is not in that sentence. "Óglaigh na hÉireann" should be introduced in this article at the same time that "Irish Republican Army" (sic) is introduced. -- Kwekubo ( talk) 20:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Like the Provisional IRA that it split from, the CIRA sees itself as the direct continuation of the original Irish Republican Army and styles itself as "the Irish Republican Army".( t · c) buidhe 21:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)