This article was nominated for deletion on 16 August 2007. The result of the discussion was No consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Republican Party - Fianna Fáil in Ireland has nothing to do with these organisations ? Weggie 14:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I have provided citations for OIRA, CIRA and RIRA as requested. I got them in a hurry from a Google search (and, in one instance, User talk:Conypiece), and I'm sure it's possible to find better. The thing is, I wrote what I wrote to save the article from being deleted. It's not a good article and it needs somebody (not me, at the moment anyway) to make a proper article with proper sourcing. But it's hardly a secret that all republican groups refer to themselves as "The Republican Movement", and to talk of removing this or that organization really does not help to build this article. Scolaire 21:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Take the bloody things out, then! Make shit of the article! Excuse me for trying to help! Scolaire 22:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
On top of this you also have the:
None of this groups are connected to each other in any fashion nor is the list of organisation in each group complete.--
padraig
22:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Padraig, your hierarchy is fine. Why don't you put it in the article? Then put a tag on the top of the article that says it needs to be sourced, and give people a little space to find the reliable sources. I only put in the "POV" sources because BigDunc said he was going to remove those groups otherwise, and that would make the article incomplete. I personally would prefer to leave it unsourced, but without the silly tags, until somebody has the time to put the work into it. And Coneypiece, of course they're separate movements! Who would want to use five different names at the one time for the one movement? And who would listen to them if they did? Let's stop going on about "proof" and "WP:RS" and try and make an article that says something meaningful. Scolaire 12:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
(deindent) Well, for a start I suggest that somebody actually writes something substantive. You're just chasing shadows at the moment. If you know something about the organizations in question, write it in the article - that's what editing is - if you don't, leave it alone and hopefully somebody else will. I have said that I think Padraig's hierarchy is a good skeleton to hang the article on: it takes the movement associated with Gerry Adams's Sinn Féin - which as I say is what is always understood when there is a reference to the "Republican Movement" without a qualification in any national paper anywhere in the world in 2007 - as the spine, and the other movements, any of which is generally referred to as a "dissident republican movement", as forks from that. But one way or another, somebody needs to start writing. It's utterly pointless engaging in a long war about an article that essentially doesn't exist at the moment. Scolaire 10:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
"The restructuring of the Republican Movement had another inevitable consequence, the removal of the O'Braidgh-O'Connell leadership" History of the IRA Brendan O'Brien. This quote shows that RSF are no longer considered to be part of the Republican Movement. That is two quotes I have given you now Conypiece and you have not provided any to say that the disputed parties are part of the Republican Movement. BigDunc 12:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: surely it would be more accurate to refer to PSF/PIRA/OSF as the Provisional Republican Movement. Also, NFE sided with the Continuity branch of the RM after the split. GiollaUidir 14:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
What that quote tells me is that O'Braidgh was no longer a part of the Republican Movement. Do you not think so? and "two dodgy quotes" from a book by an author who has reported on NI as RTE's senior current affairs reporter since 1974, and has made 3 major documentaries about the IRA. Also won European journalist of the year 1998 and the Amnesty International Award 2001. Can you please ref something and stop your play acting. BigDunc 02:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
@ Scolaire: since you have been involved with this is the past, thought it polite to notify you. I have done away with the "family tree" type construction which is better dealt with at Irish Republican Army, and replaced it with the five "factions" within the Republican movement. I realise that the CIRA are in both the Dissident Republican Movement and Continuity Republican Movement entries, but I don't see any other way of dealing with it. Also I haven't included RSF within the dissident entry. That's not to say they aren't dissidents, just that I haven't found a reference that explicitly includes them. I have tried to leave the door open for the term not being limited to the ones listed by using "which includes" at the beginning. Again also I have removed Na Fianna Éireann and Cumann na mBan from the "family tree", due to the fact the Fianna have had Official, Provisional and Continuity variants, and Cumann na mBan have been associated with the Provisional republican movement and the Continuity republican movement. Everything that's left is attributed to reliable references, with quotes included where necessary. FDW777 ( talk)
I also realise we probably need an entry for pre-split IRA and SF. Added back now, still requiring a reference but it's hardly controversial. In fact it's probably more controversial if I left it out. FDW777 ( talk) 16:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the various primary sources that supposedly prove Peter Taylor wrong. First of all, I'll quote what he said in full. Whereas I use the Republican Movement as the generic name for the 'Provos' - the Provisional IRA and Sinn Féin - the term the 'Movement' is used by republicans to mean the IRA. They do not go to gaol for saying they belong to the 'Movement': they do if they say they belong to the IRA. In fact, to the Provisionals, the term the Republican Movement means the IRA - not the IRA and Sinn Féin.
Taking each "rebuttal" in turn.
However, a Sinn Féin 'members course' of around 1979 specifically states: "Sinn Féin is the political section of the Republican Movement". Replacing "Republican Movement" with "IRA" as Taylor suggests is the case results in the sentence
Sinn Féin is the political section of the IRA. Or, if preferred there is a sentence later in the document which reads
Sinn Féin is the political wing of the Republican Movement, which would result in
Sinn Féin is the political wing of the IRA. Most references would have zero problem with the accuracy of either of those sentences.
Martin McGuinness, interviewed by John Humphrys for the BBC, denied that he was then a member of the IRA but did not contradict Humphrys when he described him as "a leader of the Republican Movement". Now that Taylor's full quote has been provided, there is no contradiction. When asked people will deny membership of the IRA, since any admission could be used as evidence against them in legal proceedings, but they are quite happy to admit to being a member of the 'Movement' for the exact reason provided by Taylor.
Similarly, Francie Molloy, chair of the National Commemorations Committee said that "the growth in the attendance at Bodenstown (the annual Wolfe Tone commemoration) is a reflection of the growth of the Republican Movement."This is from 2007, whereas Taylor's book is from 1997. In the 10 years quite a lot has happened, the IRA committing to exclusively peaceful means and therefore being supplanted by Sinn Féin.
One primary source is not sufficient to label Taylor's statement as a claim, and the other two references have been addressed. I am removing several sentences, and rewording an existing one. FDW777 ( talk) 22:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
The latter is a term which will occur frequently in this book and it is worth defining its use. 'Republican movement' is a euphemism to cloak the illegality of all those proscribed IRA organisations which come under that umbrella term, such as Na Fianna Eireann, the Irish Republican Army and Cumann na mBann (the women's grouping). It is not unlawful to be a republican or to express the republican aspiration that Ireland should be unified. Therefore members of those organisations which are illegal use the term 'republican movement' to mask their true affiliations.So he's essentially making the same point as Taylor. I don't think either of them are saying the term 'Republican Movement' only means the IRA, only that Republicans often use it in a Monty Python-esque "nudge nudge wink wink" way to avoid any explicit admission of membership of the IRA, or similar organisation, which might lead to prosecution. Perhaps we could try and reword to emphasis the point Taylor and Dillon are making? FDW777 ( talk) 13:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Not all those within the republican movement, whether they be members or supporters of the political party Sinn Féin, are necessarily volunteers in the IRA, so both he and Taylor specifically include Sinn Féin in the term. I think the point being made is that IRA members use "the movement" for what you call legal reasons, i.e. to avoid saying out loud that they're IRA members; to Sinn Féiners and the wider public it would still mean the IRA and Sinn Féin. I would be careful of how I interpret Taylor and Dillon. If we were rewording, it would be better to say "Martin Dillon says...while Peter Taylor says...". Scolaire ( talk) 14:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Peter Taylor, although he himself uses the term to refer to the IRA and Sinn Féin, states that members of the republican movement use it to refer to the IRA onlyto something like
Dillon and Peter Taylor state the term is used by members of the IRA to avoid making an incriminating statement. How does that sound? FDW777 ( talk) 14:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
@
Scolaire: Out of the Ashes: An Oral History of the Provisional Irish Republican Movement page 201 says (in relation to the dropping of Éire Nua) Sinn Féin was the junior partner to the IRA, and they had some overlapping members, but they were separate organizations. The IRA could not simply dictate orders to Sinn Féin
. I think it might be useful to use some/all of this, in particular the part about overlapping members.
FDW777 (
talk)
12:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 16 August 2007. The result of the discussion was No consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Republican Party - Fianna Fáil in Ireland has nothing to do with these organisations ? Weggie 14:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I have provided citations for OIRA, CIRA and RIRA as requested. I got them in a hurry from a Google search (and, in one instance, User talk:Conypiece), and I'm sure it's possible to find better. The thing is, I wrote what I wrote to save the article from being deleted. It's not a good article and it needs somebody (not me, at the moment anyway) to make a proper article with proper sourcing. But it's hardly a secret that all republican groups refer to themselves as "The Republican Movement", and to talk of removing this or that organization really does not help to build this article. Scolaire 21:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Take the bloody things out, then! Make shit of the article! Excuse me for trying to help! Scolaire 22:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
On top of this you also have the:
None of this groups are connected to each other in any fashion nor is the list of organisation in each group complete.--
padraig
22:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Padraig, your hierarchy is fine. Why don't you put it in the article? Then put a tag on the top of the article that says it needs to be sourced, and give people a little space to find the reliable sources. I only put in the "POV" sources because BigDunc said he was going to remove those groups otherwise, and that would make the article incomplete. I personally would prefer to leave it unsourced, but without the silly tags, until somebody has the time to put the work into it. And Coneypiece, of course they're separate movements! Who would want to use five different names at the one time for the one movement? And who would listen to them if they did? Let's stop going on about "proof" and "WP:RS" and try and make an article that says something meaningful. Scolaire 12:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
(deindent) Well, for a start I suggest that somebody actually writes something substantive. You're just chasing shadows at the moment. If you know something about the organizations in question, write it in the article - that's what editing is - if you don't, leave it alone and hopefully somebody else will. I have said that I think Padraig's hierarchy is a good skeleton to hang the article on: it takes the movement associated with Gerry Adams's Sinn Féin - which as I say is what is always understood when there is a reference to the "Republican Movement" without a qualification in any national paper anywhere in the world in 2007 - as the spine, and the other movements, any of which is generally referred to as a "dissident republican movement", as forks from that. But one way or another, somebody needs to start writing. It's utterly pointless engaging in a long war about an article that essentially doesn't exist at the moment. Scolaire 10:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
"The restructuring of the Republican Movement had another inevitable consequence, the removal of the O'Braidgh-O'Connell leadership" History of the IRA Brendan O'Brien. This quote shows that RSF are no longer considered to be part of the Republican Movement. That is two quotes I have given you now Conypiece and you have not provided any to say that the disputed parties are part of the Republican Movement. BigDunc 12:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: surely it would be more accurate to refer to PSF/PIRA/OSF as the Provisional Republican Movement. Also, NFE sided with the Continuity branch of the RM after the split. GiollaUidir 14:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
What that quote tells me is that O'Braidgh was no longer a part of the Republican Movement. Do you not think so? and "two dodgy quotes" from a book by an author who has reported on NI as RTE's senior current affairs reporter since 1974, and has made 3 major documentaries about the IRA. Also won European journalist of the year 1998 and the Amnesty International Award 2001. Can you please ref something and stop your play acting. BigDunc 02:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
@ Scolaire: since you have been involved with this is the past, thought it polite to notify you. I have done away with the "family tree" type construction which is better dealt with at Irish Republican Army, and replaced it with the five "factions" within the Republican movement. I realise that the CIRA are in both the Dissident Republican Movement and Continuity Republican Movement entries, but I don't see any other way of dealing with it. Also I haven't included RSF within the dissident entry. That's not to say they aren't dissidents, just that I haven't found a reference that explicitly includes them. I have tried to leave the door open for the term not being limited to the ones listed by using "which includes" at the beginning. Again also I have removed Na Fianna Éireann and Cumann na mBan from the "family tree", due to the fact the Fianna have had Official, Provisional and Continuity variants, and Cumann na mBan have been associated with the Provisional republican movement and the Continuity republican movement. Everything that's left is attributed to reliable references, with quotes included where necessary. FDW777 ( talk)
I also realise we probably need an entry for pre-split IRA and SF. Added back now, still requiring a reference but it's hardly controversial. In fact it's probably more controversial if I left it out. FDW777 ( talk) 16:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the various primary sources that supposedly prove Peter Taylor wrong. First of all, I'll quote what he said in full. Whereas I use the Republican Movement as the generic name for the 'Provos' - the Provisional IRA and Sinn Féin - the term the 'Movement' is used by republicans to mean the IRA. They do not go to gaol for saying they belong to the 'Movement': they do if they say they belong to the IRA. In fact, to the Provisionals, the term the Republican Movement means the IRA - not the IRA and Sinn Féin.
Taking each "rebuttal" in turn.
However, a Sinn Féin 'members course' of around 1979 specifically states: "Sinn Féin is the political section of the Republican Movement". Replacing "Republican Movement" with "IRA" as Taylor suggests is the case results in the sentence
Sinn Féin is the political section of the IRA. Or, if preferred there is a sentence later in the document which reads
Sinn Féin is the political wing of the Republican Movement, which would result in
Sinn Féin is the political wing of the IRA. Most references would have zero problem with the accuracy of either of those sentences.
Martin McGuinness, interviewed by John Humphrys for the BBC, denied that he was then a member of the IRA but did not contradict Humphrys when he described him as "a leader of the Republican Movement". Now that Taylor's full quote has been provided, there is no contradiction. When asked people will deny membership of the IRA, since any admission could be used as evidence against them in legal proceedings, but they are quite happy to admit to being a member of the 'Movement' for the exact reason provided by Taylor.
Similarly, Francie Molloy, chair of the National Commemorations Committee said that "the growth in the attendance at Bodenstown (the annual Wolfe Tone commemoration) is a reflection of the growth of the Republican Movement."This is from 2007, whereas Taylor's book is from 1997. In the 10 years quite a lot has happened, the IRA committing to exclusively peaceful means and therefore being supplanted by Sinn Féin.
One primary source is not sufficient to label Taylor's statement as a claim, and the other two references have been addressed. I am removing several sentences, and rewording an existing one. FDW777 ( talk) 22:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
The latter is a term which will occur frequently in this book and it is worth defining its use. 'Republican movement' is a euphemism to cloak the illegality of all those proscribed IRA organisations which come under that umbrella term, such as Na Fianna Eireann, the Irish Republican Army and Cumann na mBann (the women's grouping). It is not unlawful to be a republican or to express the republican aspiration that Ireland should be unified. Therefore members of those organisations which are illegal use the term 'republican movement' to mask their true affiliations.So he's essentially making the same point as Taylor. I don't think either of them are saying the term 'Republican Movement' only means the IRA, only that Republicans often use it in a Monty Python-esque "nudge nudge wink wink" way to avoid any explicit admission of membership of the IRA, or similar organisation, which might lead to prosecution. Perhaps we could try and reword to emphasis the point Taylor and Dillon are making? FDW777 ( talk) 13:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Not all those within the republican movement, whether they be members or supporters of the political party Sinn Féin, are necessarily volunteers in the IRA, so both he and Taylor specifically include Sinn Féin in the term. I think the point being made is that IRA members use "the movement" for what you call legal reasons, i.e. to avoid saying out loud that they're IRA members; to Sinn Féiners and the wider public it would still mean the IRA and Sinn Féin. I would be careful of how I interpret Taylor and Dillon. If we were rewording, it would be better to say "Martin Dillon says...while Peter Taylor says...". Scolaire ( talk) 14:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Peter Taylor, although he himself uses the term to refer to the IRA and Sinn Féin, states that members of the republican movement use it to refer to the IRA onlyto something like
Dillon and Peter Taylor state the term is used by members of the IRA to avoid making an incriminating statement. How does that sound? FDW777 ( talk) 14:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
@
Scolaire: Out of the Ashes: An Oral History of the Provisional Irish Republican Movement page 201 says (in relation to the dropping of Éire Nua) Sinn Féin was the junior partner to the IRA, and they had some overlapping members, but they were separate organizations. The IRA could not simply dictate orders to Sinn Féin
. I think it might be useful to use some/all of this, in particular the part about overlapping members.
FDW777 (
talk)
12:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)