This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Provisional Irish Republican Army article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
Provisional Irish Republican Army was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on July 28, 2008, July 28, 2009, July 28, 2010, July 28, 2013, July 28, 2015, July 28, 2018, and July 28, 2020. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
There is a clear guideline on Wikipedia about the use of the word Terrorism. Please read it before editing: Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Contentious labels. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
My edit was reverted. I had stated, as per the cited report, that the IRA retained some of its weaponry. The preceding paragraphs deal extensively with the amount of guns and explosives held by the organisation. There is also significant information on the decommissioning. The page at the minute, reads as if the IRA has completely decommissioned its weaponry. The already cited Assessment_on_Paramilitary_Groups_in_Northern_Ireland states that they have retained some weapons. I’m unsure of how best to seek consensus on this when I have quoted the latest report and it does not seem to be enough.
It is my opinion, looking at the edits of fdw777, that there is significant bias in his editing. While I understand that this is is a highly emotive subject, I think it may be useful if some others maybe took an interest in the subject to enhance the impartiality of the page. Fletcherchristian101 ( talk) 19:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, if I cite the following document which states that the IRA retained some weaponry would that be sufficient? Armstrong use the word “may”, the report does not contain that ambiguity, it states clearly they do have weaponry. There’s a world Of difference between someone maybe having something and actually having something. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/469548/Paramilitary_Groups_in_Northern_Ireland_-_20_Oct_2015.pdf Fletcherchristian101 ( talk) 20:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
So you believe that someone’s interpretation of the report is actually more factual that the actual report itself, even when the interpretation draws a conclusion that is contrary to the primary source? You’ve lost me, how does that make sense? The primary references states they have retained arms, the secondary states they may have. The secondary has introduced ambiguity where there was previously none. Fletcherchristian101 ( talk) 22:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
I understand that in some cases primary sources may be by people who are close to an event and therefore are bias. In this case we are dealing with a government report. It is a legitimate source of greater worth that an individuals interpretation. Fletcherchristian101 ( talk) 22:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
I have no idea why Armstrong refuses to accept he entirety of a government report, one which has been referenced in the media by both the UK and the Irish governments. Armstrong does seem to accept those parts of the report which could be deemed as favourable to republicanism so maybe there is a deliberate bias there. Regardless of his interpretation and reasons behind it, the report is clear, arms have been retained. A government report which is held up as the truth by both the UK and Irish governments and incidentally both the UK and the Irish police forces (who can be relied on to know more of the actual situation on the ground than Armstrong) has to be more reliable than an interpretation by a third party with unknown bias. Not sure why you are supporting Armstrong unsubstantiated beliefs and ignoring the stated legal position of two governments? Fletcherchristian101 ( talk) 23:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Surely if that was the case, then neither is someone’s interpretation of the report. You can’t ignore the findings of the most recent report and insist on using the findings of a historical report, as if they are current, by the same government just because you don’t like the findings. Fletcherchristian101 ( talk) 15:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I edited the intro to help improve the article to provide additional context the its designation as an unlawful organisation in Ireland.
(i) it is technically an unlawful organisation (rather than "illegal");
(ii) it is still a proscribed organisation in the UK and an unlawful organisation in ROI (rather than "was");
(iii) the UK and ROI both have outlawed the IRA (in all its manifestations) - included for background here;
(iv) reference to the 1939 Act is factual and sourced (the IRA in all its manifestations was outlawed under this Act by a Suppression Order) - included for background here;
(v) as it was/is a direct descendant from the 'IRA' the technicality that the 'PIRA' did not exist in 1969 is a moot point and one of semantics but agree if this is an issue the drafting can be clarified if needed. There is no constitutional document or formal organisation incorporation - the group just splintered and formed two competing factions (Wikipedia source on the 'IRA' for context); and
(vi) the 1939 Act is counter-terrorist legislation (according to the Irish Government Department of Justice 'Terrorism' web-page: https://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/terrorism).
TheSquareMile ( talk) 14:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
the official Irish Government's terrorist page" is the title they were going for. At your insistence, I have changed "illegal" to "unlawful" in the lead. Upon acceding to the UNSC anti-terrorism program, the body asked the ROI how they would address the matter of Clandestine Terrorist Orgs (the IRA would be a domestic org in the ROI) and the Irish DOJ responded that longstanding anti-sedition legislation including the 1939-1998/2005 Offenses Against the State Act (amendments)-the 2005 alone even contained the word terrorism. The irish govt affirming that their justice system is equipped to handle the issue of terrorism within the rule of law is not the equivalent re-legislating the 1939 OSA as anti-terrorism legislation and modern statements by politicians re that act cannot change the fact no contemporary source so described it as such and the law itself makes no mention of terrorism. I will give you that the irish govt calls the modern body of law in question as serving an anti-terrorism purpose. The modern statement by the ROI DOJ is that these laws "were introduced and have been primarily used to counter the threat posed by the IRA in all its manifestations, including, latterly, the dissident republican terrorist organisations of the so-called Real IRA and Continuity IRA". This is not a legal designation that the PIRA is a terrorist group. I'm not really sure how to address you final points bc both the EU and UNSC do have list of designated terrorist orgs-the PIRA is not on either btws. Please note a very clear pattern: the EU, USA, UK, UNSC, NATO, NZ, Canada, Israel etc all maintain actual lists that name specific groups as terrorist orgs-with regards to these other countries these same debates are not taking place because no one is trying to claim their interpretation of broad language referencing no particular means one org or another is a terrorist group. OgamD218 ( talk) 03:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Plip!
I'm sorry, TheSquareMile - did you really just revive a six-month old thread with a 46Kb wall-of-text response?! Consider yourself trouted! Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
category description 94.173.17.182 ( talk) 16:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
When talking about IRA targets it must be pointed out that they targeted civilians not connected with the military. For instance the Warrington Town centre bombing and the Arndale Shopping centre amongst others. They also targeted children and young people. 2A00:23C8:2455:4301:EA:900A:F8C6:2E00 ( talk) 15:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a
consensus for this alteration
before using the {{
Edit semi-protected}}
template. This is not an uncontroversial edit which can be applied via an edit request. (It's also not in a "change x to y" format)
PianoDan (
talk) 21:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the "anti-imperialist organization" tag Lajward.Candango ( talk) 01:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Provisional Irish Republican Army article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
Provisional Irish Republican Army was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on July 28, 2008, July 28, 2009, July 28, 2010, July 28, 2013, July 28, 2015, July 28, 2018, and July 28, 2020. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
There is a clear guideline on Wikipedia about the use of the word Terrorism. Please read it before editing: Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Contentious labels. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
My edit was reverted. I had stated, as per the cited report, that the IRA retained some of its weaponry. The preceding paragraphs deal extensively with the amount of guns and explosives held by the organisation. There is also significant information on the decommissioning. The page at the minute, reads as if the IRA has completely decommissioned its weaponry. The already cited Assessment_on_Paramilitary_Groups_in_Northern_Ireland states that they have retained some weapons. I’m unsure of how best to seek consensus on this when I have quoted the latest report and it does not seem to be enough.
It is my opinion, looking at the edits of fdw777, that there is significant bias in his editing. While I understand that this is is a highly emotive subject, I think it may be useful if some others maybe took an interest in the subject to enhance the impartiality of the page. Fletcherchristian101 ( talk) 19:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, if I cite the following document which states that the IRA retained some weaponry would that be sufficient? Armstrong use the word “may”, the report does not contain that ambiguity, it states clearly they do have weaponry. There’s a world Of difference between someone maybe having something and actually having something. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/469548/Paramilitary_Groups_in_Northern_Ireland_-_20_Oct_2015.pdf Fletcherchristian101 ( talk) 20:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
So you believe that someone’s interpretation of the report is actually more factual that the actual report itself, even when the interpretation draws a conclusion that is contrary to the primary source? You’ve lost me, how does that make sense? The primary references states they have retained arms, the secondary states they may have. The secondary has introduced ambiguity where there was previously none. Fletcherchristian101 ( talk) 22:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
I understand that in some cases primary sources may be by people who are close to an event and therefore are bias. In this case we are dealing with a government report. It is a legitimate source of greater worth that an individuals interpretation. Fletcherchristian101 ( talk) 22:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
I have no idea why Armstrong refuses to accept he entirety of a government report, one which has been referenced in the media by both the UK and the Irish governments. Armstrong does seem to accept those parts of the report which could be deemed as favourable to republicanism so maybe there is a deliberate bias there. Regardless of his interpretation and reasons behind it, the report is clear, arms have been retained. A government report which is held up as the truth by both the UK and Irish governments and incidentally both the UK and the Irish police forces (who can be relied on to know more of the actual situation on the ground than Armstrong) has to be more reliable than an interpretation by a third party with unknown bias. Not sure why you are supporting Armstrong unsubstantiated beliefs and ignoring the stated legal position of two governments? Fletcherchristian101 ( talk) 23:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Surely if that was the case, then neither is someone’s interpretation of the report. You can’t ignore the findings of the most recent report and insist on using the findings of a historical report, as if they are current, by the same government just because you don’t like the findings. Fletcherchristian101 ( talk) 15:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I edited the intro to help improve the article to provide additional context the its designation as an unlawful organisation in Ireland.
(i) it is technically an unlawful organisation (rather than "illegal");
(ii) it is still a proscribed organisation in the UK and an unlawful organisation in ROI (rather than "was");
(iii) the UK and ROI both have outlawed the IRA (in all its manifestations) - included for background here;
(iv) reference to the 1939 Act is factual and sourced (the IRA in all its manifestations was outlawed under this Act by a Suppression Order) - included for background here;
(v) as it was/is a direct descendant from the 'IRA' the technicality that the 'PIRA' did not exist in 1969 is a moot point and one of semantics but agree if this is an issue the drafting can be clarified if needed. There is no constitutional document or formal organisation incorporation - the group just splintered and formed two competing factions (Wikipedia source on the 'IRA' for context); and
(vi) the 1939 Act is counter-terrorist legislation (according to the Irish Government Department of Justice 'Terrorism' web-page: https://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/terrorism).
TheSquareMile ( talk) 14:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
the official Irish Government's terrorist page" is the title they were going for. At your insistence, I have changed "illegal" to "unlawful" in the lead. Upon acceding to the UNSC anti-terrorism program, the body asked the ROI how they would address the matter of Clandestine Terrorist Orgs (the IRA would be a domestic org in the ROI) and the Irish DOJ responded that longstanding anti-sedition legislation including the 1939-1998/2005 Offenses Against the State Act (amendments)-the 2005 alone even contained the word terrorism. The irish govt affirming that their justice system is equipped to handle the issue of terrorism within the rule of law is not the equivalent re-legislating the 1939 OSA as anti-terrorism legislation and modern statements by politicians re that act cannot change the fact no contemporary source so described it as such and the law itself makes no mention of terrorism. I will give you that the irish govt calls the modern body of law in question as serving an anti-terrorism purpose. The modern statement by the ROI DOJ is that these laws "were introduced and have been primarily used to counter the threat posed by the IRA in all its manifestations, including, latterly, the dissident republican terrorist organisations of the so-called Real IRA and Continuity IRA". This is not a legal designation that the PIRA is a terrorist group. I'm not really sure how to address you final points bc both the EU and UNSC do have list of designated terrorist orgs-the PIRA is not on either btws. Please note a very clear pattern: the EU, USA, UK, UNSC, NATO, NZ, Canada, Israel etc all maintain actual lists that name specific groups as terrorist orgs-with regards to these other countries these same debates are not taking place because no one is trying to claim their interpretation of broad language referencing no particular means one org or another is a terrorist group. OgamD218 ( talk) 03:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Plip!
I'm sorry, TheSquareMile - did you really just revive a six-month old thread with a 46Kb wall-of-text response?! Consider yourself trouted! Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
category description 94.173.17.182 ( talk) 16:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
When talking about IRA targets it must be pointed out that they targeted civilians not connected with the military. For instance the Warrington Town centre bombing and the Arndale Shopping centre amongst others. They also targeted children and young people. 2A00:23C8:2455:4301:EA:900A:F8C6:2E00 ( talk) 15:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a
consensus for this alteration
before using the {{
Edit semi-protected}}
template. This is not an uncontroversial edit which can be applied via an edit request. (It's also not in a "change x to y" format)
PianoDan (
talk) 21:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the "anti-imperialist organization" tag Lajward.Candango ( talk) 01:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)