Talk:Border Campaign (Irish Republican Army)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Northern Ireland (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Irish Republicanism (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish Republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Ireland (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Untitled[edit]

I don't think the "northern campaign 1942-1944" existed. I have checked 4 books on the time period for comfirmation of its existance and it doesn't appear in any of them.

The Secret Army: The Ira 1916-1979 - J. Bowyer Bell (1971) Irish Secrets - German Espionage in wartime Ireland 1939-1945 - Mark M. Hall (2003) The Shamrock and the Swastika - German Espionage in Ireland in WW2 - Carolle J. Carter (1977) Spies in Ireland - Enno Stephan (1963)

Fluffy999 16:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Its as well I didnt remove that link, it exists and the details are in J Bowyer Bell's book on the IRA. :) Thanks to Damac for finding confirmation via Republican SF. Will spend some time updating this Border Campaign article with facts and figures next week. Fluffy999 05:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

move from "Border Campaign (IRA)" to "Border Campaign"[edit]

We should move this article from "Border Campaign (IRA)" to "Border Campaign". There is no other article of the name, so the "(IRA)" is redundant. The standard policy is never to use redundant disambiguation words in a title. The current title will of course exist as a redirect. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 17:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

One small objection, what if there are other episodes in history known as the "Border Campaign"? What do you think about IRA Border Campaign?

Jdorney 18:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

At the moment, there aren't any other Border Campaigns in Wikipedia. I wasn't aware of any other Border Campaigns but I've found out that the name is often used in Mexico [1]. So I suppose the names should stay as it is. I've put the Border Campaign redirect in place which is the important thing. I might put a stub for the Mexican thing now and make Border Campaign a disambiguation. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 19:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

South & O'Hanlon[edit]

Is this acceptable as a source for the claims? Obviously the text will need amending slightly to reflect the source if it is. One Night In Hackney303 08:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

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 16:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Border Campaign[edit]

You have not cited the constitution of the IRA, and the sources are directly cited. I'm not sure what else can be posted, based on the rules of Wikipedia.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent IGNORANT INCORRECT edits[edit]

Sources get things wrong and make mistakes. GOOD editors are capable of noticing when sources have made a mistake and compensate accordingly, BAD editors are not and make a mess of articles by blindingly adding incorrect information.

Changes to the IRA's constitution can only be made by a two-thirds majority of a General Army Convention, neither the Chief of Staff, Army Council or Army Executive can do that, only the Convention. General Order No. 8 of the IRA's constitution (which prohibits action against 26 County forces) was therefore introduced following a Convention. That much is obvious, and also made clear in the sources. Therefore when Bells later says "the IRA Army Council discussed the situation and "Out of the discussions came General Army Order No. 8" he's talking utter bollocks. A GOOD editor recognises this, a BAD one doesn't.

Bell (page 246) earlier says that the 1948 Convention accepted "no aggressive military action in the Twenty-Six Counties. This policy (emphasis added) was then stated at Easter 1949....". This is backed up by English (page 72) who states "The IRA opted to eschew formal campaigns against the southern state (which from 1948 became the Republic of Ireland): its General Order No. 8, prohibiting acts of aggression in the twenty-six county state, was originally drafted in 1948. This is backed up in addition by Coogan (page 266), who states that a week after the 1954 Gough Barracks raid a speaker at Bodenstown "repeated once again that IRA policy was directed solely against British forces in the North and said categorically that the guns would not be used against the Southern government or police force.

Now for Bell's (page 266) mistake. "Out of the new discussions came General Order No. 8, a logical corollary of the Army Convention policy of concentrating on the Six Counties. The new policy specificed that volunteers caught with arms in the Twenty-Six Counties should dump or destroy them instead of, as had been the policy in the past, defending them. Even defensive action in the South was proscribed. Henceforth arms were to be used only against the British in the North". Now, apart from Bell falsely claiming the Army Council could introduce General Order No. 8 of course, what jumps out from that at you? Apparently General Order No. 8 is that "volunteers caught with arms etc etc". Well here's a newsflash - THAT ISN'T GENERAL ORDER NO. 8 IN THE BLOODY FIRST PLACE. It's part of General Order No. 8, but General Order No. 8 is actually that volunteers should not take military action against 26 county forces under any circumstances whatsoever. So basically Bell has fucked up. He's contradicted by himself, other sources and the IRA's own constitution not once but twice, and now that it's been recognised he's fucked up there's no reason for us to compound that by including factually incorrect information that BAD editors fail to spot. One Night In Hackney303 04:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe there are Wikipedia rules against original research, OR, which is prevalent in the above, and in your edits. Please do not partake in this activity. What source do you have that indicates Bell is incorrect? Thank you.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No original research there. Please don't blindly incorporate sources' mistakes because you're lacking the knowledge to spot them. One Night In Hackney303 02:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

PS -- Coogan states, "But it was not until after the Omagh raid of October, 1954 that the Army Council formally told the units that this was no official policy and incorporated it into the 'General Army Orders'. From that month, Standing Order Number Eight read as follows...." Sounds like it happened in 1954, based on this. As it is, it's agreed among those of the era that Bell is more accurate than Coogan; see the review of Bell by O Bradaigh in the Irish Press, 1970.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, he doesn't. One Night In Hackney303 02:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Who does not what? Is this not a correct quotation from Coogan? I'm curious, would not such language be counter to the spirit of Wikipedia? Seems inappropriate to me. If you are saying that original sources made mistakes, is that not original research? Since I quoted Coogan, and you've already indicated that Bell was mistaken, that means that you are saying that Bell and Coogan, whom you quote, are mistaken. But you offer no sources on this, other than your original research - counter to Wikipedia rules.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've provided you sources, you ignored them. I even proved Bell contradicted himself, you ignored that. Everything I added was sourced, can't you see that? Since you believe in the spirit of Wikipedia, please answer the following questions:
  1. Do you accept sources make mistakes, and that Wikipedia should not compound this by including those mistakes?
  2. What is the exact text of General Order No. 8?
Over to you. One Night In Hackney303 03:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not ignored sources, I have quoted them. You seem to pick and choose which source to accept and which source to reject, which is tantamount to original research.

I accept that Wikipedia does not accept original research; I've learned that by paying attention to the comments of careful editors. Do you accept that? Who are you, or I, to determine whether or not a source made a mistake?

I don't know the exact text of General Order Number 8. You are the person who brought up the IRA constitution but did not cite it. Is that not original research?

Do you agree that Bell is the more accepted authority on the IRA, vs. Coogan?

Please do not delete cited material. It's not as if Coogan and Bell are dismissed in the literature on the Troubles.

And please don't call people names. That's against Wikipedia's spirit, too. WH.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I have an exact answer to question one please? Either "yes" or "no"? Then I will be happy to provide you with the exact text of General Order No. 8. One Night In Hackney303 03:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If you ask one question, I will provide one answer.

Will you and your friends quick reverting while we discuss this on the talk page?

Ask away.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 03:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

  1. Do you accept sources make mistakes, and that Wikipedia should not compound this by including those mistakes?
A simple "yes" or "no". One Night In Hackney303 03:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but only if you cite a source other than you who indicates that a mistake was made. If it is you who determines there is a mistake, and it is not in publication, it's original research.

A question for you: original research is against the rules, is it not?--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

PS -- meant to say "yes, but..." (not trying to be a smart alec). My question remains. Thanks.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 03:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Section break[edit]

To avoid all the problems from above.

The exact (subject to variations in transcription from copy to copy) text of General Order No. 8 from the IRA's constitution is as follows:

  1. Volunteers are strictly forbidden to take any military action against 26 County forces under any circumstances whatsoever. The important of this order in present circumstances especially in the border area cannot be over-emphasised.
  2. Minimum arms shall be used in training in the 26 County area. In the event of a raid, every effort shall be made to to get the arms away safely. If this fails, the arms shall be rendered useless and abandoned.
  3. Maximum security precautions must be taken when training. Scouts must always be posted to warn of emergency. Volunteers arrested during the training or in possession of arms will point out that the arms were for use against the British forces of occupation only. This statement should be repeated at all subsequent Court proceedings.
  4. At all times Volunteers must make it clear that the policy of the Army is to drive the British forces of occupation out of Ireland.

Now, what did Bell claim General Order No. 8 was again?

  • "Out of the new discussions came General Order No. 8, a logical corollary of the Army Convention policy of concentrating on the Six Counties. The new policy specificed that volunteers caught with arms in the Twenty-Six Counties should dump or destroy them instead of, as had been the policy in the past, defending them. Even defensive action in the South was proscribed. Henceforth arms were to be used only against the British in the North".

See, it's wrong?! General Order No. 8 is that there is no be no action against 26 County forces, what Bell is talking about is the amendment to the order. This is backed up by himself as well!

  • Bell (page 246) earlier says that the 1948 Convention accepted "no aggressive military action in the Twenty-Six Counties. This policy (emphasis added) was then stated at Easter 1949....".

So Bell agrees that the policy of no military action against 26 County Forces was initially introduced in 1948, and all that was introduced in 1954 was an amendment to that policy. English supports this:

  • "The IRA opted to eschew formal campaigns against the southern state (which from 1948 became the Republic of Ireland): its General Order No. 8, prohibiting acts of aggression in the twenty-six county state, was originally drafted in 1948."

And by Coogan:

  • a week after the 1954 Gough Barracks raid a speaker at Bodenstown "repeated once again that IRA policy was directed solely against British forces in the North and said categorically that the guns would not be used against the Southern government or police force.

There is no OR, everything in the article is sourced. The only thing is we're not including Bell's mistake that's contradicted by himself, other sources and the IRA's constitution. There's no point blindly accepting what a source says when it's so demonstrably wrong. One Night In Hackney303 03:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You do not provide a source for the IRA constitution quotation. There also is no date on the alleged quotation. Unless references are provided, this is original research. Right?

You also do not provide a page number for the final Bell quotation.

Who are you to state which part of Bell is correct and which is not? Coogan also states, "But it was not until after the Omagh raid of October, 1954 that the Army Council formally told the various units that this was now official policy. From that month, Standing Order Number Eight read as follows:". October 1954, not 1948, says the source.

Also, quoting your source, English says it was "drafted" in 1948. There is a difference between drafting something and passing it, is there not?--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 04:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Please refrain from interpreting sources, and from original research.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 03:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm done with your disruptive trolling, the sources are all listed above, and were cited in the article. Kindly stop adding incorrect information, goodbye. 04:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by One Night In Hackney (talkcontribs)

Kindly quit using the f-word and quit calling people ignorant. --WilliamHanrahan (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

As before, the sources are all listed, and there was no OR in the article. Carrying on like a broken record player is pointless under the circumstances. One Night In Hackney303 04:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's you pointing out the inconsistency (if there is one), then it's original research by you. It's a very straightforward situation. Believe it or not, the same rule has been applied against me. I appreciate the frustration, but rules are rules. For example, you quote the IRA constitution. But how would anyone know that what you quote is the IRA constitution from 1948? You provide no source.

Almost any book by Martin Dillon contains the consitution. If you don't know what it is, why are you so insistent Bell is correct? One Night In Hackney303 04:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not insisting that Bell is correct. I am insisting that you cannot make that determination, unless you wrote/published something on the subject. It's original research by you if you are the person to make the determination. Again, it's quite straightforward. I am aware that the IRA constitution is printed in Dillon. I am also aware that the constitution was changed at various points over the years. Unless it states that it is the 1948 constitution, which Dillon does not, how do we know what it said then? Again, this is straightforward.

And again, please tell your friend to quit reverting the article. It is entirely against the spirit of Wikipedia. The two of you can revert 6x in 24 hours, I can only revert 3x. Based on past experience, I'll lose privileges because the two of you play games, ignore legitimate questions, engage in name calling, and so forth. --WilliamHanrahan (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

In the spirit of not trying to causes trouble, let me clarify. IF there is an error/inconsistency in Bell's work, who are we to make that determination? Consistent with Wikipedia, we would have to turn to published sources who explain the inconsistency. Otherwise, you have your interpretation of Bell, I or someone else has theirs, and there we go. We have to stick to what's a valid source.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't made that determination. Richard English made that determination, when he correctly stated that it was introduced in 1948. Surely now you can see that Bell's 1954 version of General Order No. 8 bears no real relation to the actual Order, and is simply an amendment to the policy that Bell himself says was introduced in 1948?
As for the rest, you bring it on yourself. I pointed out in depth what the sources said and that one particular source was mistaken, why he was mistaken, and that he himself contradicts what he says. You ignored that and kept making the false statement that it was OR, when there was no OR in the article whatsoever. You chose not to take part in any meaningful discussion, instead ignoring everything that was said and repeating yourself like a broken record while continuing to edit war. If you choose to edit war, you suffer the consequences. One Night In Hackney303 04:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

English does not say that General Order Number 8 was passed in 1948. And you are not in a position to point out that a source was mistaken. I am not making false statements, I am quoting sources. You engage in OR, admit it in the talk pages, and then pretend that you don't. You also conspire with another editor to undermine my legitimate edits, and then accuse me of an edit war and talk about "consequences."

You are not in a position to state that a source was mistaken. That is original research. Admit it, and stop it.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 04:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You even state that English states that General Order Number 8 was "introduced" in 1948. That is not the same as passing it and adding it to the constitution.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, but other sources can, have, and therefore can be used. Can you explain exactly what OR you falsely claim was in the article? Please try reading Richard English properly, the sooner you do that the sooner you'll be able to add content without resorting to simply dumping sentences into articles. You're still refusing to engage in constructive discussion, please do so. One Night In Hackney303 05:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

ONIH you have been more than patient with this editor, and gone out of your way to be helpful, there is no more you can do. It is becoming painful to watch now, so you’d be better of just to ignore them, probably kinder in the long run. --Domer48 (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I've tried. I've explained at length what the sources say, how Bell is contradicted by himself, others sources (published after him) and the IRA's consitution. All I get in return is the dubious claim that it's OR, when the actual article text in question contains 0% OR. I've now added yet another source for when General Order No. 8, doubtless someone will still cling to the flawed conclusion that Bell is correct despite all the evidence to the contrary. We should not include clear factual errors, it's that simple. One Night In Hackney303 19:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this has now grown quite tiresome. The facts are there, presented in a very clear and concise manner by Hack, but Mr. Hanrahan. What else can be said? The facts are the facts, whether he chooses to accept them or not. An article in which incorrect information is willfully included and presented as correct is a useless article. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 21:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


Issues for One Night In Hackney to consider:[edit]

The article on the “Border Campaign,” states, “In theory, the IRA wished to overthrow both "partitionist" states in Ireland, which it deemed to be illegitimate entities, imposed by Britain at the time of the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1922. However, in 1948 a General Army Convention issued General Order No. 8 prohibiting "aggressive military action" in the Republic of Ireland.[5][6][7]” You have repeatedly ignored my edits of these sentences.

I will again attempt to explain the issues.

1. You state on the discussion page, “Changes to the IRA's constitution can only be made by a two-thirds majority of a General Army Convention, neither the Chief of Staff, Army Council or Army Executive can do that, only the Convention. General Order No. 8 of the IRA's constitution (which prohibits action against 26 County forces) was therefore introduced following a Convention. That much is obvious, and also made clear in the sources. Therefore when Bells later says ‘the IRA Army Council discussed the situation and "Out of the discussions came General Army Order No. 8" he's talking utter bollocks. A GOOD editor recognises this, a BAD one doesn't.’”

You provide no evidence that only an Army Convention can change the General Orders. Published sources contradict your statements. Bell states that in 1927 the Army Council rescinded a General Army Order (p. 92). Brendan O’Brien’s presents the General Orders, in The Long War (p. 355), as, “IRA General Army Orders (As amended by the Army Council) October 1973.”

2. You ignore contrary evidence.

Coogan writes, "But it was not until after the Omagh raid of October, 1954 that the Army Council formally told the units that this was now official policy and incorporated it into the 'General Army Orders'. From that month, Standing Order Number Eight read as follows….” (p. 328).

3. There are alternative interpretations of your proof that Bell is mistaken.

The 1948 IRA Convention may have adopted a policy of no action against 26-county forces, but not a general order (policies are not necessarily general orders). This would be consistent with Bell, Coogan, and Richard English, who states a general order was “drafted” (p. 71). The 1948 policy may have been codified by the Army Council as General Order No. 8, after Omagh, in 1954. Also, the IRA General Army Orders may be separate from the “constitution” and under the purview of the Army Council and GHQ. This would allow flexibility, especially during a campaign when it’s hard for a GAC to meet. The Army Council is the supreme authority when the Convention is not in session (according to the constitution). Moloney’s presentation of the “post-1996” IRA constitution (in A Secret History of the IRA), ends with article 10, which notes the two-thirds majority requirement for a change. The “General Army Orders” are not there. The “constitution” presented in Martin Dillon’s The Enemy Within has articles 1-10, followed by the General Army Orders. But note that the General Army Orders are titled separately, “Oglaigh Na hEireann (Irish Republican Army) General Headquarters General Army Orders (Revised 1987).” Brendan O’Brien’s presentation (noted above) lists the General Army Order separately as “Appendix 2.”

You may claim this is only speculation based on sources, but it’s the same thing you have done. Original research is not allowed because it leads to multiple interpretations. No source that you have offered presents your interpretation of Bell.

4. You state, “Sources get things wrong and make mistakes. GOOD editors are capable of noticing when sources have made a mistake and compensate accordingly, BAD editors are not and make a mess of articles by blindingly adding incorrect information” and “I even proved Bell contradicted himself, you ignored that.”

On the discussion pages of the Continuity IRA article your statements defending your reversions there include the following (see that discussion page, I’m not trying to take these out of context):

“Please see no original research, and please limit your contributions to what the sources actually say, not unsourced opinion or your own interpretations of sources. One Night In Hackney303 00:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)”

“If the source doesn't say it, the article doesn't say it. No interpretation of source material to draw conclusions is permitted. One Night In Hackney303 22:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

“That would be synthesis though. You'd be saying "source A says Bodenstown is significant" and "source B says these people were in attendance" and using that to draw conclusion C saying "this means that...". A source that has drawn the specific conclusion C is needed. One Night In Hackney303 13:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)”

Why are you allowed to “compensate” and “prove” contradictions in sources and then write the article so it’s consistent with your interpretation but others are not allowed this privilege? The fact is that Richard English does not say Gen. Order No. 8 was passed in 1948, only that it was “drafted”. You argue that Bell is talking about an “amendment” to Gen. Order No. 8. Is that his word, or yours? You can’t pick and choose when to apply the rules.

Summary: The quotations from Bell and Coogan that General Order No. 8 dates from 1954 should remain in the article. In the article or in the end notes there should be an explanation indicating that it’s not clear what exactly happened. I tried to do that, you reverted it.

Next issue: It was not a “theory” that the IRA wished to overthrow both "partitionist" states in Ireland. It was a fact. The article even states this, with an appropriate sentence from JB Bell. The Wikipedia definition of theory includes the following: “In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts…”

Summary: Using “theory” here is inappropriate. If there is to be a clause, it should be “In principle.” The IRA may have recognized that they could not overthrow both states, but they did still wanted to overthrow them. I edited out “In theory,” you reverted it. My edit should be restored.

OTHER ISSUES:

RepublicanJacobite makes the comment:

“An article in which incorrect information is willfully included and presented as correct is a useless article.” I agree. It’s disturbing that the following mistakes remain:

a. Belfast was not excluded because of a fear of loyalist reprisals. It was excluded because Paddy Doyle was arrested and the unit was disorganized; lack of sectarian unrest was a byproduct of the decision to exclude Belfast (see Bell, p. 285 and note 17, p. 287-88).

b. The Derrylin raid was the not on Jan. 1, 1957, it was the evening of December 30, 1956 (White 2006, p. 61).

c. The Brookeborough raid was not on Jan. 2, it was the evening of Jan. 1, 1957 (Bell, p. 299).

d. The Curragh camp, home of internees in the South, was not closed in 1960, it was closed March 15, 1959 (Bell, pp. 325-26).

e. The statement ending the campaign is quoted quoted: 1) The sentence, “Foremost among the factors responsible for ending the campaign has been the attitude…” in fact reads, “Foremost among the factors motivating this course of action has been the attitude of the general public whose minds have been deliberately distracted from the supreme issue facing the Irish people – the unity and freedom of Ireland.” 2) “Forces” and “Occupation” should be capitalized in the next sentence quoted; 3) The final sentence actually reads, “It calls on the Irish people for increased support and looks forward with confidence – in co-operation with the other branches of the Republican Movement – to a period of consolidation, expansion and preparation for the final and victorious phase of the struggle for the full freedom of Ireland; 4) the statement was not signed by the IRA Army Council, it was signed “J. McGarrity, Secretary. Irish Republican Publicity Bureau, February 26, 1962.” (See the United Irishman, March 1962.)

f. A likely mistake: “An IRA document seized in the Republic in 1956 stated….” My edition of the source, Bishop and Mallie, does not state that the document was seized in 1956. In fact, the document quoted was probably seized on January 8, 1957, in a raid of Sean Cronin’s flat, which uncovered the “General Directive for Guerrilla Campaign” (Bell, pp. 300-301).

Summary: I’ll let you or RepublicanJacobite make these changes. Based on past practice, you’ll revert anything I do, even when it is accurate. A “good” editor would not do such things.

With a spirit of cooperation I look forward to your comments on the above. I also welcome the comments of other editors interested in this article. WH--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet again, I ask you to refrain from making any generic claim of original research. Please state exactly what text in the article is original research and why. I also ask you to repeatedly stop removing the "in theory" text that clarifies the entire paragraph. There's a difference between "in theory" and "in practice", and the paragraph needs the former. One Night In Hackney303 20:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear ONIH,

Please see Saoirse, January 1955, “50 Years Ago” column. Saoirse is the newspaper of Republican Sinn Féin, whose President is Ruairí Ó Brádaigh. Ó Brádaigh, unlike Bell, Coogan, Moloney, and English, would have attended the meeting described:

“Meanwhile in early December [1954] an important IRA meeting had taken place. All officers commanding local units had been summoned to the capital.

They were addressed by Tony Mangan (sic), Chief of Staff and Tómas Mac Curtáin, Chair of the Army Council. The two GHQ officers told the assembled OCs of a new General Army Order which had been voted into Regulations by the Army Council. It would rank as General Army Order No. 8. It stated….”

The article also has an interesting reference to Brendan O’Brien’s The Long War. It is available on line. See the archive on the RSF webside, Saoirse, January 2005, p. 14.

Please also note that "theory," "principle," and "practice" all have different meanings. Demanding that "theory" explain the paragraph imposes a POV. WH--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately Bell, Moloney, Coogan and English disagree. Also I don't see the provenance that attributes the claim to the person who you claim said it either. "In theory" is a perfectly valid construct, accepted and understood worldwide by anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the English language. "In theory" simply means that while the IRA wished to do something, "in practice" they did not do it. As the paragraph then goes on to explain exactly why they didn't, it needs the qualifier. One Night In Hackney303 00:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

More for One Night In Hackney[edit]

So you admit that the sources disagree, and then you continue the article with YOUR interpretation as the correct one. That is not original research? Or POV? At best, the article should indicate that the sources disagree and then state a reasonable accommodation. To not have this in the article is to engage in POV, OR, or both.

I did not claim that O Bradaigh authored the article. My comment is that he was at the meeting described in the newspaper of the organization of which he is President. You can make the connection, or not. You may also take the view that Bell, Coogan, Moloney, and English know more about these things than the authors of Saoirse, whose leader was an O/C in 1954 and was later C/S. Either way, the reality is that General Order No. 8 was an Army Council decision in 1954.

My recommendation is that you stick to your guns -- it just exposes to all involved that you're a "good" editor.

Again, please see the definitions of "theory," "practice," and "principle." The leadership accepted the principle. They could not implement it. Theory =/ principle.

Please also continue to not make the corrections I noted -- "good" editors like you ignore clear errors so they can cling that much more firmly to their incorrect interpretation. I'm pleased that all can see it.

If any other editors want to comment here, they are welcome to join in. I'm trying to reach a reasonable accommodation, difficult though it may be. WH --WilliamHanrahan (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No, try reading the "source" you provided, in particular where it gets its information from. Look right at the end, all they are doing is repeating Bell's mistake which is contradicted by practically every other source and Bell himself. One Night In Hackney303 01:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice try, but you're wrong. And you know it.

Please help me here. On what page does Bell mention the meeting with Magan and Mac Curtain? Please answer this direct question.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Please say where in the article it says O Bradaigh or any other person who was a member of the Republican Movement at the time makes the claim? This is getting tedious. All the sources agree the policy of non-aggression against 26 county forces was introduced in 1948, including Bell. Your dogged insistence on pursuing this while openly admitting you've no intention of fixing other problems with the article is a clear case of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. One Night In Hackney303 01:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Please answer my question.

You have stated repeatedly that General Order No. 8 was introduced in 1948. I have repeatedly provided information to the contrary.

Don't try to change the issue. You're wrong. Admit it. Please fix the article. I've tried to fix it repeatedly and have been reverted by you and RepublicanJacobite. Don't blame me for your "good" editing.

Since when is disagreement on the discussion page disruptive? WH.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I've not "stated repeatedly", I've repeatedly provided peer reviewed sources, not biased partisan sources from the publication of a movement that only began in 1986 and therefore have zero credibility when it comes to events from 1948. Please read Bell more carefully, if you have you'd realise I don't even need to answer the question. If you really want me to answer it to prove you wrong once and for all, just give the word. One Night In Hackney303 01:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The peer review sources you provide are contradictory. You state this above. Why do you refuse to acknowledge this in the article? Whether or not Saoirse is partisan is not the point. And you know this, too. And, you know that O Bradaigh's involvement predates 1986.

Please do prove me wrong. I'm open to it. The objective is to have an accurate article. It's what I've tried to have all along. I'm not trying to be a pain for the sake of being a pain. If you have proof, please present it. --WilliamHanrahan (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It very much is the point, as they are a questionable source per policy. As they only formed a movement in 1986, they have no input on matters relating to this article. O Bradaigh's involvement is irrelevant, there's nothing that says he had any input into the article, especially as the sources are all cited and he's not among them. That's why you're wrong, because you haven't got a reliable source. One Night In Hackney303 02:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

By this logic, the Saoirse article is a more valid source because it was written earlier than the English and Moloney books, and Bell and Coogan are better than Saoirse because they were written even earlier. History is written AFTER events, whether it's written in Saoirse or Moloney. At least Bell and Coogan relied on primary sources. And they agree that it was 1954 for General Order No. 8.

I again ask the question: please provide a page number in Bell that mentions the Magan and MacCurtain meeting.

And please fix the article which you admit is based on conflicting sources (although we both know that the Saoirse article is correct). Thank you. WH.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Correction: Saoirse article, Moloney, English, Coogan and Bell, in that order.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

1957 election[edit]

Corrected that Sean McBride didn't resign from the 1954-57 government. He had voted with it on occasion and went on as a barrister to represent internees. In the 1957 election his CnP was squeezed between Fianna fail and Sinn Fein and was wound up in the 1960s.Red Hurley (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Patrition in 1922?[edit]

"In principle, the IRA wished to overthrow both "partitionist" states in Ireland, which it deemed to be illegitimate entities, imposed by Britain at the time of the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1922. "

Partition started in 1921 following the Fourth Home Rule Act of 1920, according to most sources. It was confirmed by the Northern Irish parliament when they voted not to exercise their option to join the Irish Free State in December 1922. "Imposed by Britain" is POV, as British policy then (and ever since) was to let that parliament decide for itself.86.42.192.72 (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
The sentence is fair as it is clear that it is an explanation of the IRA understanding of events (i.e. it is IRA POV and stated as such). Mooretwin (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)