Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army

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

• Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Extremist, terrorist and freedom fighter

False claim removed

"It should be noted that often drug dealers were attacked because they interfered with the business of IRA supported drug dealers rather than due to any moral reasons" is what was claimed, complete with an alleged source. However what the source actually says is "Because most of the drug dealers killed by this group [Direct Action Against Drugs] were considered small time by the Royal Ulster Constabularly (RUC, precursor to the PSNI) and because PIRA involvement in narcotics sales was not unheard of, most of those in Northern Ireland law enforcement were lead to believe that these killings of drug dealers around Belfast were not acts of vigilante justice but rather of the PIRA removing small-time drug dealers who either opposed the group or refused to pay their protection fees". This clearly does not match, so I have removed the addition. Discussion is welcome as to how this might be incorporated into the article. I would suggest reading this which is already cited in the article first, before any suggestions are made. O Fenian (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The claim is not false I quote from the article you suggested was read. "There is evidence that DAAD is being used not to eliminate the sale of drugs, but to enable the IRA to control the lucrative trade. Police and dealers say the IRA controls the distribution of drugs to criminals on both sides of the border. Narcotics are smuggled into Ireland through Dublin and Cork and distributed after prices and quantities are agreed at meetings in hotels in Dundalk and Drogheda. The IRA does not handle the drugs, but oversees the operation and takes a percentage from each deal. In return, it sanctions the dealers' activities and moves against their opponents." (p.29-30) The claim should be reinstated, potentially with the above used as a source instead of the original. (86.173.156.238 (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC))

You said it was sourced by "Shanty, Frank. “Organized Crime: from trafficking to terrorism, Volume 2. ABC-CLIO Inc. 2008, p.146". In my post above there is the exact quote from page 146, it bears little to no resemblance to what you added to this article. I would also quote you the conclusion on the page you mention - "For the moment, we can conclude, as a Research Institute for the Study and Conflict and Terrorism (RISCT) report has done in 1991 128 that regarding alleged PIRA involvement in drugs, 'until there is clear cut evidence to back up these allegations it would be wise to suspend judgement'". O Fenian (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I accept the original source could have been better but I disagree that it was totally out of context. The claim could be modified to "It has been alleged that often drug dealers were attacked because they interfered with the business of IRA supported drug dealers rather than due to any moral reasons." This can be backed up with the last quote I gave. I would suggest that you are intent on avoiding the PIRA being linked with the drugs trade despite ample evidence. Such an approach is not acceptable given wikipedia's NPOV policy. (86.173.156.238 (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC))

You are wrong. O Fenian (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You are delibrately missing the point, I'm not arguing that PIRA directly carry out drug dealing, they do however as the article already states licence and allow it. They attack drug dealers they have not licenced. Unless selling drugs when sanctioned by the PIRA is somehow morally superior to selling drugs in other circumstances (it isn't) my original statement that "often drug dealers were attacked because they interfered with the business of IRA supported drug dealers rather than due to any moral reasons" is entirely correct. (86.173.156.238 (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC))

So their alleged involvement in the drugs trade also involves Direct Action Against Drugs, their alleged covername, also killing dealers because they do not pay protection, allege the RUC? There are one or two too many "allegedly"'s in that sentence for my liking. Your sentence was your own point-of-view, it had no resemblance to any source. O Fenian (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Added casualty figures

... in the opening section, not sure why the economic cost was included but not deaths and injuries, can only assume that the editor responsible was trying to infer that no people were hurt in those bombings...

Also find it slightly disturbing that certain contributors are clearly biased and are obviously letting their own political beliefs influence their work on this page, disturbing but not surprising.90.209.124.230 (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is one of a few topics, the others being Israel/Palestine and some Eastern European countries where editing on Wikipedia is dominated by POV-pushers and characterized by never ending battles between the two sides. It's a shame, but that's the way it is. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

And this isn't POV-pushing, of course! It seems it's so "disturbing" he even reverted himself! Scolaire (talk) 07:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No, no you don't get it. It's only POV-pushing if it's a view you disagree with. ;) Throwaway85 (talk) 10:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes of course! I forgot that rule :) Scolaire (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

In the infobox where it lists the PIRA's opponents, I notice that it fails to name the Ulster Defence Association and Ulster Volunteer Force. Surely the loyalist paramiltary organistions were as much their foes as the British Army and the RUC!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I tried to add "loyalist paramilitaries" to the infobox a little a while ago and I was told to "see previous discussions regarding opponents". I think the argument rests upon the fact that the loyalists weren't stated enemies of the PIRA, but, as you rightly say, they certainly were in practice. JonChapple^Talk 08:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I refer you to Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army/Archive 7#Opponents (this includes CIRA, INLA and any other articles people try it with), and also Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army/Archive 7#British Army v British Armed Forces which although not dealing with the exact same content, deals with a similar concept. The relationship between the IRA and loyalist paramilitaries was not a two way street, except on brief occasions. This quote may also be of interest - "...the UDA opened up a new front against Northern Ireland's nationalists; it targeted the Gaelic Athletic Associsation (GAA). On 8 October the UDA, via its UFF cover, declared that members of the GAA were not considered to be 'legitimate targets', claiming that the association in the North had close ties to the 'republican war machine'." on page 205 of UDA: Inside The Heart of Loyalist Terror by McDonald & Cusack (ISBN 1-844-88020-6). So, any objections to the GAA being added to the UDA's list of opponents in their infobox? That's a rhetorical question by the way, since I already know what the answer is likely to be. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I wish you'd stop trotting out the GAA argument. It's a straw man. How many times did loyalist paramilitaries fight gun battles in the street with Gaelic athletes? JonChapple^Talk 12:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That was a bit curt. My point stands though. JonChapple^Talk 12:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Besides loyalist paramilitaries, the Ulster Defence Regiment also needs to be included in the infobox. I do realise it was a regiment of the British Army, but I feel it should be specified considering the large number of UDR soldiers (both full- and part-time) who were killed by the PIRA during the Troubles.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You're just repeating yourself and not attempting to discuss. Since the UDR were part of the British Army, I don't see why any differentiation is needed. Jonchapple you should choose your words much more carefully, since you are about to regret them. "How many times did loyalist paramilitaries fight gun battles in the street with" the Provisional IRA over the approx 30 years of The Troubles? Stick to verifiable examples obviously please. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Here were plenty in the early days, including during the 1969 Northern Ireland riots that kicked the whole thing off. The Battle of St Matthew's? The Timeline of Ulster Defence Association actions and Timeline of Ulster Volunteer Force actions articles also appear to contradict the claim that the IRA didn't regularly go around shooting loyalists. JonChapple^Talk 13:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I thought you'd say 1969 Northern Ireland riots which is why I specifically included the word "Provisional" before "IRA", so would you like to try again? You chose the "gun battles in the street" wording, so how about you provide verifiable examples of it? So far, you've got one. Doesn't sound like many considering The Troubles lasted approx 30 years does it? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, alright, you win, I've got one. Nice work. What of the countless loyalist volunteers shot dead by the Provisional IRA? JonChapple^Talk 14:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

ONIH, considering that the main premise of the PIRA's existance was to rid Ireland of British occupation, and thus regarded the British forces present in Northern Ireland as their enemies, surely the loyalist paramilitaries (who declared themselves British and were prepared to fight to the death to maintain British rule in the North) would consequently fall into the category of opponents? And as JonChapple says, what about the numerous loyalist paramiltaries who were killed by the IRA such as John McMichael, Frenchie Marchant, John Bingham, Lennie Murphy, Robert McConnell, Ray Smallwoods, etc.?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

And what about rival nationalist gangs with whom the Provisionals were in conflict, such as OIRA, INLA, etc.? Mooretwin (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

According to database, IRA killed 44 loyalist paramilitaries and 130 Protestant civilians in sectarian attacks - most of which were prompted by loyalist attacks on Catholics.There were also throughout the Troubles sporadic gun battles between IRA and loyalists in interface areas. I think it's therefore accurate to include loyalist/republican violence as one of the dimensions of the conflict. Jdorney (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Correct. JonC^Talk 16:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

At least have the courtesy to reply properly. CAIN is not my research it's citing the best source on Troubles-related casualties. Replying with a 'rule' in that way is somewhat uncivil and something I'd hoped we'd left behind on WP. Jdorney (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I did reply properly. You are drawing the conclusion from primary source data that because the IRA happened to kill some loyalists, they were opposed to them in some way. They killed more civilians than loyalists, shall we add civilians as opponents too? How mant times was the Europa Hotel bomb? 24? 25? More? Shall we add Europa Hotel too? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Egan shooting

I removed the paragraph claiming the IRA killed Egan, the drug dealer, as sources are divided on this question:

• http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/dublin-man-sentenced-to-12-years-for-shooting-father-of-two-529615.html

"Egan was believed to have been killed by former members of the Provisional IRA"

• http://www.communityvoice.ie/pages/CV146/CV146n01.htm

"former paramilitaries"

• http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/kfaueykfeygb/rss2/

"former members of the Provisional IRA"

• http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1108/1224282868141.html

The Real IRA claim they killed Egan. It doesn't show on the preview, but can be read in full here: http://www.usira.org/?p=473

• http://www.tv3.ie/article.php?article_id=64874&locID=1.2&pagename=news

"by an off shot of the IRA"

The last one refers to the verdict and still says it wasn't the IRA itself. As such, that claim should not be reinstated. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 23:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Referring to the Electoral and popular support Paragraph

User:One Night In Hackney reverted an edit I made on this paragraph. Firstly there were no local elections held in 1981 in the RoI. While there were ones held in NI no SF candidates stood. Secondly the wordpress website I referred to - irishelectionliterature - contained a number of excel spreadsheets which listed the results of local elections in the Republic of Ireland including the ones for Monaghan and Leitrim County Council. I'll provide the link again: http://irishelectionliterature.wordpress.com/others-project/old-local-election-results/ .The site has been used as a reference in other articles . Exiledone (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No claim is being made that local elections were held in 81. Mo ainm~Talk 18:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The original source is too cofused to be used, and wordpress sites aren't reliable sources see WP:V. It isn't being used in a single article as a source as I just removed all of them, since it isn't reliable. That's the thing about Wikipedia, we don't do things per other articles as they can be changed at any second, we do things per guidelines and policies which are generally stable. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You'd want to have the intelligence of a digestive biscuit to deem that source as being "too confused". I fail to see how it is unreliable. It tallies with the results on electionsireland. And also why would the creater of the site actually bother to fake all those documents.

Exiledone (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Erm, it would appear you do indeed have the intelligence of a digestive biscuit, since I refered to the "original source", not the wordpress site *rolls eyes* Nice of you to remind me about the other problem with the site that I hadn't mentioned yet, namely it hosts many documents in violation of copyright and therefore can't be linked to per WP:LINKVIO. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)