Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign

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

April 2006 discussion

"official IRA policy" to not attack other "celtic" countries (scotland,wales) we need a citation

dont see how to edit references #27, the source for my change is: http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/chron/ch97.htm

CAIN has 1 British Army fatality, the last in current round of conflict, on 12/2/1997, 1 RUC fulltime, and 1 RUC reserve shot dead by PIRA on 13/6/1997.

No civilian death from PIRA, RIRA, OIRA, INLA, IPLO etc., (excluding Billy Wright shot 27/12, Glen Greer dead in premature explosion at loyalist weapons dump 25/10, and the attack on Desmond Christopher Moonan 14/8 unattributed in court). http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/FE7EE0D2-3D1E-4016-B386-8396FD271C55/0/j_j_NICE3182.htm

the civilian death attributed to loyalists;

1. 14/03/1997 - John Slane
2. 24/03/1997 - David Templeton
3. 08/05/1997 - Robert Hamill
4. 12/05/1997 - Sean Brown
5. 01/06/1997 - Gregory Taylor (RUC)
6. 11/06/1997 - Robert 'Basher' Bates (loyalist)
7. 07/07/1997 - Brian Morton (loyalist)
8. 15/07/1997 - Bernadette Martin
9. 24/07/1997 - James Morgan
10. 01/08/1997 - Stewart Hunter
11. 08/11/1997 - Robert Kerr (loyalist)
12. 09/11/1997 - Raymond McCord
13. 05/12/1997 - Gerry Devlin
14. 27/12/1997 - Seamus Dillon (republican)
15. 31/12/1997 - Eddie Traynor

Fluffy999 22:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You should be counting 1996 as well as 1997. Two civilians killed in Canary Wharf bomb in Feb 96. One Brit army killed in bomb attack on Thiepval barracks Jdorney 16:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I took it to be indicating the year of the ceasefire.

"From December 1995 until July 1997, the Provisional IRA called off its 1994 ceasefire because of its dissatisfaction with the state of negotiations. However its campaign IN THIS YEAR never reached the intensity of that before the ceasefire it killed 2 British soldiers, 2 RUC men and 2 civilians, [28]"

What year? If its indicating a toll for December 1995 until July 1997 then its not a year and the figures given are wrong also. I will check the reference to see what context Ed Moloney, The Secret History of the IRA is cited.

Fluffy999 22:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right. It was 19 month period and not a year. Jan 96 -July 97.

Jdorney 14:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that the PIRA ceasefire ended on Friday 09/02/1996 not "December 1995" or Jan 96. It was renewed again on 20/07/1997.

PIRA Statement ending Ceasefire http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/peace/docs/ira9296.htm

Figures for PIRA fatalities 9/2/1996 - 20/7/1997 are:

1. 2 civilians 9th Feb. (excluding DAAD shooting Sean Devlin 06/09/1996 & 1996 INLA feud)
2. 2 british army 11/10/96 & 12/2/1997
3. 1 Garda - McCabe 7th June 1996
4. 2 RUC - 13/6/1997

during same period the figures for loyalist fatalities are:

1. 21/06/1996 - Gareth Parker
2. 07/07/1996 - Michael McGoldrick
3. 12/09/1996 - Michael Whelan
4. 14/03/1997 - John Slane
5. 24/03/1997 - David Templeton
6. 08/05/1997 - Robert Hamill
7. 12/05/1997 - Sean Brown
8. 01/06/1997 - Gregory Taylor (RUC)
9. 11/06/1997 - Robert 'Basher' Bates (loyalist)
10. 07/07/1997 - Brian Morton (loyalist)
11. 15/07/1997 - Bernadette Martin

Its sloppy. I will clear up the sentence so its clearer.

Sounds good.

Jdorney 12:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Early Campaign 1970-1980

"As the conflict escalated in the early 1970s, the numbers recruited by the IRA mushroomed, in response to the nationalist community's anger at events such as the introduction of internment without trial and Bloody Sunday (1972) when the Parachute Regiment of the British army shot dead 13 unarmed civil rights marchers in Derry. The IRA leadership took the opportunity to launch an offensive, believing that they could force a British withdrawal from Ireland by inflicting severe casualties, thus undermining public support in Britain for its continued presence."

Just a minor note given that this is supposed to be an unbiased source of information, it has always been claimed by the soldiers involved that they were fired upon first and members of the crowd were armed, this was corroborated by an IRA defector. The Republicans on the other hand have claimed that it was an unprovoked attack on unarmed civilians; since neither side’s story has been proved it seems unfair to report one version as fact. It should also be noted that much of this article seems to be slightly biased in favour of the Republican movement, and I would generally ur on the side of impartiality as much as possible.

Very good point about what the soldiers say about events- its ok to enter anything to that effect so long as its cited, see also the Bloody Sunday articles. It is possible it is biased towards the RM, but when you see POV you can correct/remove, flag it up as POV, or introduce the other side of the story to balance the POV. There is one thing to remember though- this is an article about a specific group and how they saw the events, how it influenced them. It is perfectly valid to say the PIRA used bloody sunday as a propaganda recruiting tool. They make reference to exploiting such mistakes in the green book.

Details on British military & Intelligence operations or their campaign/role is missing in all the articles unfortunately. Could be due to space or people subconciously dont even consider them as "players" instead treating them as "stuck in the middle". Some military ops are mentioned here and there- Motorman / Mincemeat but huge security operations like Monarch & Hawk arent found anywhere- that entire period in the 1970s is a bit of a blackhole so far. I hope to get around to writing something on that soon. Fluffy999 11:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The Tribunal, as far as I'm aware, found that the only shots fired from the nationalist side on Bloody Sunday were revolver shots fired by an Official IRA, after the British troops had opened fire.

Fluffy, re expanding the article, remember that there are space constraints and that this article is actually too long already. Only the most important events and trends should be mentioned. Jdorney 17:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, its an overview sort of thing not a chronicle, but im thinking of some articles that complement this articles. The new ones would focus on british army operations etc. that can be referred to in this one. Its the way the PIRA article works with the PIRA Arms importation article now. Fluffy999 18:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Its interesting that you think that this article is bit too pro republican and the main article is too anti-republican. Originally they were the same article, but had to be split up for space reasons (a lot of both written by me). Perhaps the balance in both articles was lost to some extent as a result? Btw, I wouldn't spend much time worrying about Devin79. I'm just amazed he's not banned yet.

Jdorney 14:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You did a great job. I'm not calling you a PIRA supporter :) Its not biased one way or the other, its very close to neutralPOV. However Ive a nagging feeling that some components are not touched on- the British military. In particular counter intelligence, surveillance, introduction of various military hardware, budgets, changes to infrastructure (civilian searchers/checkpoints/metal detectors), propaganda, informers etc.

It is my POV, but im of the view that how the PIRA prosecuted their campaign was influenced more by the reaction and methods used against than it was down to their strategic decisions. Thats POV though. To avoid making that analysis on wikipedia an article on those developments and their chronology would probably work. Then people can compare the two and make their own minds up. As it stands it just looks like the PIRA was out there "2 sheets to the wind" doing what it wanted. Just an idea, will see how I get on with it. Fluffy999 09:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting point and probably correct to some extent. I don't know enough about the British side of things to go into, so good luck! A good place to start though would be Peter Taylor's "Brits", the book and the tv documentary series. Actually all of Taylor's stuff is very good for research purposes. Jdorney 14:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement, I will check that out. Fluffy999 15:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Fatalities

Its an interesting point that there have been few IRA related fatalities in recent years, this is mainly due to the IRA calling ambulances prior to drilling out peoples knee caps or punishment beatings. This insures that the person in question won't die of blood loss etc. and hence they won't have violated the various agreements.

10 August 2006 reversion

An anonymous editor seems to have restored an earlier version of the article without explanation. In so doing, s/he has restored numerous typographical errors and eliminated numerous changes that had been made to bring the article into line with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If the editor has a problem with particular content changes, s/he should raise those issues here. A block-revert is not acceptable. Ground Zero | t 11:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Contradictions between the claim of a Tet Offensive, the Long War and the Armalite and Ballot box Strategies

I think the section about Moloney's claims about a supposed Tet Offensive are disputed by other sources like Gherarty, Taylor, and Toby Harnden. They point to the generally accepted idea of the PIRA waging an Attrition war since their failure to bring UK Government to the bargain table by 1972. The Libyan supplies certainly had the value, as describe in this article, to hone the Republican war machine in order to sustain a significant level of activity for the forseeable future, but assuming that further reinforcements may have allowed the Provos to launch a wide military escalation is a matter of discussion. The claim that the uncovering of the Libya connection disrupted a large change in the Republican strategy seems also to contradict some UK intelligence reports. Indeed, there was a PIRA document retrieved by the British Security in 1982, where the Army Council acknowledged outright, based in the Falklands war experience, that there were no chances of defeating or even facing the BA in open battle (SoF Magazine article, February 1997: From who the Belfat polls, by Dr. Tom Marks, p. 67). I believe that the section must be revised. DagosNavy 15:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Ed Moloney had the best contacts of any current author within the PIRA. He quotes directly from IRA sources on the Tet offensive Moreover, the general thrust of the arguement, that the IRA were planning a major escalation that never really came ot pass is supported in many other sources. Eg Brendan O'Brien, Long War p135, "In Northern Ireland RUC informants were reporting talk among the IRA units of a coming major escalation and of ‘victory ‘86’"... "The IRA Army Council was confident that...victory could once more be brought into sight". Mallie, Bishop (page 450), IRA New Years day message 1987, "we promise tangible success in the war of national liberation in the coming year". See dissident republicans repeating it here [1] see 1984 entry. Jdorney 15:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Coolaville etc

i don't think this inciedent is worthy of inclusion here. What appears to have happend is that the South Armagh IRA took over the village, ie put up checkpoints for about two hours, then left. In the context of a short article about a 30 year conflict, I do not feel this is worth mentioning.

Moreover, the parliamentary debates, in the context of a debate on the continued use of the Special Powers Act cetrainly do not reflect that this meant the rgion was "close to breaking point", on the contrary,

"The hon. Member for Mossley Hill was rather too gloomy when he said that life is livable in Northern Ireland. It is a great deal more than that. A great deal of life in Northern Ireland is very good and for many people life is normal. Their spirit is remarkable, but their life, jobs and prosperity are better than some would have us believe. I do not want the message to go out that all is gloom there because as far as I am concerned it is certainly not".

I also have to question why so many small details are put in about the 1990s, when this decade was far less bloody than, for example, the early 1970s.

Jdorney 07:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Jdorney. There are two reason two include so many small details about the 1990s. In first place, you can read the second paragraph of the article: This article aims to provide details of this campaign, so I guess any detail about the PIRA's actions should be welcome there. The second reason is that the '90s were the defining moments of the troubles, since they ended up in the Downing Street declaration, the first PIRA ceasefire and the start of the Peace Process. In the other hand, I think that incidents like the Baltic exchange or the Bishopsgate in London were not small details for the British government, since both of them costed almost £1.5bn, leading to a crisis in the UK insurance market. If you add the cost of further bombings after the first cease-fire was broken (such as Canary Wharf and Manchester), the amount reaches £2bn. The almost forgotten attack on RFA “Fort Victoria” delayed the commissioning of a £130mn naval ship for three years; I wouldn’t called this a small detail, but a catastrophic security breach . The Cullaville incident is also worth of mentioning since it exposed the vulnerability of the expensive electronic surveillance system deployed by the UK along the border. Imagine, for example, the embarrassment in the Pentagon given the case of the Iraqi insurgency taking over for some time a building or a main street in the so called “green zone” of Baghdad. While I modified the somewhat confusing line mentioning the “breaking point”, what I wanted to mean by that was that the 25 years old situation was becoming unbearable to the government in London, both in political and financial terms. As a proof, read the words of John Major in the Commons, minutes after the Downing Street Declaration was signed, already cited in the article:

• “For the past 25 years, the people of Northern Ireland have suffered levels of violence that any civilized community would find intolerable. No community, and especially no part of the United Kingdom, should have to endure the murder and destruction that have afflicted the Province. That is why successive British Governments have sought to find a solution to these terrible problems.”

Pointing out to the issue of the death toll, which certainly dropped sharply from the 1970s, it still represented a serious and painful problem in the view of the public opinion. See this statement by the First Minister in the course of an exchange with Ian Paisley:

• “I must say to the hon. Gentleman that the purpose of the agreement and the document is to make sure that, 25 years from now, his successor does not sit there saying that to the Prime Minister of the day. I wish to take action to make sure that there is no more bloodshed of that sort and no more coffins carried away week after week after week because politicians do not have the courage to sit down, address the problem and find a way through. I am prepared to do that. If the hon. Gentleman believes that I should not, he does not understand the responsibilities of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.” (The italics are mine. I saw that debate by television and this is the exact transcription of his words).

The statements of Major reflect what I have in mind when I wrote about “reaching the breaking point”: the frustration came not from the intensity, but from the persistence of violence. Also, if you check different chronologies of events in NI during 1994 (the PIRA cease-fire took place August 31), you will find that there was at least one serious incident (assassination, bombing, arson, mortar attack or shooting) each day, not counting kneecappings or punishment beatings. So, the life in Ulster, even if “livable”, was still far away from being a normal one (you can browse CAIN chronology or click on the following link).

DagosNavy 23:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainly life was not "normal" in NI at that time. Clearly also the bombing of london is worthy of mention. However, the specific point about the Coolaville indcdent is that the IRA did this all the time in various places throughout the troubles. So did the loyalists for that matter. An analogy between Iraq and south Armagh would not be the green zone, but somewhere like Tikrit, or part of the Sunni triangle, where it was risky for teh US, or this case, UK troops to enter.

Re the peace process, certainly the UK government wanted a settlement. However, this had been on the table since the mid 1970s. The real change in the 1990s was the IRA's attitude to ceasefires and alling off their armed ampaign.

Jdorney 06:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Dubious Tag

The assertion in question pre-supposes a shoot-to-kill policy and that this was used in that particular instanceWeggie 18:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Added to Guerilla warfare

unsuccessful campaigns along with campaigns by IRA. Fluffy999 12:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Other Activities

I re-wrote it (again) after seeing how much partisan bumpf had been inserted and how description of their activities had been skewed to serve political points. Remark here if theres an issue. Fluffy999 15:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for inserting the word "terrorist" and removing "guerilla war" as I knew they would be reverted almost straight away. I find it hard to understand why the word terrorist is not allowed. It never has been a "guerilla war" in Northern Ireland but most certainly was a terrorist campaign (especially on the mainland). I realise that the only POV allowed when discussing the IRA is the POV that they aren't terrorists. I am also aware that on Wikipedia POV is not allowed, what is allowed is something called "consensus" which means if enough people say things happened one way then that is what happened. I really hope future generations don't refer to Wikipedia for for historical analysis of key events, as they will just encounter propoganda. Cornisle 11:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)cornisle

Cornise, the use of the word terrorist is POV, who decides who is or isn't a terrorist, guerilla war lets the reader decide on wether the IRA were terrorists or not. Articles on wikipedia are supposed to represent verifible fact, not the opinion of the editors that edit the article.--padraig 11:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Padraig, I have to disagree. Common sense should dictate that the IRA campaign in NI and the UK mainland was a terrorist campaign. Reading a lot of the articles on Wikipedia regarding NI I have come to realise that Wikipedia isn't neutral at all. Very disappointing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.52 (talk) 10:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

By "neutral" I assume you mean "British point of view". Reuters aren't particularly neutral by your standards either, so perhaps it's you that's not neutral? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. "Guerilla war" is completly wrong by the way. And it is extremely POV. I know I'll never win this argument so I'll quit now. It's sad though. Wikipedia really is a bad source of reference for so many subjects that get hijacked by those wishing to rewrite history. Cornisle 13:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Poster at the top

I do not feel that the poster at the top of the page is at all appropriate. It has an overtly POV message. I believe that its usage can be justified within the body of the article but to lead the whole article with it gives the impression that the article is supportive of the message that the poster contains, before reading a single word of the article. Jooler 23:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[post deleted 07:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)]

[post edited following deletion of previous post 11:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)]

Jooler, can you suggest an appropriate alternative image to go at the top, if the poster was moved to the body of the article? Scolaire 12:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Irish_Wikipedians' notice board#Provisional IRA campaign 1969–1997 Jooler 12:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but do you know of such an image in Wikipedia/Wikimedia? Scolaire 13:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

A suitable image has now been uploaded, so it's all good. Scolaire 09:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Image added per this discussion here.--Domer48_'fenian' 07:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sentence removed

For the IRA, such attacks may have been counter-productive, as incidents such as these facilitated the British Government's aims to "criminalise" the IRA and portray the conflict as one between sectarian gangs, and itself as a neutral arbiter.

Unsourced since February, so time for it to go. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Robberies and criminal enterprise section

I'm thinking this section has problems. For example near the end it reads "The proceeds of the Provisional IRA's past criminal enterprises are largely thought to have been invested in property and business ventures", which is true but only to an extent and not the way it reads now. The section seems to be combining two slightly related subjects:

• Armed robberies, kidnappings and other activities (such as the running of black taxis etc) that were used to raise funds for the IRA.
• Smuggling (except for materiel) and the like was generally done by IRA members (naming no names, but particularly based around the border region) but wasn't done to raise funds for the IRA, but for people's personal profit and it's them that are generally being investigated for their investments.

Any thoughts on the best way to sort this out? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Stop lying. PIRA made huge sums of money from the smuggling of fuel, livestock and drugs and it was "officially" sanctioned at "Army Council" level.--FergusM1970 (talk) 03:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Undefeated.jpg

Image:Undefeated.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Rationale added on February 13.DagosNavy 16:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Manchesterbomb-devestation.jpg

Image:Manchesterbomb-devestation.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Manchesterbomb-truck.jpg

Image:Manchesterbomb-truck.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MortarTest-1994.jpg

Image:MortarTest-1994.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Citation requests

Could editors please think clearly about what they wish to achieve before adding frivolous cite requests? I understand for example TUs point that "there was some activity after 1997" but the correct way to deal with this is to add a qualifying sentence along the lines of "the PIRA were blamed / admitted doing X, Y and Z after 1997." Asking for proof that there was actually a campaign in the years 1969 to 1997 is almost as ridiculous as having "water is wet" in an article. Valenciano (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It might have seemed clear-cut in the 1970s, but it is very debatable in 2008, Valenciano. The overview by Anthony McIntyre, an IRA commander who served 18 years in jail for his activities in the campaign, is summarised by Liam Clarke in today's Sunday Times as -

McIntyre paints a picture of a republican leadership who were reformists from the outset, being secretly protected, groomed and eventually steered into Stormont by the British forces that they claimed to be fighting. All the while, a supine membership cheered them on from the sidelines, easily fooled by symbolism and rhetoric.86.42.216.147 (talk) 10:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Three problems with that, Whoeveryouare: one, Anthony McIntyre is about as reliable as Hans Christian Andersen; two, the Sunday Times is about as reliable as Hans Christian Andersen; and three, none of what you say alters the fact that there was an IRA military campaign between 1969 and 1997. Scolaire (talk) 11:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Censorship re. terrorism

How can any reasonable person deny that the PIRA "conducted an armed campaign including terrorist activities"? Mooretwin (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the definition of a "guerilla war"? Mooretwin (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

See WP:TERRORIST. Rockpocket 00:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't explain "guerilla war". It seems incredible that the adjective "terrorist" is banned when describing such activities as happened in Northern Ireland. I'll insert "paramilitary" instead. Mooretwin (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, "A paramilitary is a force whose function and organization are similar to those of a professional military force, but which are not regarded as having the same status." Sounds much better. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh sure. Because professional military forces regularly blow off teenagers' kneecaps and detonate IEDs in crowded shopping centres while claiming unemployment benefit from the state they claim to be fighting.--FergusM1970 (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

My Removal

According to this which states Although a claim of responsibility was made by the ‘‘Kilburn Battalion of the IRA,’’ this incident is not usually considered to be part of a coordinated IRA campaign. The bomber (or bombers) was never formally identified. BigDunc^Talk 20:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

News Section

Having had a look at the article, I feel we need a new section. At the moment we have a relatively short piece on 1970-1980. In reality this glosses over at least two distinct phases in the provos campaign. You have the early 1970s, by far the most intense period, the ceasefire of the mid 70s and then teh beginnings of the 'long war' in the late 70s.

I would suggest that we need considerably detail on the early more period. Thoughts anyone?Jdorney (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Civilians killed

I was trying to make the infobox make more sense, and ran into a slight problem. CAIN cross tables (first variable Status, second variable Organisation) returns 497 civilians killed by the IRA, plus 19 civilian politican activists, making 518.

However this part of CAIN returns a different figure. 152 were "Unintended Targets", 112 died in "Bomb attacks on commercial property" (note, I am subtracting the 103 IRA members killed during those from the given total, as obviously they aren't civilians), 34 were "Civilians working for British Forces", 133 were "Sectarian killings of Protestant civilians", 46 were "Civilians in Britain", 15 were "British 'VIPs'", 9 were "Unionist / Loyalist Politicians", 8 were "Northern Ireland Judiciary" (the last three I cannot see any classification on CAIN they would come under apart from civilian), 23 were "Alleged criminals and drug dealers", and 21 out of the 29 "Others" were civilians. Which gives a total of 553. The Casulaties section which is supposedly sourced by the second link says 621 civilians though. So any idea on what figure we should put for CAIN in the infobox and that section? O Fenian (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Very confusing - note the total IRA killings in the second link is given as 1,823 but in the first table as 1,708. Maybe the second link uses a wider definition of IRA? To confuse matters further, Lost Lives gives 636 as the figure for civilians killed by (P)IRA up to 1999 (p. 1484, 2000 edition).

After checking more, it does say "Irish Republican Army (IRA) has killed 1,823. This total includes 86 killings marked as 'Republican' (or 'non-specific Republican group') in the text which occurred from 1970 onwards.", which would account for a discrepency of 86..but not 115! Any idea on what we should put in the article and infobox then? Lost Lives is already mentioned in the article as an alternate figured to CAIN. O Fenian (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

My edition of Lost Lives only goes up to 2000, but there are more recent editions which should have more up-to-date figures. It's difficult because for some of the killings, there is some doubt over the perpetrators, and different authors may have attributed them differently. e.g. Are the DAAD and CRF killings attributed to PIRA - or "republican" killings as you say. Robert McCartney? Mooretwin (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I also think it's important to define what is meant by civilian as most authors exclude civilian occupations such as prison officer and police officer, and even exclude people who were retired from the armed forces. Paramilitaries are not included as civilians either, even though in the literal and usual sense they were. Mooretwin (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we are better off sticking with the first table? Even with that there are several cases on CAIN where the IRA are believed to be responsible, but the recent book by John Black (a loyalist who was supposedly trained by the MRF, undercover British Army unit) states that loyalists were responsible for several deaths that the IRA were blamed for. The numbers to vary from person to person, that much is true. The CRF was largely an INLA covername through wasn't it? O Fenian (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it would need a health warning and possibly worth quoting Lost Lives too and saying that authors differ on how deaths are attributed. (PS. In case you haven't heard a policeman has been murdered tonight in Craigavon.) Good night. Mooretwin (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I heard :( O Fenian (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

How about (and it's too early to work out the exact figures involved) in the main body we include both sets of CAIN figures (and Lost Lives too), the second one with a caveat of something like "These revised figures include some killings initially attributed to groups other than the IRA"? All three sets of figures get a breakdown by status, then we can put a minimum to maximum total in the infobox? And we should keep the CAIN and Lost Lives definition of civilian, which excludes paramilitaries, RUC and prison officers. If you want to class paramilitaries as civilians do not forget that applies to who the British Army killed, so the SAS would have killed nine civilians at Loughgall in 1987! ;) O Fenian (talk) 11:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

How about (and it's too early to work out the exact figures involved) in the main body we include both sets of CAIN figures (and Lost Lives too), the second one with a caveat of something like "These revised figures include some killings initially attributed to groups other than the IRA"? All three sets of figures get a breakdown by status, then we can put a minimum to maximum total in the infobox? - Agreed. Mooretwin (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And we should keep the CAIN and Lost Lives definition of civilian, which excludes paramilitaries, RUC and prison officers. - Yes, I agree, but what I am saying is that we should explain how the sources have defined the categories so that it is clear to readers. Mooretwin (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to class paramilitaries as civilians do not forget that applies to who the British Army killed, so the SAS would have killed nine civilians at Loughgall in 1987! - well, yes, obviously. As I said above: Paramilitaries are not included as civilians either, even though in the literal and usual sense they were. Mooretwin (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In the Sectarian violence section...

Hello All, in the sectarian Violence section, the passage "... a campaign of sectarian assassination. Vincent McKenna, (later convicted of a paedophile offense)..." should be edited. While it is disgusting what Vincent McKenna did, the pedophile offense has no bearing on the topic being discussed and is in fact a fallacy known as a red herring. Rollo Bay 1758 (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Assessment

Assessed as start class for Mil History. Some sections need more citations. Also, throughout the article PIRA and IRA interchangeably. This should, IMO, be PIRA throughout.--dashiellx (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 11:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Provisional IRA campaign 1969–1997 → Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign 1969–1997 — Per main article — —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Page Provisional IRA campaign 1969–1997 is fully protected and therefore likely controversial. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. The subject of the article is the dates 1969-1997, and IRA should be abbreviated. This is done all the time in professional sports, for example, we have the National Basketball Association, but the 2009–10 NBA season, as the article is about those dates of the NBA, not about the NBA in general. 199.125.109.138 (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Short reason the title is ok and manageable no need to make it longer. BigDunc 17:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

civilians killed

I see that there is disagreement on the precise number of civilians killed by the P.IRA, but it's crazy that the infobox doesn't mention this at all. Would it not be better to give a range of figures, rather than none?

Should civilians killed by the British Army also be included? I would consider this fair, given that this page is a history of conflict, or an aspect of it, not only of the IRA.

Jdorney (talk) 12:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Libyan compo deal 2010

Though the article ends in 1997 I've added a one-liner at the end of the "Libyan arms" section, on the $2 billion deal under way. It must pass notability and is a kind of full stop. Let's see how it develops.Red Hurley (talk) 08:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Citation request since July 2009

We have a number of citation request tags dated July 2009, 1 year ago. Since citations have not been forthcoming in this long time, do we feel it is time to remove the unreferenced text? --BwB (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Added one source although i dont think it was a 2009 tagged one. Another citation tag is for the..

"Reportedly, Gadaffi donated enough weapons to arm the equivalent of three infantry battalions."

On another wiki page it says.. : "In the 1980s, the IRA secured larger quantities of weapons and explosives from Gaddafi's Libya — enough to supply at least two infantry battalions." and that one is sourced. [2] So i dont know if it should be changed to say that instead. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I see there are a couple from April 2009 too, no problem with all the unsourced material with a 2009 tag being removed if no one adds them soon. Leave the recent 2010 ones though. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"The IRA had split in December 1969 into the Provisional IRA and Official IRA factions - leading to the burning of many Catholic homes during the Battle of the Bogside in Derry". If you cannot edit properly Bigweeboy, please do not bother editing at all. O Fenian (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

What was it I did wrong? I removed unreferenced material. What was improper here? --BwB (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the sentence that was left after your edit? How does it make any sense at all? O Fenian (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I see my mistake. Your edit was what I wanted to do, but somehow messed up. Thanks for pointing out my mistake. You might have been a bit more polite in you approach, thought OF. --BwB (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Images of pictures

I have started a discussion on images of pictures at Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army#Images of pictures. --Scolaire (talk) 07:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

McCartney

I've removed, ideally temporarily, the sentence mentioning him as I can't figure out the best way to phrase it currently. It read:

Members of the Provisional IRA have often been linked to killings and crimes which the Provisional IRA denies it authorised, the murder of Robert McCartney, being the last known example

This doesn't make sense at all. Nobody disagrees that the murder of Robert McCartney was an argument that got out of hand in a pub and was carried out by IRA volunteers (and further volunteers involved in the clean-up to destroy forensic evidence). So I don't see how it fits into the whole "Members of the Provisional IRA have often been linked to killings and crimes which the Provisional IRA denies it authorised", since nobody is claiming the IRA authorised it in advance. Obviously it needs to be in the article but I'm having a brain spasm and can't figure out if we need two totally separate sentences that make different points or something, but that sentence was a no-go. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe PIRA didn't authorise it, but by sending more terrorists to clean up the evidence, and thereby perverting the course of justice, they clearly condoned it. If they disapproved of McCartney's murder they would have handed the murderers over to the RUC instead of covering up for them.--FergusM1970 (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

"Unarmed"

I don't think it is necessary to note, for example, that the victims in Birmingham were "unarmed"; firearms are a rarity in the mainland UK. In the one example where it might have added something, it is already noted that the soldiers were part of a ceremonial occasion in which they would not expect to be armed. Does anyone disagree? --John (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I see your point, but I'm trying to maintain consistency here. If it's relevant to add "unarmed" to victims of the British security forces it seems equally relevant to add it to victims of PIRA, agreed?--FergusM1970 (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

No. It's part of a disruptive point making crusade following this, where the editor concerned argues that the presence of a car bomb 80km away from the place where three IRA volunteers were shot dead means they were not unarmed. He does this by making up a definition of "unarmed" that suits his purpose", then concluding that the presence of a car bomb 80km away from the place where three IRA volunteers were shot dead means they were actually "in control of a weapon" despite the dozens, if not hundreds, of reliable sources saying they were indeed unarmed. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 21:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree, no need to add for victims of bombings in England. Support retaining for people shot by the British Army/RUC as they would often claim that they had shot people who were presenting a threat - it is notable if the Security Forces shot an unarmed person. GiollaUidir (talk) 11:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Use of Irish flag for PIRA

PIRA is not an agency of the Irish state - indeed it's a banned terrorist organisation there - so I don't believe the Irish flag should be used as their emblem. Is there a specific PIRA emblem we could use instead? Perhaps the fist and Armalite logo, or a black taxi stuffed with drugs and protection money?--FergusM1970 (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Already discussed here, moral and legal concerns against the sourced use of the tricolour by the IRA are irrelevant for Wikipedia per WP:CENSOR.--Darius (talk) 02:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the file used for the IRA and other republican organizations () is not the same file used for the Republic of Ireland () per 2009 consensus.--Darius (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, what? The use of the Irish tricolour by an organisation which is BANNED IN IRELAND is irrelevant how, exactly?--FergusM1970 (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Please, take time to read the links above. Thank you.--Darius (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks as if the use of the Irish flag by terrorist groups was discussed, but no concensus was reached. I see your point, but as PIRA is an illegal terrorist organisation in Ireland the use of the Irish flag as a PIRA symbol seems to be stupid, deliberately offensive and wrong.--FergusM1970 (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:CENSOR is an official Wikipedia policy, thus it doesn't matter if you find the use of the tricolour "stupid, deliberately offensive and wrong". The nazi flag is also BANNED IN GERMANY and we make use of it here per that policy.--Darius (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The Nazi flag was the emblem of Nazi Germany. The Irish tricolour is the emblem of Ireland, NOT the emblem of PIRA. Do I really need to explain the difference?--FergusM1970 (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Do I really need to explain the difference between Wikipedia policies and moral or legal concerns again??--Darius (talk) 04:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. You just have to explain why the use of the Irish flag as a symbol for an organisation that's illegal in Ireland is appropriate. That will do fine.--FergusM1970 (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Look, this is Wikipedia, not an online forum. The flag is appropiate here in WP because an overwhelming number of sources mention its use by the PIRA (WP:V) and because we can't supress this fact per WP:CENSOR.--Darius (talk) 04:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This was discussed before ,once that, myself, Darius, and various other editors were involved in. We sought the opinion and guidence of an uninvovled editor with a a heavy invovlement in military history- Marcus British- he was very helpful. There are several things about the usage of the flag that leads its usage for nationalist/republican groups, one being that several used it previous to the states formation. It would be censorship to not use the flag in relation to organisations the use it (even if we dont personally agree with thier usage of it outside the offical use of it). If I get a chance I will look up the original discussions. Murry1975 (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Belligerents

The Irish police and military operated against PIRA and were, in turn, attacked by PIRA. On what grounds are they not classed as belligerents?--FergusM1970 (talk) 03:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

If anybody can explain why a military force and a police force who fought against PIRA shouldn't be described as belligerents, please do explain here. Otherwise I am going to reinstate those facts as soon as 1RR allows. Please do not ignore this discussion then start a revert war and/or frivolous AE action. Thank you.--FergusM1970 (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This is an article about the PIRA campaign, not about The Troubles. The PIRA systematically targeted British security forces, occasionally got involved in sectarian violence (against protestant militants and civilians) and rarely attacked Gardaí and Irish Army personnel (only 7 deaths in almost 30 years). Including agencies of the RoI as "belligerents" is given undue weight to a minority point of view.--Darius (talk) 03:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

And the PIRA campaign involved attacks against Irish forces and Irish forces operations against PIRA. What's WP:UNDUE about mentioning that?--FergusM1970 (talk) 03:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

That those attacks on the RoI were far from being systematic, an overwhelming majority of the PIRA actions were directed against British forces, and the Republic was not involved in NI (at least from a military point of view).--Darius (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Did PIRA kill Irish security forces? Yes or no?--FergusM1970 (talk) 04:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

And if your answer is "Yes," as it must be, why should those men be denied even the acknowledgement of their deaths by WP? I have worked with, like and respect members of both the Garda and the Irish Army, and I am disgusted at the idea of hiding their deaths to whitewash a political POV.--FergusM1970 (talk) 04:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, just like the Germans killed Irish citizens in WWII (even volunteers on the battlefield) or bombed Dublin and this doesn't make Ireland a belligerent country.--Darius (talk) 04:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

But the Garda Special Branch and Army Ranger Wing took part in operations against PIRA, including British-led operations. We're not talking about accidents here: the Irish authorities were actively involved in the effort to defeat PIRA, and suffered for it.--FergusM1970 (talk) 04:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Irish casualties added to the infobox now, but like a third party, not along British security forces.--Darius (talk) 04:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Why not? They were working alongside British security forces. Garda had a Special Branch liaison with Met SB since 1973. Army Ranger Wing regularly train with 22SAS and exchange soldiers all the time. Irish security forces worked alongside British ones to defeat a common terrorist enemy, so why shouldn't they be honoured as having fallen in the line of duty instead of being relegated to "collateral damage"? They deserve better than that.--FergusM1970 (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Because we have only seven RoI casualties. To include these seven along the British, we need reliable sources showing that they were killed in the course of combined operations, and that is not the case.--Darius (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Why do only combined operations count, then? The friendly forces casualty box is about those killed by PIRA. Were those Guards and that soldier killed by PIRA or not? If so, what exactly is your problem about acknowledging what they died for? I am fairly disgusted at your apparent disrespect for the Guard and Irish Army at this point, but I hope you can redeem yourself somehow.--FergusM1970 (talk) 04:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is not a memorial website (see WP:MEMORIAL), I am not compelled to pay my respects to anybody, just to show to the readers what reliable sources say about a subject. And I never denied that the IRA killed them.--Darius (talk) 05:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, fair point. Anyway, on reflection, listing the Irish casualties as they are now seems like a reasonable solution.--FergusM1970 (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Best regards.--Darius (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Casualties / Losses section is awkward. All the other wars, Civil, WWII, etc state killed or captured then a number. This section says a name then,the amount, then the word killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.223.19 (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of civilians killed by British forces

Civilians killed by British forces are a little off-topic on this page, which deals exclusively with the PIRA campaign. I think it should be removed as soon as possible.--Darius (talk) 04:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that, as those deaths were a consequence of the PIRA campaign even if they weren't PIRA's fault. Obviously I don't think anyone's going to argue that they would have happened if the campaign hadn't. Are you suggesting that we only list the people killed by PIRA? We can discuss that of course, but it seems kind of limited.--FergusM1970 (talk) 04:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

We should include only those killed by the PIRA. If not, someone could list people killed by the loyalist on the basis that this was a consequence of the PIRA actions, or even the nine British soldiers arrested by the Gardaí/Irish Army on the border in 1976 and 1986.--Darius (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Could someone explain?

What a 2009 poll that doesn't even mention the IRA has to do with this article, and how its inclusion is even remotely justified per WP:NOR? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Uh, possibly because it states the percentage of the NI population who want a united Ireland, and therefore places PIRA's campaign to achieve that in context?--FergusM1970^{Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution.} 20:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question. For starters look at the date of the poll, then read the no original research policy I linked to. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 20:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The use of that poll is obvious original research, as the J. Bowyer Bell source cited doesn't support the inclusion of "specifically". Please don't edit war to push your preferred version through after being reverted, use this talk page.--Domer48_'fenian' 18:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read the links that have been provided a number of times to you, such as WP:OR, WP:SYN and WP:RS. I have the book! Please don't misrepresent sources its really unhelpful. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The statement should be removed immediately from the lede per WP:SYN, not only because the source doesn't make any mention of the Provisionals, but also because the campaign of the PIRA to obtain unity was aimed at the British government, not at the public opinion, let alone public opinion in NI; this is well documented. Other issue is WP:UNDUE, since the editor cited just a single poll, and anybody could use other surveys, like the one carried out by the Belfast Telegraph in 2010, when more than 40% of Protestants expressed their belief that there will be a United Ireland in 20 years. Not to mention references to cross-border institutions, or the political influence of the Republic since the 1985 and 1998 treaties in some reserved matters concerning the North. All of this could be seen by some people as a measure of PIRA's success, rather than "placing PIRA campaign to achieve a United Ireland in context".--Darius (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the survey cited by the editor (see here) actually shows that 40% of the Catholic population in NI supports a United Ireland against 39% for the current power-sharing within the UK.--Darius (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

That's correct; 39% support the current arrangement, with devolved rule (NOT power sharing. Northern Ireland is part of the UK and power is not shared.) However you forgot the additional 8% who want direct rule from London reimposed, making 47% in favour of staying in the UK and only 40% wanting unification. PIRA's aim is a minority view even within the community they claim to represent.--FergusM1970^{The moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on.} 19:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's original research (no direct mention of the 47% in the cited source). And the power is shared in NI not only at local government level between the two communities, but also (in some degree, of course) between the UK (still the sovereign country) and the Republic (per GFA).--Darius (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

We should refrain from using these statistics without the support of a secondary source. Keep in mind that somebody could contradict your assertion that "PIRA's aim is a minority view even within the community they claim to represent" by citing the latest poll results, which shows that Sinn Fein represents today a majority within the Nationalist community.--Darius (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yet with all the BBC survey last month determined that Roman Catholics have overwhelmingly voted to stay in the Union because of the recentl collapse of the ROI's banking system. I can't remember the exact figures so I won't quote any but it does go to show that you can find figures anywhere to support your contention. Just keep pushing it down everyone's throat until your POV is accepted. That's how Wikipedia works - apparantly, by the results I've seen anyway! Of course I'm always willing to give things another chance. *smile* SonofSetanta (talk) 18:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you stop with your personal attacks on editors and remain civil. Comment on content not editors. If you can not support your edits with reliable sources don't add it. Don't misrepresent sources to support your edits, and don't use synthesis or original research as this is unhelpful. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Loyalist groups

Any reason why the loyalist groups aren't listed among the belligerents? Gob Lofa (talk) 12:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Anyone? Gob Lofa (talk) 12:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Misleading Article Summary of PIRA campaign

The summary box on the top right of the article is in general very misleading. In particular, I think using heading like belligerents, results, casualties as part of this summary is unhelpful because it tends to confuse issues which cannot be easily summarized.

PIRA Campaign "Result: Military stalemate and ceasefire. Good Friday Agreement."

Firstly, the above extract states that the Good Friday Agreement was a result of the PIRA campaign (1969-97). This is patently absurd or at least extremely contentious, since the GFA dealt with the entire political settlement in Northern Ireland not just with the release of paramilitaries or decommissioning. I don't think Wikipedia intended to give the PIRA campaign 1969-97 sole credit for the Good Friday Agreement but that is how this article currently reads.

Secondly, I don't think the description of a 'military stalemate' is particularly accurate or appropriate. The only basis for this seems to be that by the mid 1990 the PIRA had not been rendered incapable of carrying out attacks but it doesn't seem as if any of the stated goals of the PIRA had been completed by this time. I think the phrase 'military stalemate' can be left out since it seems POV and doesn't make much sense without contextualizing it.

Belligerents

I think putting the British army, RUC and ulster loyalists paramilitaries as belligerents opposing the PIRA is misleading. Firstly, it tends to create the impression that economic assets, political opponents and certain civilian groups were not targets of the PIRA campaign. Secondly, it creates the impression that the British army, RUC and ulster loyalist paramilitaries were all fighting on the same side. This leads to something of a discrepancy in that while it is noted that 10'000 individuals connected with the PIRA were imprisoned during the troubles, there is no mention of any loyalist paramilitaries imprisoned during the troubles. Thirdly, the PIRA was engaged in conflict with other republican paramilitary groups at various points which aren't contained in the list of belligerents.

Casualties The presentation of casualties may tend towards suggesting that civilians killed i.e. not British armed forces, RUC members, loyalist paramilitaries were not intended targets. Though clearly some of the civilians killed were designated targets: i.e. judges, conservative/unionist politicians, public contractors, ect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David5122 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree it's misleading to suggest the GFA was a result of the PIRA's campaign and should come out. Maybe 'military stalemate and ceasefire' could read 'stalemate, IRA ceasefire and disarmament'? People will be confused by the belligerents and think there was common cause between security forces and loyalist paramilitaries. Perhaps have the security forces as 'opponents' and have a separate box for 'other paramilitary groups'? I think the whole casualties bit is a bit complicated, Maybe just needs to summarise i.e. PIRA , 'security forces' and 'others'. I agree that many civilians were targets.--Flexdream (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC) ps Something like this might be better.--Flexdream (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Result Okay, I'm going to pull the reference to the Good Friday Agreement being a result of the provisional campaign since I thinks that pretty obvious POV. I'd prefer not making an assessment regarding the PIRA campaign (i.e. stalemate, failure, success, ect) since I think its difficult to reach a consensus. For example, I would tend towards the campaign failing to meets its aims.

Belligerents This is problematic.

+If we don't include other republican groups involved in feuds with PIRA, like the IPLO, as belligerents perhaps including loyalist paramilitary groups is inconsistent. +Also might it be more appropriate to refer to the United Kingdom as a belligerent than simply the RUC and the British army. This might rationalize things a bit. +By the way, it would make sense to list the ROI as a belligerents of PIRA since they did arrested a substantial number of PIRA members and PIRA carried out a number of operations in the ROI including arms importing, killings, robberies and kidnapping.

David5122

I think the belligerents is better now. The casualties bit is confusing though e.g. it looks like the loyalists killed the civilians, and it's confusing to identify casualties like the Irish Army who are not shown as a belligerent e.g. people might think the British Army fought the Irish Army. Not sure how best to clearly and simply show this.--Flexdream (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I've changed it to make it clear that the British and Irish armies weren't fighting each other, but I think the opposing Irish flags might now confuse people. There doesn't seem to separate symbols. The casualties now fit beneath the belligerents.--Flexdream (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

As per O'Brien (see note nº 170, section "Activities in the Republic of Ireland") the PIRA didn't consider the Republic an enemy, and forbade military actions against its forces. The RoI casualties were the result of what PIRA members would have described as "collateral damage" (from their own point of view); therefore, I think that RoI casualties belong, in this context, to the same category as civilian and other republican groups rather than "belligerents".--Darius (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Darius, I see your point and it's covered in the text. It's hard to get everything in the infobox without it getting complicated. I think the edits you, me and David have done have improved it a lot. I don't see a problem with your suggestion though of listing the Irish army and police casualties like the civilians and not having them as belligerents. Do you think having an Irish flag for the IRA is confusing?--Flexdream (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Flexdream, the issue of the Irish flag was discussed several times along the years, thus there is a separate icon for the Republican and the Republic of Ireland flags, although they are actually one and the same. The Republican flag predates the RoI's one, and the PIRA (and other "IRAs") adopted it as their own flag. The problem is not exclusive of the Troubles-related articles; see the infobox of the Irish Civil War, as example: you have two enemies under the same flag. As for the RoI security forces, they were not an enemy from the PIRA point of view, and since this article describes only the PIRA campaign and not the whole conflict, we should remove them from the list of belligerents.--Darius (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Darius is correct that PIRA instructed its members not to carry out military operations against Republic State forces. However, the ROI government probably considered itself a belligerent against the PIRA campaign and the PIRA must have considered ROI forces hostile. Irish state forces are listed as a belligerent in the article on 'the troubles' and PIRA as an organization killed a majority of Irish state forces who died during the troubles. Conversely, ROI state forces arrested a large number of PIRA members within its territory and intercepted a number of arms shipments destined for PIRA.

Even if Irish State forces were not explicitly targeted, the operations PIRA carried out on Irish territory meant they were clearly adversaries. PIRA often killed targets in Irish territory, carried out most arms importing through Irish territory, carried out kidnappings/robberies on Irish territory, ect.

Some of the most well-known PIRA attacks took place on Irish territory such the killing of Lord Mountbatten and family, and in that case it was the Garda who arrested the PIRA member involved. Alternatively, the PIRA killing of the British ambassador to Ireland took place in Dublin and led to one of the biggest Garda operations in history.

David5122

Hi David. It's absolutely true that the RoI forces carried out security operations against the PIRA, declared membership to the group a crime, and arrested a good number of PIRA members. We should also keep in mind that the Republic never got involved in Operation Banner, and was mostly critic of the British military intervention in NI.

The bulk of PIRA operations inside the Republic, instead, consisted in storing of weapon caches, training, funding through robbery and some killings of British targets. They never executed a single mission which goal was to damage 26 counties government property or personnel. The single soldier and 9 Gardaí who died were shot as result of robberies and stand-offs, not from ambushes or bombings intended to kill as usually happened in the North.

The inclusion of the RoI as belligerents in the article about the Troubles is absolutely valid, because we are dealing there with the whole Irish conflict. But this article is only about the PIRA campaign, thus we should represent things from the point of view of the PIRA's strategy, and that strategy didn't identify Republic's security forces as enemies, according to cited sources.--Darius (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It is problematic to frame this article from the perspective of provisional IRA strategy because it tends towards POV. In any case, from the perspective of PIRA strategy, the list of British belligerents would include prison officers, Diplock judges, important British politicians, certain public construction workers, senior civil servants, ect.

It requires a strained interpretation not to regard Irish state forces as belligerents. Though the Irish government was frequently critical of British security policy there was cooperation in security policy between the states. The activities PIRA was carrying out in ROI made them enemies of the Irish security forces even if they didn't regard Irish security forces as targets. Given that the security policy of the ROI had a key impact on the PIRA campaign, certainly more so than loyalist paramilitaries, it seems that Irish state forces should be included within the summary.

David5122 — Preceding undated comment added 18:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no "strained interpretation" in dismissing the role of the RoI as combatants since we have a published, reliable source (O´Brien) asserting that the PIRA campaign didn't see security forces from the Republic as the enemy. This adheres to Wikipedia's policy regarding sources.

No PoV at all in framing this article from the perspective of Provisional IRA strategy, because as a matter of fact the subject of this article is the Provisional IRA strategy, not the Troubles as a whole. What I mean is that getting the RoI involved in the infobox is off-topic; an example? it's like including Bulgaria as a belligerent in Operation Barbarossa just because 1) it was an allied of the Axis powers until 1944 and 2) the country was at the end invaded by Soviet troops. Bulgaria, however, never declared war to the Soviet Union, therefore it would be preposterous to count them as combatants by claiming that "it tends to (Bulgarian) POV".--Darius (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

This is starting to have a touch of the absurd. The ROI made the PIRA illegal and carried out operations which significantly impeded its campaign. Actions deemed harmful to the security policy of ROI were carried out by the PIRA in the republic and there was a corresponding response by the Irish security forces. It matters not a jolt that according to the ideological perspective of PIRA they were not the real enemies. They were still belligerents in the sense that the ROI used its security forces to oppose the PIRA strategy of achieving a united Ireland through armed force.

If we write this article on the basis of who the PIRA believed its enemies where we should list every group the PIRA specifically targeted in the ifobox and not just the UDR, RUC, loyalist paramilitaries, ect. I had assumed the belligerents section was meant to mention organization that opposed the PIRA's campaign using force, if so it makes no sense to exclude ROI security forces.

BTW: As a general point it does not take a declaration of war for there to be a warDavid5122 (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC).

Yes, and Scotland Yard, the FBI, the German Police, the French coast-guard also "carried out operations which significantly impeded its campaign", and still they hardly count as 'belligerents' here. I insist, per cited source (O'Brien) we should not include either the Gardaí or the Irish Army as combatants, since 1) they wasn't involved in any action against the IRA in NI (just as neither were the above mentioned SY, FBI, German Police, French coast-guard ) and 2) the PIRA expressely forbade targeting forces from the Republic.

One interesting point I mention above and that we have missed until now is the main location of the campaign: NI. The only armed opposition the PIRA faced in NI itself came from the BA, the RUC and the loyalists. Unarmed groups (Diplock judges, construction workers) are irrelevant in a military infobox, just as in an infobox about WWII you would not list "German industry" as a belligerant on the basis that it was the target of strategic bombing or "British traitors" like Lord Haw-Haw or John Amery as a target of British justice.--Darius (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You are somewhat missing the point. The PIRA campaign took place in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and the mainland UK predominately. It only ever carried out a very limited number of operations abroad. And foreign governments carried out relatively few operation against them It does not make sense to only count those involved in combating the PIRA in Northern Ireland as belligerent forces. Even then only the UDR and RUC are counted, leaving out the regular army, special branch, ect. Loyalist paramilitaries are belligerents but feuding republican paramilitary groups are not?

It does not matter who PIRA said they were explicitly targeting otherwise we might as well change the belligerents to British colonial forces. PIRA stating that they are not explicitly targeting Irish security forces does not mean they were not enemies of Irish security forces. The UVF, red hand commando or Shankill butchers were, by in large, not targeting British security forces but they were still belligerent organizations. Again I note, the majority of Irish State forces who died in the troubles were killed by PIRA. The Irish government arrested more IRA members than were arrested in the mainland UK. More PIRA operations were carried out in the ROI than England, ect.

BTW, in process of responding, I've noticed that the PIRA activities in ROI section needs some work.

The allied bombing article probably refers to the German State as the belligerent party, which would include German industry and Lord Haw Haw.

5.68.165.1 (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)David5122and

Flexdream wrote: "People will be confused by the belligerents and think there was common cause between security forces and loyalist paramilitaries." Think? Not only was there common cause, there was often common membership. Much intelligence and weaponry flowed from the BA, not all of it unofficially. All of them fought to maintain the Union and all of them regarded the Provos as their main enemy. Gob Lofa (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

PIRA activities in ROI

PIRA activities in ROI I notice that under the heading in this article only the Gardi and Irish soldier killed by PIRA are referred to after the caveat that they were not regarded as targets by the PIRA. No other PIRA activities are referred to. This provides the misleading impression that these were the only activities PIRA carried out in the republic. Kidnappings, arms importing, killing targets in ROI, border attacks, training, robberies, planning are not included under this heading. Nor are high profile operations like PIRA assassinating the British ambassador in Dublin mentionedDavid5122 (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC), ect. Some of this detail is included elsewhere but at the moment this section is very inadequate. Any objections to updating it?

Agree on this point. The killings of Lord Mountbatten (1979) and "The General" (1994) and the 1973 helicopter escape should also be listed there.--Darius (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we should include a bit on the disappeared, i.e individuals abducted by PIRA from the North and killed/buried in the ROI in this ROI section as well. Also we could merge this section with attacks outside Northern Ireland which at the moment predominately refers to the PIRA mainland campaign.

5.68.165.1 (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)David5122]]

OK.--Darius (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070202034106/http://www.independentmonitoringcommission.org:80/ to http://www.independentmonitoringcommission.org

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928081540/http://www.irishecho.com/search/searchstory.cfm?id=2897&issueid=69 to http://www.irishecho.com/search/searchstory.cfm?id=2897&issueid=69#prof
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050312003253/http://www.birw.org:80/Deaths%20since%20ceasefire/deaths%2000.html to http://www.birw.org/Deaths%20since%20ceasefire/deaths%2000.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110928055538/http://www.intelligenceonline.com/threat-assessment/1992/06/10/military-solution,63070-EVENorthern to http://www.intelligenceonline.com/threat-assessment/1992/06/10/military-solution,63070-EVENorthern
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151222144754/http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=O1ZaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=u0wNAAAAIBAJ&pg=6780,6577778&dq=checkpoint+northern-ireland&hl=en to http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=O1ZaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=u0wNAAAAIBAJ&pg=6780,6577778&dq=checkpoint+northern-ireland&hl=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303195508/http://news.ulster.ac.uk/releases/2006/2223.html to http://news.ulster.ac.uk/releases/2006/2223.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/ulster/article270724.ece
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.independentmonitoringcommission.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

CAIN figures

The section Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign#Casualties starts off by saying "According to the Conflict Archive on the Internet (CAIN), a research project at the University of Ulster,[6] the Provisional IRA was responsible for the deaths of 1,823 people during the Troubles up to 2001". However this isn't technically correct. While the information is certainly hosted on CAIN, the reference provided show it's actually Malcolm Sutton's figures from 2002. The actual CAIN figures can be seen here. CAIN give a total of 1,707 for the IRA, plus various others that could or could not be counted as IRA depending on who is doing the counting (Direct Action Against Drugs 5, Republican Action Force 24, and non-specific Republican group 91, which is increased from 89 from Sutton's original figure).

Since CAIN are seemingly continually updating the figures (there seems to be a discrepancy quite often when I check CAIN references), is there any particular reason why we are using Sutton's original 2002 figures not the current ones? FDW777 (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Figures updated. FDW777 (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I suggest merging Provisional IRA's Glasgow cell into this article, since there is nothing that cannot easily be included at Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign#1980s. That there even was a "Glasgow cell" is contradicted by the one author who has written about the events in any detail. Martin Dillon, 25 Year of Terror: The IRA's war against the British (ISBN 05553-40773-2) pages 221-222 says IRA Internal Security had identified a problem with one of the members of the London unit. He was in the team with [Patrick] Magee that was planning attacks on seaside resorts . . . Peter Sherry was the person selected by GHQ to deal with Craig; he was part of the team which ensured the internal security of IRA cells in Britain . . . He was smuggled into Britain on a coal boat travelling from Belfast to Ayr in Scotland . . . Surveillance was placed on him [Craig], and as a consequence he led his watchers to Gerard McDonnell, the leader of the London unit, and Patrick Magee . . . On 22 June 1985 he [Magee] took a train to Carlisle, and was kept under surveillance. He met Sherry at the W. H. Smith shop, and the two travelled to Glasgow . . . Magee and Sherry went to a flat where they met McDonnell and two couriers . . The two couriers were . . Martina Anderson . . . and Ella O'Dwyer . . . While they discussed IRA business, policemen burst into the flat and arrested them So Patrick Magee, Gerard McDonnell and Donnel Craig were part of the London unit, Peter Sherry was part of Internal Security and Ella O'Dwyer and Martina Anderson were couriers. None of them was part of the so-called "Glasgow cell", although most of them were certainly arrested in Glasgow. In the absence of a simple way to deal with the major problem with the name, I think a merge is the most sensible option especially since there is so little content to merge. FDW777 (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose merge, due to it having been a notable cell, some of whose members were notable and for which they were convicted & sentenced to life. They planned 16 bombings in a total of 13 settlements. They had many components & planted one bomb.

The article isn't too short to justify its existence and editors are welcome to expand it.

If there's a better name for the article, then it should be moved to that. Disputing the title isn't a reason to merge it. Five members were arrested at a flat in Glasgow & the many components with which they were going to make the bombs were found at another flat in Glasgow, so the strongest connection appears to be to that city. Some sources say that only Craig was based in London. In any case, we can't call it the London cell because that description would closer fit the Balcombe Street Gang. Jim Michael (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Except, as already pointed out, it wasn't a cell. So it can't be a notable cell. It doesn't meet any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), nor Wikipedia:Notability (events). That people mentioned in the article are notable is irrelevant, their articles are not proposed to be merged. They planned 16 bombings in a total of 13 settlements. They had many components & planted one bomb is so wildly off-topic I don't even know why I'm wasting my time addressing it, but I will. That they planned x number of bombings in y cities is completely irrelevant to editorial decisions about where is the best place to include that information.

This isn't the Bojinka plot. There's very little that can be written about their activities, and what can be written can be covered in context in this article. The simplest way to deal with the numerous factual inaccuracies in your article is to re-write it, and merge it here. Very little, if any, content will be lost. FDW777 (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

In what way does it not meet the definition of a cell? If not a cell, what do you call the group in question? They planned 16 bombings together, including acquiring the components. They built at least one bomb, which they planted in a London hotel. They were convicted of conspiring to cause explosions for which they were sentenced to life. The number of planned bombings is very relevant - if it had gone as they planned, they would likely have caused more damage & killed & injured more people than the Balcombe Street Gang did. Being on a smaller scale than the Bojinka plot doesn't mean it isn't notable & you're the only editor to question its notability.

As you know, it's not my article - it's WP's. Anyone is welcome to improve it. It doesn't need to be re-written, let alone merged. If you think it contains inaccuracies to the extent it needs to be rewritten, why haven't you made any attempt to improve it? Jim Michael (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Please read the quotes from Martin Dillon. The "London unit" could probably be called a cell, but they weren't all part of the London unit. Peter Sherry was a member of Internal Security, it says clearly he was part of the team which ensured the internal security of IRA cells in Britain. So he was above the cell. Anderson and O'Dwyer were couriers, couriers aren't part of a cell. I don't know where you get this bizarre idea that because they were all convicted of conspiracy that means they all part of a specific IRA cell. If you get arrested in a flat with known IRA volunteers, weapons, explosives and a list of targets for bombs (in McDonnell's possession) unless you have a really, really good excuse for being there you're probably going to be convicted of conspiracy, it doesn't logically follow that you're part of a single cell. Dillon even goes on to state The discovery of several IRA units, weapons and explosives damaged IRA plans for a sustained campaign in Britain. Note the use of the word "several IRA units", not a single cell. As for why I haven't fixed it yet, it's because I'm going to fix it at the same time as I perform the merge. FDW777 (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

This 1986 article in the Observer describes the group as an active service unit, the IRA term for a cell. Portrait of an IRA active service unit ...the active service unit which planned to bomb seaside resorts last summer. Jim Michael (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there was an active service unit. There were also a group of people arrested in Glasgow. They were not equal to each other, despite there being a significant overlap between the two. FDW777 (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Sentence referenced to Sutton removed

Malcolm Sutton reports 125 fatalities in Britain, 68 civilians, 50 members of the security forces and 7 paramilitaries I can get the 125 total from here, not sure where the breakdown comes from. 125 is the total killed in England by everyone, not just the IRA. If we take 125 as the starting point, we need to subtract 7 killed by the Sticks at Aldershot, 2 killed by the INLA (Airey Neave plus a soldier killed in 1992), Diarmuid O'Neill killed by police, Patricia Black, Frankie Ryan and Ed O'Brien killed by premature bomb explosions. That'd take us to 112. Since that's less than the figure in the previous sentence (During the IRA's 25-year campaign in England, 115 deaths and 2,134 injuries were reported, from a total of almost 500 attacks) hopefully nobody minds too much if Sutton is removed? FDW777 (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

You can get the right statistics from Sutton at CAIN by generating a cross-table involving three parameters: by area (Britain), by organisation (IRA) and by status (civilians, soldiers, political activists). The resulting numbers are the following: 1) Civilians: 56; 2) British military: 42; 4) British police: 6, 3) Politicians: 4 and 4) IRA members; 4 (most of them killed by own bombs; there was a 1974 case of premature explosion to add to Black, O´Brien and Ryan) making a total of 112 fatalities. The inclusion of this computer-generated figures, however, could be questioning as original research, thus I for keeping only Richard English's statement (which also takes account of the wounded) according to the consensus recently reached at this discussion on giving priority to bibliographical sources over news outlets and websites.--Darius (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I had no idea that page on Sutton existed. I knew how to do the standard cross table with two variables, not one with another variable. Per a similar discussion at Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army#Civilians killed in England I said What I'd prefer not to do is use Sutton's raw data to squeeze in statistics at random points in the article, I feel that's a sensible enough approach. The original discussion you refer to was not intended to deprecate Sutton's database as a reference, it definitely has a place in the "Casualties" section of this and the parent article but I don't think any analysis of figures should be added to other sections generally speaking. I don't want to say it should be completely prohibited in case there are some instances where it might be appropriate. Obviously the instance I removed here was an inappropriate use of Sutton's figures, as his total actually matches Richard English's. I have checked Sutton and for all the IRA volunteers killed by premature explosions in England they are listed as being killed by the IRA, therefore his total would be 125-7-2-1=115, which is exactly the same as Richard English. FDW777 (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I will add a little more regarding CAIN. Their chronology pages are useful for basic research, but anything there should be easily referenced to books. See also my comments at Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army#US categorisation, where their brief synopsis of events in 1997 was slightly misleading and resulted in an incorrect sentence being in the article due to their ambiguous entry. Equally the Sutton chronology of deaths is useful for basic research, but it gives very little information on each death and I'm inclined to think any person or people killed that are significant enough to be mentioned in this article or the main article will have been covered in books. I'm probably of the same opinion on the large amount of background information they host on their site, given the amount of literature on the conflict we don't generally need to cite the CAIN website for much. I'm not on favour of a blanket prohibition as already stated, as there may be occasions when it's the only reference available. The Sutton figures are good though, since they are based on the book Malcolm Sutton published and as Details of the Updates and Revisions to the Information on Deaths shows there's been ongoing updates to the figures ever since. It would be unreasonable to insist on using only the 1993 book figures, or indeed the 2002 figures as discussed at #CAIN figures above. FDW777 (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

"Between 1977 and 1989 there was no year in which IRA attacks in England occurred on more than four days"

Gary McGladdery's book contains a chronology, detailing eight attacks on different days in 1981. Removed the sentence. FDW777 (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)