User talk:24.166.14.6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hello 24.166.14.6, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! ----BigDunc 21:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Finding your way around
Getting Started
How you can help
Getting Help
Getting along


Sorry, but you have not answered the question. Do you have a source on this? For the IRA delegates to wait until after the Ard-Fheis is entirely out of character, and counter to what happened in 1969. The IRA, for these people, was the dominant organization. How do I respond directly to your response? I'm still learning Wikipedia....Thank you.

The reference cited does not indicate when the delegates met with Maguire. How do you know that it was after the Ard Fheis?

How does someone prove that there is no copyright violation? The sentences involved were not word for word, as I recall. And the original source was cited. Also, IRA delegates opposed to the change, as in 1969did not wait for the Ard Fheis.

I don't know how to directly correspond. Are you ok with the current version? There should be no copyright violation. THank you.

Hey, can we discuss this for a bit before you reinsert it?--Chaser - T 01:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC) I think the best way for you to handle it is to block quote it. You can do the {{cquote}} template. That should at least make it clear that you're quoting someone, though a discussion amongst Wikipedians to determine if this is really short enough to be fair use and a sound editorial decision is probably also warranted. Thanks.--Chaser - T 01:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
It looks ok to me now, I have the sources in front of me. I've reorganised it slightly and removed some duplication as the original addition mirrored some of what was already in the article. One Night In Hackney303 01:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Please stop changing the paragraph order back. The foundation of the CA Executive happened after the Ard Fheis. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 01:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The meeting with Tom Maguire did not happen until after the Ard Fheis. Also it does not have to be a word for word copyright violation, the version you added was a derivative work. It was clearly directly derived from a copyrighted work. The new version is not, thanks. One Night In Hackney303 01:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Continuity Irish Republican Army[edit]

Stop hand nuvola.svg

Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. One Night In Hackney303 01:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You've been repeatedly warned about adding copyrighted material, and you've been reported. Stop it now--you may be on the verge of being blocked. Blueboy96 01:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't have English's book handy. There is a difference between publicly recognising the CAC and meeting with the delegates and naming the organization. English, if memory serves, did not interview O Bradaigh. O Bradaigh's book on Maguire, p. 65, shows the statement he issued. It is dated October 22, 1986. The Ard-Fheis did not open until October 31, 1986. Maguire was aware of the split. White's biography notes that the IRA itself released a statement on October 14, 1986, indicating that abstentionism had been dropped. The delegates must have met with Maguire prior to the Ard-Fheis, or he would not have issued the statement. OK?

Your quotation from Peter Taylor also misses the point. When did the delegates first meet with Maguire, after the Convention vote? It was soon after the Convention, not months later. That's the issue, not when the Convention met, etc.

Question[edit]

The reference cited does not indicate when the delegates met with Maguire. How do you know that it was after the Ard Fheis?

The split did not occur until after Sinn Féin had voted to drop abstention at the Ard Fheis. One Night In Hackney303 01:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Armed Struggle by Richard English page 251, confirms that Maguire recognised them when Republican Sinn Féin already existed. One Night In Hackney303 02:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Thanks, I don't have English's book handy. There is a difference between publicly recognising the CAC and meeting with the delegates and naming the organization. English, if memory serves, did not interview O Bradaigh. O Bradaigh's book on Maguire, p. 65, shows the statement he issued. It is dated October 22, 1986. The Ard-Fheis did not open until October 31, 1986. Maguire was aware of the split. White's biography notes that the IRA itself released a statement on October 14, 1986, indicating that abstentionism had been dropped. The delegates must have met with Maguire prior to the Ard-Fheis, or he would not have issued the statement. OK?

There two two statements. The one in 1986 had no mention of the CAC. See Irish republican legitimatism for details. One Night In Hackney303 02:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Also see Provos by Peter Taylor page 361. An interview with a CIRA member:

After the disastrous IRA Convention of 1986, the majority of the Army Executive who were opposed to the move [to end abstentionism], met a couple of months later and decided to reorganize the IRA. Three or four months after the Sinn Fein Ard Fheis, a [Continuity] Army Convention] was called.

Emphasis added to the relevant parts. One Night In Hackney303 02:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Of course Maguire did not mention the CAC. They didn't go public for years. Again, this is not the point. The question is, when did they meet with Maguire. If there was no military wing in the works, why was someone like Billy McKee at the West County Hotel?

This is difficult, as I'm not Wiki savvy. But again, it's not when they met in Convention.

The quotation doesn't miss the point at all, it proves my point. The dissidents did not form what became known as the Continuity Army Executive until a couple of months after the IRA Convention. Read all the sources including Moloney, the split happened after the Ard Fheis. One Night In Hackney303 03:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


What's the page number for Moloney. And if there was no split, then why did Maguire issue the statement, and why did Adams and co. confront O Bradaigh and co. during the Ard-Fheis?

Moloney pages 288-289. And also Brits by Taylor page 264. They had been building up to the split for a long time. Ó Conaill and Ó Brádaigh were increasingly squeezed out by the Northerners. From the new Northern Command to the dropping of Eire Nua, the split had been a long time in coming. Ó Brádaigh knew that ending abstentionism was proposed, why do you think he had already organised another meeting place elsewhere? One Night In Hackney303 03:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


In my opinion, you're avoiding two questions: First, Did representatives from the delegates visit Maguire prior to the Ard-Fheis? Above, you said no. The fact Maguire issued a public statement after the Convention but before the Ard-Fheis suggests that he met with people before the Ard-Fheis, does it not?

Second, if representatives of the delegates met with Maguire, who repudiated the Convention's decision, don't you think this is indicative of a split? If the delegates viewed themselves as the legitimate IRA, then aren't they in schism with those in the Provisionals?

I'm not avoiding any questions. The split did not occur until after the Ard Fheis. What if the Ard Fheis had voted against dropping abstentionism? Would Ó Brádaigh and co have walked out? Unlikely, they would have stayed. So the decision to split was taken as a result of the Ard Fheis vote. All this makes your version of the article unacceptable. There is no evidence of an actual split prior to the Ard Fheis. There is no evidence of Maguire giving his blessing to the Continuity Council or Executive prior to the Ard Fheis, or even the existence of either body at that time. One Night In Hackney303 03:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

We are quibbling over the definition of a "split". Even if there was no formal CAC, there was still a split; those opposed to entering Leinster House believed the constitution had been breached. Creating the CAC took two meetings; one to dismiss those in favor of entering Leinster House and the second to form the CAC. It is possible that there were multiple meetings with Maguire, of course, but the evidence suggests that there was a meeting with him prior to the Ard-Fheis.

Yes. And look at the passage from Taylor. The first meeting was held a couple of months after the IRA Convention (and therefore after the Ard Fheis), where the dissident members of the Executive "dismissed" the others. The second was held three or four months after the Sinn Fein Ard Fheis and was where the Continuity Army Council were appointed. One Night In Hackney303 12:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I will try and track down Taylor; don't have that handy, either. White's book on O Bradaigh quotes O'Connell as saying they "had no military organization at this stage". White states this was "probably true", p. 309. This does not mean that those who created the Continuity IRA were not already taking steps. We will again get into definitions: what's a meeting? Maybe the first meeting of the opposition Executive took a while, but those in the IRA opposed to the change would have started organizing immediately after the Convention. Hence the visit to Maguire.

What started this dialogue was the order of presentation in the article. Chronologically, it is correct -- in my opinion -- to mention that the Continuity IRA was being organized prior to the Ard-Fheis. It's the correct flow of events; it's also consistent with the IRA (for these people) leading the political wing. Whether or not Maguire named the Continuity IRA before or after the Ard-Fheis is interesting, and important, but to imply that nothing happened until after the Ard-Fheis is counter to evidence. As noted earlier, Billy McKee was at the West County Hotel; he is not known as a Sinn Feiner. People were organizing.

As you're still new to Wiki, I'll direct you to no original research. It's a huge leap of logic to jump from "McKee was there" to say "there were organising", and it's against policy to do that. All the sources say that the CIRA (including the Continuity Executive and/or Council) did not exist until after the Ard Fheis. Maguire could not possibly make mention to a body that did not exist. You have verifiable information from reliable sources. One Night In Hackney303 14:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I will check out what is meant by "original research." McKee is an anecdote for this conversation. The bottom line is that Maguire issued a statement prior to the Ard-Fheis, and it is a huge leap of logic to believe that: 1) opponents of the change in the constitution did not meet with him prior to the statement, and, 2) that these same people waited until after the IRA Convention to do anything. The point is that these folks were probably organizing what was, or became, the CIRA prior to the Ard-Fheis. To force anything to do with the CIRA until after the Ard-Fheis, again, ignores how the IRA traditionally operates, and the people who created the CIRA were traditionalists. It also ignores that creating an organization is a fluid activity. When the IRA split in 1969, the delegates remained until the end of the Convention; but they did not go forward for the new Executive, knew what they were going to do, etc. They were organizing prior to that split. It's not realistic to believe that the same people were not organizing prior to the 1986 split, including prior to the Convention. If you want, it again comes down to a definition: "exist". In my opinion you are missing an important point.

PS -- I checked out "original research." Thanks. FYI, the McKee anecdote is publicly known; it's in the White biography, for example. It might also be in accounts of the event; I vaguely recall him mentioned in a contemporary newspaper article, "Night of the Oldies" or something like that.

I'm well aware that McKee being at the hotel is well known. However the reason for his attendance is not discussed, which is where the original research comes in. You're attempting to draw a certain conclusion to further a specific argument, when the source doesn't draw that conclusion. Similarly, while the theory of the majority above is sound, it's not backed up by sources. The build up to the actual 1969 split is specifically documented in detail in many sources, the same cannot be said of this. One Night In Hackney303 19:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

And you're saying that NOTHING was done to organize the Continuity IRA until after the Ard-Fheis, even though there is no evidence to support that? To my knowledge, at least, there is no source that specifically says that those in the IRA opposed to the change did NOTHING until after the Ard-Fheis. The sources only comment on what alleged to have taken place after the Ard-Fheis, and they do not state NOTHING happened until then. Maguire's Oct. 22 statement flies in the face of an argument that nothing happened, whether or not he specifically mentioned the CAC. J.B. Bell, in The Irish Troubles, p. 731, states that Maguire and O Bradaigh spoke prior to the Ard-Fheis. Do you really think the decision at the Convention, and its implications, were not discussed when they met? Taylor's CIRA person says the Executive met a couple of months later (based on the above), while the O Bradaigh biography states that O'Connell's comment about no military organization was only "probably" true and that -- counter to Taylor -- steps were taken "in a matter of weeks", p. 309. It is more accurate to state that the people who organized the CIRA and the people who organized RSF, in some cases the same people, were organizing before the IRA Convention, after the Convention and prior to the Ard-Fheis, and after the Ard-Fheis.

You're clutching at straws now. You can point to as many hints as you want about organising going on behind the scenes, your interpretation of events is just that, an interpretation not reported by reliable sources. The Ó Conaill is not counter to Taylor at all, it actually supports it. Within "weeks" of that statement would fit with the timeline stated in the Taylor interview as the Executive was formed within "weeks" of that statement. As this has now gone beyond the point where it has any relevance as to the actual content of the article, I consider this matter closed. One Night In Hackney303 20:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

From your perspective, the fact that O Bradaigh met with Magauire, and that Maguire issued a statement, is a "straw"? Last time I checked, weeks and months were different. Thanks for the dialogue. No hard feelings here.

Response[edit]

See my comments here, and reply there please. One Night In Hackney303 00:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Button sig2.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 00:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

24.166.14.6 00:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)thanks for the help24.166.14.6 00:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC) --24.166.14.6 00:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)got it, I think.

Dear unidentified user, can you explain what happened to the set of comments below, where One Night in Hackney said he could prove his point? They are now gone? Still new to Wikipedia.... Thank you. --24.166.14.6 00:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Continuity Irish Republican Army[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. One Night In Hackney303 00:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You are trying to stop someone from adding a direct quotation from a quotation. It is you who are in violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view.24.166.14.6 00:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you are making interpretations based on that quotation. So this is merited:
Stop hand nuvola.svg

This is your last warning.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. One Night In Hackney303 00:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


It is inappropriate to threaten people who are quoting directly from published material. You are in violation of Wikipedia's rules. I believe you are doing this intentionally. Please stop.--24.166.14.6 00:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, please stop edit warring.

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. One Night In Hackney303 00:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

jeronelovealyssa[edit]

Trophy.png jeronelovealyssa
i love u pah Tamod (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)