Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army

Ballymurphy massacre

I've reworded this slightly, it now reads Twenty-two people were killed in the next three days, including six civilians killed by the British Army as part of the Ballymurphy massacre on 9 August (previously the bolded words said simply "in". The difficulty is that various authors define the Ballymurphy Massacre differently, one seeing it as simply the first six, another seeing it as ten deaths (presumably Paddy McCarthy is excluded), and others as all eleven. Obviously yesterday's inquest has changed things a bit, but I think a nine versus ten versus eleven deaths argument in this article is potentially outside its scope. Since the disputed tenth shooting victim was John McKerr who was killed on 10 August, it is undisputed that six died on 9 August. If anyone has any suggestions about how this can be handled better feel free to make suggestions. FDW777 (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that you removed the word atrocity from the Claudy bombing article as it was too emotive. Should the word “massacre” be removed from this article for the same reason?

Notice I am discussing these issues on talk pages as opposed to making the changes myself in an effort to achieve consensus. Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The name of the Ballymurphy massacre is not something than can be changed here. FDW777 (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

IRA still possess weaponry

My edit was reverted. I had stated, as per the cited report, that the IRA retained some of its weaponry. The preceding paragraphs deal extensively with the amount of guns and explosives held by the organisation. There is also significant information on the decommissioning. The page at the minute, reads as if the IRA has completely decommissioned its weaponry. The already cited Assessment_on_Paramilitary_Groups_in_Northern_Ireland states that they have retained some weapons. I’m unsure of how best to seek consensus on this when I have quoted the latest report and it does not seem to be enough.

It is my opinion, looking at the edits of fdw777, that there is significant bias in his editing. While I understand that this is is a highly emotive subject, I think it may be useful if some others maybe took an interest in the subject to enhance the impartiality of the page. Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The assessment is not cited. A secondary reference is cited, that deals with the key points of the assessment. That the IRA may (as Armstrong et al are at pains to point out) still possess some weapons is already adequately covered by the final sentence of the paragraph before. FDW777 (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, if I cite the following document which states that the IRA retained some weaponry would that be sufficient? Armstrong use the word “may”, the report does not contain that ambiguity, it states clearly they do have weaponry. There’s a world Of difference between someone maybe having something and actually having something. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/469548/Paramilitary_Groups_in_Northern_Ireland_-_20_Oct_2015.pdf Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The article relies on secondary references for the overwhelming majority of the time. I see no reason why this standard should be discarded on this occasion. FDW777 (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

So you believe that someone’s interpretation of the report is actually more factual that the actual report itself, even when the interpretation draws a conclusion that is contrary to the primary source? You’ve lost me, how does that make sense? The primary references states they have retained arms, the secondary states they may have. The secondary has introduced ambiguity where there was previously none. Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I do. WP:PSTS backs this up completely. FDW777 (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I understand that in some cases primary sources may be by people who are close to an event and therefore are bias. In this case we are dealing with a government report. It is a legitimate source of greater worth that an individuals interpretation. Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

If it's as good as you say, why do Armstrong et al refuse to accept its contents at face value? FDW777 (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea why Armstrong refuses to accept he entirety of a government report, one which has been referenced in the media by both the UK and the Irish governments. Armstrong does seem to accept those parts of the report which could be deemed as favourable to republicanism so maybe there is a deliberate bias there. Regardless of his interpretation and reasons behind it, the report is clear, arms have been retained. A government report which is held up as the truth by both the UK and Irish governments and incidentally both the UK and the Irish police forces (who can be relied on to know more of the actual situation on the ground than Armstrong) has to be more reliable than an interpretation by a third party with unknown bias. Not sure why you are supporting Armstrong unsubstantiated beliefs and ignoring the stated legal position of two governments? Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The report can say the moon is made of green cheese, it does not make it a fact. That applies to any intelligence report produced by any government, they are not necessarily facts. FDW777 (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Surely if that was the case, then neither is someone’s interpretation of the report. You can’t ignore the findings of the most recent report and insist on using the findings of a historical report, as if they are current, by the same government just because you don’t like the findings. Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

We're not ignoring any findings. It's already been included in the article that some IRA weaponry may be outstanding. We don't need a new sentence every time someone makes a similar redundant claim or some rusty bullets get dug up. FDW777 (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Fletcherchristian101 when can I come train and work for my money I own Ireland co Fermanagh and EU bit I can call this all euro 82.132.218.134 (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

IRA categorisation

This statement, under the categorisation section is opinion.

American TV news broadcasts tended to describe IRA members as "activists" and "guerrillas", while British TV news broadcasts commonly used the term "terrorists",

A quick scan of US media turned up several descriptions of the IRA as terrorists, I found no references to them being Guerrillas though I imagine there are some. Should this be removed in its entirety or altered in some way? Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

No. Your original research is irrelevant compared to a properly referenced claim. FDW777 (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that my own cursory look trumps a published study, however, the original research you refer to is from 1988. It’s not current. Furthermore it has a chart showing that the terms Guerrilla or activist were used five times as opposed to terrorist or suspected terrorist which were used four times. I hardly think that a study of terms used over thirty years ago (using just March 1988), quoting such a small sample amount is sufficient to draw the conclusion that US media had a tendency in how they referred to the IRA. The most frequent description of them was as not as either terrorists or Guerrillas, but simply IRA (a total of 26 times). I can provide screenshots of the page in question from the book if you wish to see it yourself? Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I suggest reading the pages cited. FDW777 (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but you are asking me to accept someone’s interpretation of a report as opposed to accepting the actual report itself. I have read both. The interpretation of what the report states is incorrect. May I suggest that you read the actual report, once you’ve done so I have no doubt you will agree with me that the interpretation is incorrect and that the article should be revised to acknowledge the actual findings as opposed to someone’s else’s interpretation. Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The secondary reference's view is that the claim about IRA weaponry in the assessment is precisely that, a claim. Not a fact. FDW777 (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, that was not clear. Let me try and summarise:

The book cited is 30 years out of date. It’s sample size was small. Five references to one set of terms versus four references to another does not indicate a tendency.

Three points, any of which should be sufficient to remove the opinion under discussion. Can you refute these or will you accept them?

I think I may need to escalate this revision as I do not believe we will be able to achieve a consensus. Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The period in question is from while the IRA was active (a particularly active time for news in Northern Ireland as it transpires), not some post-9/11 historial revisionist view of events. FDW777 (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I would agree that in this section there is a lot of opinions in this section should be reviewed as they are not properly sourced. For example, the use of the word 'tended' is open to interpretation and the statement is not referenced or corroborated with any research. I would suggest removing that bit entirely Jdaly81 (talk)

FDW777 just to clarify, you believe that 5 vs 4 statements taken over a one month period 30+years ago is enough to use the term tendency in describing how American news referred to the IRA? If there is any revisionism going on, it’s in that statement. It needs removed or reworded. Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe that the author is reliable enough to make judgements, and to select a time period that there is sufficient data available for reliable judgements to be made. You also appear to be attributing something to me that isn't actually true. FDW777 (talk) 13:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Socialism

When you say things like "since they didnt have an oficial socialist ideology , such as OIRA , which was openly socialist . So provisionals , in an effort to convince irish americans to help with funds , did not assume a socialist ideology ( wich caused the 1969 anti-treaty partition" it only demonstrates you don't actually know what you're talking about. What on earth is the 1969 anti-treaty partition? The IRA very much did have an official socialist ideology, as evidenced not only by the section at Provisional Irish Republican Army#Political ideology but by the IRA's own constitution which says their second objective is "To support the establishment of an Irish Socialist Republic based on the 1916 Proclamation. Also edits such as this not only misrepresent the existing reference but cause a broken reference later in the article. Please stop disrupting the article based on an erroneous understanding of the subject matter. FDW777 (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

The claim that "the reason of the 1969 partition in anti treaty was that OIRA wanted to be openly socialist , and PIRA to recieve american money" is not one that appears in any of the vast amount of books that cover the 1969 split in the IRA. Please stop disrupting the article based on a faulty understanding of the subject matter. FDW777 (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with FDW777 and idk why this IP user keeps insisting on restoring edits otherwise. It seems they might be confusing communism with socialism (a careless but common mistake); as the OIRA's communist sympathies were at least a contributing factor to the 1969 split. With regards to the other claims, though it is very likely American support for the PIRA would've been drastically reduced had the organization been ideologically communist, I have never heard of this being a stated or implied reason / in any way a proximate cause of the 1969 split. In fact, it runs redundant to the reasons I long understood to have caused the schism that led to the PIRA's founding. OgamD218 (talk) 07:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

That's true, it would appear the IP editor is unaware the Provisionals were socialist while the Officials were Marxist. With regards to American funding there is some information in the references about some people in American not wanting money and/or arms to go to the Goulding faction (that's the soon-to-be Officials, most people probably know but just to be clear) around the time of the split, whether this was due to their failure to defend nationalist areas in 1969 or because of a dislike of their Marxist thinking isn't something I can remember off the top of my head and it isn't essential for the purposes of this discussion anyway. There is some other information about people from Ireland visiting the USA for fundraising purposes playing down the Provisionals socialist ideology and talking about more military than political subjects, again not essential for the purposes of this discussion but like the former point it's possible the IP editor has heard a rather garbled version of either. Or possibly they have failed to comprehend something written in English, since they refer to things like the 1969 anti-treaty partition I don't believe I'm too far out a limb by suggesting their understanding of English might not be at a professional level... FDW777 (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Lead

The argument The article mentions how many British soldiers the PIRA killed. So mentioning the civilians they killed makes sense and is referenced makes no sense, since the lead already says The IRA's armed campaign, primarily in Northern Ireland but also in England and mainland Europe, killed over 1,700 people, including roughly 1,000 members of the British security forces, and 500–644 civilians (my emphasis). Also as my edit summary when reverting the first attempt at adding this factoid said, rv. WP:LEAD. Unclear why we'd need to point out one category, when they were the deadliest in many categories. See WP:ONUS. FDW777 (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The number of deaths between respective belligerents should be included, but it is POV to state that one party killed more civilians than another unless we state for proportion how many civilians all parties killed, which is, in my view, WO:UNDUE for the lead. SN54129 15:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. The data is correct and is referenced. It's POV to exclude referenced relevant facts. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, especially when it's a violation of WP:LEAD and a highly selective presentation of statistics. FDW777 (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Just as a point of information, I own 40 of the books listed at Provisional Irish Republican Army#Bibliography (yes, I did just count them). I am sure I could come up with many "relevant facts" from them, would they all belong in the article simply because they can be referenced? FDW777 (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@FDW777 can I be a Garda man I'd stole up here over owning my own cuntery well I want all euro I paid for it 82.132.218.134 (talk) 02:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)