Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army

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

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

"Abortive attempt at escalation"

The lede currently refers to an "abortive attempt at escalation" of the military part of the IRA's strategy after the hunger strikes. I'm not sure this is accurate - there was escalation, it just didn't achieve its goal.I therefore propose to remove the phrase "abortive attempt" and rejig the rest of the sentence accordingly. Irvine22 (talk) 06:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You did not propose anything, you just did it. Abortive is correct, the planned Tet Offensive never happened. O Fenian (talk) 10:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I proposed it then I did it, yes. Remember we are exhorted to be bold. The existing language, with its reference to an attempted escalation after the hunger strikes, was confusing. It certainly seems to have confused you. There was an escalation immediately after the hunger strikes. The contemplated Tet offensive, so-called, was later (mid-80s) and was always going to be beyond the capabilities of the IRA, as Loughgall tends to demonstrate. Irvine22 (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It did not confuse me, as unlike you I know where the wikilink in the sentence goes to - the Tet Offensive section. It would appear the only confused person is you. O Fenian (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2009(UTC)

Right, but the language about the aftermath of the hunger strikes and the reference to 1981 tends to confuse the issue. There was a temporary escalation of violence after the suicides of the hunger strikers. But that is not to be confused with the "abortive" Tet offensive, which came (or didn't come as it turned out) years later. Irvine22 (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Tendentious addition and system gaming

As is usual with Irvine22's editing, this edit uses a quote out of context to push a particular point-of-view. It is was disruptively adding by gaming 1RR and should be reverted. This is advance notice that if Irvine22 continues to edit disruptively a RFC will be filed regarding his editing. O Fenian (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I support the call for an RFC. Previous blocks and endless discussion here, and on other talk pages, have not had any effect on Irvine's editing. Something has to be done if he does not stop being disruptive. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The quote is informative, sourced and in-context. It was added to the section of the article on decommissioning, and represents the IRA's own clearly stated position on decommissioning at the time of the Belfast agreement. At present the "decommissioning" section jumps from the 1994/97 ceasefires all the way to the IRA's final disarmament in 2005. There is no reference to the long, drawn out process by which decommissioning occurred, or the multiple changes of position by the IRA in the intervening years. This should be addressed.Irvine22 (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Clearly out of context, clearly disruptive POV pushing, clearly short term blocks are not going to change the behaviour. Support RFC, its time.--Snowded ^TALK 01:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Clearly in context in the "decommissioning" section of the article. And given that the addition was a direct quote from a statement by the IRA issued April 30th 1998 and signed by P. O'Neill the only POV expressed is that of the IRA. That POV subsequently changed, of course, and it is the process by which it changed that is missing from the section in question, and that is what I propose to address. Irvine22 (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The quote was taken out of the context in which it was actually written, that much is evident to anyone who is not here to push a point-of-view. Also do not amend my title again, as it this section is referring to your disruption of this article and what will be done to prevent further disruption. O Fenian (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, a single quote like that doesn't tell us anything about the long, drawn out process. Its confusing to the reader unless there is some context to what changed between that statement and the decommissioning.

Your sort of editing technique, adding isolated, occasionally charged sentences here and there then trying to justify their inclusion as informative and sourced, doesn't really work in these sort of controversial, complex articles. Articles like these should not be looked at piecemeal (and really not edited piecemeal). Edits needs to be considered in the wider context of paragraphs and sentences, to ensure there is balanced, flow tone and coverage throughout the article. I would strongly suggest that, if you wish to contribute to these sorts of articles and become respected as a content contributor rather than a WP:SPA, you should try writing rather than editing. There is a difference. Take a paragraph that needs work, copy it to sandbox and re-write it. Then bring it to the talk page for discussion, then add it to the article.

Having observed your pattern of editing, Irvine, over the last few weeks. I can understand why other editors may have become disenchanted with your contributions (though I don't condone the immediate reversion of ALL your edits, as some editors appear to do). I fear, should this pattern of editing continue, some sort of probationary measures (perhaps under a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles remedy) might be needed assist you integrate into the editing culture better. It would be better, of course, if that could happen without the need for probationary measures. If you would be interested in becoming a better editor, I'd be happy to offer advice. Rockpocket 02:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to accept your advice. Irvine22 (talk) 02:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The single quote was misleading, if you read the article. That comment was in response to a demand that the IRA decommission, and was followed by "This issue, as with any other matter affecting the IRA, its functions and objectives, is a matter only for the IRA, to be decided upon and pronounced upon by us". Thus it was out of context. O Fenian (talk) 02:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There does seem to be an obvious gap in the article in respect of the long drawn-out decommissioning process and the PIRA's eventual change of position. That said, a single quotation does not fill the gap. Mooretwin (talk) 09:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. However, if we are to fill in the gap, it must be with sourced, in-context information as to what the IRA was doing during those times. Additions should, in my opinion, center around the process of disarmament, barriers to it, etc. The paragraph in question is sparse, and could do with a re-write. Given the sensitivity of the topic and how high emotions are currently running, I echo Rockpocket's suggestion that the draft rewrite be first posted to the talk page, before the article itself is updated. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Anyone have the time and inclination to attempt a re-write? Mooretwin (talk) 11:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'll have a go. Irvine22 (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy that you've decided to undertake this. Please remember the feedback you've received, as a biased or otherwise deficient paragraph will serve no purpose other than to engender more bickering, and would be unlikely to be adopted anyway. Throwaway85 (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Its an interesting test, to see if there is real intent to stop the disruptive behaviour and contribute. Happy to see what happens from this. --Snowded ^TALK 05:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's AGF, and take it from there. No need in dooming the project from the get-go. If Irvine22 submits a workable draft, then we have something to work from and the article is improved. If not, then other options become more likely. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• I echo the calls for an RFC on Irvine. BigDunc 14:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Not before time, I'd support the call. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

duuuuuuuuude... I have no idea what you just said. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Decommissioning

This would the kind of thing I would propose to add to the "decommissioning" section, to address the identified gap:

"After the Belfast Agreement of April 1998, the issue of IRA arms became central to the peace process. Unionists mostly took the view that the IRA should decommission its arms before Sinn Fein could take its seats in the devolved Northern Ireland Executive. Republicans and Nationalists mostly took the view that prior decommissioning was an unnacceptable precondition and not part of the Agreement. These entrenched positions were summed up by the slogans "No Guns, No Government" and "Not a Bullet, Not an Ounce".

The IRA itself, in a statement issued April 30th 1998, stated that "there will be no decommissioning by the IRA." Gerry Adams, speaking for Sinn Fein, said that he wanted to see "all the guns" taken out of the situation in Northern Ireland.

The British and Irish governments set up the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning to address the issue of paramilitary arms. After political progress towards an inclusive devolved government, and a reduction in the British military presence on the streets of Northern Ireland, the IRA engaged with the decommissioning body and completed decommissioning in 2006."''''

Refs to follow. Comments welcome. Irvine22 (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this some sort of bizarre joke? Not acceptable at all. O Fenian (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

In the spirit of constructive, collaborative editing, do you have suggestions how to improve it, O Fenian? Rockpocket 19:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not consider ignoring people's objections to the use of that quote out of context to be "constructive, collaborative editing" in the first place, do you? O Fenian (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, the quote above will be linked to the IRA statement in full. The longer quote you provided above about decommissioning being a matter for the IRA was, as I recall, in the context of other parties trying to compel Sinn Fein to pronounce on the issue, or otherwise to hold Sinn Fein accountable for the IRA's actions (or lack of them) in that regard. I tried to address this, without quoting at undue length from P O'Neill, by referring to Gerry Adams "speaking for Sinn Fein" and his linkage of the issue of IRA arms with "all weapons" in the conflict, including British Army weapons.Irvine22 (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't, O Fenian. And I told Irvine22 as much. But I do consider an attempt to write a section that is missing content, and bring it to the talk page for discussion first, to be firm step towards constructive, collaborative editing. Refusing to engage in that process based on a grudge appears obstructive, rather than constructive. Irvine22's proposal seems a reasonable starting place, why not try and help rather than scupper it? A good rule of thumb towards collaborative editing is to try to treat every edit or proposal with "beginner's mind", irrespective of past differences you may have had with the editor. Rockpocket 19:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not consider the attempt to include an out of context quote that has previously been disputed "reasonable", especially when the rationale for doing so is that people can see the quote in the correct context if they can be bothered to click a link to the original source! The argument about Sinn Féin is of no relevance. The IRA's comments on decommissioning specifically said "This issue, as with any other matter affecting the IRA, its functions and objectives, is a matter only for the IRA, to be decided upon and pronounced upon by us". If they had decided there would be no decommissioning ever, what could possibly be "decided upon and pronounced upon by us" in the future? The statement was made in response (in part) to a specific demand that the IRA decommission, they said no to that demand. The full statement implies that decommissioning may happen in the future, but that would be for the IRA to decide upon. Do you agree? O Fenian (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't read the IRA statement that way and indeed that is not how it was reported at the time. It's pretty clear (or as clear as P O'Neill ever gets - simple declarative sentences are not his forte) that the IRA, in asserting that decommissioning was a matter for them, was trying to take the heat off Sinn Fein. After all, it was Sinn Fein that was the putative target for sanctions if the IRA failed to decommission. Irvine22 (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I was not asking you, as I have zero to little interest in your rather biased opinions. You can choose to interpret a quote any way you choose, but that will not get round other people's objections to your interpretation, and will not build a consensus. O Fenian (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The included quote is problematic, but that can easily be removed or, better yet, replaced with the full, in context quote. I think the rest of the paragraph provides a good starting point. Overall, a decent contribution. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

O Fenian, it sounds like you have an alternative quote that could be used to better explain the IRA's position during that time. Great. Why don't you propose something based on that be used instead of the quote Irvine suggested. Do you see how this works? Rather than waste time and energy telling each other you are wrong, instead put the effort into working together towards achieving something constructive. Rockpocket 20:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not have an alternative quote, I am using the same statement only talking about the parts Irvine22 has deliberately left out in order to use the quote out of context. "to be decided upon" is future tense, surely that cannot be denied? O Fenian (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. Its like pulling teeth, here. Ok. Why don't you, using the same statement only talking about the parts Irvine22 left out, propose an alternative sentence that you wold be happy with to better explain the IRA's position during that time? Rockpocket 21:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps because during the long drawn out "will they, won't they?", "yes we will", "we've decommissioned some", "due to Unionist stalling we're not decommissioning any more", "we've decommissioned some more" seven year decommissioning saga the IRA made many statements? And that does not even take into account what people said in reaction to those statements either does it? O Fenian (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you prefer that the decommissioning section was not expanded? Mooretwin (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe what I said gives the opposite impression? O Fenian (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It gives the impression that you are filibustering. Why don't you try suggesting some alternative text? Mooretwin (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

How about expanding the proposed addition so it actually covers the entire long drawn out process before we start arguing over wording? O Fenian (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's really what I meant. I guess I should have said additional text rather than alternative text. Mooretwin (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Irvine, two things. Firstly editorializing is rarely helpful. It makes life a lot easier of everyone if you simply leave out your own thoughts on P O'Neill. Secondly, we should not be interpreting what the IRA meant with regards to Sinn Fein. Let them speak for themselves. If they say the are not decomissioning currently, and any decision to do so will be theirs and theirs only, then say that. Let the reader draw their own conclusion. You have put together a good framework, now let others offer their improvements. Rockpocket 20:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll be happy to see improvements suggested. There does at least seem to be consensus that there is a gap in the section that needs to be plugged. That's something, innit? Irvine22 (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Paragraphs one and two have some serious issues in the wording, and seem to be factually disputable. I wouldn't have a problem with the third paragraph at all, its fine. The Squicks (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Throwaway: a good starting point, with the rather obvious caveat that none of it appears to be sourced. The issue about the quotation to which O Fenian objects can easily be rectified, I'm sure. Mooretwin (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

For paragraph 2, (a)both quotes are utterly ripped out of context in a way that is confusing for the reader, (b)I don't believe Adams said that speaking for SF, only for himself, and (c)placing those quotes next to each other creates a clear WP:SYN- subtly leading the reader into thinking that there was some kind of black-and-white PIRA/SF conflict going on. The Squicks (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you suggest changes? Mooretwin (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

How can anyone suggest changes without the sources? O Fenian (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that they do. I should have thought that it goes without saying that sources are required. I even said so explicitly above. Mooretwin (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as the quote from Gerry Adams on decommissioning "all the guns" goes, it can be found here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/northern_ireland/understanding/profiles/gerry_adams.stm "In the run-up to the deadline for the formation of a new Northern Ireland executive in March 1999, he (Adams) insisted that the IRA could not yet be persuaded to give up its arms and that the weapons issue should be considered as part of a wholescale "decommissioning of all the guns", including the British security aparatus."

@The Squicks - the intention was not to set up a conflict between the PIRA statement and Adams's subsequent statement. Adams's point was to broaden the focus from simply IRA guns to "all guns", including British guns. I would be happy for that to be made clearer. And Gerry Adams was and is President of Sinn Fein. If he doesn't speak for Sinn Fein, who does?

@O Fenian - I understand your suggestion that the section could be much expanded. This initial draft was intended to be broad-brush, to fit with the broad brush approach currently in the section under discussion. Irvine22 (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources for the general narrative (the centrality of the decommissioning issue in the process after the Agreement and the characterization of Unionist and Nationalist attitudes towards the issue) include "Trimble" by Henry McDonald (Bloomsbury, London, 2000), esp Chapter 8 "Nobel, No Guns, No Government". Also "Great Hatred, Little Room:Making Peace in Northern Ireland", by Jonathan Powell (The Bodley Head, London, 2008).Irvine22 (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

When you hit enter on a talk page, you have to put the colons back in. It's annoying, I know. I editted your comment's spacing for you.

You will find Adams was saying that before 1999, in fact he said it before the IRA's statement. O Fenian (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

There you go - we can use that quote from Adams instead then. Irvine22 (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

An inclusion of something along the lines of this part: "At a press conference outside Number 10 Downing Street, Mr Adams said the issue of decommissioning IRA weapons was an attempt to block progress. He said: "We don't expect the British Army to disarm tomorrow morning. We don't expect the loyalists to disarm. "I don't see how anyone could expect the IRA to disarm. "Our view is that all of the guns being taken out of the equation as part of an overall settlement should be the objective." would be helpful, although we must be sure to include even this in context. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

And that is the whole problem. The history of IRA decommissioning is not short. To that one statement you would need to add the reaction to that statement so it is not one-sided, then any relevant analysis from secondary sources. If you do that for every twist and turn along the road to full decommissioning, it will be too long to comfortably fit in this article. O Fenian (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a very basic overview, then? Ideally, IRA Decomissioning should warrant its own article, with a stub in this one and a link to the full article. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Irvine22 might have a point in what they are trying to say but from what i learned in school this is a hughe issue and it would neet a lot of work before something was wrote in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.188.113 (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

As with any political/nationalistic conflict (arab/israeli, russian/eastern european, etc), this is a very sensitive issue, and a particularly contentious one on Wikipedia. That's not to say that it should not be editted, only that it requires a lot of due diligence and thought to be able to make effective edits that don't ignite another flame war.

PS: Dammit sinebot, stop conflicting my edits. go away.Throwaway85 (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hehe! I always add {{unsigned}} before Sinebot gets there so it doesn't mess me up.

Anyway, I think maybe it's time to set out what this section ought to say, and how to say it in a neutral way.

1. Decommissioning was covered in the GFA, although the IRA was not a signatory to the agreement.
2. The IRA initially took a tough stand; Sinn Féin, through Gerry Adams, called for "demilitarisation" on all sides i.e. including the BA.
3. The UUP, although it formed an Executive including Sinn Féin in 1999, continued to use decommissioning as a stumbling block.
4. Both before and after the collapse of the Executive, there was engagement by the IRA with the IICD and acts of decommissioning.
5. Full decommissioning was completed in 2005, as already stated in the article.

Does that about cover it? Scolaire (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the reference to the UUP is innacurate and misplaced: this article is about the IRA, and surely should focus on the IRA's process toward decommissioning, from initial flat refusal -"not a bullet not an ounce" - to its ultimate complete disarmament. Too much attention to the actions of other parties, even those that forced the IRA down the decommissioning path, will make the section too unwieldy.Irvine22 (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Disagree completely. The IRA did not exist in a vacuum, and the actions of the other participants were both causes of and responses to IRA actions. You simply cannot accurately describe the process while only referring to one party. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we refer only to one party. I do think that, in an article about the IRA, we should focus most on the actions and statements of the IRA.Irvine22 (talk) 02:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Focus yes, but we can't exclude the motivations for those actions, which were directly tied to the actions of other agents. See my cause/response argument above. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Unless Irvine22 is suggesting only the changing attitudes of the IRA should be included, and the abandonment of the "No guns no government" stance should be excluded? It would be nigh on impossible to write a neutral section without documenting the surrounding events, no matter how uncomfortable they are. O Fenian (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I am coming into this discussion a little later, but I have to agree with O Fenian and Throw, that, while the focus needs to be on the changing attitudes and stance of the IRA towards decommissioning, this change did not happen in a vacuum and the influences and contributions of other parties have to be considered when writing a history of the the decom process. Also, I support Throw's idea of a more extensive article on decommissioning. --BwB (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If a source claims that the IRA adopted or changed a stance based upon the actions of some other agent, then that needs to be included, otherwise the reader is left to interpret motivations that may or may not be correct. Full inclusion of the actions and their causes are needed to paint a full picture of what happened. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course, there is an alternative: not to mention the GFA, to which the IRA was not a party, and just say that between 2000 and 2005 the IRA unilaterally disposed of their weapons as part of their contribution to the peace process. Perhaps that is the version Irvine would prefer? Scolaire (talk) 08:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I see what you did there. While I appreciate the sentiment, I think that the proposed method is best. Let's say what they did, and why they did it, and be done with it. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It was a joke. I forgot to add the smiley :-) Scolaire (talk) 08:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Humor aside, let's just agree upon a course of action here. I propose we include some version of what seems to be the consensus, and roll with it. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm with you, Throw. Will you provide a version for discussion? --BwB (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't know too much about the period in question, aside from the basics. I also don't have access to any of the sources that are regularly quoted here, although I do have access to journals, etc. I'll use the current version and see if I can make it better, although I doubt I'd be able to do a complete re-write. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

To remedy the gaps in your knowledge you could do worse than to read "Great Hatred, Little Room:Making Peace in Northern Ireland" by Jonathan Powell. Powell was Secretay to the Cabinet for Tony Blair, and intimately involved in every step of the process under discussion.Irvine22 (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Would that be the peace-loving Tony Blair who shares the responsibility for the death of one million Iraqis? I'd assume Powell was still in his post when the invasion was decided. Thus sharing the guilt? Sarah777 (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the Talk page for the IRA. Not sure how one million Iraqis, dead or alive, are at all relevant. Irvine22 (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Gonna have to go with Irvine here. Whatever his involvement in other pars of the world, Blair was in large part responsible for achieving peace in NI, being the first British politician to honestly attempt to do so. Thanks Irvine, I'll check it out. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

A War Criminal is still a war criminal though he might love his pet Alsatians. It wasn't I who suggested improving background knowledge of NI by reading the works of such people. And the irony of the Blair Administration writing about peace is too rich to remain unremarked. Sarah777 (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

There's enough people spouting their particular political views on this page already. More, especially unrelated, views are unwelcome. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, Throwaway. You tell her, brother. Irvine22 (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The truth is often unwelcome. Sarah777 (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Your truth is your truth. That's okay. You're okay. Irvine22 (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I know. Sarah777 (talk) 00:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

On that note, here is some more useful reading: Wikipedia:The Truth. Rockpocket 01:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"Truth alone triumphs." --BwB (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Lede

In my opinion, the Lede is too long. Perhaps we can break it up into different sections? Any suggestions? --BwB (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It has just undergone a major rewrite with lots of stamping of feet and screaming, I don't think you will get consensus to trim it, but for what it is worth I think it should be shortened also. BigDunc 22:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I too would like to see it be a bit shorter, but, as BD said, we just got done rewriting it. Part of the reason that it is as long as it is is that everyone felt the need to have some fact or other included. Let's work on the rest of the article first, then go back to the lede once that's done. I think a section-by-section partial rewrite would be best. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Could we not summarise those facts in the lede though? Right now it's like an article in itself. Jdorney (talk) 12:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I also feel that there is quite a bit of POV and weasel words WP:WEASEL in the article that could be change or discussed, as we see fit. In general, in Wiki vagaries and the overuse of adjectives is considered non-encyclopedic. I will make a few changes today and people can give feedback. I'll start with the lede section. --BwB (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems good so far. Yes, the article itself is in rather poor condition, due to edit warring and POV pushing. Now that things have died down, it would be a good opportunity to go through the article and fix it. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The "believed to be" wording is one of the only ways to present people's opinions, they cannot be presented as fact. That wording was agreed as part of a lengthy discussion, and it should not really have been changed without discussion. The vague figures are also inescapable due to there not being exact figures that sources agree on. As such, I have reverted some of your changes. O Fenian (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. As all available figures are estimates, "believed to be" is the closest we can get. It's unfortunate, and somewhat unecyclopedic, but in the absence of firm figures, and the questionable bias of some of the sources, it's the best we can do. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with the reverts, but do we have to use the word "around" 3 times in the same sentence? --BwB (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No, we most definitely do not. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

How does the "marxist v. non-marxist" bit keep getting re-added? I agree with the removal, but it's been taken out several times and keeps finding its way back in. This is a 1RR article, let's keep that in mind. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree that the marxist text should not appear. Ref is also weak. --BwB (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

End of the armed campaign

I propose we remove this text from the section: "This is not the first time that organisations styling themselves IRA have issued orders to dump arms. After its defeat in the Irish Civil War in 1924 and at the end of its unsuccessful Border Campaign in 1962, the IRA Army Council issued similar orders. However, this is the first time in Irish republicanism that any organisation has voluntarily decided to destroy its arms." It is without reference. What do others think? --BwB (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it should be removed. I essentially don't see the IRA's decommissioning action as voluntary - it was imposed upon them by unionism and the British and Irish governments. Irvine22 (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I find it's often easier and more productive to simply ignore those comments. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I fully intended on ignoring RJ's comment, which is neither informative or helpful.Irvine22 (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You'd certainly know about being neither informed nor helpful. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't feed the Trolls RJ, it just encourages them --Snowded ^TALK 04:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, you should probably strike that last comment per WP:CIVILITY. Irvine22 (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't think so quack quack. BigDunc 16:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Enough. Please get back to working on the article. Remember, comment on the content, not the contributors. --Elonka 20:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly right, Elonka. On the content question raised by BwB, I agree that the text should be removed, as it draws an essentially misleading distinction between PIRA's disarmament and prior disarmament by earlier IRA's (the Stickies etc) after their failed campaigns.Irvine22 (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

There was no prior disarmament by any variant of the IRA. O Fenian (talk) 11:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

References needed

In reading through the article again today, I see that there are many statements in various section that have no citation. We need to find references for these, or else they should be removed form the article. Please see Wiki policy at WP:Cite and WP:Verify. Suggestions? --BwB (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many of the uncited statements were originally attributable to sources that were cited later on in the paragraph. With time and editting, this became muddied. I suggest we throw tags on every uncited statement then go through them one by one and see if we can find a source. If not, it gets the ax. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

As an addendum, less information that is fully cited is preferable to more information that is not. A cull is in order. Let's be ruthless with uncited statements, then strict about citing new statements. If we can do that we can greatly improve, albeit shorten, the article. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree with this approach, Throw. Let's do it! --BwB (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Article Redraft

I've set up a draft copy of the article here: User:Throwaway85/PIRAdraft

At this point, I've mainly just gone through and added tags where appropriate. My goal in doing so is to try and remove all of the unsourced information from this article, of which there is plenty. I also cleaned it up a bit, mainly rewording awkward sentences and removing some of the more egregious ones. There's plenty of work left to do, however.

I've also organized the talk page, here: User_talk:Throwaway85/PIRAdraft I've set up categories corresponding to the article, so we can keep discussion organized.

I realize that this is a big undertaking, but I believe if we all give this an honest go we can move beyond the partisan bickering and really improve the article. I feel our first priority must be to cull the unsourced claims from the article. once we know what we're dealing with, then we can begin to rebuild it, section by section. In the meantime, I suggest leaving the current article as is until we complete a section, then copy it over. In this way, we can centralize discussion and avoid edit warring.

I look forward to working with all of you on this project. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Me too. Thanks for the initial work, Throw. I will work on your new version in the coming days toward the collective goal of removing unsourced material and general clean-up. --BwB (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. What I'd like to see is a section-by-section cull, then transfer the clean section over. It will be a lot easier to decide if new material suits the article if we know we have a clean base to start with. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've pared down the lede quite a bit. It's a hack job, and will need re-wording, but I think it's better than the current version. the lede doesn't need to be a history lesson, merely a who/what/where/when/why/how. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the paring down is wrong. The lead is supposed to summarise the article. A long article means a long lead. O Fenian (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"Summarise", O Fenian, yes. But the lede, as it currently stands, is much more than that. It needs some serious pruning. Let's all use Throw's sandbox as a place to make the serious changes needed. --BwB (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm liking your new addition. If people truly feel married to having additional info in the lede then we can add it, but the goal should be to Convey the most basic who/where/what/why/how about the IRA, leaving all of the history, personalities, etc for the article itself. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

its a crime jim but not as we know it

Why is robberis left out of the Fundraising via organised crime section when the source clearly says they use it. Moreover the issuem of the IRA's involvent in the drugs trade was also removed. Whilst it is true that the source does not say it is used for fundraising all that means is the section needs renaming to IRA links to crime, not the removal of the ionformation.Slatersteven (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Your edits significantly mispresented the sources in numerous ways. You also accused a living person of a crime he has not been convicted of, or even charged with for that matter. Various claims were also wrongly attributed, and when a source does not even believe its own story enough to state it as fact rather than hide behind numberous uses of "allegedly" there are always problems with BLP. O Fenian (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree the person named hasn't even been charged let alone convicted of said crimes, serious BLP violation. BigDunc 10:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue of criminality needs to be expanded in the article. I'm not saying it should be given undue weight, but the Northern Bank robbery isn't even mentioned. The Storey allegation shouldn't be included though. But criminality, including Slab's activities and the Dublin drug involvement, need to be included. Otherwise, the article does not conform with NPOV, as "Articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem with that. We just have to make sure it's well-sourced and doesn't violate BLP. Throwaway85 (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

What would be the Dublin drug involvement? BigDunc 17:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Stu's comments above. We might also think to include something about the death of Mountbatten, Warrenpoint, and other such IRA activities. --BwB (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: the Dublin involvement:The (London) Times mentioning involvement with Dublin gangs, again in the Tribune. Just a quick search, referencing would obviously need to be improved. There are others by Jim Cusack, but I can only imagine the reaction I'd get using him as a source. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 23:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with any addition that doesn't violate BLP or NPOV. Also, fresh sources are welcome. I'll check them out in a bit. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence of the "Other activities" section, and the last subsection of that section, "Fundraising via organised crime" kinda overlap. I would propose creating a new subsection, possibly called "Criminality". I'm flexible on the article title, but it's the term usually used to describe the IRA's (and the other paramilitaries') "other" activities. The new section would include the existing material, plus the Dublin thing and the NB robbery (can't believe this isn't in the article, was it at one point?) Per BwB, Warrenpoint should be included (in another relevant section as it was such a major event. Obviously every action shouldn't be included, there's a separate article for those, but Warrenpoint certainly.

I've read a couple of sources about the IRA's involvement in drug trafficking, including one in Tim Pat Coogan's book. They appear to be individual volunteers' activities, rather than Council sanctioned actions. So I'm undecided on it at present. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

My removal said "Take to talk". The Times article would be a good source to actually expand the section instead of the current rather pointless list provided by McDowell that has little context. So I was expected discussion about a draft addition, not a discussion about whether it should be used? O Fenian (talk) 11:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that a long list of Crimianl activity is not needed (as by infernace all of the IRA's activity was criminal, at least according to the UK governemnt). Perpahs this (note this is jusrt a basic discusion edit)

==Organised crime==

The IRA has been accused of being involved in more general criminal activity (source) (possible include'unlrelated to the strugle'). These indclude alledged involvment in armed robberies (source), such as Northern Bank robbery (source), The NI drugs trade (source), counterfitting and smugglaing (source).

Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not a laundry list no, but the main points should be covered. And maybe expand it a bit. The NB robbery deserves a few sentences. It was the largest in the UK at the time. The IRA's denial should of course be included. The NB robbery article needs updating too, with the two guys charged in May. The "unrelated to the struggle" part needs careful sourcing. The Coogan source I mentioned above also talks about this - proceeds going to volunteers and not the cause. You'll struggle to find sources about involvement in the drugs trade in NI. The only ones I have read relate to the south. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 16:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggested wording below, to replace the existing first paragraph and last section of the "Other activities" section. Needs a few more references and tidying. I think I've removed all of the McDowell sources, better, unbiased ones are available. Maybe add one more sentence about Slab and his £1m assets agreement. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 13:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You will need to be very careful on any reference to Slab because of WP:BLP. His activities were only regarded as criminal under McDowell's definition. The Irish Revenue gained substantially from his activities. UK C&E were at a loss. Smugling by people who didnt recognise the legality of the order was never considered a criminal activity and continued from the foundation of the Saorstat.Cathar11 (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Criminality

Apart from its armed campaign, the Provisional IRA has also been involved in many other activities, including bank robbery, fuel laundering, kidnapping and alleged involvement in the Dublin drug trade. While this has been primarily to raise funds for the republican cause, it has also been suggested that some funds went directly to volunteers for personal gain.

In 2004 £26.5m was stolen from the Northern Bank's vaults in Belfast city centre. Suspicion immediately fell on the Provisional IRA, with commentators including Suzanne Breen stating that it was the only organisation capable of carrying out the raid. The British and Irish governments together with the Independent Monitoring Commission (IMC) agreed with the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland's report blaming the robbery on the IRA. On 18 January 2005 the Provisional IRA issued a two-line statement denying any involvement in the robbery: "The IRA has been accused of involvement in the recent Northern Bank robbery. We were not involved". In February 2005 the IMC's Fourth Report found that "We believe that the Northern Bank robbery and abductions and the other robberies and abductions referred to above were carried out with the prior knowledge and authorisation of the leadership of PIRA." In May 2009 two men were arrested in Cork, and charged with IRA membership and offences relating to the robbery.

The organisation has also been accused of involvement in the Dublin drugs trade. According to a February 2005 report by David Lister and Sean O'Neill in The Times, this involves the "licencing" of drug operations to criminal gangs and the payment of protection money, rather than direct involvement. The IRA has consistantly denied involvement in the drugs trade, and has taken action against dealers in the past. However some volunteers have been involved in trafficking in the past. In 1979 IRA volunteer James McCann was arrested following the seizure of £1m of cannabis in Naas, County Kildare. McCann was later beaten in Portlaoise Prison, and the IRA denied any involvement with him.

References

---

Looks good so far.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this effort. Just want to sure to keep the text tight and well referenced, and NPOV. --BwB (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems to have lots of claims that are not attributed, amongst other problems. It is a decent starting point though. O Fenian (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, still working on attribution and sources. What other problems do you see? Will add a sentence about the Sinn Fein's view of the IMC. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Re McCann. Coogan does not say he was an IRA Volunteer at the time of his arrest, and it is debatable as to whether he ever was. Although not an entirely RS for our purposes, this says when he wasn't a member of the Republican Movement prior to escaping from the Crum. He definitely told Marks he was a member of the IRA when he first met him (if you have not read "Mr Nice" I can summarise the McCann parts if needed, as they are quite important in the timeline?), but that was in 1971 and quite a lot happened in between then and 1979, including him threatening war on Canada and claiming to be a member of the Sticks when attempting to avoid extradition to Germany. Just because Coogan says his arrest caused embarrassment for the IRA it does not logically follow that he was a Volunteer at the time of his arrest, given his past association (perceived or otherwise) with the IRA it would have been embarrassing for them either way. O Fenian (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, having read more on McCann his status isn't quite clear. (He should have an article BTW, fascinating guy) I wouldn't use Rushlight as a reference in this case. I did on the Buck Alec article though, as it's not a BLP. Alternative text could be "However in 1979 James McCann was arrested following the seizure of £1m of cannabis in Naas, County Kildare. McCann is a former associate of Howard Marks. According to journalist Joe McAnthony, who interviewed McCann on two occasions, he was a drug trafficker who also supplied arms to the IRA in the 1970s. When transferred to Portlaoise Prison later in 1979, McCann was beaten by the IRA, who denied any involvement with him."

? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 23:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I also do not like the "David Lister and Sean O'Neill" sentence. My main problem with this part is that the Times article is generally quite good, and for most parts attributes the allegations of activity to the people concerned, such as Special Branch, Customs and so on. However when it comes to the drugs allegation, it uses "but it is believed" without saying who is actually believing it. While searching I found this which I think will be far more useful than random news articles? O Fenian (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[1] More on McCann's pre-initial arrest activities, he did not seem to be part of the IRA at the time. O Fenian (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Will look at those new sources tomorrow. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 23:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Doherty/Egan

News reports are very conflicted on this, see for example Garda denies IRA link in death probe. This came after the reports where nobody was quoted and this has a statement from an official spokesman compared to rumours from nobody in particular. It is pure speculation which has since been denied that this was IRA linked, and I have removed it. Discussion welcome. O Fenian (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for improving this article

Two ideas:

1. Go to a library or bookshop and acquire as many of the books already listed as sources in the article, ideally concentrating on the IRA or Troubles specific ones. Then use these to source what's in the article, and anything that can't be sourced tag for a cite then remove it soon after.
2. Don't bother getting any books, just butcher any sentence that doesn't have a source despite the majority of them being easily sourced by books (there's a world beyond a Google search you know?).

Option 2 doesn't really seem like a good option to me. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes! Agree totally. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The second option tends to be all to regular around here lately. BigDunc 23:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Are any of you terrorist fanboys actually Irish ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.51.124 (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)