Talk:Real Irish Republican Army

Misc. Stuff at top of page

This entry tells readers nothing about the stated aims of this organization. Why has it conducted these attacks? The entry could have been written by an MI5 asset. WORTHLESS.221.157.74.160 16:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"The organisation has also been blamed for an increasing number of punishment attacks in Strabane. Many see this as a sign of growing support for the group, in light of failed attempts to rescue the Belfast peace accord." That's really spectacular POV grasping at straws, and rather distasteful straws as well. More kneecappings in Strabane = imminent reunification of Ireland? Took out this sentence, Palmiro 11:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

That is horribly POV, but we need to add some small part of it back, maybe as simple as The Real IRA has been blamed for an increasing number of punishment attacks since...SCVirus 22:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

There were no attacks in either Scotland or Wales, in fact I'm not aware of any outside London. I can't see how "England" could be considered POV.

Haven't there been a cease-fire now again? The newspapers told about that last autumn (2005)... why aren't there any informaion in the article?

Lapsed Pacifist 15:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

When you say 'outside London', are you refering specifically to RIRA actions or to the IRA in general? Because the IRA, in one form or another, have hit Manchester, Guildford and Bristol over the years, among others. 82.1.229.53 12:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Reversions and accusations of POV

Silveralex, you don't seem to have given any indication of why you consider Lapsed Pacifist's edits to be POV. He's defended his use of England and you haven't disputed his claims on the talk page. Also, unless you can find a quote from the people in question, I think "futility" is a rather judgemental term that itself has a bit of a POV tinge. Palmiro | Talk 19:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The term futility was written by someone else though weakness is also a term I'd say is too judgemental for wikipedia so have changed it. If you want proof of Lapsed Pacifist's POV problems please check his talk page, he has been blocked again but who knows for how long. As for the use of England, an attack on England is an attack on Great Britain with regards any form of terror attack. The July 7 attacks are universally described as not an attack on London but as an attack at Great Britain. Silveralex 14:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

LP is a notorious POV-warrior (I should know, I've wasted enough of my time reverting his POV-pushing), but that doesn't automatically make every single one of his edits POV. He does make worthwhile contributions as well. In this particular case, it seems that the PIRA had an deliberate policy of bombing targets in England only (and not in Scotland or Wales). If the RIRA have continued the same policy, then this would seem to be a worthwhile piece of information to include in the article. Demiurge 14:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the mainland attacks by RIRA so far have taken place inside England but to seperate England from Great Britain in regards to target seems a disservice to Scotland and Wales as well as IRA propaganda. Both PIRA and RIRA bombing targets have occasionally been the government which is classed as the British government not the English government and bombs have travelled through and occasionally been intercepted travelling though Wales. Considering the hazard of them going off accidentally its not like Wales hasn't been exposed to danger of bombs. Silveralex 15:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Thats really really poor logic, a bomb went through an area that means they were attacking that area? SCVirus 23:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

added category

added Category:Terrorist organizations to this and hamas and al-queada and LTTE.Hypnosadist 20:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrongly attributed incident

I removed the line below as it was the Continuity IRA and not the Real IRA who were responsible for the bomb in Dublin.

In December 2005 a car bombing in Dublin was avoided by the Garda. This attempted attack is thought to have been by the RIRA.

AlanMc

RIRA coin

I know this is probably a strange place to be asking about this but I'm really deserate for some information.

I have left the British Army recently and begun working in a bar in North East England. Today I was handed a 50p coin over the bar from an EIRE man. The coin was stamped into the metal with RIRA in it. I really want to stress that this was not scratched into the coin or done crudely, it was clearly done with some kind of machine designed to press deep indentations into metal.

As I'm sure you'd imagine this has shaken me up a little and would like to know if these coins are common as some kind of strategy and also some opinions on whether I should report this to the Police. Then again, I havent heard of any other acronyms for RIRA so I'm uncomfortably aware that it's origin is almost certainly from the Real IRA.

Thank you for your Time

If you really suspect the thing to be printed by the RIRA, and you want no part in it, I'd suggest you just keep quiet about the whole thing. Get your fingerprints off of it, and leave it off somewhere.

Don't be a rat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.78.142 (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, the same thing has happened to me, somehow I ended up with a £1 coin with "RIRA" pressed into it. I think I got it in a local bookshop... I kept it as a souvenir, despite its rather sinister past... EJF (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen loads of these (I live in Belfast) well to only IRA stamoed on the coin. It's just been stamped it's not like the black spot. You also get a few banknotes that have had IRA wrote across them or the 'London' in Londonderry scribbled out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.60.142 (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

File:Riracoin.jpg --MarkyMarkDCU (talk) 01:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject IRA?

Hi all, I'm rather new to the Wiki (just joined up a few days ago), but the whole WikiProject concept seems like an effective tool for gathering a group of people together to work on a specific subject. I'm primarily interested in contributing to areas related to Irish nationalism, and the Irish Republican Army, and I've noticed a few of you have quite a lot of involvement in the same area. So, I wonder if anyone would be interested in forming a WikiProject focusing on Irish Nationalism? Wikipeda:WikiProject Irish Republican Army seems like a good title to me! WP:WPIRA would be a great shortcut! I'm posting this up on many different pages, so I would especially appreciate it if, if you're interested, you would join me at User talk:Johnathan Swift#WikiProject IRA. Erin Go Bragh 06:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Splinter Group

May I suggest that rather than unsportingly coordinating a forced instance of the 3-Revert rule, would you consider discussing the matter on the talk page, as directed by Wikipedia's policy on reversion?

That tail end of the article implies that the only reason the group is prohibited is its name. This, however, is not the case, as even a cursory reading of the linked article would show.

Please remember that reverts are primarily used for vandalism, and that if you disagree with the use of grammar then you should EDIT rather than revert. I'd rather not have to pass this higher up the chain, flagrant disregard of wikipedia policy only smacks of a personal agenda. I'm going to alter the sentence once again, and this time I expect the courtesy of discussion rather than unwarranted vandal reversion.

82.4.220.108 19:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read what the source says, instead of making POV edits. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have in fact read the source, in fact my latest edit is effectively a summary of the article, not entirely different to the end summary of the article itself.

Please remember reverts are for vandalism. This is hardly a POV edit, the source article clearly states the exact same thing! Thanks.

82.4.220.108 19:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you haven't, as your version is not supported by the source. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

And I quote:

"It necessarily followed from that that a specified organisation might be part of a larger proscribed organisation.... The scheme of the legislation, in short, was custom-built for the Real IRA, a specified organisation, to be regarded as part of the proscribed organisation, the IRA."

Which, to summarise, is that they are treated as a splinter group or otherwise a component of the IRA. Part of a larger organisation. It is not something so trivial as the mere use of a name, and the wikipedia article is extremely misleading in this respect. I would thank you to take accusations of POV pushing elsewhere, I am merely seeking to clarify the wikipedia article.

82.4.220.108 19:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything about Irish law in that source, do you? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to expand the section to cover Irish and UK law separately, in order to definitively clarify the issue, rather than hide possible POV by lumping the law together in the most primitive fashion. Which should be discussed first, Irish law, UK law, or UN law?

82.4.220.108 19:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What does the UN have to do with anything? You keep bringing them up, but they aren't relevant. I still don't see your point. The source makes it expressly clear exactly why the group is illegal, because of the use of the name IRA. The term IRA is used an umbrella in the Terrorism Act to include the various forms of the IRA, and should the RIRA completely disband then reform under a totally different name with the same members, it would not be illegal under the Terrorism Act. Therefore, it's the use of the name IRA that makes it illegal, as the article and source says. Further clarification is not necessary. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not something as glib as the mere use of the phrase. The article discusses that that particular legislation was drafted specifically to catch splinter groups. Clarification is entirely necessary as a reader could easily come away with the unfounded belief that anything with the phrase 'IRA' in the name will automatically be labelled a prohibited group.

Further, if you dislike UN law, then perhaps we could stick with just a section on Irish law, and one on UK law? It would certainly save on us having to search through various security meetings on the UN website. Which legal system would you prefer had "top billing" as it were? Again, more than happy to split the section, since this was your central opposition to my initial attempt at clarification. If you have "better things to do", I could do it for you if we agree a format here.

82.4.220.108 19:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to change IRA to Irish Republican Army, be my guest. However it's been made abundantly clear that IRA is an acronym, as per the style guidelines. It isn't an unfounded belief that any new group would be prohibited, it's the whole and absolute truth. If an INLA splinter group was formed tomorrow and called itself "New IRA", it would be covered by the legislation even though it's not a PIRA splinter group. To the best of my knowledge "Saoirse na hÉireann" (CIRA splinter group) are not covered by the existing legislation either. Also, why is a seperate section needed for UK and Irish law? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem - as a reminder for you, the reason we need to split it is chiefly because you find fault with the section. You stated the article has no mention of Irish law, so the solution is to have one paragraph explain the Irish law, and the second explain UK law. Or vice versa - if you have an issue with top billing then I'm happy to put it in whichever order you like, for your convenience. You may not have noticed, but your reverts have not amended the problem you've perceived. This also allows for a fully clarification, rather than a glib line that implies the problem is with the name. The most recent Terrorist Act, being AFAIK from 2006, is actually phrased to catch any group that is a splinter group or operating wholly or partly under a proscribed group's name. Article here -

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/60011--c.htm#22

As you are no doubt aware, the issue is not the acronym, its the perception that the use of the acronym is solely the reason why the group is prohibited - this is not entirely true.

By the by, IIRC, SNH was reported as being dissident young people, whereas it was ONH that was a CIRA splinter and hoping to recruit unhappy RIRA members? Regardless, under the 2006 legislation, and you'll forgive me as I'm rusty on my legalese, it would appear that ONH could be proscribed due to its links to the CIRA and/or RIRA, and that by extension the SNH would be proscribed, on sharing similar parts to the name.

I will be first to say that its a horribly shaky system, but its the best they could come up with for catching every possible evolution of nomenclature.

Of course, if you want to go faaaaar back, ONH would be proscribed as it would share links (in terms of name) with the Irish Volunteers and original IRA. But I digress!

82.4.220.108 00:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Based on your inability to discern the difference between libel and slander, forgive me for doubting the extent of your capability of interpreting legal documents. It's illegal under UK and Irish law for the same reason, as currently stated. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Oddly phrased passage

The article references the Omagh bombing as "The RIRA's single, bloodiest strike in the 30-year history of partisan conflict." Now, had it said simply "the single bloodiest strike in the 30-year history of partisan conflict" it would of course have been factualy incorrect (the Dublin and Monaghan bombing strike had a death toll of 33). The inclusion of "the RIRA's" fixes that issue but makes the rest of it a bit nonsensical as the RIRA have only been around since 1998. As it stands, its somewhat misleading. It could easily be fixed with either a pair of clearer statements such as "The RIRA's single, most deadly assault and the second bloodiest paramilitary strike in the 30-year history of partisan conflict." or by simply rephrasing the existing sentence as: "The bloodiest single detonation in the 30-year history of partisan conflict." (as the Dublin/Monaghan strike involved two seperate detonations.) Any ideas? Fergus mac Róich 15:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded it slightly as it made no real attempt at NPOV, it was more like something out of a tabloid. I've generally felt the Dublin/Monaghan bombings were unfairly lumped together in that respect, there were two "strikes". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

It occured to me that this article might benefit from an infobox. I started to experiement, but leave the rest to people more informed on the topic. (For the record: I had nothing to do with the choice of the color Orange -- it's a rather rude joke if you ask me.) Cheers. Haus^Talk 21:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, except for the orange obviously! It's currently up for GA review, may as well wait and see what happens with that first? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the War Faction Infobox personally. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Real Irish Republican Army

Northern Ireland shown in Orange
Formation	November 1997
Membership	About 150

{{Infobox Organization
|name         = Real Irish Republican Army
|image        = 
|image_border = 
|size         = 
|caption      = 
|map          = Europe location N-IRL.png
|msize        = 
|mcaption     = Northern Ireland shown in Orange
|motto        = 
|formation    = November 1997
|extinction   = 
|type         = 
|headquarters = 
|location     = 
|membership   = About 150
|language     = 
|leader_title = Chief of Staff
|leader_name  = 
|key_people   = 
|num_staff    = 
|budget       = 
|website      = 
}}

Real Irish Republican Army (Óglaigh na hÉireann)
Northern Ireland shown in Orange
Leaders	Real IRA Army Council
Dates of operation	November 1997 - present
Opponents	United Kingdom

GA on hold

I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have put the article on hold until the following issues are addressed.

1. I see that you are attempting to choose an infobox to add to the article. It would be great if you'd choose one for use in the article, and with my opinion (if needed), I recommend the second one, as it contains more details. However, if there is consensus on the other one, then that's great too as long as one of them is added (unless another one is created as well).
2. For more clarification rewrite "The organisation's first action was an attempted bombing in Banbridge, County Down on January 7, 1998, when a 300 lb car bomb was defused by security forces." to something like "The organisation's first action was an attempted bombing in Banbridge, County Down on January 7, 1998. The plot involved a 300-pound car bomb, but it was thwarted after being defused by security forces." If you don't want to split the sentences that's fine, but I still think it should be reworded a little.
3. The third paragraph in the "History" section has two long-drawn out sentences. It would be best to divide these into three or four sentences.
4. "On August 15 the RIRA killed 29 people and injured over 200 in the Omagh bombing; the single, deadliest strike of the Troubles." Rewrite to "On August 15 the RIRA killed 29 people and injured over 200 in the Omagh bombing which became the single deadliest strike of the Troubles.
5. The article states that two bombs were left at the two areas on June 1 and July 19, but did they detonate or were they disarmed?
6. "The bomb did not fully detonate and no-one was injured." No one doesn't need a hyphen, unless that is common usage for the area's English; I rely on American English, so ignore if I'm incorrect.
7. "After a two month trial," Add a hyphen between two and month.
8. Consider breaking up the history section a bit with some new headings. The first three paragraphs could be a section about "Beginnings", the next two "Bombings", and the last two something else. Please come up with better titles then what I listed here.
9. "The IMC's October 2006 report stated that the RIRA remains "active and dangerous" and that it seeks to "sustain its position as a terrorist organisation", and the RIRA has previously stated it has no intention of calling a ceasefire unless a declaration of intent to withdraw from Northern Ireland is made by the British Government." Split this into two sentences.
10. "The rank-and-file members operate in covert cells in order to prevent the organisation being compromised by informers." Reword to "prevent the organisation from being...".
11. See if there are any relevant images that you can add to the article, and if possible, add more external links that comply with WP:EL.

Altogether, the article is well-sourced and very informative. Please address the above issues within seven days and I'll pass the article. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions or when you are done and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 06:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

GA passed

I have passed this article according to the GA criteria. Excellent work in addressing the above issues so quickly. I think it would be best if the "Origins" and "Objectives" sections were switched around, as it appears to make more sense in that sequence. For the images, maybe include a free image of one of the targets before/after the bombing (such as the Hammersmith Bridge) or start asking some sites that own the rights to images and ask if they are willing to release a particular image under a free license. One last minor issue to address is that there needs to be a space between the first two sentences in the "Early campaign" section. If you have the time, please consider reviewing an article or two at GAC to help with the backlog. Each new reveiwer helps to decrease the waiting time for other articles to be reviewed. Good work on this article, and I hope that you continue to improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia! --Nehrams2020 17:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the space, it snuck it unnoticed while I was making the above changes. I'll definitely try and organise some images, and review a GA candidate later if I can find one that's not overly complex. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This article states that the real IRA is considered an illegal organziation in the UK, what's the status of the "Provisional IRA"?

Recent changes

Will editors please stop adding unsourced commentrary to a good article. You cannot copy unsourced text from another article and add it to this one. Also see WP:WEASEL while you are at it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your rationale for the revert. The concept of Physical force Irish republicanism is a point of view. The article itself states "Physical force Irish republicanism is a term used by historians' in Ireland to describe the recurring appearance of non-parliamentary violent insurrection in Ireland between 1798 and the present." It is the point of view of certain historians, not a neutral point of view. Additionally, the Physical force article is uncited. To use a neutral voice in this article, we should simply say "The Real Irish Republican Army, otherwise known as the Real IRA (RIRA) or True IRA and styling itself as Óglaigh na hÉireann (Volunteers of Ireland), is a paramilitary organisation which aims to bring about a United Ireland". Saying that it does this " through the use of physical force Irish republicanism" is introducing a point of view unnecessarily. If we are going to use that term, we should qualify what it is-the opinion of certain historians, not a fact. Therefore I am reverting. Deus Ex 17:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Read the rest of the article including the objectives section, it spells out clearly how they go about it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃

I don't understand what you mean by "Wikipedia is not a reliable source"-how does that change whether we should deliberately portray POV as fact? Physical Force Irish Republican is a historical theory, it is not a verifiable fact. I study history at university-it's an example of historiography. Deus Ex 17:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You have copied unsourced text from another Wikipedia article, so it is not reliable. Where is the proof is it the point of view of historians? There isn't even a source for that to begin with. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't copied text, I've simply read the Physical Force article and the meaning is clear for all to see: it is a theory some historians use when referring to extra-parliamentary violence in Ireland in a certain period. Now you've added the weasel word, citation needed boxes, are you are arguing for removing all references to Physical force Irish republicanism from the article? I agree, if that's the case-it's a point of view that isn't necessary to mention in the introduction. Deus Ex 17:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

OK then. If you want to add the text back - prove which historians use the term, and prove they are Irish. Anything else is unsourced POV you're adding. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I never wanted the reference to Physical Force Irish Republicanism there in the first place, it sounds like a euphemism anyway. That's why I amended the introduction originally, to remove the significance of this unsourced, POV term. 17:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deus Ex (talk • contribs)

So I take it that you are motivated by your own personal opinion. At least your honest, but I should advise that basing your edits on personal opinion is not what we are looking for on articles. Your information should be sourced and references added. --Domer48 17:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not motivated by my own personal opinion. If you think I am motivated by bias or dislike of Irish Republicanism, you are very much mistaken. I am motivated by removing unsubstantiated points of view presented as facts from the introduction. You can see my discussion with OneNightinHackney. What new argument are you bringing not to delete the sentence in question? Deus Ex 17:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If I might draw your attention to the fact that this article is classed as a "Good Article." Therefore you must consider, are your edits improving the article? You have said quite clearly that "I never wanted the reference to Physical Force Irish Republicanism there in the first place, it sounds like a euphemism anyway." So that was your rational, or motivation if you will, that is all I wished to draw your attention to. --Domer48 18:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Just because it is classed as a Good Article doesn't mean it can't be improved or there are flaws in it. 2. Because the sentence "The Real Irish Republican Army... is a paramilitary organisation which aims to bring about a United Ireland through the use of physical force Irish republicanism" is completely unsourced and unsubstantiated. Look at the article on physical force irish republicanism itself, it has no citations and a neutrality check nomination. In the absence of any source that proves the RIRA's activities are "physical force Irish republicanism", I believe it is a euphemism. I think a more accurate description is "The Real Irish Republican Army... is a paramilitary organisation which aims to bring about a United Ireland through the use of violence", because that is purely descriptive-I've seen sources that prove RIRA have committed violent acts e.g. several of the references in the article and none to say their activities are "physical force Irish republicanism" . Deus Ex 18:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

A change which required three (!!) tags adding to a single sentence is not an improvement. "use of violence" is not correct, the RIRA has a political wing for the very reason that a political approach is also needed. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean including the change I made to the physical force irish republicanism sentence-the whole thing should be omitted. Anyway, the introduction is fine as it is. Perhaps you're right, in the intro "use of violence" would be too much of a generalisation, despite the significant evidence of the RIRA's violent activities. Deus Ex 18:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

What?

The bombers could not find a parking space near the intended target of the courthouse, and the car was left 400 metres away

This is just one person's opinion (okay, two people, but the point is still the same). Some RUC officers and some of the victims families believe that the IRA deliberately targeted the crowd of innocent people at Market Street. The 'Omagh bombing' article itself does a better job of representing all points of view. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 02:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not just the opinion of one person, or even two people, it's a fact. Do you know where that information came from? That's from Michael McKevitt's court case - used by the prosecution to convict him. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it's a moot point since the two views are not mutually exclusive. The bombers could have missed their target, the courthouse, and then deliberately led people to where the bomb ended up. Or they could have given false warnings by accident. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to prefer sources that have actually gone over what happened in detail, as the book has analysing all the events and sources. Random quotes to the media are just that, they aren't necessarily informed opinions or based on anything but speculation or bias, so I'm never keen on them. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand. I don't disagree with you; it's just that I think the wording The bombers could not find a parking space near the intended target of the courthouse, and the car was left 400 metres away.[20][21] As a result three inaccurate telephone warnings were issued, and the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) believed the bomb was actually located outside the courthouse. is a little bit problematic. Why not delete the words "As a result", which might imply that the false warnings were accidental, and just have it say: The bombers could not find a parking space near the intended target, the courthouse, and the car was left 400 metres away from it.[20][21] Three inaccurate telephone warnings were issued, and the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) believed the bomb was actually located outside the courthouse.? 24.32.208.58 (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I made the change. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I changed it back. The inaccurate warnings were as a result of the parking problems - sourced fact from reliable sources. Leaving out "As a result" panders to the rent-a-quote mob, such as Ronnie Flanagan. Let's not forget he made that comment the same day as the bombing, without even the benefit of a single piece of evidence to support it (a bit like the Hoey case!!). One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The inaccurate warnings were as a result of the parking problems - sourced fact from reliable sources. I'm not disputing that some RS say that the bad warnings were accidental. But Flanagan's point of view shouldn't be ignored. When he made his early statement, he was relying on the fact that the warnings 1) mentioned 'Main Street' when no 'Main Street' existed at the time and 2) were hundreds of yards off from the actual bomb. He also knew that militant Republicans had deliberately targeted civilians before-- see Harrods bombing. I may be wrong at this, but I don't think-- after all that's happened-- Flanagan has ever changed his mind on the subject. Anyways, Flanagan is not alone his views. During the Hoey case, the prosecution argued along the same lines. "He said three telephoned warnings received before the bomb went off were "not only wrong but were meaningless. It would be argued, he said, that the warnings given made it inevitable that any evacuation would be to "the very area of the parked car bomb". If the bombers had genuinely wished to avoid deaths and injury, they could easily have given a description of the vehicle and an accurate description of its location, as they had done in previous bombings, he said." -- [1]

If RS disagree, than either both views should be represented-- which is what 'Omagh bombing' does-- or neither should be mentioned-- which would mean taking out as a result. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The Telegraph has also stated that the inaccurate warnings were not accidental, stating that "An Irish newspaper received a coded warning prior to the explosion in Omagh, but it was deliberately misleading. It said the bomb was "near the courthouse". It was at the other end of the street, more than 400 yards away, and bomb disposal teams were sent off-track." 24.32.208.58 (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Flanagan's point of view should be expressly ignored. What is it based on? A whole lot of nothing. It's a quote he gave to the media without any evidence to back up hid claim and before the investigation had even started properly.

Harrods bombing "deliberately targeted civilians"?! Hilarious.

I've looked at all those sources, and they all pre-date McKevitt's trial. And none of them contradict the events of the day. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at all those sources, and they all pre-date McKevitt's trial. The prosecution argument in the Hoey case was made Tuesday, 26 September 2006.

Yes, Flanagan's point of view should be expressly ignored. What is it based on? A whole lot of nothing. How do you know that? Yes, he did make the statement right after the bombing and before the investigation ran its course. But he's never gone back on it. And he's not alone in his opinion, as the 2006 The Independent story reports. The day after the Kennedy assassination, Hoover told Johnson that Oswald was the lone assassin. He never changed his views, and- today- most serious academic scholars agree with Hoover. Flanagan based his opinion on the fact that the bombers could have given the correct street address, but they gave a false one, they could have given a description of the car like they did in other attack warnings, but they didn't, and so on.

Harrods bombing "deliberately targeted civilians"?! Hilarious. That's a bad example since the PIRA didn't authorize it, but one could easily find other incidents where the PIRA deliberately targeted innocent people such as Bloody Friday (1972) for one-- which they eventually apologised for. There's also the incident where the PIRA put a bomb in a toliet in the London Stock Exchange. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Bloody Friday didn't target civilians, so it's a very bad example. Neither did the Stock Exchange bomb. If you're going to target civilians, why give a warning? Even the chairman of the Exchange said "If the purpose of this callous act was to bring the City to a halt, they have failed singularly; our systems and services have functioned perfectly, and trading has continued as normal", so it's obvious he doesn't think it was intended to kill civilians. Yet someone you seem to think otherwise?! The Omagh bombers didn't give a false warning as such, as the people who planted the bomb didn't issue the warning. That's why it all went wrong, again that was part of the evidence at McKevitt's trial and not from the defence, it was from the prosection. Flanagan based his opinion on nothing. Does anyone seriously believe that the RIRA deliberately caused the deaths of 29 people, which they knew would prompt a massive crackdown from both British and Irish law enforcement, and turn public opinion against them in a big way? Omagh killed the RIRA pretty much dead. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Bloody Friday didn't target civilians, so it's a very bad example. No. The PIRA explicitly targeted innocent civilians. On Agnes Street in Belfast, the Provos parked a car bomb in front of a group of Protestant homes in a residental area. They gave no warning whatsoever. No one, fortunately, ended up being killed or maimed in that incident. The same is not true for the innocent shoppers visiting the stores alongside Cavehill Road, in north Belfast. Again, the Provos gave no warning. Margaret O'Hare, a Catholic mother of seven children, died along with Brigid Murray, a sixty-five-year-old Catholic, and Stephen Parker-- a fourteen-year-old Protestant kid. This was sheer, unadultered murder. See CAIN. If an Isreali or American soldier did something like that, they would be court-martialed.

Flanagan based his opinion on nothing. The belief that the warnings were deliberately misleading is the belief recently put forth by the Queens Counsel, as evidenced by a reliable source. In previous attack warnings, the RIRA gave accurate locations, accurate times, and accurate descriptions of the vehicles carrying the bombs. They did not do so in Omagh. Assuming, just for the sake of arguement, that the fact that every single part of the warnings were false was purely accidental, why didn't the RIRA tell the RUC what the car looked like or what plates it had? If they did it in warnings for other bombings, why on earth didn't they do it in Omagh?

Does anyone seriously believe that the RIRA deliberately caused the deaths of 29 people, which they knew would prompt a massive crackdown from both British and Irish law enforcement, and turn public opinion against them in a big way? You could say the exact same thing about the Provos during Bloody Friday-- the deaths of Irish Catholic civilians at their hands caused a serious backlash, as the BBC has noted. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) "No. The PIRA explicitly targeted innocent civilians." - please, stop with your unsourced propaganda. There's nothing in the source provided that says the IRA didn't send a warning, only that the people didn't receive one. Different thing entirely. How do you know what the target was? You don't! Operations were frequently abandoned due to the presence of security forces, simply because the car was left in one place doesn't mean it was the target. Try reading the sources - Richard English says "Warnings had been given, but because of the number of bombs and the scale of the operation, these were simply insufficient to avoid awful casualties". Mallie & Bishop say - "The Provisionals immediately accepted responsibility for the explosions and indignantly insisted that they had telephoned warnings about each bomb's position an hour or half an hour beforehand to three separate organisations [in addition to some hoax warnings]". Or how about what Martin Dillon says in respect to Bloody Friday - "A general warning is phoned to a newspaper officer with a code-word and then has to pass through several channels before it is acted upon. During that process, even a precise IRA message can result in a garbled version given to police on the streets". Robert White says "The IRA telephoned warnings, but there were too many of them in Belfast and not enough police, soldiers, and firefighters to cover them" etc etc etc. Yes - proper academic respects sources not some rent-a-quote gobshite on a website. Americans and Israeli soldiers do it all the time, and they get medals! How many pilots have ever been prosecuted for carpet bombing? Look at it all - Dresden, Coventry, Iraq etc etc.

And I really hate to break the news to you, but your reliable source (the QC) is talking a load of tosh. It's his job to make the person in the dock look bad. See Mooney and O' Toole - the RIRA had deliberately stopped giving overly specific warnings, as the RUC and British Army were getting to the bombs in time and defusing them, giving them valuable forensic evidence. "RUC Chief Constable Ronnie Flanagan said the warning had been totally inadequate" and "Although a warning was given, the information was inadequate" demonstrate that quite clearly, and they were before Omagh. Why didn't they do it in Omagh. Mooney and O'Toole (who are pretty anti-RIRA if you read the book) say various things...."Despite all he planning that went into the attack, the ASU did not know it was a festival weekend. The market town was filled with hundreds of shoppers and visitors. When the car drove into the town, the driver of the bomb car could not find a parking space near the court. In a moment of panic, he continued driving and pulling up outside SD Kells draper shop at 35-37 Barket Street. It was nowhere near Omagh Court" and "There was a flurry of calls from the bomb car whose occupants were trying to give the prices details of where the bomb car had been parked" (note that they didn't telephone any of the warnings, that was done by other people). As for your last point, that adequately demonstrates my point. The RIRA were well aware that every time an IRA bomb accidentally killed a large number of people, there was a backlash against it. So the RIRA, a fledgling organisation that had nowhere near the level of public support as the IRA did in 1972, why would they do it? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

How do you know what the target was? You don't! Try reading the sources I know what the sources say. The fundamental thing is that the Provos didn't attack legitimate military targets on Bloody Friday. They bombed commerical shops, they bombed peoples' homes, they bombed a bus depot, they bombed a railway station, and so on and so on. Are you saying that almost every single place that was attacked on Bloody Friday was not originally planned to be a target? Also, what about the hoax warnings that were issued? Like the BBC reported, "Ultimately Bloody Friday revealed a side to the organisation that many who had joined in the wake of Bloody Sunday had not wished to acknowledge."

And I really hate to break the news to you, but your reliable source (the QC) is talking a load of tosh. So, he contradicts other sources. In that case, both views should be fairly represented.

So the RIRA, a fledgling organisation that had nowhere near the level of public support as the IRA did in 1972, why would they do it? Look, that's the same question you could ask at many points of Irish history. Why would the Paras shoot a peaceful, unarmed civil rights activist waving white on Bloody Sunday when they knew that it would motivate dozens and dozens of people to join the IRA? Why would the Tans open fire on a crowd of sporting participants on the earlier Bloody Sunday when they knew that it would generate a wave of outrage against the British in the Anglo-Irish war? It goes on. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Try reading the Green Book or any of the sources I've just quoted, perhaps then you'll understand what I'm talking about, instead of relying on news reports or your own imagination. And no, your "reliable source" doesn't contradict other sources, he's demonstrably lying. Try reading WP:V, the spoken words of one person do not a reliable source make. As for your examples, you've missed the point in such a spectacular way there's nothing more needs to be said. Now unless you've got some proper sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy as opposed to random quotes, this discussion should come to an end. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

So you consider the Provo's propaganda manual to be a better factual source than the BBC? Look, I'm not going to argue with you further about whether or not the PIRA acted like a legitimate army. We can agree that it's not at all relevant to this article or to the Omagh bombing article.

When it comes to this article, I'm not going to start an edit war over just three simple words-- it's those kinds of violations of WP:Point that plague Northern Ireland articles (Note: I am not accusing you of doing that. I'm just saying that I've seen other registered users doing that). I'm fine with the three words staying in this article. I still strongly disagree about the 'Omagh bombing' article, but that's a discussion for that talk page and not for this one. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What propaganda manual? It's the IRA constitution, and it says exactly what their targets and objectives are. What have the BBC got to do with it? Don't you understand - the sources I've quoted you are people that have spent 20-30 years reporting on the conflict in Northern Ireland. They aren't some staff in a newsroom that don't even put their name to a report. The sources I quote are the bottom line for sourcing with regards to the Troubles (amongst others), there's none better. If you really want to work on these articles books are the way to go, not the crap you get online. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead

I added the fact that, today, they've said that they're resuming violence (not that they ever really stopped). I'm not sure whether or not this information should be in the lead or in a later section though. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD says it doesn't. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Right. The info is now in the 'activities' section. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I altered the rest of the article so that the dates are in the 8 February 2008 format. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (Pass)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. I have made a few minor grammatical edits to the article myself and there are two small notes below for regular contributors to consider, but the article is easily GA quality.

• The lead could do with expansion, as it is it only just covers the topic of the article.
• "the organisation became increasingly weaker" - why? Needs further explanation.

Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You know me and leads....I'll take a look at it later. The organisation getting weaker is further explained, in the sentences after it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case, the sentance should explain it better i.e. "a series of events during 2001 steadily weakened the organisation, a situation made worse by further infliltration by informers". As I said above though, the article is a good quality one.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Gun battle?

The so called "gun battle" between the RIRA and Gardai never took place. The RIRA never fired any shots. Ronan McLoughlin was killed as he tried to escape in a hijacked car. I'm editing the article accordingly.

Also check this RTE prouction on the icident (2008): http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=69udNoiPqoc —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkyMarkDCU (talk • contribs) 18:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

IMC Report

what is the right place for this text?

"In the Eighteenth Independent Monitoring Commission report the RIRA and its two factions were said to be active and dangerous. It tried to expand its capacity, and thus also remained a threat that was "capable of extreme violence." Despite this the IMC said there is reason to believe some members realise the futility of violent action"

it's not a subsequent activity b/c it talks about the future and the potential. Apparently it's none of these Return to activity, Renewed campaign in Northern Ireland, and Structure and status. So where else should it go? Into a new section? Lihaas (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

'Subsequent activity' works for me, but feel free to create a new subsection - there will undoubtedly be more IMC reports, after all. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It does not belong anywhere in its present format, please do not blindly add back information without reading it properly first and ensuring it is appropriate in the current context of the article. Domer48_'fenian' 18:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough. But where would it go and in what format? Surely reccomendation of the newest IMC report have some indication of where the group is heading? Give some alternate solution so we progress beyond reverting edits. Lihaas (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Rather than blanking referenced content with edit summaries like "Please read what you are adding before blindly reverting", would you care to explain exactly what is wrong with the content, Domer? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 20:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting you haven't read the article or the addition before reverting, please don't revert without doing so in future. Could you explain what is right with it? Domer48_'fenian' 20:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop playing games. What's your point, do you want it to go in chronologically, or what? Or just censor it? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 20:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read the article properly, then see if the addition made sense. You will see it did not. Domer48_'fenian' 20:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I had already read the articlle properly. I have just re-read it. The addition seems absolutely fine to me. As you have refused to explain why this referenced material should not be included, I am restoring it. Do not delete it again or you will be reported. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Bastun: I think your idea about a new section for future reports was better. perhaps one of these days someone can mention the first 16 reports, and also the next howsoevermany that may come. Lihaas (talk) 00:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I also posted this question of RepublicanJacobite talk page, and he has not responded to the query either on his page, my page, or on the discussion page. Honestly, if ya'll think it's inappropriate then DISCUSS it. Why is there a lack of discussion and simple reverts. Lihaas (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Domer48 and RepublicanJacobite - you are removing relevant and referenced material. The onus is on you to spell out why it should not be included, not on anyone else to work out why you think it shouldn't. Please engage properly in this discussion. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 07:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

"the RIRA and its two factions" makes no sense, as would have been clear if you had read and understood the article. If you need to be spoon-fed through editing articles that are too complex for you to understand, please recuse yourself from editing them in future. Thanks. Domer48_'fenian' 08:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks aside - two days ago, BigDunc removed this material because he says it was in the wrong section: "rv that's not structure or status". RepublicanJacobite says the same: "that information does not belong there". So do you: "stop adding things in completely the wrong place". It is only after I move it to the right place that we then get reverts from you and RJ saying it doesn't make sense, with no explanation of what doesn't make sense. This is a collaborative project - would it not have been simpler to move the information to the correct section, state your objections to the wording, and amend accordingly? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 08:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You said you have "no idea what the objections to the inclusion of the IMC report are" and you still reverted. You were asked a number of times by three editors to read it properly and see what the problem was and you still reverted. If you had read as suggested and understood the article you would have known stright away what the problem was, so the only possible reason you reverted was a) you did not read it or b)you read it and did not understand it. Either way you reverted. Having ignored your suggestion that I was out to censor material as simply your reaction to finding the article too complex for you to understand, I resorted to having to spoon-feed the reasons to you. Now your Ad hominem attacks aside, when three editors, with a real interest and understanding of a subject indicate a problem, don't just revert. This is a collaborative project, so if you have not got a clue about a subject, ask, don't just revert. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

So I can be told "read the article"? Both Lihaas and I did directly ask and the problem originally appeared to be and got nothing more than 'its in the wrong place' and 'read'. I have not made any ad hominem attacks - but your own incivility has been noted by an admin. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Re your recent edit, please, it's a poorly written and gramatically incorrect quotefarm. I would invite discussion on the talk page about what information from the report should be included and how on the talk page, instead of further edit warring by Bastun.--Domer48_'fenian' 13:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to the above queries about complexity. If it is too complex then in any regard it would need a revamp b/c the layman reading wikipedia is not versed in the intricacies of Irish politics. And secondly, as per Domer's latest response, discussion is what we wanted in the first place. So let's begin: how should it be rephrased and what should go? Lihaas (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

And while writing the above, including "instead of further edit warring by Bastun", Domer goes and reverts again. Consider this your 3rr warning. So - we've progressed from "it's in the wrong place" to "it doesn't make sense" to "a gramatically incorrect quotefarm". The two sections you've removed (both referenced) stated:

• Subsequent activities:

In the Eighteenth IMC report the RIRA were said to be active and dangerous. It tried to expand its capacity, and thus also remained a threat that was "capable of extreme violence." Despite this the IMC said there is reason to believe some members realise the futility of violent action.

• Structure and status:

The Eighteenth IMC report stated that there are at least two factions within the RIRA. Nothing wrong with quotes. In fact I recall you're quite fond of them. If grammar is a problem, then I'd suggest: In its Eighteenth IMC report, the RIRA were said to be active and dangerous. It had tried to expand its capacity, and thus also remained a threat that was "capable of extreme violence." Despite this, the IMC report stated that there is reason to believe some members realise the futility of violent action. No changes needed for second section. I await your response. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Lihaas, an editor willing to be constructive. "Eighteenth" is gramatically incorrect unless being used as part of the full title of the document. In addition you will notice that earlier references to IMC documents in the article itself use the publication date, rather than a meaningless number which does not tell the reader when events took place or things were said. Also you may with to review the rules of grammar regarding singular and plural entities, and not used incorrect mixed grammar within the same sentence, let alone the same article. But as you've been asked several times to read and understand the article, I'd have hoped you would have picked up on these problems. The combination of two seperate quotes from the report using the words "thus also" is synthesis and therefore not properly sourced. Many things from the report have been left out, yet others have been mentioned. What is the purpose of this selective quoting? Why should some things be included and not others? Why, in an article where all citations are properly formatted, is the quality of the article being degraded by the lazy, sloppy use of unformatted references? If you cannot edit an article and maintain the standard of quality already there, it is best if you do not degrade it with poor quality additions. I invite further discussion here on these issues raised. Domer48_'fenian' 17:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Then edit the quoted paragraph and make it better. All articles (all over wikipedia, not just wiki project ireland) start somewhere and go through a process of editing to make them better. Just as this one has. What other parts should be added in? Parts about the CIRA and INLA (and the 'new' IRLA) have been discussed elsewhere. Adding on to the quote would make it better. Bastun edited on a bit from the original. maybe an IMC section would be better then. Lihaas (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue is over the entire content of the quoted paragraph, so it is difficult to make better without discussion. I find your advice of "make it better" to be somewhat patronising, when it is your editing that "makes it worse". Domer48_'fenian' 18:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to 'making it better' in the original, when the 'edit war' was on. Originally I was adding what wasn't there. The latest in regards to what the governments (both dublin and london) regard as where the RIRA/CIRA stand. Likewise for the 'loyalists' (which I was going to do too).

So other than the grammar, which was editable, what more, content wise, should be added? Lihaas (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) :"It's in the wrong place" to "it doesn't make sense" to "a gramatically incorrect quotefarm" to content and synthesis problems. Oh dear. The relevant section of the IMC report states: "The factions of RIRA were thus active and dangerous during the six months under review. It was also determined to enhance its capacity, as the elaborate plans to secure weapons overseas indicated. It remains a threat and is capable of extreme violence. However there is reason to believe that some members are starting to realise the political futility of what they are doing." There is no synthesis in the first section you removed. You've been wrong about the interpretation of that policy before, though. In any case, any question of it is solved by replcing "thus also" with "and". Your points on singular/plural, the way report is termed, and the reference format are valid - but of course, you could have just fixed them rather than removing them. You have not addressed the removal of the second part, unless that's where you're talking about what should and shouldn't be included. I would have thought that a terrorist organisation of 150 members approx, splitting into two or more factions, would absolutely be worthy of inclusion. I therefore suggest including this text:

• Subsequent activities:

In its report of May 2008, the IMC stated that the RIRA continued to be active and dangerous. It had tried to expand its capacity, and also remained a threat that was "capable of extreme violence." Despite this, the IMC report stated that there is reason to believe that some members realise the futility of violent action.''

• Structure and status:

The IMC's report of May 2008 stated that there are at least two factions within the RIRA. If there is further material you deem worthy of inclusion, please let us know what it is. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 18:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

As this similar discussion shows, combining two different points together with language making a link not present in the original source is synthesis, so it looks as though I am right as I usually am. You have not answered the questions, the most important one being why is much of the information from the report excluded, while other information is included? The burden of evidence lies with the editors wishing to include material, so why is this information worthy of inclusion yet all the other information is not worth of inclusion? Domer48_'fenian' 18:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the point of the discussion for addition. So tell us what other info you think ought to be added? Trying to suppress certain info by asking why other stuff is not added doesn't quite help out. We gave you credit where do, but that doesn't mean it all has to be removed. Lihaas (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to suppress anything. I'm in favour of an accurate, balanced and properly sourced summary being added. Domer48_'fenian' 18:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Me too! Now, Lihaas and I have indicated what we want included, and you've been invited to do the same. (And, obviously, on the synthesis point, while I still disagree with you, we can simply remove the "and", making two sentences and avoiding the whole argument entirely). As an aside, given your opposition to editors with poor grammar, I presume you choose not to watchlist a certain pugilistic series of articles? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 19:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are you interested in including some information at the expense of other information? I am not convinced at the inclusion of the faction information, especially when more pertinent information is left out. The IMC report gives little information about the factions, for example why are there two factions, do they have different goals and so on. Perhaps more information will be available in the next report, but right now it seems like a small fact that asks more questions than it gives answers. I note the addition has been made yet again without taking into account the points raised so far, and I have restored the status quo while discussion takes place. Domer48_'fenian' 17:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

We have asked time and time again what more should be added? What can be edited at this point? Removing everything verges on censorship b/c it is cited. It is a section dealing with what the IMC says, not what is NOT said. This is not an article about the various factions to deal with why they exist and what their goals. The IMC report simply said there are at least 2 factions. it is a mere citation on what the IMC said about the RIRA. If you want to add anything else the IMC said, of if you want to coutner the IMC with claims from another reputable source, then by all means do so. Lihaas (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Just again reverted the removal of refernced material. There is no wiki policy that justifies its removal. You have also removed referenced material from the Chronology of Continuity IRA actions article, with an edit summary of "rv unsourced". What is your agenda here? The IMC is a reliable source. The information is relevant to the articles in question. If you wish to add additional information, from the IMC or elsewhere, that is reliable sourced, by all means do so - but do not remove relevant, referenced material. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly "In the IMC report of May 2008 there are of at least two factions" is not even English, this is the English language Wikipedia so please write in the English language. Yet again you have failed to answer why you selectively quoting from the IMC report yet leaving out other pertinent facts. You are making the edits in question, it is your responsibility to explain why you are not presenting an accurate, balanced summary from the report. The edit still fails basic grammar, is contrary to the manual of style and is poorly formatted. Why are you intent on degrading the quality of the article with this slipshod editing? Until my questions have been answered, this disputed addition should remain out. Domer48_'fenian' 23:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again you can EDIT instead of removing the text if it is poor english. We don't think it's selective that's why we have asked you to explain what you want added in. What from the report is missing. What is selective? It is a statement of what was in the IMC report, not anyone's idea of what should be in the report. You are not here to manage the content of wikipedia, if you don't like it edit it for style. We have time and time again repeated what you want in. This is bordering on censorship! Lihaas (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Do I have to post the text of the report verbatim to show which parts you have left out? If you would like me to, just ask. I notice in your edit you even added back the "thus also" which was wholly disputed, can you explain why you did this please? Domer48_'fenian' 07:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you don't, just what you want to include - as has been said above. And no, check again, I didn't reinsert "thus also". Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 08:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

external links

what is jane's intelligence review doing as an external link? It can be cited if a reliable source, but it has no official affiliation or representation with RIRA as far as I can see. External links is not for reference to any and all sites affiliated with the subject on hand. What is the justification for putting this in? Lihaas (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Domer48/BigDunc tag-team reverting

Why are ye removing a US Government source for the FTO status of the RIRA, replacing it with a BBC news report? BigDunc's edit summary says: "Rv unformatted reference that doesn't source the sentence in the article". The source does indeed source the sentence in the article. If its unformatted nature offends you - ignore it, or format it. I've readded this reference, and added some more info to it. Please stop the tag-team reverting. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The ref you use does in fact state what the sentence says and I will have a go at the format of it when I get the chance. BigDunc^Talk 15:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! At least you've acknowledged your mistake - we all make them. A certain other editor just sees an edit by me, reverting you, and goes on autopilot... Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to put in the second one but edit conflict with Batun so it is in now. BigDunc^Talk 15:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That source does not source that the Real IRA were originally designated in 2001. So why was a perfectly reliable source that was properly formatted and that did source the sentence in the article replaced by a source that wasn't properly formatted and did not source the sentence in the article? The only answer I can think of is a desire to be wilfully disruptive and to ruin the article. Why was the original source changed in the first place? Domer48_'fenian' 15:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The sentence immediately preceding the source quotation was changed for an official source. Getting the dictate from the horse's mouth itself was better than a media source that didn't have the authority itself to designate. At any rate now both sources are there, yet you have added the citation needed tag. Wouldn't that have been necessary in the first place too then? Anyhoo, my bad. We worked through this. Lihaas (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Why was a perfectly reliable source that was properly formatted and that did source the sentence in the article be replaced by a source that wasn't properly formatted and did not source the sentence in the article? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Read the source and then come back and ask this question. Either or the responses further up this thread will answer your question. Lihaas (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Where in the source does it say the Real IRA were designated in 2001? Just answer that one question please Domer48_'fenian' 19:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You're really claiming the most important thing in that sentence is the date?! Whatever - fixed. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 21:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't refering to the date when I made my comment above. Surely this proves that no tag team action was taking place as myself and Domer were in fact reverting seperate things. Please stop this silly play acting now. I have semi retired on wiki at the moment as I don't need this BS about tag teams and edit warring it is frankly beneath me. And TU sending emails left right and center to anyone he feels is of loyalist sympathies as can be seen with the verbatim responses by the Thunderer and now Setanta. When challenged on anything. BigDunc^Talk 11:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously in hindsight you weren't tag-teaming here, BigDunc, and apologies. But Domer's revert with the edit summary "Per BigDunc" says plenty about his motivation. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I see you are now adding factually incorrect information to this article, please stop. The designation of the Real IRA was not "extended" in 2003, that only applies to various groups that were initially designated in 1997 or 1999. The source makes that perfectly clear, the ones in the first list had their designation "extended", the others remained so but clearly their designation was not due to lapse so no "extension" was required. Domer48_'fenian' 21:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Quote from article: "makes it illegal for Americans to provide material support to the RIRA, requires US financial institutions to freeze the group's assets and denies suspected RIRA members visas into America.[105]" Quote from the state.gov: "act makes it illegal for persons in the United States or subject to U.S. jurisdiction to provide material support to these terrorist groups. It requires U.S. financial institutions to block assets held by them; and it enables us to deny visas to representatives of these groups"

at any rate, it also shows the RIRA as being designated previously. Lihaas (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Did the BBC article not provide all that information already? Are the BBC not reliable enough for you? Domer48_'fenian' 21:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

true ira?

the source doesn't confirm the 'true ira' as the same RIRA (proper noun) merely saying it was a 'real' ira. Lihaas (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The realistic numbers of the RIRA.....

The RIRA easily at least consists of 200 members and thats only active, with another few in prison. When i saw 150 i sort of chuckled. There support base is much much bigger and growing each day. 150 is just an unrealistic estimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irish Republican rpt (talk • contribs) 20:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, get an up-to-date source and change it. Personal speculation is not encyclopaedic.GiollaUidir (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. Nimloth250 (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Nimloth250

Chronology of RIRA actions

Should a separate article be made for this as the subsequent activities part is becoming very cluttered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.16.37 (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well done on rearranging the incidents section. --Baldeadly (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I think we need a separate article entitled Chronology of Real IRA actions. This article is becoming too cluttered. Such chronologies have already been made for Provisional IRA and Continuity IRA actions. ~Asarlaí 15:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes to number of members and 'New Year statement'

Anon, if you can demonstrate sources for your recent additions, include them, otherwise they can't go in per WP:V. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Michael McKevitt

Michael McKevitt says Michael McKevitt was expelled from this organization but this article lists him as part of the leadership. Am I missing something here? EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Speculation removed

[2], [3] and [4] make no mention of the Real IRA being involved (at the time of posting, they may update), it is speculation by editors to include this latest shooting until sources say who is suspected of involvement. O Fenian (talk) 23:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This source was added, but is nothing to do with the latest shooting. O Fenian (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It would, of course, be an amazing coincidence if the events were not linked, although given that the RIRA took around 24 hours to claim responsibility for Saturday's attack, it clearly is too early to call on last night's. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

[5], [6] and [7] show why it is best to wait rather than rush in and assume.. O Fenian (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

So it is an "amazing coincidence," then, assuming it's not just the CIRA having been spurred into action by RIRA's own operation. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Amended the duplicate third link.. O Fenian (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This used to be a good article

First off, no split of this article needs to take place. The mention of incidents in this article is generally in summary style, which means that if Chronology of Real IRA actions is created then that article can cover each incident in more detail. Splitting all the information out of this article would only butcher this article, which is not too big according to WP:SIZE I have made various changes to bring this article up somewhere close to GA class again, some of them are below:

• This source added to the infobox by Superfopp does not say the RIRA have 300 members. Sadly this sloppy and incorrect sourcing has become endemic with this article
• 32CSM. The only people who believe the 32CSM are not the political wing of the RIRA are members/supporters and is a fringe view. To claim they are "alleged" or "sometimes described" as the RIRA's political wing is including this fringe view, which is a gross violation of NPOV.
• "On the 26 May 2008 the RIRA left an incendiary device in JJB Sports in Belfast. The device partially exploded during the night causing some damage to the store. There were no injuries. " Removed completely. The first source makes no mention of the Real IRA, and the second source is referring to 2006, not 2008!
• "On the 25th of September 2008 an alleged drug dealer was shot in the neck in Donegal, near the Derry border. A number of newspapers state that the RIRA were behind the attack. " There is nothing in the article that says he was a drug dealer, alleged or otherwise. Reworded, and included details of the second attack on the man.
• "On the 19th of December a Real IRA unit carried out a rocket attack against a PSNI patrol in Newtownbutler, Co. Fermanagh. The device missed the police patrol and was later discovered on waste ground. There were no injuries. There were also reports of heavily armed masked men patrolling the village prior to the attack. " Really? The PSNI and Newsletter beg to differ. I can find no trace of this alleged story on the Irish News site either. I take a dim view of including incidents that the RIRA claim to have carried out but there is no evidence of, so I have removed it. If anyone wants to put it back with a neutral, accurate version of events, that's up to you.
• "The RIRA claimed responsibility for leaving a small bomb in Newry town centre which detonated as a nearby British Army Memorial Service was taking place. The RIRA claimed the bomb was not intended to cause injury but disruption and that it was a "response to a campaign by the British colonial police to disrupt republican commemorations and harass those in attandance. Until the Crown forces cease preventing republicans from honouring Ireland's dead and until our POWs are no longer placed in punishment blocks for wearing republican symbols at Easter, we reserve the right to carry out such attacks in the future" " Blogs are not reliable sources, removed.
• "On the 23 August 2007 the RIRA claimed responsibility for a double bomb attack in Newry. A booby trapped anti personnel device exploded during a security operation in the Upper Fathom Road area of the town. There were no injuries but the Real IRA said "only they [The PSNI]] know how lucky they were". " The only reliable source (which needed a www in the link to make it work makes no mention of the Real IRA. Blogs are not reliable sources, removed.
• "In March 2002 an ex-soldier of the Royal Irish Regiment was targeted by an alleged RIRA bomb, that, however, failed to explode in Sion Mills, County Tyrone. This incident followed reports of the involvement of a unit of the Real IRA in a string of failed attacks on the security forces in Derry and at Strabane." I believe the Derry attacks are already covered in the article, and I do not like the vague information being given. Track down the original reports for these failed attacks, so they can be properly incorporated into the article.
• IMC reports section. Load of shit. We don't have a "BBC news reports" section, so why a section dedicated to what another source has said? Vague information from sources is also next to useless, if a piece of information such as the RIRA allegedly splitting into two factions causes the reader to wonder things like why are there two factions, how big is each faction, what are the objectives of each faction then the information is useless. You're presenting a factoid with no context to actually inform the reader. The grammar is bollocks, the prose is bollocks, the formatting is bollocks, please bring your editing up to a reasonable standard before damaging the hard work of others. As the information in the IMC reports generally relates to incidents that have already occurred most of the information is generally useless
• Sub-sections. Sorry, but we don't need a separate sub-section for every single attack, especially when it results in sections with one or two sentences in them. The "Subsequent activities" section could do with being split at some point in the future, but right now it is not substantially bigger than any other section.
• "Structure and status" and "Weaponry" sections. I have restored these to their original place in the article, as it makes no sense to end the article with the 2009 shootings. Many similar articles are structured in similar ways. I should also note that if you move sections you should also amend links to other articles so the first occurence of a term is linked, and you should also ensure that the first use of a book cite gives full details of the book - neither of these were done.
• Infobox. I explained why the military infobox was inappropriate at the time of the GA review, I still think that holds true now.

Any objections to any of the above, please discuss them here. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The South Armagh 32CSm blog is the official blog of their political wing in that area and it is linked and approved on their main site here so it is reliable.

The device in Newry is referenced here and here.

The double bombs in Newry are found here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.206.1.17 (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That blog is not a reliable source of information. The two BBC articles you linked to are absolutely no use, please read before wasting editors' time. I will incorporate the Newry information from the Irish News when I have time. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Clontivrin roadblock

I can find no source other than the Impartial Reporter even reporting this incident, not even blogs or forums that routinely post such stories. The text added to the article directly contradicts the title of the alleged Impartial Reporter article, which was "Claim that Real IRA staged border roadblock" whereas this article states it happened. In the absence of other sources, and the contradictory information, I have removed this pending discussion. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• There was a big thread on IrishRepublican.net might be some links there.--Baldeadly (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

US designated terrorists

Does this really matter? The Americans have no real meaning to us here, so why has there input been added? Surely if we add theirs, we should also add Madagascar's and New Zealand's just for impartiality?--78.146.87.242 (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering there was US involvement in the peace process and the USA is the worlds only superpower (at least for now), its position on this terrorist group is noteworthy. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

But since when have the USA had any affect on our paramilitaries? Its not like they police our streets! Opinion of the gardai and the ruc is all that should be in this article seeing as the US have nothing to do with us.--89.242.111.104 (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Michael McKevitt was convicted largely on the evidence provided by FBI informant David Rupert, so I'd say the Americans certainly need to be mentioned. If they were left out of the lead it would imply that the only places the Real IRA are designated are the UK and Ireland, which would be misleading. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

EU designated terrorists

Hi,

According to the Real IRA is an EU designated terrorist organisation. Should the category "Category:European Union designated terrorist organizations" be applied? Thanks, 77.248.187.160 (talk) 11:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Since no-one opposed during the pas week, I have concluded that consenus has been reached and eformed the update. 77.248.187.160 (talk) 06:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)