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

Name

"The Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) (Gaeilge: Óglaigh na hÉireann) is an Irish republican paramilitary organisation whose aim was to remove Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom and bring about a socialist republic within a united Ireland by force of arms and political persuasion."

OK, so "Óglaigh na hÉireann" is the name of the "original" IRA and also the "provisional" IRA established around 1969 , and also apparently the official name of the defence force of Ireland ( the Republic of ).

So in the Irish language, are these disambiguated at all ? Or is "provisional" some kind of invisible word in Irish ?Eregli bob (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

There isn't a 'direct' translation for it into English. It is taken to mean volunteer soldiers/men of Ireland or similar. It is a loosely interpreted phrase which is why it easily lends itself to different groups and organisations.SRaemiA ^talk 02:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

"Provisional IRA" is translated into Irish as IRA Sealadach—sealadeach being the Irish for "provisional"—but "Provisional Irish Republican Army" does not have an Irish translation, because the Provisionals never called themselves "Provisionals". They called themselves, and are generally called by others, simply the Irish Republican Army, or Óglaigh na hÉireann. Scolaire (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Re Bold changes

This lead has been stable for a while now so could editors please discuss their bold changes to the lead after being reverted rather than attempting to force them through against consensus.--Domer48_'fenian' 18:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The reasons for the censorship of the official Irish name are spurious. If for a second we accept that Wikipedia is somehow bound by Irish law (and "Óglaigh na hÉireann is the legal name of the Irish Defence Force - Section 3, Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Act 1923. also Section 16, Defence Act 1954" doesn't prove that the use of the name is illegal) then we'd better remove the English name too per S.I. No. 162/1939 — Unlawful Organisation (Suppression) Order, 1939. Just to expand on the Defence Act 1954, Section 16 reads "It shall be lawful for the Government to raise, train, equip, arm, pay and maintain defence forces to be called and known as Óglaigh na hÉireann or (in English) the Defence Forces". It does not say it's unlawful for anyone else to use the name, that's a conclusion being drawn from a primary source that isn't present in the source. Section 3 of the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Act 1923 doesn't even contain the phrase "Óglaigh na hÉireann". 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 21:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It might help if it was made more clear exactly who uses the term to refer to PIRA. After all when someone in Ireland says Óglaigh na hÉireann he means the Irish defence forces. Also, as I understand it, "Óglaigh na hÉireann" is not a translation of "Irish Republican Army." It seems to be a useage favoured only by PIRA themselves and perhaps that could be made clear somehow. If someone was to search for Óglaigh na hÉireann on WP or any other quality reference source they're not going to find PIRA, so some confusion could result.--FergusM1970^{Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution.} 22:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

When someone in Ireland says Óglaigh na hÉireann what he (or she) means depends on the context. An English-speaker generally doesn't use the term at all! "The Army" (for the defence forces) or "the IRA" is what is commonly used. An Irish-speaker generally doesn't use the term at all either! "an tAirm" or "an tIRA" are the preferred names. Óglaigh na hÉireann was originally a loose translation of "The Irish Volunteers". When the Volunteers became the IRA, it continued to be translated as Óglaigh na hÉireann. When the pro-Treaty IRA was replaced by the National Army. that continued to be translated as Óglaigh na hÉireann. So the claim of any IRA to the Irish title of Óglaigh na hÉireann is as valid or more valid than that of the Defence Forces. Far from banning the use of the name, Irish legislation actually recognises that "illegal organisations" go by this name! But in fact this is much ado about nothing because you won't find a media source that says "Óglaigh na hÉireann did this or that", so there is no danger of confusion about which "Óglaigh na hÉireann" is being referred to. Scolaire (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

In fact, I looked up "Oglaigh na hEireann" in Google Books and guess what? Only two out of twenty books on the first two pages (and both of them "no cover image" and "no preview") are primarily about the Defence Forces. Some of the others note that Ó na hÉ is also the name of the IDF, but to say that it is the primary usage of Ó na hÉ seems entirely unjustified on the basis of this search. Scolaire (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Scolaire I always read your very informed comments and opinion with great interest. I take on bnoard all of your points. May I ask you to consider this (http://www.independent.ie/national-news/mcguinness-says-army-is-oglaigh-na-heireann-2891290.html) however and give me your considered opinion? I'd be very grateful. SonofSetanta (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I read that when I was doing my Google search on Wednesday. It illustrates nicely my point above that "what he or she means depends on the context." The context here was a man going for the job of commander-in-chief of the IDF, and he used the term in a dramatic way to indicate that he acknowledged the legitimacy of the IDF and that as president he would be loyal to them. He did not say – and it would be stretching it to say he meant – that it is wrong to style the IRA as Óglaigh na hÉireann. I imagine if you asked him if that was his position you would get a short, sharp answer. Scolaire (talk) 07:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Scolaire I fully agree with you. It is not wrong to "style" any IRA grouping as Óglaigh na hÉireann. There are good, solid historical reasons for them to do so. My point here is that this must be pointed out in the article. What we have at the moment is a school of thought which says this was their "official" name and that it is also the translation into Irish. Neither is true, as Martin McGuinness says: it is a "styling". Therefore the item must be rewritten to show the correct etymology of the name and why PIRA chose to use it. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

At the Dispute resolution noticeboard you were told that "Your reasoning for removing the mention amounts to original research." Please listen to what is being said. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No I wasn't Domer. You're resorting to bullying again and really must control yourself. DRN is about opinions and discussion and as my discussion point included sourced quotes by the well knmown Provo Martin McGuinness then it's very obvious that I wasn't relying on Original Research. You need to concentrate on your close reading skills? SonofSetanta (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

So you weren't told that "Your reasoning for removing the mention amounts to original research."?--Domer48_'fenian' 15:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No Domer but I have included a quote from a respected Republican who is also deputy leader of the Northern Ireland administration. Perhaps Wolfie and you missed that? Read it again and see if you can spot it. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

SoS I think you misunderstand the word "style". The verb style means "to call or give a name or title." To say that the IRA are "styled" Óglaigh na hÉireann means that that is the name or title which they are given and by which they are called. Their name in English is "Irish Republican Army"; their name in Irish is "Óglaigh na hÉireann". Therefore that title correctly goes in brackets after the article title.

As regards OR, please read what I said above: McGuinness did not say – and it would be stretching it to say he meant – that it is wrong to style the IRA as Óglaigh na hÉireann. Quoting a respected Republican is not OR; saying that he meant something that he did not say would be. Scolaire (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. You've said both here and on the DRN that McGuinness used the word "styling". He did not. The Independent said "In the past, the IRA has styled itself Oglaigh na hEireann", ignoring the fact that numerous books and academic articles have styled them that as well. Scolaire (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Scolaire I hear what you are saying but MMG's comment, "As far as I am concerned, the Irish Army are Oglaigh na hEireann" is unequivocal. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It's unequivocal that the Irish Army are Óglaigh na hEireann. It doesn't say that the IRA are not. If I say that Fionn mac Cumhaill's band were the Fianna, its doesn't mean that the republican youth group were not, or that Fianna Fáil is not entitled to have "Fianna" in its name. McGuinness is a politician; he chose his words carefully. NOR means that you cannot say that what he did not say is unequivocal. Scolaire (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Requested

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Provisional Irish Republican Army SonofSetanta (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite

I am attempting a rewrite of this article as I have noticed that much information is repeated in the article which is in the leader. Also I have noticed some self contradiction and POV. Using several volumes which I have at hand I intend to remove repetition, cruft and POV. Having made a start I will now cease for long enough for interested editors to include their own opinions and make suggestions. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Bearing in mind the difficulty for either side of this conflict to maintain a neutral POV, I would suggest perhaps waiting for a resolution to the above conflict with regards to the use of Óglaigh na hÉireann before making serious changes to the article. As most of your edit history seems to focus on this and similar topics, it may appear as if you have an agenda if you try to push through too much change at once, especially considering historically some of your edits significantly change what the article states (for example), and your most recent edit on this article is the biggest single edit for about two and a half years. I'm not at all suggesting your edits are wrong in any way, but I believe it may help reach a new consensus as to what should be in the article if you considered this. BulbaThor (talk)

I have no agenda except to competently rewrite the article. I am interested in Irish affairs as you rightly point out and some may misconstrue that as having a POV because many of my articles have been on the British military. I say; let the results do the talking. I have no intention of removing any information from the article unless it is repeated, incorrect, or POV. I may well add to the overall impact of the piece which at the moment looks sadly neglected. The leader is far too long and much of the information is repeated in the body of the article. Notwithstanding the discussion under way at DRN regarding the use of an Irish name I can see much which could be done to improve the article. Perhaps I can come up with some images and colour to brighten it. The Provisional IRA played a large part in the Northern Ireland Troubles and I have no intention of trying to downplay that. Perhaps you should watch, take part, advise, guide or play any role you wish to during the coming days? SonofSetanta (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Partially agree, the lede should be summarized and some sections reworded, although the article is well sourced in its current status, IMO.--Darius (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Existence of Provisional IRA

It seems we also need to resolve the question of existence. In the article Gerry Adams is quoted as saying "the IRA is no more". This means to me that the Provisional IRA doesn't exist and that the wording in the leader should be changed to the Provisional IRA was instead of is which it currently reads. It's only one word but I feel that the current status of the organisation is important. I'm inviting comments for discussion. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, all that is needed is a reliable, third-party secondary source saying the IRA does not exist, and one that is not contradicted by multiple other secondary sources. Given the amount that has been written about the IRA since 2005, if there is a definitive answer it should be easy to find. If there is not, then we cannot assume that it has actually gone out of existence. Scolaire (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The BBC reports that nothing has been heard from PIRA since 2005. Gerry Adams says they have gone away. 7 years would be long enough to apply for a "deceased" insurance claim on a missing person. Do you not feel it's long enough to decide that an organisation has ceased to be? SonofSetanta (talk) 12:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be wise to note that Armed Republican tradition is to assert that "they have not gone away". That being the case it should be noted in the article. Notwithstanding my above comments however we can see that there is a split in the Republican movement with the doves flocking to Sinn Fein and the hawks gathering with CIRA, RIRA, Oglaigh na hEireann. There has been a recent statement that two of these organisations will now band together under the name IRA. This is par for the course. They will attempt to find a link to continuing the 1916 tradition in order to gain legitimacy in the Republican cause - it's not difficult to do. what is important for this article however is that PIRA have "gone away". Yes they may come back; anyone can ressurect the title. The article must refelct this however and state clearly that PIRA, at this moment in time, do not exist as an organisation. My comparison would be the Royal Irish Regiment. They exist but it's not the same regiment which laid its colours up in 1922. Just a reuse of the name. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You have been asked to provide a source which states that the IRA no longer exist, and have yet to provide one. Removing the text and not providing the source requested is disruptive. Please stop.--Domer48_'fenian' 13:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. If such a fact is unassailable, a simple Google search will bring up plenty of reliable sources to say it is so. Link us to a single reliable secondary source to say the IRA does not exist (not that "nothing has been heard from them") and we can discuss the edit. Writing long essays giving us your view of the world is not a substitute. Scolaire (talk) 13:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm with SonofSetanta on this one and asking them to prove a negative is a bit sneaky. If there is any evidence the PIRA (as a whole, rather than the odd local bank-robbery/killing of a drug dealer by people who were in it at one time or another) are still in existence then references for that should be easy to come by. Otherwise, I would support changing references to them to past tense. GiollaUidir (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I think I've possibly resolved this GiollaUidir by removing the word altogether leaving the lead in a more satisfactory fashion. Perhaps you'd have another look and see if you agree? SonofSetanta (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As it stands the sentence needs "was" or "is". Would changing it to something like: "The PIRA is the name of a militant Irish Republican organisation that between 1969 and 2005 carried out a campaign..." work better?

To be clear though, I think the current old version reads better and we should resolve the is/was dispute.GiollaUidir (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I've used the Oxford English Dictionary wording and referenced it. I am making an effort to get rid of the controversy. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• NOTE: Comments from DRN "note that you appear to be forcing your changes despite the DRN being open." they go on to note that you "Setanta appears to be edit warring for his changes at present...(with non-policy based arguments as well)," while your reluctances to provide sources was apparent on the DNR also. At DRN you were told out right that the name was correct and that "Your reasoning for removing the mention amounts to original research." Please stop, this is disruptive. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

All this bold type and shouting Domer is not constructive. As you didn't take part in the DRN case I really don't see how you can post dialogue from it however the volunteer you are quoting was alone in his opinion. The other contributors to the case noted that change was needed. Opinions which I might add are reflected here. As a result of my efforts here today this article looks better, reads better and gives the correct information. Improve it if you will, there's nothing stopping you. Perhaps a few suggestions from you instead of complaints at AE might be more conducive to establishing a better article. I might add that you don't have the authority to stop someone editing an article. I strongly suggest you read up at Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Italics added: At DNR the volunteer stated that there is nothing immediately wrong with the current wording...Óglaigh na hÉireann is by far the more common name amongst the sources as discussion on the article talk page had only begun 1 day the volunteer said that it seems far too early to bring the issue to DRN. The next day you were told that Your reasoning for removing the mention amounts to original research. You have denied that you were told this twice, despite it being there in black and white here and here. The next day you were asked by another volunteer the same thing we've all being asking for Just because you've never come across anyone who does doesn't mean no one does...source, please. Now what could I possibly add to what two volunteers have not already said. During all this there was a discussion going on in which I did participate right here. You have now been told that you are editwarring to insert your changes at DRN. You were told on your own talk page that you appear to be forcing your changes despite the DRN being open... and were told on the volunteers talk page that you forcing your changes through anyway despite the DRN thread. You were told out straight that You have made your changes despite them being reverted, then you made them again, that is edit warring (some support is not enough, you need consensus). I strongly suggest that you listen to what is been said, and not to be giving advice.--Domer48'fenian' 16:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Domer I'm not edit-warring. I'm improving this article. No-one is disputing that PIRA used the name Oglaigh na hEireann but the context in which they used it is mentioned elsewhere on the wiki and this article must reflect what is there. If you can show me a source which says that PIRA had/have exclusive rights to the name then we can change the article back to the way you want it and reference that change. Wikipedia relies on authoritiative sources for claimed facts however and I have provided those sources to verify the way I have treated the name. I respect you as knowledgeable on the organisation and would prefer you put forward clear objections based on sources, not what is coming across to me as opinion and pleas to "leave the article alone".SonofSetanta (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The lead as it stood did not say or suggest "that PIRA had/have exclusive rights to the name". "The Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) (Irish: Óglaigh na hÉireann)" means nothing more or less than that Óglaigh na hÉireann is the Irish language name (or "style" if you prefer) of the IRA. It says nothing about exclusivity, any more than saying "Gerry Adams (Irish: Gearóid Mac Ádhaimh) means that the Sinn Féin leader has exclusive rights to that name in Irish. Since the {{lang}} template is not preceded by the word "styled" in any other article—although that's just what it is—there is no reason to do so here either. Scolaire (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I've just noticed that a whole lot of Óglaigh na hÉireann discussion has gone into the "Existence" section. Never mind. I have a suggestion for the existence issue that might get around the "no sources that they don't, no sources that they do" dilemma:

• The Provisional Irish Republican Army...is a now-inactive Irish republican paramilitary organisation whose aim was...

Scolaire (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I would find that wording agreeable but I'm still not happy about the styling of the name in Irish. My feeling is unchanged in that, as it stands, it looks as if the name is a translation into Irish - which we know isn't correct. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

As long as you understand that your happiness isn't my primary concern ;) We have established that the {{lang-ga}} template does not mean "translation into Irish". The first para of the lead says in black and white that it is a name, not a translation; what its origins are; and that it shares the name with the IDF. Scolaire (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you've misinterpreted my politeness when I said I was "happy". Let's change that to "agreeable". Ok, from my perspective it's been done to death. Let's leave it as it stands.SonofSetanta (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead

I have now reduced the size of the leader and introduced a new image for the article. No information has been deleted but merely moved to the correct category headers within the article. As it stood it read like two separate articles on the same subject, as at least one other involved editor has noted. These are Bold Changes but I feel the article is much better for them. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It could do with a bit of expansion if the move is to stand. The intro paragraph should summarise the article not abruptly end after giving a few facts (including the most recent editors favourite point of contention!).GiollaUidir (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you fancy having a wee go at it yourself? Obviously the version standing at the moment is only temporary but I genuinely feel that the older leader read like a separate article and the main body of the article was repeating most of it.SonofSetanta (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Scolaire. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Regarding your previous comment, the lead really is supposed to read like a separate article. If you read the featured article on the front page on any given day what you are actually reading is the lead from the article itself. According to WP:LEAD, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points". There's a lot more in it than that - I would recommend reading it before editing any lead. But basically, too much was taken out that should have at most been re-written as a précis. Again from WP:LEAD, "The lead should normally contain no more than four paragraphs"; you can take that to mean that for an article of this size the lead should be three or four paragraphs. Scolaire (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes I agree, I have cut the lead down too much and more needs to be fed into it to make it a more complete synopsis of the main article. I'll have a little look today and see what I can do with it. More needs to be done to cull repetition too but hopefully more editors will be as generous with their time as you and I have. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Scolaire (and others). I've now rewritten the lead in a considered attempt to provide a synopsis of the article. It would be great to hear any comments you've got and see any improvements you could make. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Nationalist Community

In the leader I see a sentence referring to "violence against the nationalist community". This implies to me that only nationalists in Roman Catholic areas were affected by this violence. I propose changing this wording to "violence against the Roman Catholic community" which would be much more accurate. Implying that all Roman Catholics are nationalists is totally incorrect and is POV pushing. This is actually explained in the Wiki at Catholic Unionist, at Unionism_in_Ireland#Unionism_and_religion, CAIN at (http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/ni/religion.htm) claims that only 54% of Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland consider themselves to be nationalists which means that 48% don't. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You have touched on a question here that bedevils all writing about the Troubles. Just as not all Catholics are nationalists, not all nationalists are Catholics, nor all supporters of civil rights. Was Ivan Cooper ever hit over the head with a truncheon? I seem to remember he was. So it was not only Catholics who were being attacked. The qustion is, was the Troubles a religious conflict or a political conflict? Very few people today would say that it was religious. But back in the sixties is was portrayed as "Catholics" and "Protestants". Areas like the Falls or the Bogside were referred to as "Catholic areas" when in fact "nationalist areas" would have been more appropriate, and is used nowadays. The term "Catholic community" really referred to the residents of those "Catholic areas" rather than the more conservative Catholics on, say, the Malone Road. If Catholics in those areas were indisciminately attacked, as they were, it was because the attackers assumed that all of them were nationalists trying to drive them into a united Ireland, rather than because they had a devotion to the Blessed Virgin or believed in transubstantiation. Indeed, it is hardly less POV to imply that everybody who was attacked was a practising Catholic than that they were nationalists. It was because they lived in a particular area, that's all. Scolaire (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Your opinions are superb. These titles are mostly media driven and at times manipulated by canny politicians. I feel that we, as historians and Wikipedians however shouldn't fall into the trap of using these misnomers. As you rightly point out the names in common parlance at that time would have been Protestant and Catholic. It's a given that many of the Protestants would have been loyalists and many of the Catholics nationalist even though as you imply, many of them wouldn't have seen the inside of a house of worship since christening. My thinking would be to treat any words like nationalist, loyalist, republican and unionist as contentious and dumb them down. If we don't we are giving too much emphasis to the styling of the various groupings. Would you agree or could you put it better? SonofSetanta (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with Scolaire; "nationalist" is by far less PoV and misleading than "Catholic". Try it in the other way, by labeling the UDA as "Protestant" instead of "loyalist", and you will find the difference.--Darius (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think nationalist is more misleading to tell you the truth and much more POV - for reasons already discussed with Scolaire. I personally think the UDA is a Protestant organisation although Protestant Loyalist would be accurate too. The problem is that not all Catholics are nationalist and not all Protestants are Loyalists (or even unionist). With specific regards to 1969 however; nationalism wasn't the issue, rights for the Roman Catholic section of the population were and that's what caused the riots (loosely speaking). I'd be grateful for your further comments, always bearing in mind that the agenda is to rid the article of POV. Perhaps we could have a go at the UDA one next? That would be equally interesting. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I've noted that in the rest of the "Origins" there is constant reference to "Catholics", "Catholic Homes" "Official IRA unable to protect Catholics" yet when it deals with the riots the word "nationalists" is used. I find this very incongrous, especially given my previous comments. For the sake of the article I'll change the "nationalist" reference back to "Catholic", for the moment anyway until we have more comment and eventually reach a concensus. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that I said above, "back in the sixties it was portrayed as Catholics and Protestants", and that "'nationalist areas' would have been more appropriate, and is used nowadays." How to deal with contemporary sources is always problematic (hence the mixing of terms in the article), but I think it is a well-accepted principle that we use modern terminology when writing articles, except within direct quotes. The conflict was political, not religious. The "Protestants" believed all "Catholics" were disloyal, and wanted to drive them into a united Ireland. The "Catholics" believed that "Protestant" hegemony (and consequent discrimination and violent attacks) was a direct consequence of the union with Britain. So, despite the labels, they were acting as unionists and nationalists against nationalists and unionists. A man cudgeling another man didn't ask him first if he ever cast a vote, but neither did he ask him if he was a regular church-goer. He was just a unionist (or loyalist) thug attacking somebody from the nationalist community, or vice-versa. I would favour removing "Catholic" and "Protestant" altogether, except (a) in reference to, say, a Catholic church or a party called the "Protestant Unionist Party"; (b) in direct quotes, or (c) when it is just too awkward to use an alternative. Scolaire (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm for keeping the terms Protestant and Catholic because I think they remove the assertion that all members of either faith were automatically categorised as unionist, nationalist, loyalist or republican. I would assert the troubles as a socio-political issue. Religion and politics became linked and that link is strengthened when all Protestants are categorised as loyalist and all Catholics are seen as nationalists. It wasn't nationalists rioting in 1969 looking for a united Ireland. It was Catholics wanting fair housing and job allocation. It's a huge can of worms but I firmly believe we must keep this as neutral as possible. I've seen another article on the wiki in the last couple of days which asserts that Protestants and Catholics live separate existences in Northern Ireland. I dispute that most vehemently whilst recognising the problems of ghettoised housing estates and I think that putting people into those kind of loyalty boxes like nationalism or loyalism is wrong. I'd like the article to reflect that if possible. Less of a POV don't you think? I think we need more opinion though because you and I aren't going to solve this issue alone when we have disparate views. I'm happy to leave any further instances unchanged until we do have a concensus. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

BTW, please note that there are instances of use which I think are totally appropriate. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Offensive operations

I find this wording, er, offensively POV as it implies that PIRA was carrying out military operations. This was not the case. PIRA was using terrorism as a tactic, i.e. IED attacks against civilian targets, intimidation of the population and small-arms assassinations carried out by members in civilian clothes. None of these activities is a military operation, offensive or otherwise. Please bear in mind that PIRA was not a military organisation, but a militant gang.--FergusM1970^{The moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on.} 20:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I am sick, sore and tired of this word "implies". If an armed body does nothing, it is inactive; if it acts to defend itself, that is a defensive operation; if it acts on its own initiative, that is an offensive operation. It's that simple. There are no further implications. Using this word "implies" to spout your POV on the talk page because you know you can't do it in the article is an abuse of the talk page. Scolaire (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

There's always something in everything. I hear the word "offensive" on the TV every day with regards to actions by rebel groups in Syria so I personally don't see why it shouldn't be used with regards to PIRA however if it less POV then I would have no objections to a change to "pro-active" in this instance. It is less militaristic. My entire ethos on this article is to provide a matter-of-fact history of PIRA which includes as much as possible and leaves nothing out - warts and all, as some people would say. The danger is always that someone will become upset about wording, so let's keep the wording under discussion. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It is a virtual certainty that someone will become upset about wording, but I guess that's all the more reason to keep talking. Certainly, "pro-active" is less militaristic. It is also a great deal less encyclopaedic. If you want to write a matter-of-fact history, then you're better to use words that you hear on the TV every day. "Offensive" is the appropriate word here. Scolaire (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

No objections from me.SonofSetanta (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Partially agree with the current lede

I think the current lede accurately reflects the subject. My only objection is the superfluous term "inactive" in the first line when the last paragraph describes the current status of the organisation. The mention of Clogher action in relation to PIRA tactics is somewhat too detailed for an introduction and also breaches WP:SYN.--Darius (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Great to have more input. My attempt at writing the lead was to provide a synopsis of the article. Including the Clogher attack was because it was a departure from the norm tactically. Could you suggest another way of putting it? SonofSetanta (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest what I always suggest: move it down into the article, don't try to write the article through the lead. Also, if there are synthesis issues, make sure you have your sources right.

@Darius, the word "inactive" was my suggestion (actually I suggested now-inactive) to get around the problem that there are no reliable sources for "is" and no reliable sources for "was". Edit-warring over two letters is a terrible waste of time and I thought the added word might prevent that in the future. Scolaire (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Scolaire, I actually agree with the current PIRA status of "inactive", my only concern was redundancy ("inactive" on the first line plus "inactive" in the last line). I also agree with you that the right phrase should be "now inactive".--Darius (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, noted. I'll do so. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

what I've done it to remove the reference to the Deanery altogether because what I'd be doing is starting to fill the article up with attacks by PIRA and that is covered elsewhere. I hope the current wording is deemed suitable even though we've lost the ref to Callaghan? SonofSetanta (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Fine work, it's OK for me now.--Darius (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Provisional IRA

Scolaire why do you think we shouldn't use PIRA or Provisional IRA when referring to this organisation? These are common usage terms. We should also bear in mind that PIRA is contemporary with OIRA who were originally the IRA. Should we not keep the first two terms in to avoid confusion? SonofSetanta (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, "Provisional IRA" is correct when needed for disambiguation, but since the late seventies it has been referred to as "the IRA", it being the only or principle organisation using this name. "PIRA" and "OIRA" are not used commonly except by military men and bloggers (and some Wikipedians). Remember when Big Ian used to talk about "Sinn Féin/IRA"? You never heard him say "PIRA". If it's good enough for him it's good enough for me. Scolaire (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree, Scolaire. "The IRA" is certainly the most common name, but I've heard PIRA quite a bit even from non-soldiers. It may have caught on during the SAS biography craze of the 1990s but it definitely gets used. There are also the CIRA and RIRA scum, who definitely exist and definitely use the name IRA. In fact PIRA may be defunct, while the other two clearly are not.--FergusM1970^{The moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on.} 17:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)