Talk:Continuity Irish Republican Army

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Northern Ireland (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Irish Republicanism (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish Republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ireland (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Second Dáil[edit]

The Second Dáil was not legally an 'all-Ireland' parliament. Its membership was technically chosen in the election to the House of Commons of Southern Ireland chosen under the Better Government of Ireland Act, 1920. Politicians elected to the House of Commons of Northern Ireland were allowed to sit, but their full status was disputed. The Second Dáil ceased to exist in 1922 and has had no relevance whatsoever to modern Irish history, nor has anyone who sat in it. The people of Ireland, north and south, having been electing TDs, MPs, MLAs, etc for over eighty years. Continuity Sinn Féin's claim to legitimacy, based on a long gone parliament whose membership is long dead is plain ludicrous, but then that is what the 99% of the people of the island of Ireland think Continuity Sinn Féin is, a ludicrous bunch of non-entities who could be laughed at if they stopped thinking that they had a right to 'kill for Ireland', when Ireland has in every single election held in living memory had said the opposite. Of course the real reason this rediculous continuity 'movement' don't contest elections is that in reality they'd have a snowballs chance in hell of ever getting elected to anything. JTD

Agreed Blorg 21:09, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
These comments are not appropriate to this talk page, for the same reason User:Kyle's comments are inappropriate to Talk:Million Dollar Baby. Joestynes 07:38, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Correction its Republican Sinn Féin.

CIRA should redirect to Canadian Internet Registration Authority[edit]

I propose that CIRA redirects to Canadian Internet Registration Authority. Upon doing a google search for CIRA, I found that the Canadian Internet Registration Authority was first on the list.

I might have missed it, but I couldn't find the continuity irish republican army among the first 10. To the best of my knowledge, CIRA is more commonly used for the Canadian Internet Registration Authority than the Continuity Irish Republican Army. I'm fine with making CIRA a disambiguation page. -Frazzydee| 23:54, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd go with a disambiguation page. Neither has predominance. Joestynes 00:29, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


The Continuity Irish Republican Army (CIRA) is an Irish Republican paramilitary organisation from which the Provisional IRA split in 1986 in a dispute over the attendance of the elected representatives of Sinn Féin

This is POV, and a minority POV at that. Although Republican theology is necessarily obscure, any reasonable observer would hold that the CIRA split from the Provos rather than the other way around, as the CIRA represented at best a tiny minority of IRA members. --Ryano 10:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

1986 or 1998?[edit]

The current edit reads The Continuity Irish Republican Army (CIRA) is an Irish Republican paramilitary organisation which, although it split from the Provisional IRA in 1986 in a dispute over the attendance of the elected representatives of Sinn Féin (the political party affiliated to the Provisional IRA) at Dáil Éireann (the lower house of parliament of the Republic of Ireland), remained a part of that organisation until the latter's endorsement of the Belfast Agreement in 1998.

The CIRA may not have been heard of much before the Provo ceasefire etc., but I don't believe they remained part of the Provisionals until 1998. Are there any sources to back this up? --Ryano 18:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The CIRA did not claim responsibility for any attacks after the split until a bombing at a hotel in Enniskillen in 1996. I find it hard to believe they sat back until then. Despite the disagreement between the political wings, there was no differences in the approach to the conflict itself until the Belfast Agreement negotiations. There was no reason to leave the Provos before that. I believe that they were more of an informal group within the PIRA during this period, rather than a separate entity in their own right.
Lapsed Pacifist 18:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But the political split in 1986 was very definite and very acrimonious, although by all accounts very few of the splitters were active members of the IRA. I think their operational weakness is a better explanation for the lack of activity, rather than a decision to stay within the Provos. After the Provo ceasefires of 1994 and 1997 there was a reason for disaffected active members to align themselves with the CIRA, hence the commencement of operations. In any case, unless there's any source to say that they remained within the PIRA, I think that we should date them back to 1986, perhaps with a proviso that the name didn't come into use until 1996. They don't use the name "Continuity IRA" themselves in any case, believing themselves to be the IRA. They have used "Continuity Army Council of the IRA", which is where the moniker came from. --Ryano 19:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The split concerned Sinn Féin tactics, not those of the IRA. RSF (and the IRA men who backed them) had no problem with the way the IRA was going about its business, and supported it until the ceasefires. I just can't see these guys taking a ten-year break.
Lapsed Pacifist 19:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've just been reading the RSF view here [1], it appears to support what you were saying earlier, especially the part about the prisoners segregating themselves. It would be interesting to find out what those men decided to do afterwards. I agree the CIRA Army Council became a reality in 1986, and began sourcing arms and finance. What I can't find out is whether active IRA men left the Provisionals and stayed inactive until 1996, or whether they decided to throw in their lot with them for the time being. Any light you could throw on this would be welcome.
Lapsed Pacifist 19:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Although it's hard to pinpoint when the group came into existence, I haven't come across any source which suggests that the CIRA "remained within" the PIRA until the late 1990s, although some sources (e.g) do say that the group was formed in 1994. The truth may be that the split in 1986 was only notional, and only became a reality when active members aligned themselves with RSF/CIRA after the 1994 ceasefire, but I'd like to find some sources before we make such a suggestion in the article --Ryano 20:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
(By the way, I hope you don't mind me indenting your comments, I just find it easier to follow this way)

CIRA POV[edit]

This article was written by one of Republican Sinn Fein's armchair warriors. It needs to be cleaned up considerably, because right now it is essentially CIRA propaganda. The wikipedia has a far more balanced article on the Contos, which could serve as an example of how to approach the subject. Just a small example of the article's bias: note that they call the RIRA the "Real" IRA, because they view that organization as late-comers at best and opportunists at worst. mbari hogun

The latest revision certainly was, rolling it back to the previous version should do the trick. --Ryano 5 July 2005 10:29 (UTC)
I know from my experience on that the person or persons who are seeking to impose the CIRA POV on this article is/are very persistent. If anyone with rollback powers is watching this article, please be alert. --Ryano 8 July 2005 09:38 (UTC)
The most recent edit shows what I'm talking about, I'm afraid this article is doomed unless an admin takes an interest in it. --Ryano 8 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)
I blame Risteard. mbari hogun

Well, the page on CIRA was written by a PSF member who is not well know for his sense of balance.-- (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that right, not everyone views Irish History through CIRA and RSF rose tinted glasses, the article on was written by many editors, all of which rejected your revisionism.--Padraig (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Considers itself[edit]

I note that Jayjg has protected this page. May I just ask for an opinion on the definition of NPOV? The |Irish Defence Forces are termed as Óglaigh_na_ hÉireann in Irish law. As illustrated, it is on the cap badge worn by every soldier in the Irish army The Continuity Irish Republican Army is a terrorist organisation of perhaps a hundred members. They decide to call themselves “Óglaigh_na_ hÉireann” I edited the article to read: “However there is only one Óglaigh na hÉireann – it is the Irish Defence Forces. “ This was amended and now reads: “and Óglaigh na hÉireann is the Irish language name of the Irish Defence Forces, which considers itself to be the sole legitimate "Irish army".”

My question to you is: does NPOV require us to ignore legal accuracy? Imagine saying: “the United States Army considers itself to be the sole legitimate Army of the United States” “considers itself”? Just asking your opinion--ClemMcGann 19:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, the CIRA do not accept the legitimacy of the legislature which passed this law, so you're trying to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps here. I agree with you that "considers itself" is too weak a phrase though. How about "..which under the Constitution of Ireland is the sole legitimate Irish Army"? Demiurge 23:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Ok, --ClemMcGann 01:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Both the 217.* edits and the reverts are no where near to NPOV. We need to include a good portion of what the 217.* editor said, but in the form of The CIRA/supporters belive that... For example the 'official army' issue, we cannot pass judgement on whether the cuurents 26 county elected governments army is the 'official' army, as opposed to one that claims decedence from the 1921 32 county dail. If even a tiny minority believe something, its a POV matter not one of fact. The fact that weve got an editor here which clearly has this POV, thats enough for me to consider it a POV that cannot just be dismissed. We cannot even ignore the edits about the provos having branched from the CIRA not the other way around, I don't have very good information about the exact details of high level internal IRA affairs, and I don't think anyone else here does, and if they do, they can't prove it, so that means we can't say which one branched from the other, as the only evidence either way is names, the provos kept the same name, so that would suggest they are the truck while CIRA is the branch, but according to the 217.* editor they lost there legitimacy by supporting a government which they claim to be illegitmate, and claims they are not the official army, thus making themselves unable to claim to be official from the last all ireland election (at least thats what I got from it). I'm not sure if thats what 217.* was getting at, but I think its got enough of a argument to be a matter of POV, so I think we gotta have a he thinks she thinks thing the CIRA claim/believe that the PIRA branched from them... while the PIRA claim that the CIRA branched from them, we just gotta clean that up, its alot of work, but someone needs to write a true NPOV article.

Please read W:NPOV#Qualification again. Even though some people (a tiny minority) believe the Earth to be flat, that POV should not be given equal billing in the Earth article. The CIRA's claims that they are the legitimate government of Ireland and that the Provos split from them have about as much basis in reality as the flat-earthers. It's pure fantasy, barely a step above alien abductions and UFO conspiracies. We should describe these claims, yes, but we shouldn't try to pretend that they are of equal validity to more mainstream POVs. Demiurge 00:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I didn't say it should be given equal validity, simply that it couldn't be ignored, especially since you can't prove the claims either way The official IRA position for years was, "In 1938 the seven surviving faithful Republican Deputies delegated executive powers to the Army Council of the I.R.A. as per the 1921 resolution. In 1969 the sole surviving Deputy, Joseph Clarke, reaffirmed publicly that the then Provisional Army Council and its successors were the inheritors of the first and second Dail as a Provisional Government." The public doesn't know what happened in the 1986 split, so we can say only a minority belive these things, but we cannot write the majority opinion as fact.
Excuse me, the public does know what happened in the 1986 split:
  • The CIRA/RSF were the ones who physically walked out
  • The Provisionals retained the organization's name
  • The Provisionals retained most of the organization's membership
  • The Provisionals retained all of the organization's assets
All this means that the CIRA/RSF split from the Provos, not the other way round. Demiurge 09:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
So that means we have the power to judge the legitimacy of these 'facts'? All we can do is present both POV's and mention the facts on the opinion of the majority.

I'm fine with the "..which under the Constitution of Ireland is the sole legitimate Irish Army" formulation. My POV problem is with the unnecessary suggestion that CIRA and Provo use of the name "Irish Republican Army" is illegitimate. That struck me as unnecessary POV, even though I agree that these theories of succession from the Second Dail are total poppycock - which is why I'm one of the people reverting the edits of our anonymous CIRA sympathiser. It's just that the whole question of who is legitimate is always POV, and should always be presented as something like X claims that X is legitimate and Y is not; while Y sees it the opposite way.

To answer the original question, no, Wikipedia does not have to differ to legal accuracy on matters of pure symbolism. What is legal depends on what one takes to be legitimate, and legitimacy is intrinsically POV.

As for the administrator protection, the real issue here is a single anonymous user who has not engaged in any discussion here on the talk page and whose edits are transparently and unacceptably POV. Those who are actually here seem able to deal with disputes. What is the procedure in a case like this? With a non-anonymous user, it goes to dispute resolution, but what is to be done with an anonymous user? --Diderot 10:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that I know this anonymous user as a contributor to and a former contributor to He is very persistent, utterly immune to any appeals to reason, and will not allow himself to acknowledge the existence of a POV other than his own and that of his clique. On, he refused to create an account, and when the wiki stopped accepting edits from anonymous users (to prevent wikispam), he simply left in a huff. Superior patience may be the only answer. --Ryano 15:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Refiling request[edit]

Could an admin please change the tag to {{cleanup-date|June 2005}}? -- Beland 02:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Did it myself, now that I've been made an admin. -- Beland 22:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

1986 / 1998[edit]

The CIRA's believed political wing, Republican Sinn Fein was formed in 1986, although the Continuity IRA is thought to of not formed, or not became active until 1998.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jah69uk (talkcontribs)

Not true. It was the Cokes who were formed around 1997/1998 as a split from the Provisionals. Óglaigh na hÉireann (CIRA) have continuity from 1916 and as such did not discontinue in 1986.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

New Group[edit]

If anyone has information on this new group calling itself Oglaigh na hEireann could they please add it to this page rather than the actual Oglaigh na hEireann page

Heard there is a new group called Republican Defence Association.Not sure but this could be the splinter group the IMC was referring to.Dermo69

Anon edits[edit]

This user pushing that the CIRA are the official army of the 32 County Republic and whatnot, how about we get this page semi-protected for a while? -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 23:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Good call Weggie 23:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree, the edit warring has been pretty bad. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Template added Weggie 23:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
You don't just slap on a template! You request protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I have just done so. -Amatulic 23:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Page is now protected. -Amatulic 01:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

An Phoblacht Abú! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

(The republic forever!) - Finally, the vandal speaks. Care to explain the inflammatory non-neutral edits you have been making? Is there a point to the disruption you caused? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies? These are not rhetorical questions. -Amatulic 01:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject IRA?[edit]

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. NonFreeImageRemoved.svgErin Go Bragh 06:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Category National liberation movements[edit]

IRA & INLA were in the CAT already, I just added PIRA, OIRA, and RIRA. There is a link to List of IRAs appearing but im not sure what purpose it serves if there are only 4-5 armed groups that attempted insurgency. Speaking of which, inclusion in CAT Revolutions might also be considered since the iraq insurgency is listed in there. Or perhaps iraq insurgency is in the wrong CAT. Fluffy999 12:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed fork[edit]

The attacks and incidents section is getting rather long, especially after I finished sourcing most of it and started adding more. I propose the significant attacks are mentioned briefly in a paragraph, and everything else is forked off into an article similar to Chronology of Provisional IRA actions. Any objections? One Night In Hackney303 07:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No. Fire (excuse the pun) ahead!--Damac 11:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
No objections here, perhaps keep a few of there more notable (no idea what criteria you would use but...) in the main article.GiollaUidir 14:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I would agree with that.--Vintagekits 14:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I've forked it to Chronology of Continuity IRA actions anyway, and I'll try and work out which incidents are worth including in the section later. One Night In Hackney303 18:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Passage removed[edit]

For the Continuity IRA, Maguire's support conferred on their activity a legitimacy that makes potentially lethal actions moral and justified, and (for them) delegitimated and questioned the morality of post-September 1986 activity by the Provisional IRA.

This is referenced from the 1979 edition of The Secret Army, which is prior to the Continuity IRA existing and therefore not acceptable. One Night In Hackney303 00:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Your point is irrelevant; Maguire supported these folks in 1938, 1969, and 1986. Additional citation will be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

My point is not irrelevant at all. Please see no original research, and please limit your contributions to what the sources actually say, not unsourced opinion or your own interpretations of sources. One Night In Hackney303 00:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Citations have been added. Please do not delete them because you do not like what is said. This is not original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

As with other additions you have made to this page, it is based on your own interpretation of the sources not what the sources actually say. One Night In Hackney303 00:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Read the citations, PLEASE! 00:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's ok, I changed the wording to delete the word "effective". Someone, presumably, can be effective, but not directly involved in the day to day work of a guerrilla. For example, someone was running guns from South to North, and, presumably, effective at it. But it's a different role vs. active service in Belfast, Fermanagh, etc. This is not to slight anyone. It just is more accurate. -- 17:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The change is undone. -- 18:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Erm, what makes you think I haven't? I can assure anyone else reading this right now that the citation you have added does not support the addition of the text you have added, and I will be happy to prove it if you continue to add the text. One Night In Hackney303 00:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, prove it. Read Bell, White, O Bradaigh, and Maguire's statement, and come up with your proof. But until you prove it, please don't change the article. Letting 3rd parties decide is fine by me.-- 00:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)-- 00:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, you claim Life and Politics of an Irish Revolutionary pages 150-54 and 299-306 back up what you say. Incorrect, that's a bare faced lie. As this shows the Continuity IRA don't even appear on those pages of the book. One Night In Hackney303 00:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with ONIH, the claimed reference on those pages 150-54 deals with the split between the officials and the provisionals in 1969/70 the pages 299-306 deals with the 1986 Ard Fheis, no mention of the CIRA.--padraig 02:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This is absurd. You can't pick and choose. Look at all of the citations, which show that morality informed the decision in 1938, 1969, and 1986. On all three occasions, Tom Maguire was a key actor. You are penalizing Maguire for being consistent over time; three times he was involved in historic decisions related to the IRA, and each time he made the same "moral" choice, in his view. It is appropriate to cite all three choices in presenting information. You have deleted a quotation from him in which he makes specific reference to the Continuity Executive and their Army Council as "lawful". What more proof do you need than that?-- 13:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Absurd it may be to you, but it's Wikipedia policy. If you don't like Wikipedia policy, don't edit Wikipedia. You are again interpreting a quote and adding your own meaning to it. A book published in 1993 would not include the opinions of "Supporters of the Continuity IRA". One Night In Hackney303 13:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

At least as early as 1987 there was a Continuity IRA, a witnessed by Maguire's statement that year. The Continuity Army Council run the Continuity IRA. In 1986, Maguire delegitimated (in his eyes at least), the Provisionals. You are forcing a point of view here that is inappropriate.-- 21:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not. You're using Maguire's statement to draw a conclusion. Yet again I state unequivocally - you cannot do that. You have to cite sources that have drawn the same conclusion. A 1993 publication would not include the opinions of "Supporters of the Continuity IRA". One Night In Hackney303 05:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As you know more about Wikipedia than I, here is a question for you or others. Should this statement in the article have a reference? "...As further justification for this claim, which is rejected not only by most Irish Republicans but by the vast majority of the Irish people..." I am unaware of an opinion poll, for example, demonstrating this. And one cannot rely on elections, as the Continuity IRA has not engaged in them. Any guidance will be appreciated. As it is, it's probably best that the statement remain in the article, but it is not supported with a reference.-- 21:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to tag it for a citation. The reason your edits are bring reverted is due to your misrepresentation of sources and drawing your own conclusions from those sources. One Night In Hackney303 05:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So what is the problem with my edits? Maybe I just don't get it, but if the Continuity IRA folks consider the Provisional IRA lacking in legitimacy, "illicit" and Maguire says that they have lost the right to wage war and refers to a "moral principle", what is the problem? I don't see a need to flag it, as the point is accurate, if not cited. But you seem to require a citation for every point I've made, but not for those made by others. -- 15:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a need to flag the sentence about the vast majority of the Irish people, and Republicans, not accepting Maguire's view, is what was meant.-- 15:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Maguires statement signed in 1986 was only made public in 1996, three years after he died, so how can a reference in a book published in 1993 verify that. Also the opinion of Maguire on the IRA carries no authority as he and the other seven members of the second Dáil handed over what authority they had to the IRA Army Council in 1938, after that date he no longer had any authority or say in the matter, so any thing he said on the issue is just his own personal opinion.--padraig 15:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

But my point is that supporters of the Continuity IRA view themselves as on a higher legal and moral plain than the Provisionals. That's all. As for 1993 and the quotation, Maguire wrote statements in 1986 and 1987, he knew that there was a Continuity IRA, or else he could not have named them in 1987, right? The 1993 book has a quotation from Maguire, i.e., quoting the guy who named the organization in 1986-87. How is that out of line, is it? Certainly members of the organization new they existed, and there would have been people, like Maguire, who supported them. Hence, the rumors in various Irish newspapers between 1986 and 1994. In any event, I added a quotation from 1996. OK?-- 15:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Restating the above -- Maguire was a supporter of the Continuity IRA, who he named, and he questioned the moral and legal authority of the Provisionals. Hence, the statement that we have been arguing over should be ok, right? It's a statement about the opinion of supporters of the CIRA, that's all.-- 15:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"legal and moral authority to continue armed struggle in defense of the Republic" - I've just read a copy of the reference here, totally unsupported text. One Night In Hackney303 17:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As always, you lose me. What does misguided and illicit mean to you?-- 19:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As always, it doesn't mean anything to me as we don't allow original research. Please stop adding your own interpretations of sources. One Night In Hackney303 22:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you please explain how it is unsupported?-- 19:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

See above. If the source doesn't say it, the article doesn't say it. No interpretation of source material to draw conclusions is permitted. One Night In Hackney303 22:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

All IRA meetings by their very nature are held in secret. Republicans, regardless of affiliation still refer to Government Buildings as Leinster House. Éire Nua, which had been dropped by Sinn Fein, long before the split, was adopted by Republican Sinn Fein as their party policy. The split had more to it then the conventions, and this is not present in the article. The IRA which convened the meetings were the IRA. I have referenced that information. I removed some of the information in the last quote in the section, and referenced the quote that is there. --Domer48 11:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've disambiguated between PIRA and CIRA. They may well have been commonly called "the IRA" but their official title was Provisional IRA. See Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army for discussion on dismabiguating where necessary - its clearly necessary in this article. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 11:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Correction their official title has never been the provisional IRA, that is a media term.--padraig 12:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Exactly the Provisional IRA is a term used by the media and has never been accepted by the IRA. BigDunc 12:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Daithi O'Connell named them the Provisionals until a formal IRA convention could be called, which took place in September 1970. They were "Provisional" until then; see Robert White, Ruairi O Bradaigh, The Life and Politics of an Irish Revolutionary, p. 151.-- 12:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Which IRA would that be? The "Old", "Official", "Provisional", "Real" or "Continuity"? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 12:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect the temporary Army Council setup at the time of the split, was called the provisional Army Council until such time as a full Army Convention could be called to elect a Army Council of the IRA by the IRA delegates to the Army Convention. The IRA never used the term.--padraig 13:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but were the soldiers of the "Provisional" Army Council: 1) or regular IRA under the director of the Provisional Army Council; 2) regular IRA under the command of an illegal Army Council; or 3) regular IRA under the command of no one? Thanks. -- 13:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Based on this discussion, by 1986, we are talking about the IRA. Disambiguation is therefore not necessary. As per Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army as pointed out by BastunBaStun not BaTsun. So were are talking about two groups, the IRA and CIRA. In the lead the term Provisional is used. After that, IRA, "dismabiguating where necessary" - its clearly not necessary in this article. If you want IRA linked after the lead, that should not be a problem, i.e IRA--Domer48 15:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems with any of the above, just curiousity: between December 1969 and September 1970, wouldn't soldiers in the IRA who were allegiant to the Provisional IRA Army Council have been members of the "Provisional" IRA? That's all. Thank you again.-- 17:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(Reply to Domer). Absolutely disagree. Disambiguation is absolutely necessary in this article, where the CIRA are the subject, but of necessity the PIRA are covered in quite some detail. This is covered too in the agreement here. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 17:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "disambiguation"? And, if they weren't Provisional IRA volunteers, what were they? Independents?-- 17:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(Reply to BaTsun) So you have the IRA and CIRA, and you think we need the "Provisional," in front of IRA so we know who were talking about. So you accept the fact, that from 1970, they were the IRA, but when you come to 1986, well your not so sure? So the CIRA split not from the IRA but the PIRA? Please explaine your rational? --Domer48 17:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry ?-- , what I want to do is replace Provisional IRA with IRA. But when you click on the word IRA, it goes to the Provisional Article. There was a discussion on this here, if you want to read through it. Take care, Regards --Domer48 17:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(Reply to IP address and Dormer): There are many IRAs. If we're talking about more than one of them in the same article (as we are here) then per the discussion [[here, it is necessary to disambiguate between them. While you and I might know which is which, someone from outside Ireland and Britain may not. (Oh, and Domer, I meant what I wrote and nothing else. No need to infer or attribute anything else from my comments.) BastunBaStun not BaTsun 17:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no issues with what you propose: Can anyone answer my question, though? What was the affiliation of "IRA" volunteers between Dec. 1969 and Sept. 1970, if they were aligned with the Provisional Army Council?-- 17:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

After the split with the OIRA the majority of Volunteers give their allegiance to the provisional IRA Army Council, therefore they were aligned to the IRA.--padraig 18:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's ok, I changed the wording to delete the word "effective". Someone, presumably, can be effective, but not directly involved in the day to day work of a guerrilla. For example, someone was running guns from South to North, and, presumably, effective at it. But it's a different role vs. active service in Belfast, Fermanagh, etc. This is not to slight anyone. It just is more accurate. -- 17:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

In his memoir, Sean Mac Stiofain, first C/S of the Provisional Army Council, refers to the "Provisional IRA."-- 23:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Further passage removed[edit]

"Notable supporters of RSF include key people who formed the Provisional IRA..." - page 310 does not say these people are supporters of RSF.It says they "attended Republican Sinn Fein's first Wolfe Tone Commemoration in June 1987". Please stick to what the sources say instead of your own interpretation of the sources. One Night In Hackney303 12:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

People who are not supporters are not often found participating in events sponsored by the organization they do not support.-- (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What is this article about?[edit]

Simple question - CIRA or RSF? One Night In Hackney303 13:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You're showing a very limited understanding of Irish republicanism with a question like that. The dogs on the street know what Bodenstown means in Irish republicanism, and what the message delivered there actually entails (regardless of what group is present). RSF and the CIRA are very closely related, just as SF and the IRA are.--Damac 13:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary my understanding isn't limited, it was a leading question. Unless sourced conclusions can be drawn about the attendance of certain people at Bodenstown, it would be better placed in the RSF article. As it stands it completely confuses the average reader, as it's all "nudge nudge wink wink" type information that they won't understand the significance of. One Night In Hackney303 13:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I haven't the time to do it, but I'm sure there are plenty of references out there that could explain the significance of Bodenstown for Irish republicans to general readers.--Damac 13:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
That would be synthesis though. You'd be saying "source A says Bodenstown is significant" and "source B says these people were in attendance" and using that to draw conclusion C saying "this means that...". A source that has drawn the specific conclusion C is needed. One Night In Hackney303 13:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that Bodenstown is not a key event on the calendar for Irish Republicans?-- 17:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not what he's saying.--Damac 17:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with ONIH, what is this article about, is it CIRA or RSF? --Domer48 08:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Also agree. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 09:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Do the articles about the Provisional IRA also mention Provisional Sinn Fein? If no, then perhaps you have a point. But, clearly, there is a relationship between RSF and the CIRA. Indeed, the article notes that Daithi O'Connell, who was appointed Cathaoirleach at the West County Hotel, was first C/S of the CIRA. It is a disservice to the uninformed to not mention the connection, in my opinion.-- 14:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem mentioning the connection - in fact it would have to be included. But the RSF elements are dominating the article right now. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 17:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

In a situation like this, would a separate article describing the RSF-CIRA relationship be in order?-- 18:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Changes I've made Rational[edit]

First of the Bodenstown bit has to be referenced. I know its true, but all the same. The use of the word “was” could be construed as it being just this particular meeting. Which is not the case, all the meetings are secret, obviously. And I removed the information, which was added to the reference, which is not contained in the reference. --Domer48 17:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Bodenstown has now been referenced; Bell, 1979, Secret Army.-- 21:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

How can a reference from a book published in 1979, be a source to support the CIRA who where not in existance then.--padraig 22:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it's an excellent description. As it is, the actual 1987 is available on line if you would like to cite that. Do a Google search on the IUPUI digital collection and Saoirse, and you'll find it. -- 14:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

PS -- the reference does not support, or deny, the CIRA, it's about Bodenstown.-- 17:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The citation is now to the 1997 edition of Bell's The Secret Army.-- 20:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Dose this make sence "staged by the version of the Continuity Republican Movement which RSF and the CIRA see themselves as forming." --Domer48 21:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
No, try "staged by the Continuity Republican Movement which RSF and the CIRA see themselves as belonging to."--padraig 21:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I suggest going with two sentences, one about Bodenstown, and the other about RSF. Otherwise, there may be too much information for one sentence. You make the point, but it reads a bit long.-- 21:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Original research tag added[edit]

Due to the non-stop addition of information that isn't supported by sources. I'll go through the article later and remove irrelevant and unsupported text that has been added recently, as this article is becoming a joke right now. One Night In Hackney303 17:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ONIH, I've been referencing this article and tired of editors adding additional information to the sources I use. Editors either provide references for the information they add, or the leave it. --Domer48 18:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I changed it back. Sorry. I see your point. Still getting used to Wikipedia.-- 18:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

My sincere apology to Domer48, if s/he is the person whose sentence I changed. The way it is written, it was not clear (to me at least), that the two sentences went with the citation of the 1997 Secret Army. The only part in quotation marks is in the second sentence, the word solid. My recommendation (and if you ignore I don't blame you" is that the words lifted in the first sentence should be in quotation marks, indicating that both sentences are referenced by the citation. Bell does say that they took fewer from the "Southern Provisionals" rather than the Provisional IRA, by the way. A minor point, but the former would refer to both IRA and SF. Again, my apologies.-- 20:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The sentence from the book is "They took fewer people than they had intended and a warning from the Army Council that there was to be no competitive IRA." There is no mention of "Southern Provisionals." The last part of that sentence is also very informative, but its up to others if they want it included. --Domer48 21:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"The core of the new Republican Sinn FEin was from the old Southern Provisionals, who unable..." is what my edition reads, p. 576. I have no issue with this, and I really do not intend to be a pain. Rather, I'm upset (with myself) at editing something that shouldn't have been.

As for the last part and the threat, it does seem important.-- 21:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Different paragraph, the one I used deals with the Army. The one you cite deals with Republican Sinn Féin, this article is about CIRA. Note to get the "é" press Ctrl+Alt and press e, hope that is useful. --Domer48 21:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The article reads: The core membership of Republican Sinn Féin were from the old southern Provisional IRA, who were unable to play an effective part in the armed struggle, and had been moved from the center stage." They took fewer people with them than they had thought from the split, and the Provisional IRA remained "solid."[5] The citation is to Bell, 1997, p. 576, and on that page the phrase "Provisional IRA" does not appear. Bell starts a paragraph with, "The core of the new Republican Sinn Fein was from the old Southern Provisionals, who...." The article lifts from this specific sentence, yet, Provisionals, without the IRA, suggests both Southern PSF and PIRA, who went into RSF/CIRA -- including people like Sean O Bradaigh, who were important in PSF and RSF. The article, potentially, does not quite jive with Bell. This is an exceptionally minor point and, in part, I raise it because it seems that when I've done the same thing my edits get hammered. Not sure if my e fada worked, but thank you for the information. Might be this computer.-- 21:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"The core membership of Republican Sinn Féin were from the old southern Provisionals." There is no IRA after Provisionals. And it dose not say "Provisional IRA remained "solid." It says "The IRA remained solid." You can not put words into referenced quotes. The é works on wiki, and on word doc, it depends on the font used. --Domer48 21:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

We agree, it was the article that said "Provisional IRA. I agree, putting words into referenced quote is bad. Still working on e fada.-- 01:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

e fada will work if you press Ctrl Alt Gr and then e should give you é. BigDunc 12:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


Can we find some way to improve the applicability of the images to the article? Wikipedia policy says images should be relevant to the text and properly identified. The two rather vaguely labelled propaganda stills don't add much to the article, and the graffiti photo could at least be better labelled and incorporated into the structure of the text. Nimmo 08:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


This article is very poorly written, and, I imagine, very misleading to anyone who is not knowledgeable in Irish history. I would be inclined to make some corrections, but going on past experiance, each little correction then becomes a battle field for a the various propagandists that haunt the Irish Republican pages.

Just a couple of notes:

1) CIRA regards itself as The IRA. It does not see itself as having been founded in 1986, but as a continuation of that part of the IRA that always gave its loyalty to the Irish Republic. Comdt. General Tom Maguire gave the IRA the extra name 'Continuity' in recognition and appreciation of its unbroken service to the Irish Republic and its unflinching bearing of the great burden placed on it by Dáil Éireann in the 1938 Proclamation.

2)Comdt. General Tom Maguire did not give any legitimacy to the IRA in 1969 or 1986. He recognised an already established fact, i.e. that the IRA is the Army of the Irish Republic, and not a group of armed civil rights protesters looking for equal rights as British citizens.

3) The IRA does not recognise Leinster House as housing Dáil Éireann. Dáil Éireann passed its Governmental Authority to the Army Council of the IRA in 1938, then ceased to function pending the institution of the Third Dáil Éireann.

-- (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you at least read the talk page first. One thing you will notice straight off, is the number of IP’s instead of user accounts. This subject is well covered, and you have not really raised anything new. CIRA split from the IRA, not the other way round. --Domer48 (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

CIRA numbers[edit]

A realistic estimate would be 70-80 max besides those in prision, but the anti-GFA republicans are gaining massive support day by day and it will rise.

Has anyone a different estimate on how many numbers the CIRA have??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irish Republican rpt (talkcontribs) 21:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The article does say a max of 150 (admittedly based on intelligence that's 3 years old). If a more up to date source (eg IMC report) can be found then by all means change it.GiollaUidir (talk) 11:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Removed, again. This source from 2004 does not state the membership, only that they have "Fewer than 50 hard-core activists" which is not the same thing. This source from 2005 does not state the CIRA membership, only that "None of the dissident groups would have many more than 150 people attached to them". As neither source is up to date (it's 2009!!) or actually states a figure for the CIRA's membership, they should not be used. O Fenian (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject templates[edit]

I reinserted the removed WikiProject templatess that were deleted without any reason or discussion. WikiProject templates are used throughout the wiki on article talk pages to track articles and create assessment statistics based on the article quality and importance within each project. Please do not remove them. Based on the terrorism note above, I have not reinserted the Terrorism project template and will defer that decision to that project. ww2censor (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Murder of a policeman[edit]

Can someone please add that this terrorist group has claimed responsibility for the murder of a police man. thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the section about the 1986 GAC[edit]

I came away from it very confused about the split and who did what and what side they were on. Could an more knowledgeable editor take a pass at making the section more obvious to the uninformed? Lot 49atalk 02:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent or alleged change in leadership??[edit]

There was an article in the times as of 28/07/10 interviewing cira members who claimed to have replaced the old leadership, sighting discontent with the lack of understanding of the southern leaders. I dont know specifics and i'm not experienced in editing wiki does someone want to update this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No as its seems to be entirely bogus given that RSF released a statement on behalf of the legitimate leadership of the CIRA refuting it, and indeed they were aware it was going to happen. See link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markievicz (talkcontribs) 20:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Criticism by Adams and McGuinness[edit]

I recently added criticism of the CIRA by Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness to the "relations with other organisations" section of the article. This was reverted on the grounds that it "doesn't fit" with the section. I have to disagree: the attitude of Adams and McGuinness is surely indicative of the present state of relations between CIRA and the "mainstream" Republican Movement, and most especially Sinn Fein. The quotes also provide much-needed balance to the various assertions, presently in the article, to the effect that CIRA regards itself, or is regarded by (unamed) supporters, as the legitimate army of the Irish Republic and successor of the IRA Army Council of 1938. Generally WP:Balance requires that the viewpoint of supporters should be balanced by opposing views, in proportion to their prominence. The critical statements by figures of the prominence of Adams and McGuinness fit that bill nicely, and I have restored them. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 03:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The counter viewpoint is already expressed there, if you will simply look. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 13:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not seeing criticism of CIRA from an Irish Republican perspective, or by figures of the prominence of Adams and McGuinness. Is there any particular reason you don't want such criticism included? Ivor Stoughton (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

While there may or may not be a place for some criticism in the article, the current section isn't acceptable. Are we planning to add quotes for every time the Continuity IRA have been criticised, by all people? If not, what is the particular significance of those quotes? The significance in preference to say quotes by the British PM, or other people of a similar stature? Rather than attempting to distill the section out of various quotes that are liked by a particular editor, I'd hope that some secondary source has written a coherent summary of what has been said. I also note the addition significantly distorted the content of a source on at least one occasion, if not more. More discussion about what should be in a section, and whether it should exist, is welcome here.

On a side note, it's also time for a particular charade to end. That will be happening early next week. 2 lines of K303 13:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The attitude of the British and Irish governments towards CIRA is covered in the lede. There is nothing about the attitude of the mainstream RM towards CIRA, although there is plenty about CIRA's view of itself as "legitimate" in traditional republican terms. The mainstream republican view is that CIRA is not legitimate, and this is the view put by Adama and McGuinness. WP:BALANCE holds that opposed viewpoints should be covered in proportion to their prominence. These gentlemen are rather prominent within republicanism, and are the best possible spokesmen for the mainstream republican view of CIRA. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 13:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
You appear to have ignored everything I just said. Time's ticking away.... 2 lines of K303 13:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, I have tried to address your point about why that perspective, and why Adams and McGuinness. I feel WP:BALANCE requires it. As for your preference for a secondary source, I have no doubt we can find one, assuming we are in agreement that the article does in fact need to incorporate a balancing view of CIRA from the mainstream Irish republican perspective? As for your reflections on time, well, on a cosmic level you are right, melancholy as it is to contemplate, and time is ticking for all of us. Here on Wikipedia, however, there is no particular time pressure - we can take as many bites at the cherry and take as long as we need to make this article, nay this encyclopaedia, the best it can possibly be. That's grand, isn't it just? Ivor Stoughton (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:Continuity IRA 2006.jpg[edit]

The file File:Continuity IRA 2006.jpg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:Continuity IRA 2006.jpg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 08:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

=Tommy Crossan[edit]

Under which section should the murder of Crossan be included? Thoughts? TheWarOfArt (talk) 02:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Continuity Irish Republican Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)