Talk:Irish Republican Army

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated CL-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
CL This article has been rated as CL-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Ireland (Rated List-class, Mid-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.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Organizations  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


List of IRAs[edit]

    • A number of soldiers, who were sympathetic to Irish republicanism, and who served in the British armed forces during the sixties, joined the IRA after their service ended with the British military. Mostly from army and marine units, they shared their experience and professionalism throughout the ranks of the IRA, increasing the fighting capacity and skill of the IRA units, with their past experience from the British military. On several occasions, British troops patrolling areas of Northern Ireland confronted former soldiers, who had served with their regiment or unit.

This doesn;t really belong on an article entitled list of IRAs. Should it be added to the page on the Provisionals? Palmiro 12:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


Will editors actually read the article before adding duplicate information in future. One Night In Hackney303 19:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Please explain the duplicate Information, I have read and reread the article and it is still not clear to me.Even if you are right, that this could have been achieved without so many 3RR - I want good articles too. Aatomic1 19:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Read the article. It's duplicate information. One Night In Hackney303 19:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

A bit of OR don't you think: "Minister for Justice Kevin O'Higgins demanded an inquiry into the Ballyseedy incident, but Mulcahy condoned the murderous conduct by selecting O'Daly to preside at the Army inquiry, which became a monumental charade. Those who wished to implement the policies of Collins could be divided into two elements within the army. There were those at headquarters like Mulcahy, O'Sullivan, and Quartermaster General Seán O Muirthile, who wished to operate within the Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB). The other group, which included members of the Big Fellow's Intelligence staff and the Squad, people like Liam Tobin, Charlie Dalton and Paddy O'Daly, formed a rival organisation of members of the old IRA, which was known as the IRA Organisation (IRAO).--Domer48 21:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC) Ryle Dwyer analyses the events following Collins’ death. So it needs to be supported with a bit more. --Domer48 21:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The Old IRA or IRA Organisation, was setup by members and disembarked members of the Free State Army, in responce to the re-emergance of a new Irish Republican Brotherhood, the IRA Organisation give their allegiance to the Old IRB. See The IRA The Secret Army by J Bowyer Bell p45-48 ISBN 0-906187-27-3--padraig 21:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but Bowyer Bell specifically puts IRA Organisation in scare quotes. They were just a faction within the army. At best they need a mention in the relevant section, not one of their own. One Night In Hackney303 21:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree they don't need their own section, as the were no more then a pressure group within the free State Army.--padraig 21:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Would you not accept that they have had more influence on Irish history that CIRA or RIRA? Aatomic1 21:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
As an organisation? Absolutely not. The Real IRA managed to virtually kill off repuplican support for armed struggle. One Night In Hackney303 21:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
What relevence does that have, the RIRA and CIRA are seperate organisations, whereas the IRA Organisation was just a pressure group within the Free State Army. Which can be dealt with within the existing article on the Free State Army.--padraig 21:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The Lead[edit]

I am following through Domer's statement (about which I have no views as I neither know or do not know). I am not convinced by ONiH's view that IRAO is already included in the article.

If Padraig thinks IRAO should not be included could he explain how IRAO does not get caught by the lead sentence:

The IRA (Irish Republican Army) is a name used to describe several paramilitary movements in Ireland in the 20th and 21st centuries.

Aatomic1 23:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of this discussion, you have not addressed the same information on the Tobin article. The Squad is a good book, but read the review in the Irish Democrate. It might help with the article, Ryle Dwyer's analyses and his use of language. --Domer48 23:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I am quite prepared to accept that...spotted a gap... a lot do do yet... have not covered a lot of references...(but if anyone knows when he died I would be grateful) Aatomic1 00:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Because the IRAO was not a seperate movement from the Free State Army, but a pressure group within that organisation, therefore it can be dealt with within the history of the Free State Army.--padraig 07:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Aatomic1 at no time have I suggested POV,[1]. What I have shown, is that your edits could be described as Original research. The IRAO was not a seperate movement. Tobin alone, was not part of this pressure group, but one of a number. Your own reference illustrates my point, "Those who wished to implement the policies of Collins could be divided into two elements within the army. Therefore, we are talking about one army, with two groups within it. --Domer48 10:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced either way...but on the bright side that does mean I don't feel strong enough to put IRAO back into the article. Aatomic1 11:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Just put a brief mention in the "Old IRA" section I say. One Night In Hackney303 11:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. We can all live with that. What about the Tobin article, should the changes here be reflected on that article? It would make sense. --Domer48 11:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Provisionals "strongly oppsed" to Marxism[edit]

The PIRA was not strongly opposed to the OIRA Marxism, they simply had less extreme socialist values. They split more on the grounds of ceasefire rather than ideaology.


The title should be changed to "List of Irish Republican Paramilitaries." Then the ICA, the Irish Volunteers of 1916 and the INLA could be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Irish Republican Liberation Army[edit]

The latest IMC report mentioned the emergence of the Irish Republican Liberation Army. Not quite sure if its splintered from the IRA or its 100% independent. If its the former we can put it here. If its the latter, is there a place to list Irish paramilitary groups? Lihaas (talk) 02:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move (2009)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

List of IRAsList of organizations known as the Irish Republican Army — Generally, I would believe that WP:NAME would frown upon the use of abbreviations or acronyms in page names except for redirects and disambiguations. The proposal is more precise, and eliminates the need for the confusing hatnote. Mnmazur (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Support using precise terms in article title, especially for a parent/summary-style/intro to of a bunch of others. DMacks (talk) 05:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and User:DMacks. Current title is ambiguous. — AjaxSmack 07:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. The current title could be interpreted as including anything that can be abbreviated as IRA. Jafeluv (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unless the title is spelt "organisations". O Fenian (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Agreed. The title should definitely use the Irish spelling. Jafeluv (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Agreed, I only realized that after I proposed the move so I thought I'd leave it, however, now that it's been brought up...
  • Support move to List of organisations known as the Irish Republican Army, as per above. Mnmazur (talk)

This article has been renamed from List of IRAs to List of organisations known as the Irish Republican Army as the result of a move request. Jafeluv (talk) 09:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Terrorisme template[edit]

I just got a stinging and vicious attack from Lessheardfrom (or something like that) threating to block me when I put back the template. At least I like to talk about about the template. Lessheardfrom may shout loud, but I am not impressed by his shouting and roaring. If there is a prior consensus, he should give a link where to find that discussion. And if "the list" is too rough for the template, what groups are considered terroristic and what groups are not. We don't have to fight that war again, but a bit politeness won't hurt anybody. Night of the Big Wind talk 22:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a clear guideline on Wikipedia about the use of the word Terrorism. Please read it before editing.
--Domer48'fenian' 17:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
That is only half the answer on my question. Night of the Big Wind talk 17:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The Article List of organisations known as the Irish Republican Army falls under WP:1RR per the notice at the top of the Article Talk page. All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions. All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.--Domer48'fenian' 18:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Irish Republican Army which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

List of books about the Troubles[edit]

The article List of books about the Troubles has been nominated for deletion. You may wish to participate in the discussion. IQ125 (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Physical force[edit]

Snowded, what's this about? Gob Lofa (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Norm for use of initials or abbreviations of Irish in English[edit]

How should the initials for Óglaigh na hÉireann be represented in an English language article. I suggest ÓnahÉ, but I am not sure if this conforms to standard practise. Martinazo (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC) Martinazo (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Declaration of Irish Republic[edit]

"It was the army of the Irish Republic, declared by Dáil Éireann in 1919." This sentence seems a little confusing to me. Are you trying to say that the IRA was declared by Dáil Éireann to be the army of the Irish Republic; or that the Irish Republic was declared by Dáil Éireann in 1919? Either way, I think this statement could use a link to the actual declaration or a citation of the actual declaration in the Acts of the Oireachtas or Debates. [1] Martinazo (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


Most Irish people[edit]

"Most Irish people dispute the claims of more recently created organisations that insist that they are the only legitimate descendants of the original IRA, often referred to as the "Old IRA"."

Without a reference or citation, this statement sounds like a personal opinion. It could be improved, I believe, by adding a citation of election results or reliable opinion polls. [1] Martinazo (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


Brendan Behan quotes[edit]

"The playwright and former IRA member Brendan Behan once said that the first issue on any IRA agenda was "the split".[2]"

This statement indirectly quotes Brendan Behan. It would be helpful to me to have the source of the quote cited, or a link to Brendan Behan's autobiography referenced. [1] [2] [3] Martinazo (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


Just to be clear[edit]

BTW if Snowded thinks I hunted down his edit, then that's wrong. I in fact believe the IRA used violence to meet their ends to an independent Ireland where you even have an entire article dedicated to it. As evident in the The Troubles. (N0n3up (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC))

No one disputes their use of violence and it is clearly covered in the body of the article. I've restored the stable version having waited 24 hours. If you or Gob Lofa want to make a case for the change then please do so here. ----Snowded TALK 05:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually, you edited yesterday on the day compared to early of this time, making it less than 24 hours. And if me and Gob Lofa agree, then that makes the version you reverted the consesnsus version and you yourself said that No one disputes their use of violence above, making it more reasonable for the "consensus" version. (N0n3up (talk) 07:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC))
I reverted Gob Lofa's original change at 1736 on the 14th December, then your bit of game playing at 1753 on the 15th, self reverting at 0446 on the 16th. The latest reversion to the prior stable stage is at 05:18 on the 17th December. So I think (to be charitable) you are getting confused. You also seem to misunderstand the way wikipedia works. To say 'If me and Gob Lofa agree' sounds like something from the playground. You have to advance a reason here for the change and we then discuss it. Gob Lofa has made no comment here, you have made the uncontroversial statement that the IRA used violence, something which is not in dispute. The question is if violence is the defining characteristic and 'republican' should be so qualified. I've agreed with Callanecc to leave you to other editors but that is a little difficult if you jump into topics where you have no prior history and simply point score. I suggest you focus on rehabilitating yourself as you just escaped an indefinite ban by the skin of your teeth. This type of post will not help. Haven't you sorted out Dr K or someone as a mentor? ----Snowded TALK 07:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Please refrain from making personal attacks. I already said it's a stated opinion. If Gob Lofa agrees to discuss here in the talk page then fine. And using the time next to your edits as the 24 hour format of time clearly makes it less than 24 hours. And saying If me and Gob Lofa agree' sounds like something from the playground is pretty ironic since that's the principle you used in our discussions in the British Empire, not saying it's wrong, just pointing out it's a method you used before. Again, concentrate on discussing about the edit, not editors. (N0n3up (talk) 07:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC))
So you have no argument to support your change to content? And otherwise you should really check the DATE as well as the time before you make statements such as those above----Snowded TALK 07:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I already mentioned my arguments above. And Yes it's less than 24/hrs from a full 24/hr time, not 12/hr. (N0n3up (talk) 08:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC))
You have made a statement that no one would disagree with. If you want to engage on this subject then you need to respond to my point namely The question is if violence is the defining characteristic and 'republican' should be so qualified. I'll leave your maths to speak for itself ----Snowded TALK 08:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
IMHO both are defining characteristics. If you want to separate both compared to my edit, I'm fine with that. And this is the top part of the edit I'm talking about, not your modifications on the bottom which I'm completely fine with. (N0n3up (talk) 08:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC))
Well in both of the 'Splits' the withdrawal from violence/struggle was also a defining characteristic. The use of violence is clear in the article as well as other aspects of this history. The clear defining characteristic is republicanism. If we add everything else into the lede it will bloat, and choosing violence on its own is a clear POV. Also to be clear I have not modified the article, I've restored its prior stable state ----Snowded TALK 08:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
You asked for my opinion, so I answered. And now you stated your opinion. Yes Republicanism was a defining characteristic, but so was their Violence in action, thus should be mention on the lead as a main defining detail rather than left out on other parts of the article, which I don't think it will "bloat". And I know you restored it to it's stable version, it's the matter of your 1RR that concerns me. And you're gonna have to reference the part where you said that the withdrawal from violence/struggle was one of their characteristics. That's all for now.... We can wait for opinions from other editors if you want. (N0n3up (talk) 08:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC))
Actually the splits are well covered in the article and referenced. So if we include violence, we include them and so on. Hence the issue on bloating, but lets see on other editors but remember its not a vote. On the 1RR issue as I said your maths speaks for itself but I suggest you leave that to monitoring admins and don't get involved ----Snowded TALK 08:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Snowded Although I still lean on to my arguments that violence as a lead characteristic should be mentioned, I am open to opinion. And in regards to not get involved on your 1RR, then fine, although you don't seem to do the same [2] [3] [4]. (N0n3up (talk) 09:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC))
More sophistry from Snowded. A defining feature of the IRA was its embrace of violence. There were plenty of republicans who didn't share it. Gob Lofa (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Gob Lofa Agreed. the IRA was notorious for it's actions to meet their ends, that alone is unarguable and don't see why it shouldn't be included as a defining feature of the IRA. (N0n3up (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC))
The sentence starts with the statement that it was an armed force which makes things pretty clear. The most that you can say is that it was prepared to use violence for that aim the rest is POV. I've made a change based on that by way of a compromise. From the comments above N0n3up was only concerned about including violence in the first paragraph ----Snowded TALK 17:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
What POV? Gob Lofa (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
It not was would be an example given recent history. Not sure what you intended by polities either that might or might not be an example. Maybe you could expand on that a bit ----Snowded TALK 19:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Is not was? Polity speaks for itself. Gob Lofa (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Well how about you help it out and explain why you want it there? Standard request really for you to explain your contented edits rather than demanding other editors answer you questions. ----Snowded TALK 19:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
It's a common noun for the ROI state and the NI part of a state. Now, is not was? Gob Lofa (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Then you would say polities of Ireland or similar, given that Ireland (the state) and Northern Ireland are both named if that is your interpretation then the word is superfluous ----Snowded TALK 20:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Would I? Is it really? Is not was? Gob Lofa (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
You might, it is, no idea ----Snowded TALK 20:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't, it isn't, you should at least have some idea given you wrote "It not was would be an example given recent history" not two hours ago. Gob Lofa (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I was concerned about adding violence as part of the IRA's notable tactics but now the topic seems to have changed. I'll leave it to you guys. Let me know how it goes. (N0n3up (talk) 21:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC))