Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Provisional Irish Republican Army was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 1, 2012 Good article nominee Not listed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 28, 2008, July 28, 2009, July 28, 2010, July 28, 2013, and July 28, 2015.
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

Republican Defence Army[edit]

Hi. Can someone look at this article and link to it if it was a real organisation? Or if not notable AfD it? Gbawden (talk) 09:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

According to CAIN
"A short-lived Dissident Republican grouping referred to by the Independent Monitoring Commission (IMC) in its seventeenth report published in November 2007. It was alleged to have carried an assault in Strabane"
Coverage of said attack. Murry1975 (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Why are UVF and other groups removed from the opponents list in the infobox?[edit]

I have put UVF and UDF in the infobox several times, and they keep getting removed. Am I missing something here?OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I must admit I'm itching to hit the revert button. The infobox is a blunt instrument, compared with the nuances (with references) that could be added to the full article (although in reality I think you would need to write a book): This article mentions "Sectarian attacks and alleged ethnic cleansing" - and "Attacks on other republican paramilitary groups". I think you should start/expand the "Conflicts with Protestant/Loyalist/Unionist paramilitary groups" - I'm sure that would extend way beyond the UVF/UDF. Just linking UVF and UDF should be able to tell you that adding these terms does not add any insight - your relying on the reader to "get your drift". When you do arrive at the relevant wiki article you will see their opponents are not (currently) listed as PIRA but Irish republicans, and Irish nationalists - and that's a gross over simplification from my perspective but hey that's the problem with infoboxes - RTFA. Stacie Croquet (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm just a Wikipedia editor, not claiming to be an expert, but when I look up UDA I find: "The UDA's/UFF's declared goal was to defend Protestant loyalist areas[1] and to combat Irish republicanism, particularly the Provisional IRA."OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ "A history of the UDA". BBC News. 6 January 2010. Retrieved 28 March 2010. 

Removal of "propaganda" regarding loyalist/British collusion[edit]

I certainly agree that the reverted edit regarding collusion is not a NPOV nor is it well sourced. However, I would like to see what others think about exploring this topic given the recent revelations on RTE and BBC Panorama regarding collusion during the Troubles.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 14 external links on Provisional 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"was" the IRA is still active[edit]

All the citations in the first sentence particle claiming the IRA/PIRA are gone is not WP:NPOV. They are biased articles and at best threy merely depict diplomatic puffery. "Ex-IRA commando shakeshands with Queen"? Seriously? The IRA is still committing crimes, even if mostly petty these days they still do rise up. This is nonsense.--Sιgε |д・) 17:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

If you have contradictory sources then please share them. But don't mark the existing sources as "not in citation" when that's clearly not true. In response to your edit summary: a council is not an army, and a threat of a "backlash" (for which we only have one person's word anyway) is not a threat of an armed campaign. – Smyth\talk 14:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


Mabuska, what's your objection to the use of the word "polity"? Gob Lofa (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Mabuska? Gob Lofa (talk) 13:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Anything to add, Snowded? Gob Lofa (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Make the case for your proposed change please. This constant asking of questions rather than making a case is disruptive ----Snowded TALK 20:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
That's a bit rich, coming from you. What makes you believe you're above having to answer questions about your edits? This constant reverting and associated refusal to give explanation is disruptive. Gob Lofa (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Snowded, I feel my wording is clearer. Why did you revert? Gob Lofa (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
You haven't made any case, or even hinted that you might, for including a word that is completely superfluous and adds nothing to what is already there. You have to learn to make a case for contested edits rather than simply demand that other people justify opposing you ----Snowded TALK 09:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Here's a hint for you: "Snowded, I feel my wording is clearer." You have to learn to read talk page discussions rather than simply revert when you're unsure about what changes mean. Gob Lofa (talk) 09:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I read that and noted your feeling, but a feeling is just that. If you maybe shared the reasoning behind this feeling you have? If Gob Lofa feeling something to be right is sufficient criteria for change then the rest of us might as well give up and leave everything to you. You have been opposed on this so constantly going back and making the change knowing full well (i) that you don't have agreement on the talk page and (ii) that you will be reverted is disruptive. ----Snowded TALK 09:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm using a common noun for the polities; what's your issue with that? Don't leave everything; there's quite a few topics where my knowledge is fairly superficial. I make no apologies for reverting anyone who refuses to engage in discussion, which you've been doing here for almost a month. You know that's disruptive. Gob Lofa (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
While a common noun is not that common in day to day use and in this context it really adds no meaning, nor is it helpful. The only two polities are actually named in the sentence. If you didn't mention either of the polities then the use would be OK but I don't think that would help readers. No one can engage in a discussion if you don't use the talk page to explain and justify your edits when others disagree ----Snowded TALK 10:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The sentence in question is incorrect. Éire Nua was a policy document. The IRA's goal in the period was to force British withdrawal from Northern Ireland. Why this endless arguing over a single word when either or both of you could be improving the article? FWIW, if there is to be a word used at all, I think "state" is better than "polity" simply because it is the more commonly used word in reference to NI in books, articles and web pages (including books by nationalist writers). ----Scolaire (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about 'state' because it implies a level of independence that NI never had; it's always been part of the British state. I find 'polity' a useful term because it encompasses both states and subnational entities like NI. Gob Lofa (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
It may be useful in that way, but it's less familiar to readers. But at any rate, if it's between personal preference and frequency of use in the sources I will always go with the latter. Scolaire (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I realise it's not familiar, which is why I usually link it. 'State' has POV problems that 'polity' doesn't. Gob Lofa (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I oppose the use of the word polity. It's one editor trying to push their personal preference. Snappy (talk)
I'm not crazy about the word 'push' either, unless by 'push' you mean 'make a case on the talk page for'. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
It's one editor trying to refusing to accept that they are in the minority. Snappy (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Trying to understanding your English; the majority of contributors to this discussion don't agree with your level. Are you saying I'm refusing or trying to refuse, and failing? Gob Lofa (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Though you are very trying, I have amended my previous statement. Snappy (talk) 11:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I see what you did there! Still, I dispute your contention and reiterate my previous; 'state' has POV problems that 'polity' neatly avoids. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)