Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army/Archive 4

Small cleanup

Removed "However it is not currently listed as a "Foreign Terrorist Organization" by the United States of America." Criteria for said list includes "it must threaten...security of...United States of America." The IRA never has and in all possible certainty never will be a threat to the USA as it is the UK they are fighting against.

I have added "The USA does not classify the IRA/PIRA as an illegal organisation as it does not constitute a threat to the United States." Ste01 16:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Organisations become FTO's if they pose a threat to US citizens, not just the country itself. As Americans are frequent tourists in London (where IRA bombs forced the British to the negotiating table) and other parts of England (and I assume the Occupied Six to some extent at least) they would have been designated for that reason. Brixton Busters 06:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

POV Seafoid

"Those McCartney family members and his fiancee were being used by the Bush adminstration, and most of the people in the U.S. knew it. Bcsurvivor 15:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)"

Folk, I suggest a permanent ban be imposed upon User talk:68.35.182.234, aka Bcsurvivor, aka Devin79 and indeed any other such editor who causes as much hassle on any article. I see absolutly no reason why we should be reasonable to unreasonable people. Fergananim 20:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Fully agree, but is this not the situation allredy, or am in mixing this user up with another one. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that bc survivor is the same person as Devin79 in fairness. Jdorney 13:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

GAC's

I've an issue with this section:

"All levels of the IRA are entitled to send delegates to IRA General Army Conventions (GACs). The GAC is the IRA's supreme decision-making authority. Before 1969, GACs met regularly. Since 1970 they have become less frequent, owing to the difficulty in organising such a large gathering of what is an illegal organisation."

From reading this it is saying that the IRA is the same organisation as the PIRA- a problem noticeable throughout the entire article, is there a reason for the repeated use of 'IRA' when 'PIRA' is being referred to?

The assertion the IRA had always enjoyed large meetings isnt accurate anyway. The IRA has always had trouble meeting in GAC, and frequently in the past ((1939-1945)/(1952-1964) in particular) the majority of its members have been on the run, including the Army council. Plus by 1969 the IRA had been an illegal organisation for a long time, all over the place. Another reason for distinguishing it from the PIRA. Fluffy999 17:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

IICD & IMC

Added details on these groups and their liasons with the PIRA to the article. Also updated the PIRA arms importation and IMC articles with the latest information. Fluffy999 19:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed that there are 2 sections dealing with decommissioning in this article. Plus I just added further details of the decommissioning section that was present in the arms importation article. While all the details arent duplicates, its still 3 places. Fluffy999 20:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Clean up

Can someone clean this discussion page up a bit or archive it? It seems to be full of rants for and against various political positions on one thing and another, Devin79, the KGB, Robert McCartney etc etc. Its hard to see the wood for the trees is what I mean. Fluffy999 02:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Archived. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Fluffy999 07:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

n/p --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Other Activities section

Will be adding more detail to the war on informers in the 1970s.

I re-wrote the section on policing as it seemed to give the POV impression that the PIRA assumed the role of community policeman on its own or sought it out somehow- it never did. In republican areas the community is more likely to watch out for one each other- a legacy of the attacks aimed at it from outsiders. This "looking out for one another" attitude extends to being watchful after the activities of "hoods", drug dealers, thieves, child molestors etc. The PIRA is then frequently involved in "adjudicating" on matters brought to its attention. The matters werent reported to the RUC. Some of the factors around this are alluded to in the article now. The other aspects not alluded to would revolve around "internal housekeeping" of people like informers, but I will add later. Fluffy999 16:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The allegation that the PIRA is still engagded in organized crime should be removed if no source can be cited to support this claim. This seems extremly implausible, as the Army Council has issued very explicit orders to the contrary: that Volunteers are to make use of 'purley political and democractic, and exclusivley peaceful' means, and they are not to 'must not engadge in any other activites whatsoever'. --Filippo Argenti 14:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Casualties

Since its an article about the PIRA, I put in the republican view of the conflict as it pertains to casualties. Seems POV to leave it out when its so at odds with the analysis of casualty figures already presented in the article. Fluffy999 17:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Also noticed that the categorisation section was POV also. I realise this could cause some problems, but I laid out as best I could the for's and against's for the Guerilla / Terrorist thing, including the Crimimalisation, Ulsterisation, Normalisation strategy. I even offered a fifth interpretation.

What was an issue for me was that it was written in terms of "who could think blowing stuff up was an aim of warfare?"- that is what happens in warfare unfortunately. What the PIRA thought it was doing- in its terms, or that the PIRA considered itself as being "at war", or inheriting a tradition of resistance/guerilla warfare is worth mentioning in an article about them. Fluffy999 20:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. One thing I noticed with this article was its relative one-sidedness. While I may believe the PIRA should be considered simple terrorists who lack moral values, and I do not doubt that many people agree with me, it should not be considered in that light for encyclopedic purposes. After all there are probably plenty of people who supported the PIRA's actions. Supporters of the PIRA have made simmilar claims of illicit action on the part of the British forces as a matter of fact, and the same could be said of any war. Wikipedia should really not be a case of the winners writing the history books so to speak.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. We've been over this and over this and over it again. This article is an amalgam of many people's writing and includes many little strands of pov. If you think that some phrase here is unfair or pov, then change it as long as you can back up your changes up with fact. To be honest, I would rather leave out the whole sentence about the provos having killed more of everyone in the troubles altogether, rahter than get into whiether they had the right to kill whoever it was on any particular occassion.

Jdorney 13:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

OK good stuff, leave it in, when both sides are there its nonPOV. I think its also worth starting corresponding sections on casualties & views on terrorist/murderers in the Irish Republican Army and "old IRA" articles. Might get around to it once im done creating all the ww2 stuff. Fluffy999 17:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it is far more important to give consideration to both sides and be inclusive in the interest of NPOV than it is to omit both in order to achieve the same goal. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 19:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Added some images

Added images of mortar weapons constructed by PIRA, and a vehicle checkpoint. Will add detail on their counter intelligence, bomb manufacture, advances in bomb manufacture/technology, telephone warnings, and any other bits and pieces that spring to mind soon. For an article about the group its long on comment, short on detail to be honest. Fluffy999

Regarding your new image, I'm not sure how relevant a mural dedicated to an historic event (in this case 1916) is immediately relevant to the subject of the article. --Damac 12:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well im no art critic but I think the artist is saying, this is how the Easter rising was, and this is what the PIRA have also been at.

Its has been a fairly common theme in PIRA statements- the usual stuff- "united Ireland, 32 county republic, heroes of the 1916 rising, proclamation is unfinished business etc".

And its a prettier mural to be honest, the brown one is just ugly to look at. This latest one, unveiled for the 90th anniversary of the Easter Rising is how the PIRA see themselves, and its even more interesting since they just gave away all their guns. Fluffy999 12:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The other one was dire, yes. I think your image Image:1974election.jpg would be more appropriate or something from the APRN calenders from the 1980s. The article should really dealing with the Provos and not their perception of where they came from. It's only my opinion and I'm not bothered one way or the other.--Damac 12:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the colours. Suppose it can go to a vote but I think in an article about the Provies / Bon Jovi's how they see themselves is also part of the story. A picture paints a thousands words, so using it means theres no need to go into a big story about what they thought they were up to when they were making war or terrorism etc. Fluffy999 12:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The Bon Jovies??

Never heard that one before. I've heard of pin-heads, provos, provies, the RA, the Army etc, but never this one. Jdorney 13:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Its a new one, ive only heard it in Belfast so far. Its not a huge issue, just another bit of trivia. Fluffy999 13:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you're not confusing with the Jehovah's Witnesses - I've heard them referred to as the Bon Jovies. Regardless, I don't think it's necessary in a an encylopaedia to include all nicknames names for particular groups. We can't be a repository for every name thought up by Belfast barflies. If we go down that road, we'll have to include epitephts like "murdering bastards" or "IRA murdering scum" which are far more common for that IRA than Bon Jovies. --Damac 13:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure theyve gotten used to those names, just like the founding fathers of the Free State did. Funny what 90 years can do to peoples memories. Fluffy999

Sorry I take that last comment back. It was uncalled for and rude to you Damac. Fluffy999 14:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There was no need to take it back as there was no offence taken. You obviously removed your comment after you realised how silly and partisan it was. (I've reincluded it for the record). Neither do I have to be reminded about the barbarity of the first Free State administration. What I am amused by though is your belief that I am coming from some political perspective diametrically opposed to yours. By claiming on a talk page that some people refer to the Provos as "murdering bastards" does not make me an apologist for the state-sanctioned murder of 77 people in 1922/23. I don't see the need for me to outline where I stand politically, but for your information, I've never voted FG or FF in my life and am very unlikely to do so in the future.

I think you are doing sterling work on Wikipedia but try and be somewhat more civil when other users raise legitimate concerns with you.--Damac 14:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well im no authority on it, but your comments seem slightly POVish, thats why i removed mine and said i take it back- to stop a comment war. Nevermind all that, this article talk page was full of chit-chat like this before- lets just both stick to getting the articles right. You are doing good work and im coming along. If I can find proof of the use of the term (like graffiti on a wall or in a blog etc.) i will post it soon. Likewise if I can find a more evocative image to fit in that big space. Fluffy999 14:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Devin79 changes

Hello, Im hoping you can help me along with your recent changes to the PIRA article. Ive some issues with your changes, namely:

• citation of the 2001 US State Dept. report
• change of "increasingly" to "increasing"
• PIRA ceasfire ended Feb 1996 you changed it to "November 1996" See Talk:Provisional_IRA_campaign_1969–1997
• insertion of POV statement about their campaign being "highly effective"
• changing "Sinn Féin" to "Sinn Fein"
• removal of all the allegations about McGuinness being a paid agent- the reason for the suspicions in "Republican circles".
• can you cite some sources via footnotes etc for the KGB "trained" the OIRA statement?
• Not that it was your initial statement but is there any evidence the PIRA trained the Mafia to assassinate?

I'm really curious why the entire thing shouldnt be reverted?

File:Belfast mural 13 (cropped).jpg

Also are you sure the brown wonder here is a better image to include? If you didnt like RPG avenue one, can you at least improve on it? Thanks. Fluffy999 18:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

This guy is just a vandal. There's no point reasoning with him. God knows I've tried. What he is doing has no connection with imporving the article, its just an ego trip, hwere he reverts the article to the version that he likes. Just revert his changes. Jdorney 14:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks. I had seen the KGB stuff on this talk page before it got archived, and some of those changes looked reasonable, but wasnt sure. Thanks Fluffy999 14:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone else provided the info from the actual book, the Mitrokhin Archives, which turned out to be about the Official IRA. Devin79 wanted the article to say that the PIRA was funded, armed and trained by the KGB and the Stasi, which turned out to be a total fantasy. Among Devin's other achievments are unsourced and made up casualty figures, POV language and citing non existant sources. He claims a website or book says something and proceeds to add his pov accordingly, but when checked out it has almost always been found that the source does not say this at all. If I'm tetechy about this article and others sometimes, its because I've had to waste so much time protecting them from this user. Oh and I forgot to add that you can expect to be called a supporter of loyalist paramilitaries if you don't agree with his edits. Jdorney 15:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

First time for everything I suppose :) Fluffy999 09:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ingram & McGuinness

Added latest retread of allegations, and info on the Tohill 4. Doesnt look good for Martin Ingram, its not like people dont know who he is :) Fluffy999 21:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Added Internal Security Unit (ISU) to the informer section earlier. The "war on informers" I mention above could probably be expanded in the ISU article instead of this one. Fluffy999 10:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I will not be responding to messages left on my talkpage or on pages for articles I have worked on. Will no longer be contributing to wikipedia. Thank you. Fluffy999 13:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This article really needs to be factual and free of bias... So once again I have fixed it, and will continue to do so.

The truth is that for a long time this article has been full of factual errors and bias. It appears that the main editor of this page is very anti-IRA, and therefore has inserted much of his own bias into the article. Everything that I edited into the article is free of Bias for either side, and are facts backed up by sources, all of which are acknowledged within the article itself. What is left is the most factual and unbiased article that can be assembled. It is a shame that the editors of Wikipedia are not more stringent in thier fact checking, and are not more wary of article Bias. If Wikipedia is ever going to be looked upon as a serious project, it must contain accurate, bias free articles. I will be monitoring this article regularly for changes, and I will ensure that those changes are factual, or they will be erased...simple as that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.182.234 (talk)

• Please address the comments made by Jdorney and Fluffy999 in the section "Devin79 changes" above. Specifically:

• Why can't we find your casualty figures anywhere on the State Department website? Citations must be exact.
• It appears that the source you cited The Mitrokhin Archives was about the Official IRA, not the Provisional IRA.
• Why are you comparing the number of victims of all "loyalist terror groups" (several different organizations) to the victims of the PIRA (one single organization)? This isn't comparing like with like... Demiurge 09:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is this user (Devin79) not banned? He repeatedly vandalises this page and says that he will continue to do so, what else do you have to do get banned? Jdorney 10:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This page is "anti-IRA"???? Hardly, it actually describes the organisation in terms of understanding- that isnt something you get in other media. I think editors have done a good job and have enjoyed contributing to the article. The republican analysis of the conflict was a paragraph I wrote- the figures arent in there because the figures still dont work out in the favour of PIRA- they still killed more people etc. Its redundant to restate what is already covered- they simply "went banana's" killing people. Fluffy999 10:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Good example of a recent Devin change: in the section "Numerical strength", an RUC report of 1986, cited in Brendan O'Brien's "The Long War" is quoted. It says that the RUC believed that the IRA had about 300 members in asu's and around 750 in total in NI. Devin, without changing the reference, changes it to say that they there were 600 in ASU's and 1000 in total, while leaving the reference the same. This is pure vandalism, misquoting a source to say something that it does not say. There's more. to satisfy his ego, this user reverts whole passages contributed by other users so that he can reinsert things that he wrote - which are usually innacccurate. He is a vandal and a liar and needs to be banned. Jdorney 12:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The Editors of this page, are really an insult to the ideal of Wikipedia

I love how the author's of this page, are so freaked out when ANYONE else but them, actually takes the time to research facts and uses them (sourced) to correct thier innacuracies. The Authors of this page have insrted so many bias and unfactual things into this article, it's no wonder Wikipedia is looked down on by Schools, and professional historians. If Wikipedia is ever to be credible, these authors need to put aside thier pathetic ego's, and allow others to help edit these pages with sourced facts...even if the facts are contrary to the bias of the original authors. I will edit this page daily, and I will inform Wikipedia about the unprofessional behavior of the editor's of this page, who revert and discard any changes to the article, no matter how well sourced or factual they are.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Devin79 (talk • contribs)

If you do not source your edits, and continue to litter them with inaccuracies, then the edits will simply be removed. Your edits are littered with inaccuracies. If they are being deleted it is because of the quality of them. If they stand up to scrutiny they survive. If they don't, they are binned. It is that simple. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 22:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)}

The authors of this page are anyone else! It appears to me that YOU are the one, Devin79, who gets so freaked out when anyone and everyone else corrects your inaccuracies and POV edits. The reason Wikipedia may well be "looked down upon" by anyone is because of the over-inflated ego of people such as yourself. --Mal 20:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering the tone and quality of writing of your screed, Devin79, and the fact that you seemingly could not even be bothered to sign it, how is anyone to take anything that you say seriously? It is you, sir, who have lowered the standards of editing and contributing to this article. I do my best to treat everyone I encounter on Wikipedia with dignity, and to assume good faith in the contributions and edits they make, but there are times, and this is certainly one of them, when such good faith is simply impossible. Look to yourself, sir, and the choices you have made, before you attack others with such a wide brush. Good day. ---Charles 20:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Origins

I've changed the latest changes to the origins section a bit. Personally I feel that such material would be better off in Irish Republican Army (1922-1969), however if it is going to be here then a few things need to be ironed out. This article is not commentary, it is not our job to to approve or dissaprove of the IRA's ideology or actions. Our job is to explain them. Thus, lines like, "the IRA continued to oppose both states even though they had the support of the majority of their inhabitants", are not helpful. The reader will want to know why this came about.

Point two, the IRA never waged a campaign against the Free State after 1923. Some armed actions yes, but never a guerrilla campaign. In the 1930s, their hope was that when republicans (Fianna Fail) got into government, the Free State would reveal its anti-democratic character, appeal to the British for help and re-start the war against the common enemy. Of course this did not happen, because Cosgrave peacefully ceded power to FF in 1932. In General Order No. 8, issued in 1948, the IRA publicly disavowed "any armed actions whatsoever" against the Irish State.

Point three, bound up with the latter, the anti-treaty IRA were actually a majority of that organisation in 1922 (by 8-10 according to Dorothy McArdle, by 2-1 according to Richard Mulcahy). Of course CnaG and the pro-treaty parties won the election and wre therefore a majority in the country at large. The anti-treaty position however only became a minority among republicans after 1926, or possibly 1932.

Regards, Jdorney 15:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

interesting article

Anyone think [1] should be put in the article as well? Superdude99 12:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Present tense

Most of the writings on the Provos use the present tense, although they disbanded in 2005 and it's been comfirmed in 2006 they don't exist as an organisation anymore. I'm going to start changing references to the PIRA to the past tense soon, for example:

The Provisional Irish Republican Army was an Irish Republican paramilitary organisation

As opposed to the current

The Provisional Irish Republican Army is an Irish Republican paramilitary organisation

Any objections? -- -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 22:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Bit early for that imo.

Jdorney 00:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

They disbanded over a year ago, and an independent commision ruled that they no longer exist as an organisation. What makes you think it's too early? -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 01:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

One year is a very short time in the context of an organisation that sees itself as having been in existance since 1916. Lets just wait and see for a while. Jdorney 09:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The IRA have not disbanded. They have, however, put all their weapons beyond use. The IRA, if you check have released statements since this and on January 1st 2007 released their annual New Year statement. (Irish Republican 02:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC))

Kingsmill and IRA court-martials

In this edit [2], the claim that the IRA may have court-martialling those members who carried out the Kingsmill massacre was removed. It was probably correct to remove it as it was unsourced, but now the impression is given that these sectarian killings were sanctioned by the IRA. However, many IRA supporters would be adamant that the IRA was against all forms of sectarianism and took seriously the issue of the discipline of its members. The current text gives the (unsourced and/or POV) impression that the IRA targeted people because of the religion. Any suggestions? Something along the lines of reminding people that any army contains undisciplined members who go against what the army is trying to do, and suggest that the IRA claims to take discipline seriously (such as its offer in a public statement to execute the ex-republicans who took Robert McCartney's life) Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 21:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• I've changed it to say that IRA units carried out these killings, as you correctly point out we need a source if we're going to to say that the IRA Army Council ordered them. Demiurge 21:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

According to Toby Harnden's "Bandit Country" (1999), p 134, the Kingsmill massacre was ordered by IRA chief of staff Seamus Twomey on the suggestion of Brian Keenan, who argued that disproportionate retaliation against Protestants was the only way to stop Catholics being killed by loyalists. According to Sean O'Callaghan, who was then head of the IRA Southern Command, "Twomey and Keenan did not consult with the Army Council on it and there was a lot of shit about it afterwards. Gerry Adams wasn't happy about it and said something like, 'there'll never again be another Kingsmills' ".

According to Harnden, p 136, the PIRA South Armagh Brigade was believed to have been behind the attack, as two armalite rifles used in the massacre were later captured by the RUC from them. Harnden quotes a South Armagh IRA man, "Volunteer M", as saying that, "IRA members were ordered by their leaders to carry out the Kingsmill massacre" (p. 137).

Jdorney 22:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The ban

now that the Provisional IRA has convinced the international monitering commission that it has rendered all of it's weapons useless and stopped recruitment is there any chance that it could be legalized? I've heard before that some in the IRA want to become a political organization and Seanna Walsh in his statement encouraged all volunteers to engage in purely political activities. Just a question.

Socialist?

The introduction states that the IRA seeked to establish an all-Ireland socialist state, and cites the Eire Nua policy to back this up. However, I find this to be somewhat misleading, as the Eire Nua policy was repudiated upon Gerry Adams rise to power, and the majority of the members of the IRA were, to my understanding, relativley conservative. And being too"socialist" would undoubedly be discouraged or looked down on, as it might remind people of the Marxist 'Official' IRA, who the Provos weren't usually on good terms with.

So the socialist reference should probably be modified, put in context, etc. --Filippo Argenti 02:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

However, I was just reading the Green Book [1977] and it said that "Again he [the Volunteer] should examine his political motives bearing in mind that the Army [IRA] are intent on creating a socialist republic". So I could be wrong. Thoughts, anyone?--Filippo Argenti 03:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If you check the dates, the Green Book 1977, the Éire Nua policy was dropped by Sinn Féin in 1982, with all refrence to it removed from their constitution in 1983. Sinn Féin would be leftist leaning, but are not marxist as some people claim. RSF would be more conservative then Sinn Féin--padraig3uk 21:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Republican Sinn Fein more "conservative" than Provisional Sinn Fein? Unlike Provisional Sinn Fein, RSF still uses the Éire Nua, which is pretty much the document that defined the Republican movement's goals as a socialist all-island Irish Republic. If anything, I'd say that makes RSF even more left-wing than Sinn Fein, though if you mean they're "conservative" in the sense that they're more traditionalist Republicans by method (in their adherence to armed struggle and abstentionism), you'd be correct.

Do you mean "conservative" as in "conserving the Republican traditions" or "conservative" in the family values and big business way?GiollaUidir 21:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think some of you guys are thinking of the Provos as "conservative" in the wrong way. Neither the PIRA nor Provisional Sinn Fein are "conservative" in the sense that Americans think of when they're talking about conservatives. In American, that seems to mean importance on traditional family social values (PROTESTANT values, I might add, which the Provos are clearly not), anti-government intervention in the economy, or whatever else you associate with the American Republican Party. When it comes to political orientation, Irish Republicanism has almost always been associated with leftism - while the original IRA wasn't socialist, it was heavily permeated by socialist thinkers (James Connolly being an obvious example). Anyway, the Provos were strongly against the OIRA's Marxism, but the main reason wasn't so much feelings of anti-Communism. It was mostly because they believed that the OIRA's strongly Marxist outlook had made it ultra-secular and thus unwilling to participate in defending Catholic nationalist communities, which was of course the primary reason the Provos broke off from the IRA in 1969. The fact that the Green Book and Éire Nua both describe a political philosophy for the PIRA that is quite obviously socialism (that is, economically egalitarian) should indicate that the Provos were perhaps not as different from the OIRA as they claimed to be - it clearly establishes them as the polar opposite of American conservatives.

Now, as Padraig3uk has pointed out, both of these documents were also dropped by the Provos in the 1980s, but that has nothing to do with the PIRA becoming right-wing or anti-socialist. The Green Book was probably dropped because the conventional military tactics recommended (in the 1977 edition, at least) were no longer part of the PIRA's general strategy by the 1980s, so it was simply outdated - the political program only makes up one chapter of the book, anyway. Éire Nua was dropped because many Northern Republicans saw it as recognizing the legitimacy of Unionist rule in the North due to its power-sharing recommendations. Don't think the PIRA ever gave up the vision of a socialist all-island Irish Republic that was described in both documents - plenty of PIRA (as well as CIRA and RIRA) literature released since have continued to refer to Republican goals for post-unification Ireland as "democratic socialism", not "laissez faire capitalism" or anything associated with American Republicans.

Anyway, to make a long story short, the Provos might still be viewed as "conservative" in their adherence to the traditional model of Irish Republicanism established since the War for Independence, but they are still fighting a left-wing cause. Even if they refuse to be called Marxist like the OIRA, they are still quite clearly socialist. --posted by 193.61.200.145

I said the Éire nua policy was dropped not the Green Book, the later was updated to remove reference to the Éire nua policy, Sinn Féin didn't abandon Socialism either it refined the policies of party through different policy papers and discussion documents to what they have today. People should also remember that the Éire nua policy abandoned in 1982 by Sinn Féin [3] bears little resembalance to the policy that RSF use today.--padraig3uk 15:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

In his autobiography, Sean MacStiofain explains the PIRA's goal was democratic socialism as opposed to Marxist socialism (as advocated by the OIRA and later the INLA). He argues that while on the one hand the so-called "conservative" IRA leadership saw capitalism as imperialistic and exploitative, it also saw the Marxism of the USSR and China as equally tyrannical; he further claims that democratic socialism was advocated by the authors of the Easter Proclamation. MacStiofain also admits that the IRA leadership generally avoided mentioning their goal for a socialist United Ireland when they were trying to acquire weapons and funds from NORAID in the U.S. because they knew that those Irish-Americans were generally quite conservative and would not support any type of socialist agenda, Marxist or not (the only exception being George Harrison, who was a left-wing Irish Republican). So that is what the PIRA means when it states that its goal is a 32-county socialist Irish Republic; their political orientation would be left-wing but not far-left like the OIRA and INLA. Of course, the Irish Republican Socialist Movement does tend to refer to the Provos as being "right-wing" and "reactionary", but I digress.

It had always been my understanding that the Provos split from the Officials because the Officials were too left-wing for them. This does not mean that the Provos were right-wing, I'd always thought of them as Catholic Centrists. Morandir 06:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Centrist? Not in the least bit. The Provisionals' rejection of Marxism had more to do with the fact that the leadership (particularly Sean MacStiofain) ignorantly associated all Marxism with the reformism of the Officials and the "state capitalism" of the Soviet government, whereas they believed the traditional Republican values of revolutionary armed struggle were the only way forward. Catholic identity? Only in the sense that they believed working-class unity between Protestants and Catholics was not a feasible goal in 1969 because it was more important to defend the Catholic community from Loyalist violence and not be seen as the "I Ran Away" Army.

Everything else about the Provos' ideology was revolutionary, and therefore quite far left-of-center. You only need to consider the beliefs and rhetoric stated in Provisional documents such as Eire Nua and the Green Book. They regarded their struggle as being akin to that of the various African and Central American republics that had fought for independence from imperialist Western countries in the post-war era. They saw the oppression and poverty of the Catholic population as symptoms of imperialism that could only be redressed by a 32-county socialist Republic (and lest you forget, the word "socialist" always appears in just about every document stating the Provisionals' goals for a United Ireland). And they considered Marxist-oriented nationalist groups such as the Basque Fatherland and Liberty, the Palestine Liberation Organization, and the African National Congress to be their comrades in the struggle against capitalism and imperialism. If it wasn't for the fact that some of their constituents (particularly in the AOH) were quite conservative, I think the Provisional IRA might as well have been a Marxist organization. In terms of their beliefs and rhetoric, they were 90% of the way there.

It's an ironic reversal of a trend, I suppose - in any other country, the democratic socialists would probably be the reformists whereas the Marxists would be the violent revolutionaries, whereas in the case of the IRA split it's the other way around. Either way, they were still a leftist group. Only the IRSM would disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.227.49 (talk)

WikiProject IRA?

Hi all, I'm rather new to the Wiki (just joined up a few days ago), but the whole WikiProject concept seems like an effective tool for gathering a group of people together to work on a specific subject. I'm primarily interested in contributing to areas related to Irish nationalism, and the Irish Republican Army, and I've noticed a few of you have quite a lot of involvement in the same area. So, I wonder if anyone would be interested in forming a WikiProject focusing on Irish Nationalism? Wikipeda:WikiProject Irish Republican Army seems like a good title to me! WP:WPIRA would be a great shortcut! I'm posting this up on many different pages, so I would especially appreciate it if, if you're interested, you would join me at User talk:Johnathan Swift#WikiProject IRA. Erin Go Bragh 06:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Unprotect please

There's no basis for CreativeLogic's edits to stand, given that he's tried to add a reference that doesn't prove what he's saying. He's trying to fit a source to his POV rather than writing from the source, it's POV pushing at its worst. It's long been established Tom Murphy has been smuggling for decades, before he became Chief of Staff, so how the actions of one man and his associates can be used to smear the rest of the IRA escapes me. The Independent article has several examples at the bottom - Newry no mention of IRA in two sources, Belfast no mention of IRA, County Antrim was UVF and Jim Johnston was Red Hand Commando. This edit summary is highly inappropriate as well. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I totaly agree this was pointed out to CreativeLogic's at the time yet he insisted in including the source.--padraig3uk 17:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

User talk:212.183.134.128 if you care to check the source for the info you are trying to re-insert, which had been removed for the reason that the source given Dosen't support the claims made as they refer to loyalist groups, as for you insertion of the claim of 38 killings since the ceasefire, you provide a source that is highly POV and dubious at the least.--padraig3uk 11:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

United States FTOs and Terrorism

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/31947.pdf

This article would state that many NI paramilitary groups are indeed considered as terrorist groups by the US, but not necessarily as Foreign Terrorist Organisations.

Do we make a distinction in this article? There are various PDFs on the government site, including ones that refer to events as recent as the Northern Bank robbery.

Further, is this something to apply across the board? Thoughts welcome. 82.4.220.108 18:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

See here. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, so I ask once again, do we make a distinction? The omission here is enough to once again slant a person's interpretation in an unfair manner. 82.4.220.108 22:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Based on what? A PDF file without a date? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I can play that. According to the US State government website, the date of the PDF is 2007-04-03. You can easily verify this by accessing their website directly. I'd say that's a good deal more recent than half the other articles quoted. 82.4.220.108 18:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see that date on the PDF file. As previously established, I'm not chasing round based on your whims. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The date is listed beside the article, when searched on the US State government website. The most recent *report*, which is older than the article I just showed you, is located here:

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2005/65275.htm

The PDF is more recent, as evidenced by the search, and as such should really be the first port of call. 82.4.220.108 20:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

As previously established, I'm not chasing round based on your whims. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I take that as acceptance of the source, its just a shame you don't have the civility to admit it. Reverts will be seen as no less than vandalism, as you have had ample opportunity to refute. 82.4.220.108 00:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sadly not, as previously stated it's an un-dated PDF file, and you've yet to provide a source establishing a date. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Erm, sadly yes, the second link I gave you is not only dated, it also lists them under further terrorist organisations - or did you not care to read it? 82.4.220.108 01:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I did, and it lists them under "OTHER GROUPS OF CONCERN". Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. That is a list of other terrorist groups, currently not designated as FTOs, but still under observation by various US counterterrorism depts, if you read the line in full. To back this up, an account of PIRA activity is listed in Chapter 5, dealing with European terrorism. The list at the end of the article, which I linked to, delineates FTO from TO, the difference being that one is a threat to US interests, the other is not. The current ceasefire is the reason why it is merely a TO (still involved with crime, according to the report) and not an FTO like its more active relatives. This is actually even clearer with respect to its predecessor report of 2004 (the same list appears but is titled "Other Selected Terrorist Organizations").

Furthermore, if the US State Govt is not a reliable source with regards to their own policy, than who or what exactly do you suggest is??? False accusations are not becoming.

Shall I amend the source link to include both the list AND the report on their activities within Chapter 5? Please make your response and undoubted objections clear, rather than leaving a vague reply and only later instigating reverts which you couldn't discuss at the time. Ta. 82.4.220.108 02:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The 2004 report is not relevant, considering the 2005 report supercedes it. It's now staggeringly clear why you refused to give a link to a date for the PDF file, as this page shows when the PDF file was produced, as part of the "2003 (Patterns of Global Terrorism)" report in 2004. This is clearly supported by the actual contents of the PDF file, given not once is a date post-2003 referred to, and there is no mention of the IRA statement of July 2005, so the claim it was published in 2007 is utter codswallop. Also, stop lying. The source states under "Other Groups of Concern" (not "further terrorist organisations" as you falsely claimed):

The following groups of concern have not been designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations under 8 USC Section 1189, although many have been designated under other U.S. Government counterterrorism authorities.

Note the use of the word "many" as opposed to "all", and that it makes no reference to the "many" being classed as terrorist organisations by the US State Department. Therefore the sources prove nothing, except your continued disruptive attempts to push a POV, and that combined with the other evidence you are clearly a single purpose account with no intention of improving Wikipedia. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I stand by the fact that the search function on the page turns up a date in 2007. Check it yourself, but please do not make false claims to the contrary. Secondly, you refer to the first PDF document, which was not the one I linked or referred to in the wikiarticle. A simple check of the edit history shows an htm file. Your "reason" for the revert is therefore nothing short of an obvious and blatant lie, and again a check of the edit will show that the file was in fact accurately dated for access and creation. Please do not attempt to fudge these two files in a poor attempt to slander me. Thirdly, and which you have tellingly ignored because it inconviently opposes your POV, is that the main text I refer to, being the most recent Country Report, clearly lists PIRA actions. I stated this above, that it is clearly visible in Chapter 5's report on European terrorism. Furthermore, a visit to the US National CounterTerrorism Center (http://www.nctc.gov/) lists attacks in 2006 by the IRA. The Worldwide Incidents Tracking System lists two attacks in 2006 - the reason for this being that the terrorist group is still under global surveillance, ceasefire or no. So we have the NCTC, the most recent terrorism Country Report, and the most recent list of terrorist organisations ALL following the actions of the PIRA.

You've tried insults, lies, false accusations, you've claimed the US Govt is not reliable when quoting their own policy, so what's next? I suppose the NTC is unreliable too? Your position looks increasingly ridiculous in the face of more and more evidence, and certainly clearly evident of a lack of NPOV with regards to these groups.

I am more than happy to list these three sources as an amended and expanded footnote compared to my earlier, legitimate, edit. Furthermore, it would certainly be worthwhile, considering the time invested for what should have been a minor edit, to use these sources across the board with regards to these groups. I will, of course, give you opportunity to refute, although ignoring my reply, as you have done elsewhere, is only further evidence of your seeming bias. 82.4.220.108 17:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Afraid not, my comments about your dishonesty stand. The sources are clear, as is your agenda. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It is an htm file. It is dated at the top of the page. Anyone can see it in the edit. Your ignorance of three verifiable sources is patently ridiculous, but unfortunately this is not a joking matter since it relates to nothing less than propaganda.

I have fairly attempted to make clear the facts, even stating clearly that it is absent from the FTO list due to ceasefire. 82.4.220.108 17:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the diff. Here is the link from it. Nowhere in that link does it state the Provisional IRA (or even IRA) are currently classed as a terrorist organisation by any branch of the US government. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That looks awfully like an htm link to me, dated at the top, not the dateless PDF you claim to have reverted. I also note you do not have the good courtesy to apologise and admit your untruth. You have also failed to address the issue - three sources, chained together.

A US report on terrorism, with their activities. Their appearance on a list of "other groups" that may be designated by other US CT authorities. A US CT website listing their actions as recent as 2006.

Straightforward logic - the US views them as a terrorist group. Not an FTO, certainly, but a terrorist group nonetheless. Even setting aside their appearance on the "Other Groups" list, the other two references stand. Hence the need for the distinction in the article (FTO/TO), which is why I did so and mentioned their ceasefire in order to maintain accuracy and NPOV.

You are unhappy that one source does not show the entire story - fair enough. I can list all three, as stated above and ignored by yourself. If you dislike that specific one, I can use the other two, although I find the one you're addressing to be critical to the difference between FTO and TO. 82.4.220.108 18:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No apology needed, I've done nothing except expose your falsehoods. You attempted to justify your version based on the PDF, and the HTM document doesn't support your version either. Kindly stop trying to insert unsourced POV into the article, thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You accuse me of inserting an undated PDF file - I inserted a dated htm file. I have now shown you three sources, two of which don't even need either the PDF or the htm, and now you refuse to discuss them. Motive? 82.4.220.108 21:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you inserted a dated HTM file that didn't source the information you were adding, motive? You haven't shown me any sources, just spurious vague hints about sources or links to home pages. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Why misleadingly state it is an undated PDF? Why refuse to apologise for your error? Regardless -

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/enemy/index.htm where the source of the page indicates a creation date of 04/14/2006, please note "Read about specific terrorist groups." linked article http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/45323.pdf "Other Selected Terrorist Organizations" lists PIRA. Also, once again http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2005/ reports on terrorism, with specific regard to "Chapter 1 -- Legislative Requirements and Key Terms" defining key terms, "Chapter 5 -- Country Reports: Europe and Eurasia Overview" detailing PIRA activity, various quotes, most relevant being "maintained its capacity as a terrorist organization" and as mentioned previously "Chapter 8 -- Foreign Terrorist Organizations" with regards to the opinion of other US counterterrorist authorities, all of which come under a single remit. Please note difference between FTO and general terrorist organisation (see Chapter 1 and relevant links quoted within the report).

U.S. Counterterrorism Team member "National Counterterrorism Center" http://www.nctc.gov/ with respect to Worldwide Incidents Tracking System (WITS) http://wits.nctc.gov/ , which can be searched for IRA activity (as well as splinter groups) and returns results as recent as 2006, indicative that they fall within the sphere of interest of the NCTC/NCC, see earlier definitions.

I should think there's more than enough there. 82.4.220.108 22:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

28 April 2006 trumps any earlier dated documents. Sorry I don't search websites, provide a link or this discussion is over. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I provided a good half dozen links there, most of which you could find by clicking the relevant subdivision of the reports on terrorism. In any case, your reply would indicate that I need only refer to two quotes. Firstly, "maintained its capacity as a terrorist organization" from "Chapter 5 -- Country Reports: Europe and Eurasia Overview" dated April 28, 2006. http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2005/64342.htm It belongs to the same report that you have just stated "trumps any earlier documents". The most recent article from WITS would be http://wits.nctc.gov/ViewIncident.do?icn=200697747 which indicates IRA activity is still being tracked by the National Counterterrorism Center. 82.4.220.108 00:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Neither of those sources states the PIRA are currently classed as a terrorist organisation, bad luck. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you check the 13th report of the IMC (no link, as I'm sure you can find it yourself) it's made pretty clear the IMC thinks the CIRA was reponsible for the November 2006 incident in Keady, so it looks like the Americans don't even know one group of IRA from another doesn't it? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) maintained its capacity as a terrorist organization" - Quite clear that it is still classed as a terrorist organization, and again only terrorist organizations appear in these reports, as defined in Chapter 1. Second, the NCTC link makes it abundantly clear, by example, that they are still collating and researching IRA activities. To your other point, the IMC handles its own research, and its entirely possible for several agencies to draw different conclusions from the same evidence. Considering the perceived overlap between splinter groups, this isn't surprising. Its worth noting though that the "trump" document lists CIRA, PIRA, and RIRA separately, lists the non-ceasefire groups as FTOs, and the WITS database also makes a distinction. It seems the Americans can tell the groups apart easily enough.

82.4.220.108 00:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on, do you think I don't check what the links say? In the first half of 2005, the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) maintained its capacity as a terrorist organization. It's not a valid source. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd certainly expect an editor to check the links. The quote is still fine. I assume you are implying that their capacity may have lowered post-2005, but that doesn't stop them being a terrorist organisation. 82.4.220.108 02:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't say they are currently classed as a terrorist organisation, bearing in mind their classification was changed after July 2005. It's not going in, deal with it and move on. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, with this edit I seem to have revisited this controversy, should have read the whole talk page first. However, I maintain that the previous text was misleading in implying that because the PIRA are not on the FTO list that they are "not currently listed as a terrorist organisation in the United States of America by the U.S. State Department" Apart from the "in the United States" wording which is unclear for foreign terrorist organisations, I think that inclusion of the IRA in the Country Reports on Terrorism 2006 > Chapter 6 -- Terrorist Organisations > Other Groups of Concern where it talks about "training and recruiting terrorists" and "receiving funds, arms, and other terrorist-related materiel [sic]", makes this conclusion unwarranted. I don't think this is strong enough to say that the US has designated it a terrorist organisation or somesuch formulation, only that we ought to be clear exactly what we are saying (i.e. it is not a proscribed organisation under the FTO), and not go too much further than that. --Coroebus 10:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

One Night In Hackney, now that you have reverted me I'd appreciate it if you would engage with my concerns. Although you say "been over that in depth, see talk page" I can only see an argument with 82.4.220.108 over whether the IRA should be said to be designated a terrorist organisation by the US, or whether it isn't. Whereas I am arguing that we should be explicit that the IRA is not listed by the US on the FTO list, which is somewhat different from saying that the US does not regard the IRA (or INLA, or UVF, or UDA) as a terrorist organisation. To say that an organisation the State Department lists in 'Country Reports on Terrorism' in the chapter on 'Terrorist Organisations' is therefore not a terrorist organisation according to the US government is OR of the highest degree. If we simply state that it is not listed as an FTO we avoid any debate of this kind. --Coroebus 14:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit regarding stated goals and Long War

I note you reverted it back the exact text of the Green Book, without clarifying who exactly "enemy personnel" are.

"We have enemies through ignorance, through our own fault or default and of course the main enemy is the establishment. "

"The establishment is all those who have a vested interest in maintaining the present status quo in politicians, media, judiciary, certain business elements and the Brit war machine comprising, the Brit Army, the U.D.R., R.U.C. (r) [reserve], Screws, Civilian Searchers. The cure for these armed branches of the establishment is well known and documented. But with the possible exceptions of the Brit Ministers in the 'Northern Ireland Office' and certain members of the judiciary, the overtly unarmed branches of the establishment are not so clearly identifiable to the people as our enemies as say armed Brits or R.U.C. "

You might want to see fit to add that to the article at some point. 82.4.220.108 22:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

That said, it's pretty clear given "for their withdrawal" who is being referred to and it isn't the majority of the above. Feel free to add a clarification if you want to though, bearing that in mind. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I would very much like to add clarification, as you well know, but you're also aware its hard to do so with people reverting on instinct. The quote I provided you is unnecessarily long, I think we can both agree. I do think that we should reach a quick consensus on a careful wording of "unarmed members of the establishment". That one line could be horribly misconstrued! It would save us editing back and forth and thus avoid unnecessary cluttering of the Edit record. Thanks! 82.4.220.108 18:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

As stated above, it's breathtakingly clear that "personnel" refers to the British Army based on the term "withdrawal", therefore there will be no mention of "unarmed members of the establishment". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Your arbitrary definition, labelling it as British Army personnel, is completely at odds with the text quoted. Its certainly not breathtakingly clear, considering the media can hardly come under the remit of the British Army (except in only the most paranoid of minds). As stated above, exactly how much or how little do we add? Unarmed members of the establishment are mentioned in the quote, I'm giving you opportunity to clarify that this is primarily interpreted NOT to mean civilians. I assume that IS your POV? I don't see why you can't be civil about this. 82.4.220.108 00:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to my previous point, I'm done with your debating. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering my quote from the Green Book is entirely valid, and encompasses far more than just British Army personnel, I find it saddening, but at the same time hilarious, that you've invoked the word "troll". It's hardly my fault the Green Book lists the media, businesses, and the legal profession as "enemy personnel" - but hiding it from Wikipedia doesn't help you any. 82.4.220.108 01:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please suggest how many of the groups you claim are "enemy personnel" (despite the word personnel not being used) could be "withdrawn", given they are native to Northern Ireland? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"I claim"... no no no, they ARE groups the Green Book claims are the "enemy", as I quoted extensively above. As the article stands, "British Army" is just grossly misleading. We should be as clear as possible, and since you prefer to revert first and give reasons later, I think it would be wiser if you could suggest a more concise form of the above quote. Again, bear in mind it encompasses the media, judiciary, and politicians - so its most certainly not acceptable as it stands.

82.4.220.108 02:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to my previous point. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

All. Firstly, I suggest "enemy personnel [British Army]" is to be removed as this is under dispute. It is a half truth, and misleading.

An amended quote, either inserted after 1. or after 5., stating something like "For the purposes of the Green Book, enemy personnel are broadly defined as opposing politicians and media groups, the judiciary, certain business elements in particular, and the British Army in general."

I've tried to clarify that the enemy are opposing politicians, etc, to avoid any potentially ridiculous misconceptions that ANY media figure or politician was a target. I believe that covers the main groups appropriately, although it would be better to find a way to combine judiciary with the prison service. Strictly speaking, I think we could agree the UDR has effectively ceased to be, and the RUC are also a defunct entity. Unless you wish to add something like "and former organisations such as UDR and RUC" just for full transparency. I am unaware if recent edits of the Book deem the RUC and PSNI synonymous - I think at the current time its rather a matter of opinion amongst certain elements, and probably not relevant to discussion regarding the original book.

Comments? 82.4.220.108 17:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The source does not state those groups are enemy personnel, therefore it is totally unacceptable. If you wish to remove the current clarification you are welcome to, but it won't be replaced by anything else. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"Personnel" is obviously in relation to the British Army. It can't mean politicians, media, judiciary, screws, RUC, etc because they can't "withdraw". They can stop being politicians, media, RUC etc. but they can't withdraw, because they're in ireland to start off with. Derry Boi 17:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The source states in clear terms who the enemy is - the above groups. I have quoted the text of the Green Book extensively. Please take adequate time to read the quotations. The "main enemy" is defined as "the establishment". "The establishment" is then set into separate groups.

Enemy personnel are those in the employ of the groups cited - this follows from the dictionary definition of the term. The groups need to be detailed for clarity, in order to ensure NPOV and the accuracy of the article. YOU may want to believe that the Green Book only lists the British Army as the enemy, but as the above quotes show, you are quite quite wrong.

Further, opposing politicians, media, members of the British legal system, prison system, etc are more than capable of withdrawing - to presumably be replaced by their Irish equivalents, and thus creating a united Ireland.

I am quoting from the Book, no more, no less. To use only one set of quotes, and corrupt or ignore another set, is only further evidence of a lack of NPOV by malicious omission of the facts. 82.4.220.108 17:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Where in the book does it specifically state those groups are enemy personnel? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"A war of attrition against enemy personnel" "the main enemy is the establishment". "The establishment is..." - see extended quote above.

All three quotes directly from the Green Book.

Personnel defined in the dictionary as those belonging to a group or organisation. Enemy personnel therefore being those people belonging to enemy groups or organisations. I should say its fairly straightforward from there. People working for the enemy, the main enemy is the establishment, the establishment is the following groups, list of groups. A war of attrition against establishment personnel, if you want an INCREDIBLY shortened version. 82.4.220.108 18:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

So it doesn't specifically state that then? Thanks for the clarification. That plus your attempt to explain how most of those groups could be "withdrawn" is clearly sufficient for the version you suggest not to be included. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I gave you exact quotes, from the Green Book, that set out the definition of the enemy and enemy personnel. They are neither fabricated, nor inaccurate. I suggest your dispute is with the source material. 82.4.220.108 21:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Then I suggest this discussion is over, and the article will remain as is, or the clarification will be removed. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite follow - if you're unhappy with the shortened version I have suggested for conciseness, then the full quote should be used in its unaltered form, in an identical manner to its current appearance and interpretation on Wikipedia, and relevant publications such as "AN ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF WORD, NAME AND PLACE IN NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE LIVING LANGUAGE OF CONFLICT by Seamus Dunn and Helen Dawson (2000)" and "The IRA by Tim Pat Coogan (2000) fourth edition" (alternatively the 1993 third edition). 82.4.220.108 23:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Not relevant to the Long War section, and I don't see the benefit of including it elsewhere. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It would say that it is relevant as the section currently stands - you can't really list their strategy without accurate definitions of the terms involved. It is for the reader to decide if they personally agree or disagree with the definitions used. 82.4.220.108 00:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, the section is perfectly clear. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Its a clear lie, by omission of fact - As detailed in the Green Book, as quoted above, as quoted in Wikipedia, as quoted in many published documents. 82.4.220.108 02:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to my previous points. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox discussion

Please carry on the discussion about the opponents here, as we may as well do everything in one place.

I've removed the allies as they were unsourced, and the majority were dubious. I'll take each in turn:

• ETA - No real connection that I'm aware of, I know Maskey was involved in some negotations with ETA a couple of years ago, but I'm not aware of an IRA-ETA relationship and even then it's dubious to call them allies.
• PLO - Various vague rumours of them offering to supply arms (and possibly supplying some), and possibly some IRA members did some training somewhere in the middle east (can't remember off the top of my head where) in the mid 70s, but again it's dubious to call them allies.
• PFLP - As above really, but even less sure of any relationship.
• FARC - Difficult to know how far back that one goes, but the best available information is that the Colombia Three trained FARC members on at least one occasion and possibly more, but even then it's difficult to class FARC as an ally especially considering it all seems to be post-ceasefire.
• INLA - Most definitely not an ally, they simply happened to be fighting the same enemy but the division between the two groups was wide.

At best for all of them you're looking at loose affiliation rather than actually being an ally. I could possibly see Libya/Gadaffi meriting a mention in the infobox but I'm not even sure about that.

That said I'm open for discussion (ideally backed by sources) over whether any of them should go back.

Strength seems to be an arbitrary figure of ~1000. Not sure where that figure has come from, or when it applies to as there's no clarification. I'd have thought the best option would be to use the 8-10,000 total membership over the course of the PIRA's existence, rather than a pretty meaningless current figure assuming that's what the 1000 is. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead picture - any thoughts??--Vintagekits 12:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If you've got anything else in mind I'm open to suggestions. For the source requested in the archived discussion, see the Dillon book as I stated. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

With regards to the ETA connection, both Sinn Féin and Ógra Shinn Féin have publicly supported ETA and the Basque freedom movement gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 11:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of the SF link, as I said Maskey was involved in negotations - see here. I'm just not convinced that's anywhere near enough to simply put them down as IRA allies in an infoxbox with absolutely no clarification, or any proof of logistical support. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

An Phoblacht has been reporting on the Basque freedom movement for years (literally hundreds of stories). Some tangible "proof" might include ÓSF and Basque youth wings meeting in Basque country (as seen here), or this article, for example. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 12:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That's still a bit intangible though. I still think to class them as allies (in the infobox especially) we'd need something more concrete such as logistical rather than political support. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃

As both the IRA and An Phoblacht are wings of SF, I think that these hundreds of stories publicising the Basque freedom movement appear to be logistical. In addition, Adams has met with European officials on behalf of the Basque cause on multiple occasions (see here, for example). Also, check out this article, which associates earlier Basque revolutionaries with Connolly and Pearse gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 12:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

To summarise my comments, I completely agree with the removals of all those organisations sans the ETA, as there is definitely a proven (at least from my perspective) relationship. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 12:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well that's precisely my point. The IRA's political wing has given ETA political support, but there's no evidence of ETA giving the IRA military support. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ohhhh... I think I might have misunderstood you, then (I wasn't speaking at all towards anything related to arms). I completely agree with your comment directly above gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 12:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I just think that simply adding ETA to the infobox as an ally is misleading for those reasons, as it makes it seem like ETA were also fighting against British Crown Forces. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, makes perfect sense gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 12:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Categorisation

I'm having problems working out how to possibly add cites for the various media outlets listed after the sentence "It is generally called a terrorist organisation by the following media outlets". I could more than likely find a cite from one or more articles from each newspaper describing the PIRA as a terrorist organisation, but that doesn't prove "generally". Any attempt to say "well if they use it more than x% of the time" sounds horribly like original research and very difficult to source and I'm unhappy about simply listing a newspaper if we can find one example of them describing the PIRA as a terrorist organisation. Does anyone else think we might be better off losing that part, and concentrating on governments and law enforcement agencies? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Due to the lack of response and being unable to work out how it can possibly be incorporated without being it original research I've been bold and removed it, but it isn't the end of the matter if anyone wants to discuss how to incorporate it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

IRA involvement in drug dealing/trafficking

The article as it stands makes no mention of the IRA being involved in, or having been implicated in/accused of, drug dealing or trafficking. I have a feeling this is going to be an unpopular subject to add, so raising it here first. I've only done a quick search for sources, and this Congressional record about an article written by Dennis Eisenberg is the only thing I've come up with so far. Thoughts? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The IRA has had and never will have anything to do with drug dealing/trafficking. In fact it is rabidly anti-drugs. Remember exceptional claims require exceptional sources - and you are going to have to build a lot stronger case than that for the inclusion of such a claim.--Vintagekits 11:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course more sources are required. However Eisenberg seems to be a journalist and author on Middle Eastern affairs and his report was mentioned in the House of Representatives. All of this in verifiable so at the very least some text like this could be added:

"In 1990 journalist Dennis Eisenberg wrote an article regarding the cultivation of herion and cannabis in Syria. It appeared in The World & I In the report Eisenberg claimed the Syrian government of Hafez al-Assad was complicit in the production and trafficking of the drugs. In the report he went on to claim that the Palestinian Liberation Organisation and the Provisional Irish Republican Army were also involved. Specifically, he stated that "The PLO ... uses its links with the Irish Republican Army (IRA) to rake in massive profits from sending drugs via Holland to its network of agents in Britain, West Germany, and Ireland for international distribution. The article was then raised in House of Representatives by Bob Dornan."

It goes on to mention money laundering and other links with the PLO. Money laundering is briefly mentioned in the article at the minute, but there are plenty of sources to expand on this too. There are other claims to involvement in trafficking, see this and this for examples. Links in with the whole Columbia thing too. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 13:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The very fact that it was raised in the House of Representatives by none other than Bob Dornan makes this whole assertion all the more doubtful. Dornan is well known for his outrageous claims and his fragile hold on reality. ---Charles 14:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Further reading reveals that the article in question was originally published in the magazine The World & I, a publication of the Rev. Moon's Unification Church. I would argue that this is not a reliable publication. ---Charles 14:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

People can make up their own mind's about Dornan. And again, they can make their own minds up about the publication. The facts are that the article was written by a journalist and author and it was published, then raised in the House of Representatives. The Dornan and The World & I article can be linked to in the text, so that people can get some background. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happier if the original Scotland Yard claims could be sourced. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You said: People can make up their own mind's about Dornan. And ... about the publication. Wrong, sir. As Vintagekits has already correctly pointed out "exceptional claims require exceptional sources"---and these that you have provided are not exceptional sources. As I have stated, The World & I is not a reliable publication. It is published by an organization well outside the mainstream of politics, and an organization noted for the inaccuracies of its claims. ---Charles 15:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sir? I haven't looked into the history or record of the publication, so you may well be right. But the journalist seems to have written a lot about the Middle East. I'll admit I haven't done much research on him either yet though. Apart from this, there are other sources. The only two I've found so far are Senate Judiciary Committee testimony and the National Review article, which I have linked to above. None of these sources are definitive proof of trafficking or dealing, but the subject seems to have been reported on and raised at fairly high levels, and this should be reflected in the article here. However I admit a lot more research is required, which is why I'm raising it here first. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 16:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If the IRA were involved in drug dealing/trafficking then there would be widespread reporting of this in the Irish and British press. I would like ot see some evidence over and above the opinion of Dornan. I have never heard of the guy and I am not sure he would be an expert on the NI situation - I could be wrong.--Vintagekits 15:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

For Dornan, see [[4]]. Bob Dornan quoting a Mooney publication about the supposed activities of the IRA is so far from encyclopaedic it is laughable. ---Charles 16:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There have been reports on and off over the years of PIRA involvement with drugs (e.g. "New evidence has been uncovered to link the Provisional IRA with a terrorist group involved in the Colombian drugs trade"; "The IRA does not handle the drugs, but oversees the operation and takes a percentage from each deal." Feb 15 1998 Sunday Times; "the Provisional IRA has made significant inroads into the Dublin underworld of protection and drug-dealing rackets" Jul 23 1999 Washington Times) but it is normally associated with loyalist paramilitaries and the INLA, CIRA and RIRA (take a look at the Independent Monitoring Commission reports). --Coroebus 09:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to try and come up with a wording before inserting it into the article:

As with loyalist paramilitaries, the Proisional IRA has been reported to have been involved in drug trafficking and dealing since its inception. However the level of their involvement is much less known than that of loyalists. In 1990 Bob Dornan quoted an article written by journalist Dennis Eisenberg in the United States House of Representatives. In the article Eisenberg claimed that "Yasser Arafat's PLO ........ uses its links with the Irish Republican Army (IRA) to rake in massive profits from sending drugs via Holland to its network of agents in Britain, West Germany, and Ireland for international distribution." The article also claimed the PLO and IRA were involved in a joint money laundering operation in Europe. However Dorman is well known for making controversial statements and Eisenberg's article first appeared The World and I magazine, which has links to Sun Myung Moon. More recently the IRA has been accused of receiving money made through drug trafficking from FARC, in return for supplying training to the illegal Colombian organisation. One such report was written by Rachel Ehrenfeld in 2002. The Colombia Three were arrested in 2001 by the Colombian authorities. Other newspaper reports have indicated drug dealing within Ireland. A February 1998 Sunday Times report stated "The IRA does not handle the drugs, but oversees the operation and takes a percentage from each deal." A July 1999 report in the Washington Times claimed "the Provisional IRA has made significant inroads into the Dublin underworld of protection and drug-dealing rackets" It is also claimed that the IRA were involved in trafficking to pay for arms importation in the 1980s, including the shipment aboard the Marita Ann in 1984.

This wording could be added to the Fundraising via organised crime section. Any comments, suggestions or objections to the working please. I've balanced the Eisenberg claims. I also stress the above wording is a very rough first draft and I've only made a quick search for references, and only online ones at that. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I would object to the inclusion of this in the article, this is based on heresay, there is no evidence to support any of these claims, if the IRA was in any way involved in drugs don't you think both the British and Irish governments would have used this against them to undermine their level of support and discredit them. No member of the IRA has ever been charged or arrested for drug offences during the conflict, the IMC has never made these claims in any of their reports, which they have done regarding Loyalists and the INLA, and seeing as there reports are based on information from both British and Irish Inteligence sources I think they would be more reliable then some obscure journalists article in a Moonie funded magazine.--padraig 16:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to side with padraig on this. Are these sources sufficiently authoritative to add text about PIRA drug invlovement?

Perhaps you can help me with another matter: I already have some sources to support the notion that Jean McConville was both tortured and mutilated before she was murdered by the PIRA. Does anyone have some that would be regarded as authoritative - weblinks to coroners reports and autopsies, for example?...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 16:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no concrete evidence no, but to mention nothing in the article about drugs is ignoring numerous reports about it. I don't know why the two governments haven't mentioned it more, maybe they have I can't find references to it at the minute, there could be any number of political reasons, who knows. But Government reports aren't everything. And other multiple sources have covered it. Eisenberg may not have an article on Wikipedia (and he actually could) but that doesn't make him oscure. If you search Google you'll see he is a published Israeli author and former journalist for the Jerusalem Post. The fact that it was published in a Moonie publication doesn't rule it out.

But anyway, this is just one source. There are others, including Rachel Ehrenfeld, and more research will yield more. Yes, IMC makes no mention of the IRA being involved in trafficking. So that should be used to counter the claims in the article, as could the IRA's (assumed?) denial in involvement. I think your presuming the article will say "The IRA are drug dealers". It won't. It will say that they have been accused and implcated in it, giving the relevant sources, and it will be balanced by evidence to the contrary. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 18:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

They haven't been implicated in it, you have one obscure article written for a magazine by a journalist that is anti-PLO who is trying to implicate the PLO in drug dealing and using their alledged links to the IRA to further this point. He has provided no evidence to support his claims.--padraig 18:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In addition to what has been said already, I find this sentence objectionable;

It is also claimed that the IRA were involved in trafficking to pay for arms importation in the 1980s, including the shipment aboard the Marita Ann in 1984.

The source cited does not say this. Scalpfarmer 18:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I know this conversation is quite old now, but I thought it was worth mentioning that the renowned drug dealer Howard Marks claims to have had dealings with the IRA in this context and the wiki article about him currently links to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.49.114 (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Croatian support

In the early 1990s, during the breakup of Yugoslavia, the IRA trained the fledgling Croatian Army in return for armaments is being added using this source, and I have removed it as original research. The majority of the article refers to the Real IRA, except for this sentence.

A spokesman said the general is believed to have received explosives training from Irish republicans in the 1990s

I have emphasised what the problem with it is, it does not say the PIRA were responsible and it certainly doesn't back up the text being added. Any further attempts to insert that information will be reverted. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

book of a revolutionary

Does anyone here knows of any book that tells the story of IRA from the point of view of a militant? It could be some sort of a diary where someone who at some point belonged to the organization describes their tactis/skills strategy and how the operate on the ground level. I believe it would be a useful reference to add to the article, possibility to the see also or external links section.Maziotis 02:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Check out this Drinkanotherday 21:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Drinkanotherday is giving you the PIRA's training book, which I don't think is what you meant. Sean MacStiofain published his memoirs which are titled either "Memoirs of a Revolutionary" or "Revolutionary in Ireland" in which he talks about his Republican career and later describes the founding of the PIRA, its basic organization, and quite a bit about its tactics. Problem is, the book was published in 1975 and hasn't been released in a new addition since, so most of its information is highly outdated - for instance, you won't find any mention of the "Long War" strategy, the re-organization of the PIRA into a cellular structure (with supporting units and Active Service Units), the "Armalite and ballot box" approach to a dual armed campaign/political campaign, or the proposed Tet offensive that was intended to be carried out with the newest Libyan weapons shipments. It does, however, provide an interesting look at the organization in its earliest days from the perspective of its first Chief of Staff, so it might be worth your while.--posted by User:69.134.227.49 26 June 2007

"Nor Meekly Serve My Time" is a compilation of H-Block prisoner writings during the 1981 hunger strike. I haven't read it yet, but I've just ordered a used copy from Amazon. Judging by the description there, it may be worth referencing. It's certainly a diary, but it probably only covers prison & hunger strke strategies. JXM 17:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Abreviate to "PIRA" or "IRA" ?

If you read the lede in a previous version of our article on the Provisional Irish Republican Army at

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army&oldid=141268729

you will see that the abbreviation PIRA is accurate, although many shorten this to the IRA, the Provos, "the Army" or the "'RA".

However, just because folks are sloppy, lazy and sometimes misleading does not mean our encyclopaedia should be too. Most folks I know (incorrectly) term a "ballpoint pen" a BIRO. Not all ballpoint pens are BIRO's and not all splinter groups or political sects are the Irish Republican Army that my illustrious relation commanded.

It's necessary when discussing terrorist groups to precisely identify the perpetrator - especially when that has been established by confession or judicial process.

I realise that there is a determined clique of biased editors on Wikipedia that wish to obfuscate and, like Alice, change words and abbreviations to mean what they want them to mean in articles related to Ireland, but Wikipedia's purpose is to inform and educate not confuse and fail to make distinctions between different historic organisations ...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 05:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• There is a discussion regarding this topic here so there is no need to dupicate the conversation here.--Vintagekits 10:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that there is no need for discussion here for at least two reasons:

1. not everyone who is likely to edit this article is fanatical enough to be aware of the myriad articles about PIRA atrocities
2. so far, the discussion at your reference has not been very illuminating on supplying valid reason(s) for sloppy and ambiguous abbreviation...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 06:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Well thankfully everyone that reads wiki can actually read so if IRA is shown in brackets after the first use of the term Provisional Irish Republican Army then there can be no mistaking what the abbreviation means. Also I would be better if you could keep you inflamitory language down then it would be easier to have an amicable conversation with you - otherwise you are just going to turn this into a slanging match which is not what we all want.--Vintagekits 12:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It has been my experience that the term PIRA tends to be primarily used by the British Army and the Northern Ireland police. I suspect that it may have originally been coined by them, but I haven't been able to locate a clear reference yet. (Military people seem to have a penchant for acronymising everything.) Anyway, the net effect is that the article has a slightly biased feel about it, since "PIRA" tends to be a rather loaded term. I would suggest adding an explanatory footnote to that effect, attached to the first use of the term at the head of the article. Or maybe we could add a sentence or two in the Categorisation section. JXM 17:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The PIRA regard themselves as the IRA, so in some sense using 'PIRA' has some anti-PIRA bias. Personally I don't think there is a need to specify 'PIRA' in the PIRA article, so the more common and perhaps less POV 'IRA' should be used, in other articles it may make more sense to specify 'PIRA', although only in cases where it might be unclear which 'IRA' we're talking about. --Coroebus 20:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a rational compromise...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 16:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an enclyclopedia. If there is any danger of confusion, a full version of the name should be used when it is first introduced and linked - Provisional Irish Republican Army. It shouldn't be piped to read IRA. I would agree the most usual abbreviation for the Provisional IRA is just IRA. Where there is no danger of confusion, this could appear in brackets after the first (unpiped) link. Where a danger of confusion does exist, then PIRA should be used. POV doesn't come into it. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not piped. The articles that are being amended say "Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA)". When there is any ambiguity PIRA is used, see for example Joe Cahill. It says above "although only in cases where it might be unclear which 'IRA' we're talking about". If the first use is "Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA)" it's clear which IRA is being talked about. Brixton Busters 14:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

In other articles we generally need to be clear which particular flavour of paramilitary organisation was involved. That's why the first use in other articles should be "Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA)" and then, when that has been established we can then shorten this to the precise PIRA rather than the ambiguous and, in some case, downright misleading (especially for Asians and Africans) IRA...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 14:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Except in cases like Joe Cahill, we can shorten it to the correct acronym - IRA. You agreed to this above, and you are the only dissenting voice now. Brixton Busters 14:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I admire your consistency but deprecate your tendency to mis-state what my words actually mean Brixton Busters. What I actually "agreed" to was: there is no need to specify 'PIRA' in the PIRA article, so the more common and perhaps less POV 'IRA' should be used, in other articles it may make more sense to specify 'PIRA', although only in cases where it might be unclear which 'IRA' we're talking about.

It was very obvious from your very first edits and the focus of your subsequent edits, Brixton Busters, that you personally are very familiar with the Provisional IRA PoV and the histories and precise nomenclatures of the various violent organisations. The vast majority of our readers as (opposed to some of the editors who find these endless arguments rather tiresome and circular) will generally appreciate precision in an encyclopaedia. Please give me a reason why we need to obfuscate other articles (from this one) and don't use misleading references in edit summaries of other PIRA-related articles again.

I'm not sure that your arithmetic is either correct or significant. Typically we don't vote at WP...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 15:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

So if it says "Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA)" how is it not clear what IRA refers to? It says it right next to the full name. The vast majority of the readers will not be familiar with the term PIRA, but they will be familiar with IRA. That is why common abbreviations should used, not rarely used ones. Brixton Busters 15:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand there is a lot to be said for accuracy. PIRA is far more precise than IRA. --John 15:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I've met some educated foreigners (continental Europeans and USAsians), and heard anecdotally heard of others, who honestly believed that the Irish Army was waging war in Northern Ireland - because, well, wasn't I from the 'Irish Republic'?. If an abbreviation leads to confusion - why use it, regardless of how "common" it is? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

There's also the parallel with the use of the Ulster Banner. It may be commonly (and erroneously) thought of as "the Flag of Northern Ireland" but most of the editors here know that it Not the de jure flag. Are you saying that just because our readers may be unfamiliar with the concept that several armed organisations lay claim to the inheritance of the 1921 IRA, we should not seek to clarify and educate with referenced facts and a balanced and encyclopaedic stance?...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 15:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

How is it precise? It's an acronym that hardly anyone uses, or is even aware of? The vast majority of readers will be familiar with the term IRA, but not PIRA. The sources use IRA, whe should we be different? The Provos ceased to be Provisional in December 1970 when they became the IRA, anything else is POV. Brixton Busters 13:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[Deindent] Sorry, Brixton, I'm confused. When you say they became the IRA instead of being the Provisional IRA - does that mean they became the Official IRA? Or is there a group out there calling itself "The IRA ("Accept no substitutes!")? Do you mean the

• IRA? Or the
• IRA? Or the
• IRA? Or the
• IRA? Or the
• IRA? Or the
• IRA?
• Army of the Republic of Ireland? (And let's not even go near the Irish names and/or translations of all of the above).

Conclusion: Disambugation and accuracy are good things. Moral: Always look on the bright side of life. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem confused. With Tom Maguire's approval The Provisional Irish Republican Army became the Irish Republican Army in December 1970, that is a verifiable fact. They do not use the PIRA acronym, neither do the majority of sources, nor do most "people in the street" when referring to the IRA. I have yet to see a single reason why "Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA)" then subsequent use of IRA is in any way confusing or unclear, and it avoids the use of POV acronyms. Brixton Busters 17:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Far from being unclear, it seems to add meaning and clarification to me. Of course, if you can supply verifiable evidence that the use of the terms "Provisional IRA", "provo", "provie" and "PIRA" are rare in the modern era then I might change my mind. We would want to move this article too of course if that were true. I don't think it is though. I certainly don't see how it is a POV acronym. --John 17:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll stick to PIRA, as that's the term under dispute. See here to begin with. IRA is used by the majority of authors who have written books on the Provos, not PIRA. It is a POV acronym as the IRA themselves do not use it, they use IRA. The British security services use the acronym PIRA, and it is rarely used by sources. Brixton Busters 17:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The IRA never used the term provisional in their name, that was a media term given to them because they setup a 'provisional' Army Council to take control of the IRA until such time as an Army Convention could be convened, the same applied to Sinn Féin who setup a caretaker Executive after the split at the Ard Feis neither organisation used the term Provisional in refering to themselves.--padraig 17:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[Many edit conflicts] I see my Monty Python quote has drawn forth your own sense of humour! Tom Maguire, indeed :-D You're aware of Wiki policy, where extremist POV can be quoted in context but it must be pointed out that the source is extremist and not accepted by the majority, I take it? Irish republican legitimatism is an interesting topic, all right. According to that, the bould Tom (elected by - and therefore representing - nobody for over half a century!) changed his mind anyway. If Tom is the authority, then the CIRA are now the IRA, and the PIRA would be... I dunno, the Popular Front of Judea? But back in the real world (not the Real IRA world, you understand!), I think the vast majority of Irish people (including those on WP:IWNB) would go along with Martin Manseragh (at least on this issue):

"preposterous nonsense... the concoction of a sort of pseudo-apostolic succession from Pearse to the Second Dáil to the IRA to the Sinn Féin party to the small irredentist movement currently claiming that it, not the elected government of the Republic, is the true government of Ireland".

Thank you for a good laugh, though. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, you appear confused. Whether or not one accepts that the IRA Army Council became the legitimate government of the 32 County Irish Republic in 1938 or not, that does not change the other part of what Tom Maguire said, ie that the Provisional Army Council became the legitimate successors to the 1938 Army Council in December 1970. The fact that the former is not recognised does not change the latter. Brixton Busters 17:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What they call themselves is interesting and should be noted in the article. We, though, should continue to call them what the rest of the world calls them. Bastun, your LoB comparison is well merited, thank you for seeing the humour in this sorry argument. Remember though, everybody hates the Popular Front of Judea. --John 17:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

We, though, should continue to call them what the rest of the world calls them. - yes, and most of the rest of the world uses the acronym IRA not PIRA. Brixton Busters

"We" have consistent pretensions to be an encyclopaedia. "We" try to inform our readers and clarify significant points of view. "We" are not a multilingual conversation in halting English at the bar of Terminal 4. "We" are not an uncritical mouthpiece for political propaganda. "We" do not conspire to airbrush history or bend it to the temporary exigencies of SF's current electoral campaign.

However, if you think - in other articles to this one that are PIRA related - that it would be clearer and less ambiguous to not use PIRA at all, I would be perfectly happy to use "Provisional IRA" throughout rather than "PIRA"....Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 18:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have done some research, using the UK version of Google to avoid any possible Irish bias.

Excluding Wikipedia, the first relevant hits for "PIRA" are on page 3 of the search results, and they are both Bebo which doesn't count. The first real hit is on page 8 and is the BBC.

A similar search for "IRA" returns 3 hits on page 1 (tellingly including the BBC result that appears on page 8 for PIRA) and 4 hits on page 2.

That proves how rarely the term is used. The argument about IRA confusing African or Indian readers holds no water. Surely any use of the acronym would confuse them? So we couldn't use the acronym in any other article either, whether it's related to the Provos or not? There are many common acronyms, and unless there is a real risk of confusion we should stick to the one people will be familiar with, which is the commonly used IRA not the obscure PIRA. Brixton Busters 06:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. Change the search to +PIRA +campaign, and we lose the myriad early references from your search to one of the world's major industries, and get over 60,000 results for PIRA. [5]. (We also get plenty of examples of "the PIRA".) Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 08:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

What does "campaign" have to do with anything? I've just proved the PIRA acronym is rarely used compared to the IRA acronym. If you want to go down that route, how about +IRA +campaign, 1,880,000 hits. Clear which is the common acronym now isn't it? Brixton Busters 08:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Campaign? I picked the first term to come into my head that that might accurately lead to results that weren't to do with the paper and packaging industry. I don't think anyone is disputing that "IRA" is the most common acronym for the Provisional IRA. That's not the argument. What we are saying is that "PIRA" is used; and that in an encyclopedia, where confusion could arise between the various "flavours", we should prevent that. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That is easily done in the lead of any article, and as this is about the provisional IRA I fail to see how anyone could by confused by the IRA being used in the rest of the article.--padraig 20:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

We're not talking about just this article, though. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I said this can be done in any article, and the only time during articles on the conflict in Northern Ireland would be if the RIRA or CIRA where mentioned in the same article as the IRA, and in these cases its easy to different between them.--padraig 13:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What they call themselves should be noted in the article. That they call themselves the IRA, and are familiarly known as such is also notable. That the sources and references describe them as the IRA, is also a point in fact. If it says "Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA)" it is clear what IRA refers to? The majority of readers will not be familiar with the term PIRA, but they will definitly be familiar with IRA. That is why common abbreviations should used. --Domer48 12:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

A more specific test: +IRA +docklands +bomb 21700 hits versus +PIRA +docklands +bomb 505 hits. If it was anywhere near close there may be a reason for discussion, but it's over 40 times more. Brixton Busters 16:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Brixton, the above discussion in no way creates or reflects a consensus to replace all PIRA abbreviations with IRA; nor one to drop the word Provisional from articles involving the PIRA. Please stop misrepresenting it as such in articles. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you've got it backwards. I've checked the histories and the articles said IRA first not PIRA, and the discussion above doesn't give you consensus to change it to PIRA. Brixton Busters 10:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to do with the debate, I'm afraid, but just for the sake of accuracy, IRA is not an acronym, it is an abbreviation while PIRA is an acronym. Rgds. -Bill Reid | Talk 13:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If an acroynm is a word formed from the initial letters of a series of words how is PIRA one and IRA not just wondering.--BigDunc 14:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Because IRA is not used as a word, it is always spelled out but PIRA can be said as a word just as WYSIWYG is. Rgds. --Bill Reid | Talk 14:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That comment makes no sense.--padraig 14:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Why? --Bill Reid | Talk 15:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Does your dictionary list PIRA at all.--padraig 15:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense. Some people argue that acronyms must be pronounced as a word (e.g. NATO) with other initial letter abbreviations being called 'initialisms'. But the Oxford English Dictionary (for instance) mentions 'IRA' in its entry on 'acronym' as most people do not make this distinction. --Coroebus 15:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Most republicans and nationalists say the 'ra' when refering to the IRA.--padraig 15:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt the OED was thinking of that when it included it ;-) --Coroebus 20:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my dictionary does mention PIRA as an acronym. Its here at dictionary.com --Bill Reid | Talk 16:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The abbreviation tends to change depending on how many organizations in Northern Ireland are claiming the acronym "IRA" at any given time. If you look at any media sources from the early- to mid-70s, they tend to distinguish between the Provisionals and the Officials. But when the OIRA faded away after the mid-1970s and dropped out of public sight, that was when they started referring to the Provos as simply "the IRA". It pretty much stayed that way for twenty years, and then when the Continuity IRA and Real IRA emerged in the late-90s, many people started to call the Provos the "PIRA" again to distinguish them from the "CIRA" and "RIRA".

Also, appealing to Irish Republican legitimatism as a justification for the use of the abbreviation "IRA" to describe the Provisional IRA does you no good because Tom Maguire said in '86 that the Continuity Army Council was the heir to the Second Dáil, which means that under that logic, we'd have to start calling the CIRA "the IRA" now (which almost nobody does). As far as supporters go, I've visited several Republican sites lately (including www.irishrepublican.net), and if you look at any of them, they tend to refer to them as simply the "Provos", and Sinn Féin by the abbreviation "PSF" (to distinguish them from [[Republican Sinn Féin, or "RSF"). So, conclusion is, the Provisional IRA may have been known as simply "the IRA" for over 25 years, but things are more complicated now, so I don't think it's inappropriate to use the "PIRA" abbreviation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.227.49 (talk) 04:09, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

There appear to be two sides to this argument, which seem to be: 1. The Provisional Irish Republican Army is most commonly known as "the IRA" - therefore, when abbreviated, it should always be abbreviated to IRA; 2. The Provisional Irish Republican Army, while most commonly known as "the IRA", is only one of a number of organisations using "Irish Republican Army" as part of its name - therefore, to avoid any ambiguity, it should always be abbreviated to PIRA.

A possible compromise:

1. In articles referring in whole or part to the Provisional Irish Republican Army, that should always be written out in full, unpiped, the first time it is mentioned.
2. Immediately after the first such mention (in full, unpiped), it is immediately followed by "(IRA)".
3. It may thereafter be abbreviated to IRA except where ambiguity or confusion might arise on the part of a reader, such as where more than one IRA is being talked about.
4. In infoboxes and section headings, it should not be abbreviated to IRA - the full title "Provisional Irish Republican Army" (or, for space/formatting considerations, "Provisional IRA") should be used.

Thoughts? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Bastun, your points 1-3 is what we have been doing, number 4 would only be necessary in articles dealing with a number of organisations such as CIRA and RIRA as well to avoid confusion.--padraig 22:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. And this article is probably an exception, but there are parts of it that were quite confusing, especially around the time of the Provo/Officials split. There are other similar articles around. So - as I said, "compromise". Those expressing opinion 1 above get 3 out of 4, straight off, of what they want, and those expressing opinion 2 above get 1 out of 4, straight off. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Seems ok. --Domer48 08:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, providing 4 is applied with common sense. For instance there would be no need to add "Provisional" to the section of this article called "Continuing activities of IRA members", agreed?. Brixton Busters 08:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Seems fair and reasonable to me.BigDunc 09:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. As long as 4. is used as Brixton Busters points out above.--padraig 12:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Agreeing" with this proposed compromise, while saying that part 4 of the compromise shouldn't apply, hardly seems fair. Compromise works both ways... Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Where not saying it shouldn't apply, but it should only be applied when its necessary to different between groups, not used univerally in every article.--padraig 15:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have agreed with 4, but added that there will be rare occasions when common sense says not to use it. In articles about members or attacks and so on it makes sense to clarify, but I think in an article about the Provisionals no clarification is needed if common sense is used. Do you not agree that there will be cases where there will be exceptions? Brixton Busters 16:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Any update? W. Frank's edit went against this agreement, so I reverted most of it, including the introduction of incorrect information ("Old" IRA) and speculation about the FTO status. Brixton Busters 14:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have again removed original research. Please do not add your own interpretations of why the IRA are no longer an FTO to the article, cite a source that says why they are not. Brixton Busters 16:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Source says "NOT a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), but listed as "active" during 2000" - that does not support the reasoning, and it will again be removed. I suggest W. Frank posts any further sources for this text here before adding it in future. Brixton Busters 16:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, this page somehow dropped off my watchlist. BB, I've proposed the compromise above, including all four points. I'm not going to agree if others are going to say yes to three of the points that suit them and equivocate about the fourth point that doesn't suit them. What's the big deal about using 'Provisional IRA' in section headings/infoboxes? It will merely serve as a reinforcement that when 'IRA' is mentioned in the following text, it is the Provisional IRA that is meant. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you proposed a compromise. However it is not unreasonable for others to request minor amendments be made to that compromise. My minor amendment is that one point only applies 99% of the time, which I do not think is unreasonable. In this article no "reinforcement" is needed to make clear which IRA the section (which is near the end of the article) is about. However I agree in other articles "Provisional" should be added. Brixton Busters 16:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No private agreement can ever supersede the fundamental policies of our encyclopaedia. Nobody has yet adequately explained why, when the official reports of both the governments in these islands and that of the US State department consistently use clear acronyms such as PIRA, OIRA, RIRA and CIRA, we should use the ambiguous (but politically advantageous to the Provos) abbreviation IRA.

There is currently an ongoing Arbcom on these articles so I suggest that a proposal is made there to override our standing policies if editors don't wish to use the full name of Provisional IRA or the clear and unambiguous PIRA abbreviation.

One of the clearest examples of official language (as opposed to sloppy journalism) is the Fifteenth report of the Independent Monitoring Commission issued on 25 April 2007 and available in PDF form here. W. Frank talk ✉  16:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:LAWYER - Also the US State Department uses IRA, and neither the British or Irish governments decided what the Provos' official name is. Also, ArbCom don't make rulings on content disputes. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You need to check your citations more carefully, 303.

That year old US State Department report does not mention PIRA (or IRA) in the main list because PIRA has never posed a threat to the US, its citizens or their economic interest (why risk cutting off their best source of funds over the years?)

Here's the (edited) first part of that list at http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2005/65275.htm :

Continuity Irish Republican Army (CIRA)

...

Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC), Al-Qaida (AQ), Al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI)

Real IRA (RIRA)

Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), Revolutionary Nuclei (RN), Revolutionary Organization 17 November, Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party/Front (DHKP/C), Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC), Shining Path (SL), United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC)

Later on the State department is scrupulous in using the full name for the Provisional IRA (and we should do so too if you don't wish to use "PIRA"):

"Description

CIRA is a terrorist splinter group formed in 1994 as the clandestine armed wing of Republican Sinn Fein, which split from Sinn Fein in 1986. "Continuity" refers to the group’s belief that it is carrying on the original Irish Republican Army’s (IRA) goal of forcing the British out of Northern Ireland. CIRA's aliases, Continuity Army Council and Republican Sinn Fein, were also included in its FTO designation. CIRA cooperates with the larger Real IRA (RIRA).

Activities

CIRA has been active in Belfast and the border areas of Northern Ireland, where it has carried out bombings, assassinations, kidnappings, hijackings, extortion, and robberies. On occasion, it has provided advance warning to police of its attacks. Targets include the British military, Northern Ireland security forces, and Loyalist paramilitary groups. CIRA did not join the Provisional IRA in the September decommissioning and remains capable of effective, if sporadic, terrorist attacks. In December, the Special Criminal Court in Dublin charged a man with possession of an improvised explosive device, and police were investigating his links to CIRA. In July, CIRA members threw petrol bombs at security forces in Northern Ireland."

 W. Frank talk ✉  17:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess you didn't scroll down to the right section then?

Irish Republican Army (IRA)

a.k.a. Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA),

the Provos

Description

Formed in 1969 as the clandestine armed wing of the political movement Sinn Fein, the IRA is devoted both to removing British forces from Northern Ireland and to unifying Ireland. The IRA conducted attacks until its cease-fire in 1997 and agreed to disarm as part of the 1998 Belfast Agreement, which established the basis for peace in Northern Ireland. Dissension within the IRA over support for the Northern Ireland peace process resulted in the formation of two more radical splinter groups: Continuity IRA (CIRA) in 1995, and the Real IRA (RIRA) in 1997. The IRA, sometimes referred to as the PIRA to distinguish it from RIRA and CIRA, is organized into small, tightly-knit cells under the leadership of the Army Council.

Activities

Traditional IRA activities have included bombings, assassinations, kidnappings, punishment beatings, extortion, smuggling, and robberies. Before the cease-fire in 1997, the group had conducted bombing campaigns on various targets in Northern Ireland and Great Britain, including senior British Government officials, civilians, police, and British military targets. In August 2002, three suspected IRA members were arrested in Colombia on charges of helping the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) improve its explosives capabilities; the men subsequently escaped from prison and appeared in Ireland in 2005. Irish police have questioned the men but have filed no charges. Colombia has requested their extradition, which is unlikely, since Ireland has no extradition treaty with Colombia.

On July 28, a spokesperson for the IRA made a statement calling for an end to all forms of IRA illegal activity. This statement was confirmed on September 26 by the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning’s announcement that the IRA had met its commitments to put all arms beyond use. The Independent Monitoring Commission also reported that since the September decommissioning the IRA has shown no evidence of training and recruiting terrorists or an intent to return to violence. However, the IRA has yet to abandon its extensive criminal activities, which reportedly provide the IRA and the political party Sinn Fein with millions of dollars each year.

Strength

Several hundred members and several thousand sympathizers despite the defection of some members to RIRA and CIRA.

Local/Area of Operation

Northern Ireland, Irish Republic, Great Britain, and Europe.

External Aid

In the past, the IRA has received aid from a variety of groups and countries, and considerable training and arms from Libya and the PLO. It is suspected of receiving funds, arms, and other terrorist-related materiel from sympathizers in the United States. In addition to the apparent contact with the FARC, similarities in operations suggest the IRA has links to the ETA.

And don't give me any chestnut about them using PIRA once in the intro, they use IRA all the rest of the time. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Shurely shome mishtake.

Fair play, I did not realise that, although they were not included in the emboldened list at the head of that (long) page, PIRA puts in a "guest" appearance just before the Islamic Army of Aden (IAA).

Since the list is headed "Foreign Terrorist Organizations" can we now scotch the view by BB that PIRA has never been considered a "Foreign Terrorist Organization" by the US Government ?

I still don't consider that the State Department's evident confusion as to origins justifies us being ambiguous. (It's the same over-simplification commonly made by US nationals - we both know that organisations calling themselves "IRA" pre-date 1969). W. Frank talk ✉  22:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the list is headed "Foreign Terrorist Organizations" can we now scotch the view by BB that PIRA has never been considered a "Foreign Terrorist Organization" by the US Government ? - no, read the page. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Team editing to make provisional SF more electorally attractive

WP:NOT#ADVOCATE is official policy on the English Wikipedia.

It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, and other articles relating to the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA), please ensure that your revision reflects our policy that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda. Therefore, Wikipedia content is not:

1. Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favourite views.

2. Opinion pieces on current affairs or politics. Although current affairs and politics may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete.

3. Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopaedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself and your friends. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Currently we have a team of editors (including, but not limited to: User:Brixton Busters, User:BigDunc, User:Domer48, User:Padraig, User:Vintagekits) that edit a consistent set of our articles in such a way as to introduce a consistent bias and ambiguity.

These editors act in relay to avoid technically breaching 3RR and consistently seek to push a minority POV endorsed by PIRA and their political wing that is to the political electoral advantage of provisional SF.

The pattern to these team editors contributions is as follows:

(1) There have been, and are currently, many flavours of political organisations including in their name the letters "IRA". These team editors consistently seek to muddy and obfuscate the distinctions between the pre 1920 IRA, the Continuity IRA (CIRA), the Official IRA (OIRA), the Provisional IRA (PIRA), the Real IRA (RIRA), and other sects. They do this by trying to obliterate any reference that clarifies that PIRA is meant in the article preferring the wholly ambiguous "IRA" instead. The political purpose of these team edits is to reduce the political significance of the competing groupings.

(2) These team editors consistently seek to muddy and obfuscate the distinctions between the pre 1920 IRA, CIRA, OIRA, PIRA, RIRA and other sects. They do this in order to mislead our readers into believing that PIRA is the direct political heir of the pre 1920 IRA and achieve greater "electoral respectability" for provisional SF thereby. This is why the team editors engage in revert warring to try to obliterate any reference that clarifies that PIRA is meant in the article and instead insert the wholly ambiguous "IRA" instead. The political purpose of these team edits is again to reduce the political significance of the competing groupings and enhance that of current political groupings sympathetic to PIRA.

(3) They seek to remove any reference to terrorism and the victims of terrorism – except when they are "PIRA-approved victims" as in our Bloody Sunday (1972) article – as in our Bloody Friday (1972)‎ article. Compare and contrast our articles with PIRA involvement and our articles with Islamic terrorist] involvement. Note the lede in World Trade Center bombing where the team's interest and influence is extremely low and the howls of anguish when that "naughty word" is used correctly to reflect the overwhelming available authoritative sources with regard to PIRA actions where non-combatants were murdered and mutilated.

According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."

Update relevant to biased editing:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6947532.stm

 W. Frank talk ✉  23:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

He has been spamming this nonsense on every article where his POV pushing has been rejected, he has also made it clear that he has no interest in discussing the issue, and intends to continue to edit war on the issue.--padraig 12:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no propaganda. IRA is the common and familiar acronym, as shown above. [[Provisional Irish Republican Army|Irish Republican Army]] would be contentious, but it is not used AFAIK. Brixton Busters 12:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Have a read WP:NAM W.Frank and chill out its not a conspiracy against WP or you.BigDunc 14:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Slight change to intro...

This:

An internal British army document released under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in 2007 stated that the British Army had failed to defeat the IRA. The document examined 37 years of British troop deployment and was complied following a 6 month study by a team of three officers carried out in earily 2006 for General Sir Mike Jackson, the British Army's Chief of the General Staff.

is somewhat misleading; it gives an absolute impression and displays bias. A better rewrite than my previous one, although still not quite right, IMO. I've changed it slightly to reflect that the "failed to defeat the IRA" part is given as an opinion, not a statement. (Unsigned Revision of 18:39, 15 July 2007 (UCT) by User:Evilteuf)

current campaign

"...until the Belfast Agreement, sought to end Northern Ireland's status within the United Kingdom and bring about a United Ireland by force of arms and political persuasion." Just wondering as the IRA are not disbanded are there aims not still the same as before the Good Friday Agreement, maybe not at war but still around. Anyone any views on this and should it be changed. --BigDunc 11:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

BB? Can you help with any references to the Provisional IRA (PIRA)'s current position?...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 12:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The IRA called a cessation of their campaign, they still remain in existence and retain their structures but have asked their Volunteers to become involved solely in political campaigning for a United Ireland, their aims remain the same.--padraig 12:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Padraig. I don't suppose you know any references we can use to include that summary and improve our article?...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 13:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The cessesation statement when they declared a end to thier campaign would cover that, not sure if that is on WP, if not it would be on the AnPhoblact site.--padraig 14:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Its here [6] already used ref 81.--padraig 14:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Gaimhreadhan have you got any refrence that states that since the Belfat Agreement the IRA have changed there aims I dont think they have but that is a POV still think it should be changed as it imploys that they have. BigDunc 13:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

They haven't changed their Aims just the method to obtain them.--padraig 14:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification, Padraig. If you are right, then that will remain a very welcome position to many in Europe.

BigDunc:I think we should accept Padraig's statement at face value (especially as he has provided references and has always seemed to be a conscientous editor). (I was quite amused by your bold leaps of logic when posting on BB's talk page earlier today)...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 14:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have replied to that on said talk page so my appologies and what I am saying here is that the aims of the IRA have not changed so I think the line "until the Belfast Agreement" should be removed as there aims remain the same. BigDunc 14:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be added that since the GFA their methods are now solely political.--padraig 14:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good to me Padraig will I leave it to you to put in? BigDunc 15:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The reference to the Éire Nua policy should be removed as this policy was dropped in 1981.--padraig 15:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

Could editors please be mindful of the above when posting edits. Thanks --Domer48 13:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Category

It is already in the relevant category, "Proscribed paramilitary organizations in Northern Ireland". Why is it being added to the parent category? Brixton Busters 15:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

From the category being added:

Designated terrorist organizations are non-governmental organizations that currently are designated by a state as terrorist organizations.

Articles should be included on this page only if there is sufficient sourced verifiable information on their article page to demonstrate that they have been designated as a terrorist organization by a suitable body.

The only verifiable one is the UK government, and they are already in that category. Brixton Busters 15:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added the "former" category, due to them no longer being an FTO. Good enough? Brixton Busters 15:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Dubious tag

"According to The Provisional IRA (Eamon Mallie and Patrick Bishop), roughly 8,000 people passed through the ranks of the IRA during the 30 year Troubles, many of them leaving after arrest, "retirement" or disillusionment". That book was published in the late 80s (87? 88?), so cannot support that particular piece of text. Brixton Busters 15:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I read that section again, and it seems some what contradictory, in relation to the numbers. In addition the being "somewhat weakened" dose not tally with what the Governments say. But to be honest, I don’t think I would know how to address it. --Domer48 16:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It's npt dubvious, those were the estimates of those authors up to that time. If you have more up to date figures then lets have them. Jdorney 09:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"At the time" being the key words, those estimates did not support the text. Brixton Busters 14:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

PIRA not designated by US as FTO 'cos does not threaten US

PIRA is not currently listed as a "Foreign Terrorist Organization" (FTO) by the United States of America since it does not currently threaten (and has not in the last 5 years) [7] the security of U.S. nationals or the national security or the economic interests of the U.S.

The US legislation (see this subsection of our U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations#Legal Criteria for Designation article) makes clear that if a foreign terrorist organisation does not threaten US interests then it will not be designated as a FTO by the US.

This web page makes clear that PIRA does not (and has not since 2000) threatened US interests: http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/terrorist-groups.cfm (look in the Northern Ireland section - you'll also note the use of "PIRA" to distinguish ambiguity)

The relevant entry for PIRA there reads: "MAIN ANTI-U.S. ACTIVITIES TO DATE: None."  W. Frank talk ✉  16:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The first part is not relevant. That may well be the reason, but it is speculation unless a source says that. You are interpreting legislation and drawing your own conclusion, that is original research. I have already dismissed this source further up the page, all that says is "NOT a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), but listed as "active" during 2000" it does not say why. A source that says why the IRA are no longer an FTO is needed. Thank you. Brixton Busters 16:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR you are making your own assumptions on this Frank. BigDunc 17:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

FTO redux

This deserves a new section. I will be, possibly temporarily, removing the FTO mentions and associated category. While doing research for a source to aid W. Frank's quest to state why the IRA are no longer designated as an FTO I made a relevant discovery.

• May 2001 IRA not classed as an FTO in 1997, and no mention of them receiving the classification since then and it being revoked.
• August 2001 IRA not classed as an FTO at that time

So, have the IRA ever been designated as an FTO? Let us start from the beginning before adding back this now possibly irrelevant text. Were they designated? If so, when? Also, a date/reason they ceased to be designated would be useful as well, assuming they were designated in the first place. Brixton Busters 11:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The US state department has designated the IRA a terrorist organisation at times (e.g. here under "Other Terrorist Groups") but the designation 'FTO' has specific legal meaning and was amended in the PATRIOT act. I don't know if the IRA has ever received such a designation. Coroebus 17:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge IRA QMG

I'm tempted to propose merging IRA Quartermaster General into this page. There's hardly any useful info there which couldn't be easily added to tne main page. Thoughts?? JXM 16:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:IRA Resistance Poster.jpg

Image:IRA Resistance Poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Óglaigh na hÉireann

• "The government of the Republic of Ireland does not recognise their use of the title, and use of the title is illegal in Ireland.[7]"

Reference 7 quotes Statutory Rules and Orders, 1939, No. 162: "It is hereby declared that the organisation styling itself the Irish Republican Army (also the I.R.A. and Oglaigh na hÉireann) is an unlawful organisation." This is explicit recognition by the Irish Government of the use of the title by the IRA. Furthermore, it makes the organisation unlawful, not its use of the title. Both these ststements are in fact untrue. Certain members of the Irish Government and/or the Irish Army have expressed their disapproval of the use of the title by the IRA(s), but there is no government policy, and certainly no law, regarding it. Scolaire 11:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed that sentence, and similar sentences in Óglaigh na hÉireann and Irish Defence Forces. Scolaire 09:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Date of formation of Provisional IRA

According to Seán Mac Stíofáin[8], the Provisional IRA was not formed until after Provisional Sinn Féin, i.e. January 1970:

"q: And that's how the provisional IRA was born.

a: Born, no, that's Sinn Fein. Three weeks before the IRA."

The Provisional Army Council was formed within the existing IRA in December 1969. Scolaire 14:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there's a difference between the Army Council and the organization itself. When the Provisional Army Council was formed, it was largely a symbolic organization and the existing IRA membership hadn't started defecting to their command yet. So the Provisional IRA didn't really exist as a paramilitary organization until various battalion and company areas in Belfast and Derry started aligning themselves with the Provo leadership, and eventually the entire brigades in both cities. That would have only started happening in the early months of 1970. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.146.132.101 (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Electoral and popular support - sentence changed

• "For example, in the 1981 Irish General Election, Anti H-Block Republican candidates won just 5% of the popular vote"

Although it's allegedly sourced, it's completely wrong. I have a copy of the book in front on me, and it says:

There had been fewer opportunities for the movement to develop in the South; there had been only local government elections since the country went to the polls in December 1981. In that contest, even though it came within a few months of the ending of the hunger strikes, Sinn Fein had performed dismally, collecting only five per cent of the vote.

Nothing to do with the General Election, changed accordingly. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)