Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Irish Republicanism WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.)
High This article is on a subject of high-importance for Irish Republicanism-related articles.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

WikiProject Irish Republicanism tasks:

 


Contents

[edit] Archives

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 AlfadorTalk|@ 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 AlfadorTalk|@ 19:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.35.182.234 (talk • contribs).

  • 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)

[edit] 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.—The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] interesting article

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

[edit] 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))

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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.


[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). 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. 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/o/Talk%7EProvisional_Irish_Republican_Army_0f72.html"