Talk:Real 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.
Start This article has been rated as start-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] Misc. Stuff at top of page

This entry tells readers nothing about the stated aims of this organization. Why has it conducted these attacks? The entry could have been written by an MI5 asset. WORTHLESS.221.157.74.160 16:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


"The organisation has also been blamed for an increasing number of punishment attacks in Strabane. Many see this as a sign of growing support for the group, in light of failed attempts to rescue the Belfast peace accord." That's really spectacular POV grasping at straws, and rather distasteful straws as well. More kneecappings in Strabane = imminent reunification of Ireland? Took out this sentence, Palmiro 11:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

That is horribly POV, but we need to add some small part of it back, maybe as simple as The Real IRA has been blamed for an increasing number of punishment attacks since...SCVirus 22:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


There were no attacks in either Scotland or Wales, in fact I'm not aware of any outside London. I can't see how "England" could be considered POV.


Haven't there been a cease-fire now again? The newspapers told about that last autumn (2005)... why aren't there any informaion in the article?


Lapsed Pacifist 15:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

When you say 'outside London', are you refering specifically to RIRA actions or to the IRA in general? Because the IRA, in one form or another, have hit Manchester, Guildford and Bristol over the years, among others. 82.1.229.53 12:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reversions and accusations of POV

Silveralex, you don't seem to have given any indication of why you consider Lapsed Pacifist's edits to be POV. He's defended his use of England and you haven't disputed his claims on the talk page. Also, unless you can find a quote from the people in question, I think "futility" is a rather judgemental term that itself has a bit of a POV tinge. Palmiro | Talk 19:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The term futility was written by someone else though weakness is also a term I'd say is too judgemental for wikipedia so have changed it. If you want proof of Lapsed Pacifist's POV problems please check his talk page, he has been blocked again but who knows for how long. As for the use of England, an attack on England is an attack on Great Britain with regards any form of terror attack. The July 7 attacks are universally described as not an attack on London but as an attack at Great Britain. Silveralex 14:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

LP is a notorious POV-warrior (I should know, I've wasted enough of my time reverting his POV-pushing), but that doesn't automatically make every single one of his edits POV. He does make worthwhile contributions as well. In this particular case, it seems that the PIRA had an deliberate policy of bombing targets in England only (and not in Scotland or Wales). If the RIRA have continued the same policy, then this would seem to be a worthwhile piece of information to include in the article. Demiurge 14:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the mainland attacks by RIRA so far have taken place inside England but to seperate England from Great Britain in regards to target seems a disservice to Scotland and Wales as well as IRA propaganda. Both PIRA and RIRA bombing targets have occasionally been the government which is classed as the British government not the English government and bombs have travelled through and occasionally been intercepted travelling though Wales. Considering the hazard of them going off accidentally its not like Wales hasn't been exposed to danger of bombs. Silveralex 15:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Thats really really poor logic, a bomb went through an area that means they were attacking that area? SCVirus 23:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] added category

added Category:Terrorist organizations to this and hamas and al-queada and LTTE.Hypnosadist 20:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrongly attributed incident

I removed the line below as it was the Continuity IRA and not the Real IRA who were responsible for the bomb in Dublin.

In December 2005 a car bombing in Dublin was avoided by the Garda. This attempted attack is thought to have been by the RIRA.

AlanMc

[edit] RIRA coin

I know this is probably a strange place to be asking about this but I'm really deserate for some information.

I have left the British Army recently and begun working in a bar in North East England. Today I was handed a 50p coin over the bar from an EIRE man. The coin was stamped into the metal with RIRA in it. I really want to stress that this was not scratched into the coin or done crudely, it was clearly done with some kind of machine designed to press deep indentations into metal.

As I'm sure you'd imagine this has shaken me up a little and would like to know if these coins are common as some kind of strategy and also some opinions on whether I should report this to the Police. Then again, I havent heard of any other acronyms for RIRA so I'm uncomfortably aware that it's origin is almost certainly from the Real IRA.

Thank you for your Time

If you really suspect the thing to be printed by the RIRA, and you want no part in it, I'd suggest you just keep quiet about the whole thing. Get your fingerprints off of it, and leave it off somewhere.

[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 06:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Splinter Group

May I suggest that rather than unsportingly coordinating a forced instance of the 3-Revert rule, would you consider discussing the matter on the talk page, as directed by Wikipedia's policy on reversion?

That tail end of the article implies that the only reason the group is prohibited is its name. This, however, is not the case, as even a cursory reading of the linked article would show.

Please remember that reverts are primarily used for vandalism, and that if you disagree with the use of grammar then you should EDIT rather than revert. I'd rather not have to pass this higher up the chain, flagrant disregard of wikipedia policy only smacks of a personal agenda. I'm going to alter the sentence once again, and this time I expect the courtesy of discussion rather than unwarranted vandal reversion.

82.4.220.108 19:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read what the source says, instead of making POV edits. One Night In Hackney303 19:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have in fact read the source, in fact my latest edit is effectively a summary of the article, not entirely different to the end summary of the article itself.

Please remember reverts are for vandalism. This is hardly a POV edit, the source article clearly states the exact same thing! Thanks.

82.4.220.108 19:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you haven't, as your version is not supported by the source. One Night In Hackney303 19:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

And I quote:

"It necessarily followed from that that a specified organisation might be part of a larger proscribed organisation.... The scheme of the legislation, in short, was custom-built for the Real IRA, a specified organisation, to be regarded as part of the proscribed organisation, the IRA."

Which, to summarise, is that they are treated as a splinter group or otherwise a component of the IRA. Part of a larger organisation. It is not something so trivial as the mere use of a name, and the wikipedia article is extremely misleading in this respect. I would thank you to take accusations of POV pushing elsewhere, I am merely seeking to clarify the wikipedia article.

82.4.220.108 19:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything about Irish law in that source, do you? One Night In Hackney303 19:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to expand the section to cover Irish and UK law separately, in order to definitively clarify the issue, rather than hide possible POV by lumping the law together in the most primitive fashion. Which should be discussed first, Irish law, UK law, or UN law?

82.4.220.108 19:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What does the UN have to do with anything? You keep bringing them up, but they aren't relevant. I still don't see your point. The source makes it expressly clear exactly why the group is illegal, because of the use of the name IRA. The term IRA is used an umbrella in the Terrorism Act to include the various forms of the IRA, and should the RIRA completely disband then reform under a totally different name with the same members, it would not be illegal under the Terrorism Act. Therefore, it's the use of the name IRA that makes it illegal, as the article and source says. Further clarification is not necessary. One Night In Hackney303 19:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not something as glib as the mere use of the phrase. The article discusses that that particular legislation was drafted specifically to catch splinter groups. Clarification is entirely necessary as a reader could easily come away with the unfounded belief that anything with the phrase 'IRA' in the name will automatically be labelled a prohibited group.

Further, if you dislike UN law, then perhaps we could stick with just a section on Irish law, and one on UK law? It would certainly save on us having to search through various security meetings on the UN website. Which legal system would you prefer had "top billing" as it were? Again, more than happy to split the section, since this was your central opposition to my initial attempt at clarification. If you have "better things to do", I could do it for you if we agree a format here.

82.4.220.108 19:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to change IRA to Irish Republican Army, be my guest. However it's been made abundantly clear that IRA is an acronym, as per the style guidelines. It isn't an unfounded belief that any new group would be prohibited, it's the whole and absolute truth. If an INLA splinter group was formed tomorrow and called itself "New IRA", it would be covered by the legislation even though it's not a PIRA splinter group. To the best of my knowledge "Saoirse na hÉireann" (CIRA splinter group) are not covered by the existing legislation either. Also, why is a seperate section needed for UK and Irish law? One Night In Hackney303 21:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem - as a reminder for you, the reason we need to split it is chiefly because you find fault with the section. You stated the article has no mention of Irish law, so the solution is to have one paragraph explain the Irish law, and the second explain UK law. Or vice versa - if you have an issue with top billing then I'm happy to put it in whichever order you like, for your convenience. You may not have noticed, but your reverts have not amended the problem you've perceived. This also allows for a fully clarification, rather than a glib line that implies the problem is with the name. The most recent Terrorist Act, being AFAIK from 2006, is actually phrased to catch any group that is a splinter group or operating wholly or partly under a proscribed group's name. Article here -

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/60011--c.htm#22

As you are no doubt aware, the issue is not the acronym, its the perception that the use of the acronym is solely the reason why the group is prohibited - this is not entirely true.

By the by, IIRC, SNH was reported as being dissident young people, whereas it was ONH that was a CIRA splinter and hoping to recruit unhappy RIRA members? Regardless, under the 2006 legislation, and you'll forgive me as I'm rusty on my legalese, it would appear that ONH could be proscribed due to its links to the CIRA and/or RIRA, and that by extension the SNH would be proscribed, on sharing similar parts to the name.

I will be first to say that its a horribly shaky system, but its the best they could come up with for catching every possible evolution of nomenclature.

Of course, if you want to go faaaaar back, ONH would be proscribed as it would share links (in terms of name) with the Irish Volunteers and original IRA. But I digress!

82.4.220.108 00:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Based on your inability to discern the difference between libel and slander, forgive me for doubting the extent of your capability of interpreting legal documents. It's illegal under UK and Irish law for the same reason, as currently stated. One Night In Hackney303 19:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/a/Talk%7EReal_Irish_Republican_Army_e999.html"