Talk:Real Irish Republican Army

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Real Irish Republican Army has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

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.


Don't be a rat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.78.142 (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Actually, the same thing has happened to me, somehow I ended up with a £1 coin with "RIRA" pressed into it. I think I got it in a local bookshop... I kept it as a souvenir, despite its rather sinister past... EJF (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen loads of these (I live in Belfast) well to only IRA stamoed on the coin. It's just been stamped it's not like the black spot. You also get a few banknotes that have had IRA wrote across them or the 'London' in Londonderry scribbled out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.60.142 (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[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. Image:Erin Go Bragh flag.jpgErin 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)

[edit] Oddly phrased passage

The article references the Omagh bombing as "The RIRA's single, bloodiest strike in the 30-year history of partisan conflict." Now, had it said simply "the single bloodiest strike in the 30-year history of partisan conflict" it would of course have been factualy incorrect (the Dublin and Monaghan bombing strike had a death toll of 33). The inclusion of "the RIRA's" fixes that issue but makes the rest of it a bit nonsensical as the RIRA have only been around since 1998. As it stands, its somewhat misleading. It could easily be fixed with either a pair of clearer statements such as "The RIRA's single, most deadly assault and the second bloodiest paramilitary strike in the 30-year history of partisan conflict." or by simply rephrasing the existing sentence as: "The bloodiest single detonation in the 30-year history of partisan conflict." (as the Dublin/Monaghan strike involved two seperate detonations.) Any ideas? Fergus mac Róich 15:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded it slightly as it made no real attempt at NPOV, it was more like something out of a tabloid. I've generally felt the Dublin/Monaghan bombings were unfairly lumped together in that respect, there were two "strikes". One Night In Hackney303 00:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

It occured to me that this article might benefit from an infobox. I started to experiement, but leave the rest to people more informed on the topic. (For the record: I had nothing to do with the choice of the color Orange -- it's a rather rude joke if you ask me.) Cheers. HausTalk 21:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, except for the orange obviously! It's currently up for GA review, may as well wait and see what happens with that first? One Night In Hackney303 21:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I prefer the War Faction Infobox personally. One Night In Hackney303 21:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


Real Irish Republican Army


Northern Ireland shown in Orange
Formation November 1997
Membership About 150
Chief of Staff 
{{Infobox Organization
|name         = Real Irish Republican Army
|image        = 
|image_border = 
|size         = 
|caption      = 
|map          = Europe location N-IRL.png
|msize        = 
|mcaption     = Northern Ireland shown in Orange
|motto        = 
|formation    = November 1997
|extinction   = 
|type         = 
|headquarters = 
|location     = 
|membership   = About 150
|language     = 
|leader_title = Chief of Staff
|leader_name  = 
|key_people   = 
|num_staff    = 
|budget       = 
|website      = 
}}
Real Irish Republican Army
(Óglaigh na hÉireann)
Participant in The Troubles

Northern Ireland shown in Orange
Active November 1997 - present
Leaders Real IRA Army Council
Strength Approximately 150
Originated as Provisional Irish Republican Army
Opponents United Kingdom

[edit] GA on hold

I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have put the article on hold until the following issues are addressed.

  1. I see that you are attempting to choose an infobox to add to the article. It would be great if you'd choose one for use in the article, and with my opinion (if needed), I recommend the second one, as it contains more details. However, if there is consensus on the other one, then that's great too as long as one of them is added (unless another one is created as well).
  2. For more clarification rewrite "The organisation's first action was an attempted bombing in Banbridge, County Down on January 7, 1998, when a 300 lb car bomb was defused by security forces." to something like "The organisation's first action was an attempted bombing in Banbridge, County Down on January 7, 1998. The plot involved a 300-pound car bomb, but it was thwarted after being defused by security forces." If you don't want to split the sentences that's fine, but I still think it should be reworded a little.
  3. The third paragraph in the "History" section has two long-drawn out sentences. It would be best to divide these into three or four sentences.
  4. "On August 15 the RIRA killed 29 people and injured over 200 in the Omagh bombing; the single, deadliest strike of the Troubles." Rewrite to "On August 15 the RIRA killed 29 people and injured over 200 in the Omagh bombing which became the single deadliest strike of the Troubles.
  5. The article states that two bombs were left at the two areas on June 1 and July 19, but did they detonate or were they disarmed?
  6. "The bomb did not fully detonate and no-one was injured." No one doesn't need a hyphen, unless that is common usage for the area's English; I rely on American English, so ignore if I'm incorrect.
  7. "After a two month trial," Add a hyphen between two and month.
  8. Consider breaking up the history section a bit with some new headings. The first three paragraphs could be a section about "Beginnings", the next two "Bombings", and the last two something else. Please come up with better titles then what I listed here.
  9. "The IMC's October 2006 report stated that the RIRA remains "active and dangerous" and that it seeks to "sustain its position as a terrorist organisation", and the RIRA has previously stated it has no intention of calling a ceasefire unless a declaration of intent to withdraw from Northern Ireland is made by the British Government." Split this into two sentences.
  10. "The rank-and-file members operate in covert cells in order to prevent the organisation being compromised by informers." Reword to "prevent the organisation from being...".
  11. See if there are any relevant images that you can add to the article, and if possible, add more external links that comply with WP:EL.

Altogether, the article is well-sourced and very informative. Please address the above issues within seven days and I'll pass the article. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions or when you are done and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 06:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA passed

I have passed this article according to the GA criteria. Excellent work in addressing the above issues so quickly. I think it would be best if the "Origins" and "Objectives" sections were switched around, as it appears to make more sense in that sequence. For the images, maybe include a free image of one of the targets before/after the bombing (such as the Hammersmith Bridge) or start asking some sites that own the rights to images and ask if they are willing to release a particular image under a free license. One last minor issue to address is that there needs to be a space between the first two sentences in the "Early campaign" section. If you have the time, please consider reviewing an article or two at GAC to help with the backlog. Each new reveiwer helps to decrease the waiting time for other articles to be reviewed. Good work on this article, and I hope that you continue to improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia! --Nehrams2020 17:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the space, it snuck it unnoticed while I was making the above changes. I'll definitely try and organise some images, and review a GA candidate later if I can find one that's not overly complex. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 18:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This article states that the real IRA is considered an illegal organziation in the UK, what's the status of the "Provisional IRA"?

[edit] Recent changes

Will editors please stop adding unsourced commentrary to a good article. You cannot copy unsourced text from another article and add it to this one. Also see WP:WEASEL while you are at it. One Night In Hackney303 17:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your rationale for the revert. The concept of Physical force Irish republicanism is a point of view. The article itself states "Physical force Irish republicanism is a term used by historians' in Ireland to describe the recurring appearance of non-parliamentary violent insurrection in Ireland between 1798 and the present." It is the point of view of certain historians, not a neutral point of view. Additionally, the Physical force article is uncited. To use a neutral voice in this article, we should simply say "The Real Irish Republican Army, otherwise known as the Real IRA (RIRA) or True IRA and styling itself as Óglaigh na hÉireann (Volunteers of Ireland), is a paramilitary organisation which aims to bring about a United Ireland". Saying that it does this " through the use of physical force Irish republicanism" is introducing a point of view unnecessarily. If we are going to use that term, we should qualify what it is-the opinion of certain historians, not a fact. Therefore I am reverting. Deus Ex 17:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Read the rest of the article including the objectives section, it spells out clearly how they go about it. One Night In Hackney303
I don't understand what you mean by "Wikipedia is not a reliable source"-how does that change whether we should deliberately portray POV as fact? Physical Force Irish Republican is a historical theory, it is not a verifiable fact. I study history at university-it's an example of historiography. Deus Ex 17:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
You have copied unsourced text from another Wikipedia article, so it is not reliable. Where is the proof is it the point of view of historians? There isn't even a source for that to begin with. One Night In Hackney303 17:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I haven't copied text, I've simply read the Physical Force article and the meaning is clear for all to see: it is a theory some historians use when referring to extra-parliamentary violence in Ireland in a certain period. Now you've added the weasel word, citation needed boxes, are you are arguing for removing all references to Physical force Irish republicanism from the article? I agree, if that's the case-it's a point of view that isn't necessary to mention in the introduction. Deus Ex 17:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
OK then. If you want to add the text back - prove which historians use the term, and prove they are Irish. Anything else is unsourced POV you're adding. One Night In Hackney303 17:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I never wanted the reference to Physical Force Irish Republicanism there in the first place, it sounds like a euphemism anyway. That's why I amended the introduction originally, to remove the significance of this unsourced, POV term. 17:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deus Ex (talk • contribs)

So I take it that you are motivated by your own personal opinion. At least your honest, but I should advise that basing your edits on personal opinion is not what we are looking for on articles. Your information should be sourced and references added. --Domer48 17:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not motivated by my own personal opinion. If you think I am motivated by bias or dislike of Irish Republicanism, you are very much mistaken. I am motivated by removing unsubstantiated points of view presented as facts from the introduction. You can see my discussion with OneNightinHackney. What new argument are you bringing not to delete the sentence in question? Deus Ex 17:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
If I might draw your attention to the fact that this article is classed as a "Good Article." Therefore you must consider, are your edits improving the article? You have said quite clearly that "I never wanted the reference to Physical Force Irish Republicanism there in the first place, it sounds like a euphemism anyway." So that was your rational, or motivation if you will, that is all I wished to draw your attention to. --Domer48 18:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
1. Just because it is classed as a Good Article doesn't mean it can't be improved or there are flaws in it. 2. Because the sentence "The Real Irish Republican Army... is a paramilitary organisation which aims to bring about a United Ireland through the use of physical force Irish republicanism" is completely unsourced and unsubstantiated. Look at the article on physical force irish republicanism itself, it has no citations and a neutrality check nomination. In the absence of any source that proves the RIRA's activities are "physical force Irish republicanism", I believe it is a euphemism. I think a more accurate description is "The Real Irish Republican Army... is a paramilitary organisation which aims to bring about a United Ireland through the use of violence", because that is purely descriptive-I've seen sources that prove RIRA have committed violent acts e.g. several of the references in the article and none to say their activities are "physical force Irish republicanism" . Deus Ex 18:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
A change which required three (!!) tags adding to a single sentence is not an improvement. "use of violence" is not correct, the RIRA has a political wing for the very reason that a political approach is also needed. One Night In Hackney303 18:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean including the change I made to the physical force irish republicanism sentence-the whole thing should be omitted. Anyway, the introduction is fine as it is. Perhaps you're right, in the intro "use of violence" would be too much of a generalisation, despite the significant evidence of the RIRA's violent activities. Deus Ex 18:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What?

The bombers could not find a parking space near the intended target of the courthouse, and the car was left 400 metres away

This is just one person's opinion (okay, two people, but the point is still the same). Some RUC officers and some of the victims families believe that the IRA deliberately targeted the crowd of innocent people at Market Street. The 'Omagh bombing' article itself does a better job of representing all points of view. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 02:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not just the opinion of one person, or even two people, it's a fact. Do you know where that information came from? That's from Michael McKevitt's court case - used by the prosecution to convict him. One Night In Hackney303 02:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I suppose it's a moot point since the two views are not mutually exclusive. The bombers could have missed their target, the courthouse, and then deliberately led people to where the bomb ended up. Or they could have given false warnings by accident. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I tend to prefer sources that have actually gone over what happened in detail, as the book has analysing all the events and sources. Random quotes to the media are just that, they aren't necessarily informed opinions or based on anything but speculation or bias, so I'm never keen on them. One Night In Hackney303 03:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand. I don't disagree with you; it's just that I think the wording The bombers could not find a parking space near the intended target of the courthouse, and the car was left 400 metres away.[20][21] As a result three inaccurate telephone warnings were issued, and the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) believed the bomb was actually located outside the courthouse. is a little bit problematic. Why not delete the words "As a result", which might imply that the false warnings were accidental, and just have it say: The bombers could not find a parking space near the intended target, the courthouse, and the car was left 400 metres away from it.[20][21] Three inaccurate telephone warnings were issued, and the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) believed the bomb was actually located outside the courthouse.? 24.32.208.58 (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I made the change. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I changed it back. The inaccurate warnings were as a result of the parking problems - sourced fact from reliable sources. Leaving out "As a result" panders to the rent-a-quote mob, such as Ronnie Flanagan. Let's not forget he made that comment the same day as the bombing, without even the benefit of a single piece of evidence to support it (a bit like the Hoey case!!). One Night In Hackney303 09:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The inaccurate warnings were as a result of the parking problems - sourced fact from reliable sources. I'm not disputing that some RS say that the bad warnings were accidental. But Flanagan's point of view shouldn't be ignored. When he made his early statement, he was relying on the fact that the warnings 1) mentioned 'Main Street' when no 'Main Street' existed at the time and 2) were hundreds of yards off from the actual bomb. He also knew that militant Republicans had deliberately targeted civilians before-- see Harrods bombing. I may be wrong at this, but I don't think-- after all that's happened-- Flanagan has ever changed his mind on the subject. Anyways, Flanagan is not alone his views. During the Hoey case, the prosecution argued along the same lines. "He said three telephoned warnings received before the bomb went off were "not only wrong but were meaningless. It would be argued, he said, that the warnings given made it inevitable that any evacuation would be to "the very area of the parked car bomb". If the bombers had genuinely wished to avoid deaths and injury, they could easily have given a description of the vehicle and an accurate description of its location, as they had done in previous bombings, he said." -- [1]
If RS disagree, than either both views should be represented-- which is what 'Omagh bombing' does-- or neither should be mentioned-- which would mean taking out as a result. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The Telegraph has also stated that the inaccurate warnings were not accidental, stating that "An Irish newspaper received a coded warning prior to the explosion in Omagh, but it was deliberately misleading. It said the bomb was "near the courthouse". It was at the other end of the street, more than 400 yards away, and bomb disposal teams were sent off-track." 24.32.208.58 (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Flanagan's point of view should be expressly ignored. What is it based on? A whole lot of nothing. It's a quote he gave to the media without any evidence to back up hid claim and before the investigation had even started properly.
Harrods bombing "deliberately targeted civilians"?! Hilarious.
I've looked at all those sources, and they all pre-date McKevitt's trial. And none of them contradict the events of the day. One Night In Hackney303 14:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I've looked at all those sources, and they all pre-date McKevitt's trial. The prosecution argument in the Hoey case was made Tuesday, 26 September 2006.
Yes, Flanagan's point of view should be expressly ignored. What is it based on? A whole lot of nothing. How do you know that? Yes, he did make the statement right after the bombing and before the investigation ran its course. But he's never gone back on it. And he's not alone in his opinion, as the 2006 The Independent story reports. The day after the Kennedy assassination, Hoover told Johnson that Oswald was the lone assassin. He never changed his views, and- today- most serious academic scholars agree with Hoover. Flanagan based his opinion on the fact that the bombers could have given the correct street address, but they gave a false one, they could have given a description of the car like they did in other attack warnings, but they didn't, and so on.
Harrods bombing "deliberately targeted civilians"?! Hilarious. That's a bad example since the PIRA didn't authorize it, but one could easily find other incidents where the PIRA deliberately targeted innocent people such as Bloody Friday (1972) for one-- which they eventually apologised for. There's also the incident where the PIRA put a bomb in a toliet in the London Stock Exchange. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Bloody Friday didn't target civilians, so it's a very bad example. Neither did the Stock Exchange bomb. If you're going to target civilians, why give a warning? Even the chairman of the Exchange said "If the purpose of this callous act was to bring the City to a halt, they have failed singularly; our systems and services have functioned perfectly, and trading has continued as normal", so it's obvious he doesn't think it was intended to kill civilians. Yet someone you seem to think otherwise?! The Omagh bombers didn't give a false warning as such, as the people who planted the bomb didn't issue the warning. That's why it all went wrong, again that was part of the evidence at McKevitt's trial and not from the defence, it was from the prosection. Flanagan based his opinion on nothing. Does anyone seriously believe that the RIRA deliberately caused the deaths of 29 people, which they knew would prompt a massive crackdown from both British and Irish law enforcement, and turn public opinion against them in a big way? Omagh killed the RIRA pretty much dead. One Night In Hackney303 00:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Bloody Friday didn't target civilians, so it's a very bad example. No. The PIRA explicitly targeted innocent civilians. On Agnes Street in Belfast, the Provos parked a car bomb in front of a group of Protestant homes in a residental area. They gave no warning whatsoever. No one, fortunately, ended up being killed or maimed in that incident. The same is not true for the innocent shoppers visiting the stores alongside Cavehill Road, in north Belfast. Again, the Provos gave no warning. Margaret O'Hare, a Catholic mother of seven children, died along with Brigid Murray, a sixty-five-year-old Catholic, and Stephen Parker-- a fourteen-year-old Protestant kid. This was sheer, unadultered murder. See CAIN. If an Isreali or American soldier did something like that, they would be court-martialed.
Flanagan based his opinion on nothing. The belief that the warnings were deliberately misleading is the belief recently put forth by the Queens Counsel, as evidenced by a reliable source. In previous attack warnings, the RIRA gave accurate locations, accurate times, and accurate descriptions of the vehicles carrying the bombs. They did not do so in Omagh. Assuming, just for the sake of arguement, that the fact that every single part of the warnings were false was purely accidental, why didn't the RIRA tell the RUC what the car looked like or what plates it had? If they did it in warnings for other bombings, why on earth didn't they do it in Omagh?
Does anyone seriously believe that the RIRA deliberately caused the deaths of 29 people, which they knew would prompt a massive crackdown from both British and Irish law enforcement, and turn public opinion against them in a big way? You could say the exact same thing about the Provos during Bloody Friday-- the deaths of Irish Catholic civilians at their hands caused a serious backlash, as the BBC has noted. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) "No. The PIRA explicitly targeted innocent civilians." - please, stop with your unsourced propaganda. There's nothing in the source provided that says the IRA didn't send a warning, only that the people didn't receive one. Different thing entirely. How do you know what the target was? You don't! Operations were frequently abandoned due to the presence of security forces, simply because the car was left in one place doesn't mean it was the target. Try reading the sources - Richard English says "Warnings had been given, but because of the number of bombs and the scale of the operation, these were simply insufficient to avoid awful casualties". Mallie & Bishop say - "The Provisionals immediately accepted responsibility for the explosions and indignantly insisted that they had telephoned warnings about each bomb's position an hour or half an hour beforehand to three separate organisations [in addition to some hoax warnings]". Or how about what Martin Dillon says in respect to Bloody Friday - "A general warning is phoned to a newspaper officer with a code-word and then has to pass through several channels before it is acted upon. During that process, even a precise IRA message can result in a garbled version given to police on the streets". Robert White says "The IRA telephoned warnings, but there were too many of them in Belfast and not enough police, soldiers, and firefighters to cover them" etc etc etc. Yes - proper academic respects sources not some rent-a-quote gobshite on a website. Americans and Israeli soldiers do it all the time, and they get medals! How many pilots have ever been prosecuted for carpet bombing? Look at it all - Dresden, Coventry, Iraq etc etc.

And I really hate to break the news to you, but your reliable source (the QC) is talking a load of tosh. It's his job to make the person in the dock look bad. See Mooney and O' Toole - the RIRA had deliberately stopped giving overly specific warnings, as the RUC and British Army were getting to the bombs in time and defusing them, giving them valuable forensic evidence. "RUC Chief Constable Ronnie Flanagan said the warning had been totally inadequate" and "Although a warning was given, the information was inadequate" demonstrate that quite clearly, and they were before Omagh. Why didn't they do it in Omagh. Mooney and O'Toole (who are pretty anti-RIRA if you read the book) say various things...."Despite all he planning that went into the attack, the ASU did not know it was a festival weekend. The market town was filled with hundreds of shoppers and visitors. When the car drove into the town, the driver of the bomb car could not find a parking space near the court. In a moment of panic, he continued driving and pulling up outside SD Kells draper shop at 35-37 Barket Street. It was nowhere near Omagh Court" and "There was a flurry of calls from the bomb car whose occupants were trying to give the prices details of where the bomb car had been parked" (note that they didn't telephone any of the warnings, that was done by other people). As for your last point, that adequately demonstrates my point. The RIRA were well aware that every time an IRA bomb accidentally killed a large number of people, there was a backlash against it. So the RIRA, a fledgling organisation that had nowhere near the level of public support as the IRA did in 1972, why would they do it? One Night In Hackney303 06:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


How do you know what the target was? You don't! Try reading the sources I know what the sources say. The fundamental thing is that the Provos didn't attack legitimate military targets on Bloody Friday. They bombed commerical shops, they bombed peoples' homes, they bombed a bus depot, they bombed a railway station, and so on and so on. Are you saying that almost every single place that was attacked on Bloody Friday was not originally planned to be a target? Also, what about the hoax warnings that were issued? Like the BBC reported, "Ultimately Bloody Friday revealed a side to the organisation that many who had joined in the wake of Bloody Sunday had not wished to acknowledge."
And I really hate to break the news to you, but your reliable source (the QC) is talking a load of tosh. So, he contradicts other sources. In that case, both views should be fairly represented.
So the RIRA, a fledgling organisation that had nowhere near the level of public support as the IRA did in 1972, why would they do it? Look, that's the same question you could ask at many points of Irish history. Why would the Paras shoot a peaceful, unarmed civil rights activist waving white on Bloody Sunday when they knew that it would motivate dozens and dozens of people to join the IRA? Why would the Tans open fire on a crowd of sporting participants on the earlier Bloody Sunday when they knew that it would generate a wave of outrage against the British in the Anglo-Irish war? It goes on. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Try reading the Green Book or any of the sources I've just quoted, perhaps then you'll understand what I'm talking about, instead of relying on news reports or your own imagination. And no, your "reliable source" doesn't contradict other sources, he's demonstrably lying. Try reading WP:V, the spoken words of one person do not a reliable source make. As for your examples, you've missed the point in such a spectacular way there's nothing more needs to be said. Now unless you've got some proper sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy as opposed to random quotes, this discussion should come to an end. One Night In Hackney303 01:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
So you consider the Provo's propaganda manual to be a better factual source than the BBC? Look, I'm not going to argue with you further about whether or not the PIRA acted like a legitimate army. We can agree that it's not at all relevant to this article or to the Omagh bombing article.
When it comes to this article, I'm not going to start an edit war over just three simple words-- it's those kinds of violations of WP:Point that plague Northern Ireland articles (Note: I am not accusing you of doing that. I'm just saying that I've seen other registered users doing that). I'm fine with the three words staying in this article. I still strongly disagree about the 'Omagh bombing' article, but that's a discussion for that talk page and not for this one. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
What propaganda manual? It's the IRA constitution, and it says exactly what their targets and objectives are. What have the BBC got to do with it? Don't you understand - the sources I've quoted you are people that have spent 20-30 years reporting on the conflict in Northern Ireland. They aren't some staff in a newsroom that don't even put their name to a report. The sources I quote are the bottom line for sourcing with regards to the Troubles (amongst others), there's none better. If you really want to work on these articles books are the way to go, not the crap you get online. One Night In Hackney303 04:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

I added the fact that, today, they've said that they're resuming violence (not that they ever really stopped). I'm not sure whether or not this information should be in the lead or in a later section though. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD says it doesn't. One Night In Hackney303 02:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Right. The info is now in the 'activities' section. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I altered the rest of the article so that the dates are in the 8 February 2008 format. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps (Pass)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. I have made a few minor grammatical edits to the article myself and there are two small notes below for regular contributors to consider, but the article is easily GA quality.

  • The lead could do with expansion, as it is it only just covers the topic of the article.
  • "the organisation became increasingly weaker" - why? Needs further explanation.

Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You know me and leads....I'll take a look at it later. The organisation getting weaker is further explained, in the sentences after it. One Night In Hackney303 08:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
In that case, the sentance should explain it better i.e. "a series of events during 2001 steadily weakened the organisation, a situation made worse by further infliltration by informers". As I said above though, the article is a good quality one.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)