Jump to content

Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

US categorisation

I am amending the following passage to remove the first sentence.

In October 1997, the US stopped designating the IRA as a terrorist organisation.[1] The US Department of State has not designated the IRA as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, but lists them in the category 'other selected terrorist groups also deemed of relevance in the global war on terrorism'.[2][3]

The CAIN reference says The United States of America (USA) State Department decided to drop the Irish Republican Army (IRA) from its list of 'terrorist' organisations. One affect of this decision was to allow funds to be raised on behalf of the IRA. Unionists were critical of the decision., and while the US stopped designating the IRA as a terrorist organisation might be considered a reasonable paraphrase of this, it isn't accurate. International Humanitarian Law: Modern Developments in the Limitation of Warfare (ISBN 9780429202568) by Hilaire McCoubrey says Thus in October 1997 the USA published a definitive list of organisations which it then considered to be terrorist in nature, not including the IRA. The USA Patriot Act of 2001: Balancing Civil Liberties and National Security (ISBN 978-1851097227) by Howard Ball says ...October 1997, former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Alright approved the designation of the first 30 groups as Foreign Terrorist Organizations. The Depiction of Terrorists in Blockbuster Hollywood Films, 1980–2001: An Analytical Study (ISBN 978-0786436620) by Helena Vanhala says As a result of the PIRA and Sinn Fein's progress, the U.S. removed the PIRA from the State Department's list of designated foreign terrorist organizations when the U.S. Secretary of State announced the list in October 1997.

As can be see, the October 1997 list was the first one. Clearly there was some consideration about including the IRA on the list, but the decision was made not to include them. That's what CAIN meant by "decided to drop", it didn't mean they were on the published list and removed. I believe the rest of the paragraph covers the situation reasonably well, so I have simply removed the first sentence. FDW777 (talk) 10:23, 4 May 2020‎ (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "CAIN: Chronology of the Conflict 1997".
  2. ^ Toby Harnden (17 May 2001). "Real IRA designated terrorists". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 3 December 2019.
  3. ^ "U.S. Department of Homeland Security – Terrorist Organization Reference Guide January 2004, p119" (PDF).

Alleged support from Iran

Provisional Irish Republican Army#Support from other countries and organisations has the following

According to Mir Ali Montazam, one-time first secretary at the Iranian embassy, Iran played a key part in funding the IRA during the 1980s. Iranian officials deposited £4 million into a secret Jersey bank account, funded by the sale of artwork from the Iranian Embassy in London. Hadi Ghaffari, the "machinegun mullah", was sent to Belfast and organised the distribution of the money via sympathetic Irish businessmen.[1]

References

  1. ^ Iran paid millions to fund IRA Adrian Levy and Anna Pukas. The Times, 21 August 1994

As well as The Times article above, United Press International reported on it at the time, making it clear their source is the Times, since they say the London Sunday Times said. It also says The Times quoted British intelligence sources as saying they were scrutinizing accounts in Jersey and the Bahamas for accounts with IRA- Iranian links so it doesn't appear these links are confirmed.

Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism, 1979-95: The Iranian Connection by Edgar O'Ballance details this in slightly lengthier detail. He claims Ghaffari offended his Sinn Féin hosts in Ireland by failing to pay for their alcoholic drinks at a meeting in Ireland, which seems odd. As he says Sinn Féin were looking for funding (to the tune of millions of dollars) I don't see them causing a scene over having to pay for a couple of pints of Guinness! He also claims, possibly implausibly, that in November 1993 there was a meeting at the Feirouzi Palace (somewhere that doesn't verifiably exist with that name) in Tehran which the IRA, Hezbollah, the Revolutionary Council of Fatah, ETA and the Japanese Red Army attended, with Gerry Adams being one of the attendees. Considering Gerry Adams was in the news spotlight around that time for carrying the coffin of Thomas Begley, it does seem strange that he'd be swanning off to Tehran for a meeting like that.

I cannot find mention of any Iran connection in any book about the IRA or the Troubles. As such, I think there are undue weight issues. This was a brief news story in 1994 based on the testimony of a defector, that doesn't appear to have been investigated by any IRA/Troubles author since or if it was investigated, they couldn't find any truth to it. I'm not inclined to use O'Ballance as a reference due to his extraordinary claims that don't appear anywhere else, except perhaps another article in the Times. At the end of his paragraph about the 1993 meeting is the phrase (James Adams, The Sunday Times), which means its presumably another Times article since the August 1994 article was authored by Adrian Levy and Anna Pukas.

Does anyone think this sentence should be retained? FDW777 (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Since there was no objection, this was removed. A brief news story from 1994 that nobody seems to have covered since. FDW777 (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Civilians killed in England

I have removed, hopefully temporarily part of a sentence that read and approximately 60 civilians were killed by the IRA in England during the conflict. I had a great deal of trouble working out which variables to select on CAIN's Crosstabulations page to get that total. I can get a total of 112 killed by the IRA in Britain by selecting Organisation and Location, but obviously that includes non-civilians. Selecting "Status" and "Location" returns 63 civilians killed in Britain, but obviously 7 of them were killed by the Sticks, and it's unclear where the 3 unknowns from the previous tabulation would factor in. You'd think it'd be a relatively simple task to find a reference that says how many civilians were killed by the IRA in England, but so far I'm drawing a blank. If a certain bookseller ever sends my copy of Gary McGladdery's book I'm hoping it might be included in there. FDW777 (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

So what is inaccurate about the sentence you removed? "approximately 60" would seem to cover everything, no? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, after some reflection I've also wondered what's so important about England? The sentence read The bombing campaign principally targeted political, economic and military targets, and approximately 60 civilians were killed by the IRA in England during the conflict. Don't civilians in Northern Ireland and elsewhere deserve a mention too? I've tracked down one reference, which states that in England there were 115 total deaths and 2,134 injuries from almost 500 attacks, obviously that includes soldiers. That book cites Gary McGladdery's book in the footnotes, so as already said it was information I'm hoping to add back, not information I was planning on removing permanently. FDW777 (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
The lead says The dead included around 1,000 members of the British security forces, and 500–644 civilians. Provisional Irish Republican Army#Casualties deals with things in more detail. I'd have no problem trying to add 115 deaths in England to that section, since it can be referenced to Irish Freedom by Richard English. What I'd prefer not to do is use Sutton's raw data to squeeze in statistics at random points in the article. FDW777 (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Acceptable enough for you @Bastun:? FDW777 (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Ceasefire offers

I have removed information referenced to this Irish Times article. This information appears counter to history as understood by all the writers on the IRA, who agree the 1974-6 ceasefire was disastrous for the IRA and they realised they were getting nowhere with the British. So given they failed to intensity the campaign to any significant degree since early 1976 they were unlikely to be looking to re-enter negotiations when there would be nothing on the table. Perhaps more importantly than the fact it's counter to currently understood history, Ruairí Ó Brádaigh denied the contents of both documents in the same newspaper. I don't really see the need to include information that the IRA might have offered a ceasefire, although a member of the IRA leadership denied it, but they didn't actually have a ceasefire anyway. FDW777 (talk) 13:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Synthesis/unrepresentative example removed again

No references provided, further "discussion" pointless FDW777 (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have again removed disputed content that was re-added without consensus. My reason for removal was very clear, No, you don't get to add random incidents you feel are worthy of emphasis unless it's ones the references are emphasising in relation the point being made. So claiming this ref mentions BF clearly when it doesn't mention the broader point in the sentence you're adding it to is synthesis. I repeat that you don't get to add random incidents you feel are worthy of emphasis to sentences. This article doesn't document many items that Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign and associated categories do, the Warrenpoint ambush and the IRA's most famous assassination, Louis Mountbatten, don't get mentioned. As for the assertion that the targets on Bloody Friday were civilian, it appears someone's obvious bias has become even more obvious. I defer to Bowyer Bell's IRA Tactics and Targets page 87, which states in relation to Bloody Friday It did not matter, certainly to British propagandists, that the IRA did not target civilians.

This article has undergone significant improvement in terms of referencing lately, a task yet to be completed. Adding low quality references such as this does nothing except lower the quality of the article. If you would like to assist in the improvement of this article, I suggest you acquire some of the material listed at Provisional Irish Republican Army#Bibliography or similar works. FDW777 (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The BBC ref I added isn't low quality & it does mention Bloody Friday, as well as including a picture of some of the damage caused by it. It's clearly stated - it's not synthesis or unrepresentative. You're the only person opposing it being added. Stop talking down to me as though you're the gatekeeper of this or any other article. Warrenpoint not being mentioned doesn't mean that BF shouldn't be - both are easily important enough to be included. Many reliable sources state that the PIRA did target civilians and killed several hundred of them. You using one that says they didn't shows your bias, not mine. The lead of this article says that they killed at least 500 civilians. Their attacks were often against civilian targets, including buses, trains, restaurants & shops. Calling them economic targets is a ridiculous way to try to justify attacking civilian targets. Jim Michael (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
It's a low quality reference (that also, as stated doesn't mention the economic bombing campaign), if you want to improve the article use proper references. You're the only person saying it should be added. Do you have any reliable references to support your claim Many reliable sources state that the PIRA did target civilians? FDW777 (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Jim Michael, you should know by now that adding controversial material without agreement on teh talk page is generally a bad idea. You are also SYNTH|using selected sources to make a political point on a matter which has been discussed and resolved here many times in the past. -----Snowded TALK 15:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
It's neither a selected source, nor makes a political point. It's a mainstream media source which is very commonly used in WP. Jim Michael (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Snowded. For the benefit of anyone not paying too much attention, this refers to the addition of , including at least 20 bombings on Bloody Friday to the existing sentence This policy involved recruitment of volunteers and carrying out attacks on British forces, as well as mounting a bombing campaign against economic targets My belief is that Bloody Friday is an unrepresentative example of the bombing campaign, picked to advance a particular point-of-view. It is synthesis. FDW777 (talk)
In what way(s) do you claim it unrepresentative? Other than the larger than usual number of attacks in 1 day, it's similar to many others in terms of method, location & types of target. Jim Michael (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Which references say it was representative? I'm not interested in your own analysis, and since you want to add it to the article the onus is on you per WP:BURDEN to provide references demonstrating it's a representative example. I can't be bothered to investigate too much in the absence of any references from you (and based on past experience none will be forthcoming ever), but Thin Green Line: The History of the Royal Ulster Constabulary GC, 1922–2001 by Richard Doherty says Bloody Friday caused widespread revulsion and was a considerable tactical setback to the IRA, although the organization claimed that it did not intend to cause casualties but only widespread disruption. FDW777 (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Just for the record I checked multiple works cited in the article (Taylor/Bowyer Bell/Coogan/Moloney/English/Geraghty/White/Dillon). A big fat none of them say Bloody Friday was part of the economic bombing campaign, with one small exception of one reference mentioning Mac Stíofáin saying there were three types of target on Bloody Friday and one of them was economic. Pretty much all of them agree it was a disaster for the IRA due to poor planning and/or over-estimation of the authorities ability to cope with so many bomb alerts in the city centre in a short period of time. Several of them (White/Bowyer Bell/Moloney) do however give a reason as to the reasoning behind Bloody Friday, it was intended to be a show of IRA strength relating to the talks with William Whitelaw. So the idea that it's a representative example of the economic bombing campaign is a non-starter. FDW777 (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
You're stubbornly insisting that it was an economic campaign rather than an anti-British one, despite the great evidence against it having been solely or primarily economic - including roughly 600 civilians killed by them. It would obviously be ridiculous to claim that all of them were mistakenly killed or were mere collateral damage. They attacked many civilian targets in a long, failed attempt to make the British general public want to give away NI. Jim Michael (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Media, Myth and Terrorism book

I have removed this addition. My problem with it is that the book itself is not advancing the argument that the IRA bombed their way to the negotiating table, it's referring to a letter to the Independent newspaper by "Eddie Johnson" making that argument. FDW777 (talk) 10:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, no problem, but I guess Brian Jenkins dissertation is quite more assertive than Malliot and should remain. Feel free to revert and discuss if you disagree. Best regards.---Darius (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed the second reference, apologies. I think it's also problematic since it doesn't specifically refer to the bombing campaign. Having looked at the relevant page on Amazon Agnès Maillot shouldn't be added back either, since she doesn't properly reference the sentence either, pointing out (as do others) the new British government in May 1997 was more important in changing the situation. FDW777 (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Agreed on Maillot, so I have already removed the citation. I promise to review whether Jenkins should be cited or not in this section, but IMHO his conclusions are still pretty valuable elsewhere in the article.---Darius (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I think Jenkins makes a broad, if rather obvious point. You can't negotiate a settlement to end the violence without including what was the main violent group. It stands to reason that any attempt to end the Troubles would have needed the support of the Republican Movement, and any negotiations not including Sinn Féin would have been pointless. If the article is going to make the more specific point that the Conservative government repeatedly said they wouldn't talk to Sinn Féin but subsequently did (admittedly to a very limited extent) possibly due to the IRA's intensified bombing campaign in England then that could possibly be referenced, but certainly not to Jenkins. FDW777 (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I have already removed Jenkins' citation; I agreed that he makes a broad approach unsuitable for this specific point.---Darius (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@DagosNavy: I have looked into this, and the new book The Intelligence War against the IRA by Timothy Leahy (cited in the article multiple times is an excellent reference for this specific point on pages 195–196. He cites Gerry Bradley's book, Shadows: Inside Northern Ireland's Special Branch by former RUC Special Branch officer Alan Barker, Peter Taylor and Gary McGladdery all as stating the British were keen to begin talks due to the intensified IRA campaign in England, although Leahy himself disagrees with this stating But it is also evident that IRA attacks and threats led to the British government delaying face-to-face talks. The British consistently stressed in backchannel meetings with republicans that the number of ‘events on the ground’ had to decrease before intensive discussions with Sinn Féin could take place. However since the sentence in question begins It has been argued that this bombing campaign his disagreement isn't that important, since him disagreeing serves actually to confirm "It has been argued" is the correct wording.
However the sentence will actually need some amendment, firstly to re-focus it on the 1990s English part of the bombing campaign and secondly to move the Oppenheimer part of it (since he's talking about the entirety of the bombing campaign) to somewhere else in the article (don't know where yet, I've only just moved it there). Also we need to consider how to phrase it. We could keep it as "It has been argued" but someone might come along and all {{by whom}} to it. We could change it to say who's argued it (Taylor/Barker/Bradley/McGladdery) but since Peter Taylor is the only person with an article it'd just be a sequence of names, unless we're explaining who each person is as well. Or we could just say "argued by Peter Taylor and others" but someone might come along and add {{by whom}} to that too. I'm inclined to go with the first option and deal with adding names if and when the situation arises? FDW777 (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
@FDW777: Good find regarding Timothy Leahy's citations. I concur with you on including the whole string of authors and facing the occasional template if it comes to existence.
From my part, I was re-reading Oppenheimer's book two days ago or so. I found that (besides the page 43 citation) a statement directly related to this issue appears on page 38, which is quoted by a contributor to the Docklands bombing. This remarks are repeated by the same author on page 130, also cited in the mentioned article. You can get a look at page 130 here. Oppenheimer, however, is focusing (in this occasion) specifically on the British government dropping disarmament as a precondition for talks with SF, not on the negotiations as a whole. So I for keeping Oppenheimer only on the Docklands' page for now and replacing him for the proposed string of authors cited by Leahy in this article.---Darius (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppenheimer appears to be making a slightly different point to the others, who are making the point it was the pre-first ceasefire bombs. As the CAIN peace process choronlogy (used for ease of reference really, since they have everything on one page) says there were talks between the British government and Sinn Féin prior to 1996, it was the slow progress that resulted in the end of ceasefire/Docklands bombing. I will add a sentence or two about the increased activity in England to the article soon, I have a note made of the citation I need. FDW777 (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppenheimer (pp. 38 and 130) refers to the multi-party talks, something quite different than the first exploratory bilaterals talks between the British government and SF. The pre-condition for SF inclusion in the multi-party talks until the Docklands had been PIRA's disarmament, something the British dropped after the bombing.---Darius (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I've done some slight re-organising of the section and added some detail, any comments welcome. FDW777 (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

‎End of the armed campaign section

Judging by past experience I should just go right ahead and do it, but I'll persevere with advance notification of potentially controversial changes. Provisional Irish Republican Army#End of the armed campaign is quite repetitive, probably due to editors adding the latest news on the IRA's status every time there's an update, even though the "update" generally is the same as the previous one, that the IRA was committed to peace and kind of exists a bit, but not in the way it used to.

I propose to remove the following parts of the section.

  • In August 2008, The Sunday Times quoted a "senior Garda intelligence officer" as saying that the IRA was being maintained "in shadow form"; that it had recruited in recent years, still had weapons and was still capable of carrying out attacks. PSNI Assistant Chief Constable Peter Sheridan, said it was unlikely the IRA as a whole would formally disband in the foreseeable future
  • In September 2008, the IMC stated in its nineteenth report that the IRA was "committed to the political path" and was no longer "a threat to peace or to democratic politics". It concluded that the IRA as an organisation was being allowed to wither away and was "beyond recall": it had disbanded its military departments, stopped recruiting or training members, lost its military capability, and the Army Council was "no longer operational"
  • Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams said in 2011: "The war is over. The IRA is gone. The IRA embraced, facilitated and supported the peace process. When a democratic and peaceful alternative to armed struggle was created the IRA left the stage."[122] In 2014 Adams said: "The IRA is gone. It is finished"

This would leave the 2015 assessments of the Gardaí, PSNI and UK government's Assessment on Paramilitary Groups in Northern Ireland. Obviously the more recent assessments tend to supersede the 2008 ones, and negate the need to include them at all in my opinion.

The following sentences might be moved around a bit, either in the section or possibly into another section. I do not plan to remove them completely.

  • There have also been claims that the IRA is still active and has carried out punishment shootings
  • Some former members of the IRA have joined dissident republican paramilitary organisations, including the Continuity IRA, the Real IRA, Republican Action Against Drugs, and the New IRA.

Does anyone have any thoughts/objections to this? FDW777 (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Everything I have read would support talking about dissident organisations -----Snowded TALK 14:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
It does currently talk about dissidents, albeit briefly. That can be expanded upon, and I think that would definitely improve the article. Do you have any objections to the repeated assessments being cut down to just the 2015 ones? FDW777 (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
None - there is a lot of bloat in the article as in anything which is controversial -----Snowded TALK 14:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree there is other material in the article which could be considered bloat. However, other than the material we agree should be removed, it's quite possible one man's bloat will be another man's important information. My view is that the article goes into a little too much detail about more recent events while barely covering more important (such as everything pre-1997 ceasefire, or pre-2005 end of armed campaign/decommissioning depending on your perspective) events at all. However, rather than make dozens of potentially controversial changes all at once or starting dozens of simultaneous discussions about separate items of content I'm taking a slow, steady approach so people have time to raise any objections. If you have any suggestions for areas of the article you feel are in need of change I would be glad to get someone else's perspective. FDW777 (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Since there were no objections, I have removed the essentially repetitious assessments of post-2005 IRA activity, leaving in the 2015 assessments as mentioned. I have not moved the other sentences referred to as yet, I might create a new section in the article dealing with splinter groups rather than deal with them in a single sentence. FDW777 (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

French TV year

Where is the evidence the video is from 1991? It certainly contains some snippets of news footage from 1991, but that doesn't mean it was from 1991. CAIN has a broadcast from Thu 15th Oct 1992 which includes French TV clip of Southern Command training in Ireland which is presumably the footage. FDW777 (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Already fixed, given date in the file's rationale coincides with CAIN.--Darius (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Categorisation section

I'm removing the following text.

  • Harold Wilson's secret 1971 meeting with IRA leaders with the help of John O'Connell angered the Irish government; Garret FitzGerald wrote 30 years later that "the strength of the feelings of our democratic leaders ... was not, however, publicly ventilated at the time" because Wilson was a former and possible future British prime minister.[1]

References

  1. ^ *FitzGerald, Garret (2006). "The 1974-5 Threat of a British Withdrawal from Northern Ireland" (PDF). Irish Studies in International Affairs. 17. doi:10.3318/ISIA.2006.17.1.141. Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 September 2007.

It doesn't belong in that section, and I really don't know where in the article it would belong. Even if placed at the correct chronological place in the article it would seem to be excessuve detail crammed in for the sake of it. But listing it here so it's simpler to be added somewhere if really deemed necessary. FDW777 (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Punishment attacks claims

I've removed the claim by the SDLP, and replaced it with the last properly attributed punishment attack from 2006, according to The Political Psychology of Terrorism (2013). The 2010 Meigh claim appears to be 7 January 2010. In the IMC's 23rd report this is attributed to the Continuity IRA, and I doubt the IMC were influenced by so-called "political spin" that dissidents were responsible, with the footnote on page 26 of the IMC's report stating We have noted in all our reports of this type since our Eighth in February 2006 that PIRA as an organisation had not been responsible for any of the casualties of paramilitary shootings or assaults. FDW777 (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Electoral and popular support section

What are editors' thoughts on this section? There is information available about how particular IRA incidents have affected Sinn Féin's share of the vote, and similarly how IRA ceasefires have affected it. However, a vote for another party isn't necessarily the same as no support, even tacit, for the IRA. Ó Faoleán (2019) pages 66-67 deals with both FF and FG provided safe houses and stored guns for the IRA in the 1970s. He ends by stating Despite public disavowals and policy statements, no political party in the South had a membership or support base that rejected militant republicanism in its entirety. One cannot base assertions of IRA support on Sinn Féin's electoral performances, the latter sentence being of considerable importance. The next paragraph begins Indeed, it is likely that IRA support during the 'Troubles' will never be conclusively quantified. Taking this into account, I believe the section would be better dispersed to the relevant places in this article (and Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign, where appropriate), unless there are objections? FDW777 (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

In addition to the reference above there is also Shanahan (2008) page 208 Whether a vote for Sinn Féin always indicated support for the IRA is questionable and Bowyer Bell (1997) page 459 an opinion poll published by the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin that indicated from questions asked in September 1978 that only 21 percent of the Republic gave any support to the Provisionals and only 3 percent expressed strong support. I think the quotes adequately demonstrate the folly of attempting to equate votes for Sinn Féin to IRA support, and that Sinn Féin's electoral performances are a matter for the Sinn Féin article, and related ones. The one instance in the section where it attempted to demonstrate the effect of the IRA's campaign on Sinn Féin's electoral performance was misleading, since it placed the Remembrance Day bombing prior to the 1987 Irish election, which happened nine months before. Thus, there was no material worth salvaging from the section so I have removed it in its entirety. FDW777 (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistent language in "Origins" section

At Provisional Irish Republican Army#Origins the language is somewhat inconsistent. For example we have and other unionists, sparking retaliation by Protestant mobs and defence of Catholic-majority areas from Ulster loyalists. I think anyone unfamiliar with the subject might struggle to understand that we are referring to the same people (in general terms, not the exact same people involved in each incident) with three different terms. Does anyone have a preference on which we should generally use? That is assuming other editors agree it would be better to use consistent language. FDW777 (talk) 10:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

In general, I favour the use of "nationalist" and "unionist" for the respective communities. The 1968–69 period is particularly problematic, though, because the sources overwhelmingly talk about Catholics and Protestants. When we talk about Belfast in August 1969, for instance, we still think in terms of Protestants driving Catholics out of their homes, no matter how much we tell ourselves that the division was ethnic and political. See this discussion, where it was agreed to change a sentence in the lead of The Troubles to "Despite the use of the terms 'Protestant' and 'Catholic' to refer to the two sides, it was not a religious conflict." If it was possible to put a similar disclaimer at the start of the "Origins" section, in such a way as to avoid someone adding a {{cn}} tag, then it would be safe to change to "Protestant" and "Catholic" throughout. I admit, though, that I don't know how to do that. And if we can't, we might have to change to "Protestant" and "Catholic" anyway. Scolaire (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
In the references you also have "Paisleyite", particularly in relation to attacks on civil rights marches. I think it is probably preferable to stick to Catholic and Protestant in relation to the events of August 1969, I can imagine there being potential objection to the phrase "unionist mobs". FDW777 (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I definitely agree as regards "unionist mobs". Scolaire (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I think the section is missing a paragraph introducing things anyway, since at present the Battle of the Bogside appears from thin air. Obviously we need a bit about the history of Northern Ireland and the IRA, and the emergence of the civil rights movement. That paragraph would seem to be the appropriate place to introduce the generally nationalist Catholics and generally unionist Protestants I think? FDW777 (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Sound good! Scolaire (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I think "a paragraph" may have been a very conservative estimate, as my addition was a bit longer than planned. I tried not to go into too much detail while still covering the key issues. FDW777 (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Origins

I'm afraid I disagree with the first two paragraphs of the newly-edited Origins section. It's too long, and there's two much extraneous detail, e.g. the Act of Union, the 1916 Rising, the First Dáil, the UVF murders, the make-up of NICRA etc. A history of the Provisional IRA should not become a history of the revolutionary period or a history of the Troubles. I suggest instead a more concise intro that focusses on the evolution of the IRA and takes us from its founding to the events of August 1969 as quickly as possible:

The IRA was formed in 1913 as the Irish Volunteers, at a time when all Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. The Volunteers took part in the Easter Rising against British Rule, and the War of Independence, during which they came to be known as the IRA. The subsequent Anglo-Irish Treaty, which partitioned Ireland between the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland, which remained part of the United Kingdom, caused a split in the IRA, the pro-Treaty IRA being absorbed into the National Army, which defeated the anti-Treaty IRA in the Civil War. Subsequently, while denying the legitimacy of the Free State, the IRA focussed on overthrowing the Northern Ireland state and the achievement of a united Ireland, carrying out a bombing campaign in England in 1939 and 1940, the Northern Ireland campaign of the 1940s, and the Border campaign of 1956–1962. Following the failure of the Border campaign, internal debate took place regarding the future of the IRA. Chief-of-staff Cathal Goulding wanted the IRA to adopt a socialist agenda and become involved in politics, while traditional republicans such as Seán Mac Stíofáin wanted to increase recruitment and rebuild the IRA.
Following partition Northern Ireland became a de facto one-party state, governed by the Ulster Unionist Party, which was almost exclusively Protestant. The Unionist government practiced discrimination against Catholics, who were almost all nationalists and therefore viewed as "disloyal". Protestants were given preference in jobs and housing, local government constituencies were gerrymandered in places such as Derry, and policing was carried out by the armed Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) and the B-Specials, who were also exclusively, or almost exclusively, Protestant. The IRA was involved in the setting up of the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA) in 1967. NICRA organised protest marches against discrimination; these were met by violent suppression by the RUC, or by counter-protests by Protestants, including the Ulster Protestant Volunteers led by Ian Paisley, often resulting in violent clashes.

I think this also explains the Protestant/Catholic divide better than the generic "most Protestants want the Union, most Catholics want reunification" version.
I have deliberately not included wikilinks or refs, since I am only offering this as a rough draft. Wording can be changed at will, and any fact that you disagree with can be corrected or deleted without discussion. Scolaire (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the first paragraph, although I'd prefer to keep in some mention of Dáil Éireann due to the contents of the December 1969 announcement. If that's not possible, no big deal.
The second paragraph I'm not so happy about certain aspects of. The Unionist government practiced discrimination makes it sound like it was only the government, when it was throughout society. The IRA was involved in the setting up of the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association plays into Paisley's "IRA front" narrative. While I agree we don't necessarily need to have a lengthy list of the people involved, I do believe we need to stress the IRA wasn't behind the NICRA steering wheel. Also I strongly disagree with the removal of all mention of the UVF. It was a clear sign on the wall for the Goulding faction, that Irish nationalist action and/or Protestant fears resulted in a Protestant action. This was shown by the reaction to the 50th anniversary of the Easter Rising, and the reaction to the civil rights march. Leaving one out doesn't properly explain why the Belfast faction believed the leadership had failed to prepare for the violence. FDW777 (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
As I said, my text was only meant as a point of departure; the actual edit can be quite different. I agree that discrimination was endemic, and that should be stated, although I can't think of a concise way of saying it. I absolutely take your point about NICRA; it might be changed to "The IRA was (or members of the IRA were) among a diverse group of organisations (including liberal unionists) that set up NICRA." There is no reason not to mention the UVF, but again it should be concise and to the point, e.g. "The formation of the UVF in 1966, and a spate of killings by them, created a new threat to Catholics." Likewise for the Dáil: "They took part in the War of independence that followed the creation of the revolutionary assembly, Dáil Éireann, and the Declaration of Independence."
To be honest, I was kind of hoping that you would do the re-write. You have the sources in front of you, and I have too much going on IRL to go hunting them up. That's why I'm stressing that my suggested text is not meant to be taken as gospel. You're doing a great job on the article, and I'm sure I'd be happy with whatever you write. Thanks for taking the trouble to consider and respond to my proposal. Scolaire (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm quite happy to do the re-write, it's just easier if I know what general points need to be included to make research easier. I'm a bit stuck on the sentence regarding the Dáil, as I don't know how to include that followed the creation of the revolutionary assembly, Dáil Éireann, and the Declaration of Independence in addition to the during which they came to be known as the Irish Republican Army part.
I'm still working on the second paragraph. FDW777 (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
More changes made. I decided to cut down on the Battle of the Bogside detail a bit, while it's obviously a key event that needs to be mentioned I felt the detail involved was a bit too much for this article. As Taylor notes in the chapter on Bloody Sunday, The imperative to defend the nationalist areas from loyalist attack was never as strong because in Derry nationalists were in the majority and separated from the minority Protestant population by the River Foyle, which acted as a barrier between them. So while Derry might have been the spark that set Belfast on fire, it was the failure of the IRA to defend Catholic areas of Belfast that's the important issue for this article I feel. FDW777 (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Might I suggest "...and the War of Independence, during which they came to be known as the Irish Republican Army, and members took an oath of allegiance to the revolutionary assembly, Dail Éireann"? Good call on Derry, by the way – much neater. Scolaire (talk) 09:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Actually, on reading it again, I do have a problem with the edit. I wrote, "governed by the Ulster Unionist Party, which was almost exclusively Protestant. The Unionist government practiced discrimination against Catholics, who were almost all nationalists and therefore viewed as 'disloyal'". We agreed that it was (Protestant) unionists as a whole who practiced discrimination against Catholics. It has now become "Catholics viewed themselves as second-class citizens." The paragraph has thus lost the unionist = Protestant, Catholic = nationalist = disloyalty distinction that was the reason for editing this section in the first place. It also makes Catholics look like whingers rather than the unionists as oppressors, the following sentence notwithstanding. Is there any way this can be rephrased? Scolaire (talk) 10:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm trying to stay accurate to the references, since there's an article about second-class citizens and what it means I hoped it would be a more useful addition than a few words about Catholics being considered "disloyal". The sentence is immediately followed by Protestants were given preference, it's not like it says Catholics believed Protestants were given preference. I'm paraphrasing from memory as I don't feel like reading all the books again to find the exact quote, but the gist of it is There is no serious dispute that Catholics were discriminated against, only the degree to which it happened. FDW777 (talk) 12:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Catholics being considered disloyal is central to the discrimination issue. They weren't discriminated against because of their devotion to the Blessed Virgin. Here is one source for that: see the long paragraph at the bottom of p. 100, starting, "Catholics were also presented as disloyal, an idea that is as ancient as anti-Catholicism itself." Here is a book taking a different view of discrimination (i.e. questioning the degree to which it happened). It says straight out that disloyalty, and not religion, was the reason there were few Catholics in the higher levels of government, and goes on to quote Basil Brooke when he "appealed to loyalists wherever possible to employ good Protestant lads and lassies." It leaves out the bit where he said "Many in this audience employ Catholics, but I have not one about my place. Catholics are out to destroy Ulster", but that can be found here and here. Linking to the second-class citizens article is fine, but why were they treated as second-class citizens? Because unionists were Protestants who wanted to keep down Catholics who were nationalist and therefore disloyal. Scolaire (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
But is a detailed explanation of the discrimination issue central to this article, or do we simply need to establish it existed? I'm struggling to find any IRA-related references for the "disloyalty", the best I found was Richard English. After a few paragraphs detailing discrimination, including As authoritative scholarly judgment has it, ‘Northern Ireland was created and defined so as to guarantee a perpetual Protestant and unionist majority. As the new state became established, so Protestant power became entrenched within all the major institutions.’ he then touches on it with Ironically, unionist anxiety about the threat posed by ‘disloyalists’ itself led to discriminatory practice which was likely to create or reinforce disloyalty to a state that treated people in this way. So I really object to the inclusion of a "disloyalty caused discrimination" narrative when English says each one feeds off the other; discrimination causes disloyalty which causes more discrimination ad infinitum. Brooke talked about disloyalty in the 1930s, they'd been discriminating against Catholics for over a decade with the help of the Special Powers Act. FDW777 (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
First off, I'm not asking for a detailed explanation of the discrimination issue; I'm asking for a concise (10-word), clear and sourced explanation.
Put yourself in the reader's place. You read "Twomey, McKee and Steel were among sixteen armed IRA men who confronted the Belfast leadership over the failure to adequately defend Catholic areas." But the IRA's aim was to end British rule in Ireland; why should they take any trouble to defend some second-class citizens who were only interested in jobs and housing? The reader needs to understand that Catholics were under attack because they were nationalists, just as they had been discriminated against because they were nationalists.
You "really object" to a "disloyalty caused discrimination" narrative. But that's not what I said; I said that they were discriminated against because they were viewed as disloyal. And your quote from Richard English says exactly that: unionist anxiety about the threat posed by 'disloyalists' itself led to discriminatory practice. Nor does it go on to say that there was and had been an endless loop of disloyalty causing discrimination causing disloyalty, only that discrimination – the result of a depiction of Catholics as disloyal – was likely to create or reinforce disloyalty. Regardless of whether it might or did, discriminatory practices against Catholics were the result of unionists viewing them as disloyal. I've provided you with reliable sources for that (there's no rule that only "IRA-related references" can be used to verify a fact in an IRA-related article), and your English quote backs them up rather than contradicting them.
And I never said that Brooke inaugurated the practice of discrimination against Catholics. I noted (as did the four sources I provided) that his speech illustrated the rationale behind it. Scolaire (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I honestly don't believe a concise, neutral explanation of discrimination can be written in 10 words, as it's a complex issue. You said this article shouldn't be a history of the Troubles, and in my opinion discrimination is a Troubles-related issue not directly related to the IRA. It's certainly related to the civil rights movement and the Troubles, but not so much the IRA. There's certainly been an ex post facto attempt to reframe the IRA's campaign as a fight for civil rights and against discrimination, but it was always about ending British rule in Ireland. Also, the IRA's failure to defend nationalist communities was in Belfast. Were the Protestant mobs really burning Catholics out of their homes because they thought they were "disloyal"? Or was it mob mentality? Or simply sectarian hatred? Or a combination of factors? FDW777 (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Couple of sentences removed

The US Department of State has not designated the IRA as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, but lists them in the category 'other selected terrorist groups also deemed of relevance in the global war on terrorism'.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ Toby Harnden (17 May 2001). "Real IRA designated terrorists". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 3 December 2019.
  2. ^ "U.S. Department of Homeland Security – Terrorist Organization Reference Guide January 2004, p119" (PDF).

While formatting the references for this I discovered this appears to have been a temporary thing. See the State Department's index page. While 2004 did include them in the "Other Selected Terrorist Organizations" section, this was changed to "OTHER GROUPS OF CONCERN" in 2005, and 2006,before apparently doing away with that section altogether in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 (I can't find similar reports for 2016 onwards, I'm thinking it's unlikely they suddenly added that section back but prove me wrong if you like). Since what's left is that the State Dept didn't designate the IRA, but instead listed them in another section for a couple of years before they deleted that section from the report, I'm guessing this isn't significant enough to include. If they had designated them it would be one thing, but I really don't think we need to include that they weren't designated. So I'm removing it. FDW777 (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Images

IRA funeral, 1981

I've taken the liberty of removing one, and moving a few others around a bit. The previous version can be seen here, the basic problem is that including several photos of guns moves all the other images down out of the sections they are supposed to be in (at least on my monitor), so the images of memorials to the Birmingham pub bombings and Derry Brigade volunteers don't appear in the Provisional Irish Republican Army#Casualties section like they are supposed to, but half way down the leadership section. The image I've removed is on the right, the funeral photo isn't that great (only including one (and a bit) masked people, but I have no problem if anyone wants to add it back to any of the image-less sections, I've tried to keep images generally relevant to the sections they are in (I'm hoping to add a few sentences about the 1990s sniper campaign to the section I've moved that image too), including a photo of an actual person at Provisional Irish Republican Army#Origins. FDW777 (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Sentence about informers removed, hopefully temporarily

The IRA killed 59 alleged informers, about half of them IRA members and half of them Catholic civilians is unreferenced, and I cannot reference it. I will be investigating, as others are welcome to do also, and will hopefully be adding back a referenced version of it in due course. FDW777 (talk) 11:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Walkout

Due to me removing the section about the leadership, and specifically the Executive, further down the article. The "1969 split" section contains some information that has the potential to confuse the reader, since the Executive hasn't yet been defined when we talk about elections to it.

IRA Director of Intelligence Seán Mac Stíofáin announced that he no longer considered that the IRA leadership represented republican goals, however there was no walkout.[1][2] Those opposed, who included Mac Stíofáin and Ruairí Ó Brádaigh, refused to go forward for election to the new Executive.[1]

References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference white1969gac was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference mb136 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

I don't think it's particularly important to say there wasn't a walkout (and there couldn't have been one for security reasons, no delegates would be permitted to leave until the convention had finished), so I'm going to rework the details a bit, but listing the text and citations here so people don't have to go trawling through page histories if they want to restore something easily. FDW777 (talk) 13:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Iran/Czechoslovakia "allies"

I have removed the addition of these to the infobox. To begin with they are in violation of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, since neither are mentioned in the article. The alleged Iran connection has been mentioned above at #Alleged support from Iran above, albeit it referring to a later alleged support. Also per that discussion and the discussion at #Referencing above, if the best reference available is a Times article from 1981 then it's undue weight and improperly referenced, even if it was mentioned in the article. The Czech connection is non-existent. This refers to the attempt by Dáithí Ó Conaill to make a legitimate arms purchase from Omnipol, how can that possibly justify listing  Czechoslovakia as an ally? FDW777 (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed dispersal of "Weaponry and operations" section

I have come to a small stumbling block in my improvement of this article. Provisional Irish Republican Army#Weaponry and operations contains information about arms from other countries that is basically (not word for word, but in general terms) as Provisional Irish Republican Army#Support from other countries and organisations. I don't think we need to cover arms from the US and Libya twice in different sections, so one needs to go. My instinct says it is easier to disperse the content of "Weaponry and operations", as the first paragraph is covered at "Support from other countries and organisations", the second paragraph can be dispersed to the relevant sub-sections of the "History" section and to the Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign article (where I think some of it belongs anyway even ignoring the Libya/US duplication), while the third is probably better off covered at Barrack buster (there is a brief mention of making improvised mortars in the "Leadership" section). Any objections to this, or an alternate idea to get rid of the duplication? FDW777 (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Or alternately, the first paragraph could be amended to remove details of the US and Libya and instead detail some of the weapons they received. Some of the second paragraph will still be dispersed. For example the In the early 1990s the IRA intensified the bombing campaign in England sentence will go in the "Long War" section or "Peace process" section (I am planning a slight expansion of both since the Long War section currently stops rather abruptly with the adoption of the Armalite and ballot box strategy, which section will be determined after the expansions). In the second paragraph details about what the IRA considered economic targets can be expanded upon using Oppenheimer, and the paragraph about mortars can be expanded to cover details about the array of different bombs the IRA produced.

All things considered, I prefer the second option to the first, as it would be odd not to have a "Weaponry" section of some kind and the section allows for a more broad strategical overview to be given, whereas in history it's limited to strategies at particular times. FDW777 (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I went with the second option. FDW777 (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Opponents

I have reverted the unreferenced, and wholly misleading addition of Republic of Ireland/Garda Síochána as opponents. It's completely misleading to list them alongside actual opponents. FDW777 (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

1971 membership

I have removed the following sentence

By 1971, the Provisionals had inherited most of the existing IRA organisation in Northern Ireland, as well as the more militant IRA members in the rest of Ireland

It's not implausible but I'm struggling to reference it, but thought I'd list in here in case anyone else has better luck. I'll keep researching myself too, the generic nature of the terms involved makes things difficult though. FDW777 (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Marie Breen Smyth question

A quick, non-controversial question so maybe someone will reply for a change. Marie Breen Smyth states she added "Breen" to her name following the death of her husband in 2005. So should the bibliography appear as above, or should we amend the 1999 publication to her later name? There's an argument that she was credited as Marie Smyth and adding "Breen" could confuse people looking for the book, but I'm inclined to think people would probably search using ISBN anyway.

So Marie Smyth or Marie Breen Smyth for the 1999 book? FDW777 (talk) 10:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Feedback requested, if anyone is willing

I have made what I believe are significant improvements to the article recently, particularly in referencing and adding missing detail. Before I nominate it as a good article, does anyone have any issues with the changes or other feedback/suggestions? Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@FDW777: First of all, sorry for my long overdue reply. I think the "Long War" section is under-developed; it should deal more in depth with the "Armalite and ballot box strategy" and the SF/RSF split in the 1986 Ard Fheis, which later became the seed of dissident republicanism (CIRA, RIRA et alia). The section could also include (chaptered in sub-sections, if you want) the effects on British politics (Ulsterization, 1985 Anglo-Irish treaty, recently revealed Thatcher`s threats of unilaterally withdrawing troops by 1988).
The "Peace process" section in its present form also seems to suggest that the failure of the "Tet Offensive" prompted the peace process. The issue of the "Tet Offensive" is raised mostly by Moloney, but, if true, it departs from the very strategy of the "Long War", which according to O'Brien (and others) went on at least until the first IRA ceasefire in 1994. The "Tet Offensive" is shown here as a mainstream PIRA policy, when the Army Council actually didn't sanctioned it. Furthermore, despite the capture of the Elksund, the IRA had enough stockpiles to wage war for the foreseeable future per most bibliographical sources. My point is that this stuff would be better if placed on the last paragraphs of the "Long War" section, whith the proposed changes, and not in the first ones of "Peace Process".----Darius (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
The 1986 split is difficult, because reference are pretty clear there wasn't much of a split in the IRA, it was a few of the old guard who hadn't been active service volunteers for years and had been removed from IRA leadership positions over the previous decade. Obviously the split did occur more in Sinn Féin and it's covered in reasonable detail at that article, but I'm unsure as to how much detail this article should go into. It is covered at Provisional Irish Republican Army#Splinter groups, and I'm not sure of the benefit of duplicating that. If you think the Long War section is under-developed now, bear in mind it previously finished at the 1981 Sinn Féin ard fheis and jumped straight to the Tet Offensive.
I'm not so sure about the Anglo-Irish Treaty. While it was intended to halt the rise of Sinn Féin, its impact was on the unionist and loyalist communities. Not much has really been written about the effect of the treaty on the IRA, because there didn't seem to be much. It's difficult to know how much detail to go into in relation to Troubles events that didn't directly involve or affect the IRA, as some might wonder why we're talking about them so much while not talking about gun attacks or bombings instead.
White (2017) confirms the Tet Offensive plan (or in his exact words the army leadership unveiled their plan to move into constitutional politics and, at the same time, take the armed campaign to another level. He then talks about the Libyan arms and the Tet Offensive. Obviously it's unlikely the full plan was told to the whole convention for security reasons) was unveiled by the leadership at the 1986 GAC. I take your point about the placement of the material though, and will re-organise appropriately. FDW777 (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Also could you expand on how it should deal more in depth with the "Armalite and ballot box strategy"? Sinn Féin activity is better off dealt with at the Sinn Féin article (while potentially briefly summarised here, which is currently the case although I'm happy to discuss an appropriately sized expansion). I wouldn't expect the Sinn Féin article to have an in-depth summary of 1980s IRA activity, so I'm not sure why the opposite would apply here. Per #Electoral and popular support section above it's difficult to talk about support for Sinn Féin (again, I believe that's a matter for the Sinn Féin article) in terms of IRA support. Once you start including one set of election results it's difficult to justify not including others, and suddenly this article will become a history of Sinn Féin election results in the 1980s and 1990s when we should be talking about the IRA instead. FDW777 (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Sinn Féin deaths

I was hoping to move this, possibly to the Sinn Féin article, but on further investigation it's problematic so listing it here in case anyone wants to discuss it and/or add it somewhere else.

In addition, roughly 50–60 members of Sinn Féin were killed. was allegedly referenced by page 26 of The Long War – The IRA and Sinn Féin by Brendan O'Brien.

However O'Brien doesn't actually say that. What he does say is By their own figures, IRA and Sinn Féin dead numbered 341. So presumably the roughly 50–60 figure has been guessed by looking at the other total of 275 and 300 IRA members (which O'Brien doesn't state, so it's potentially two different sets of figures which is not good). CAIN Crosstabs (Organisation/Status) say a total of 55 civilian political activists were killed in total, and 17 of them were by the IRA (there's a possibility of there being a small number of Sinn Féin members killed by the IRA as informers for example, but I doubt it's more than a handful), and that total would include British politicians, as well as the occasional Unionist/loyalist politician that was killed. There's obviously a possibility some of the Sinn Féin deaths were classed as civilians by CAIN rather than civilian political activist (CivPA), but it doesn't matter much.

So basically there is no reference (at present anyway) saying how many members of Sinn Féin were killed, only a complete guess based of a total figure from O'Brien that doesn't tally with the CAIN total of 55 total civilian political activist deaths. FDW777 (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Also there is a certain amount of dual membership, the amount obviously depending on who you ask. For example Martin McCaughey was a Sinn Féin at the time of his death, although at the exact moment he was acting in an IRA capacity. This further complicates any attempt to perform calculations to work out Sinn Féin deaths. FDW777 (talk) 11:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Armalite and ballot box quote

Centralised discussion at Talk:Armalite and ballot box strategy#The insignificant part of the quote. FDW777 (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Article formatting and paragraphs

I would like to propose more paragraphs to break up long blocks of text. This is to improve flow and comprehension of the key points. Also aid reading on mobile devices. 86.14.189.55 (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Tiny paragraphs detract from the flow, not improve it. FDW777 (talk) 08:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not talking about 'tiny' paragraphs -- I'm suggesting one theme / action / even per paragraph so readers get an easy grasp of the key themes. I know you've done a lot of work on this article -- however, this is an open wiki where other people opinions are valid 86.14.189.55 (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Make some valid suggestion that improve the article then. At present, all you're doing is needlessly splitting a paragraph into several for no reason other than a mistaken belief that people are incapable of reading a paragraph consisting of more then two sentences. FDW777 (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I have reported this for admin attention, especially the abuse comment "suggest they read Ladybird "Big Book about the IRA" then, if they struggle to read a sensibly sized paragraph" on the History page. Thanks 86.14.189.55 (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The paragraphs seem fine as is. Also, FDW, don't engage in insults, it's not worth it. FlalfTalk 22:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't believe I insulted anyone, except perhaps a hypothetical person who I'll be happy to apologise to should they turn up. The paragraph split seems completely arbitrary to me, since there are several other larger paragraphs elsewhere in the article. Obviously fresh eyes are sometimes useful and I would be happy to have constructive input into any paragraphs that could be split. Instead the fixation is on a single change was has been objected to. FDW777 (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
The paragraph split seems arbitrary and fine to me as well, but are you referring to the ip as a hypothetical person? You did insult them by telling them to read a childrens book. I respect the work you do here a lot, but don't do that. FlalfTalk 22:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
The IP's edit summary and comments here refer to "readers" and "Casual readers" having difficulty, not themself. So I don't believe I was referring to them, especially as I said I suggest they, not I suggest you. But anyway, let's draw a line under that and see if there's any other suggestions about improvements to be made to the article? FDW777 (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Nonetheless that comment is very borderline. Be careful in the future. FlalfTalk 23:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Allowing editing of article on PIRA

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. User FDW777 has become abusive and derogatory about potential casual readers. Please advise 86.14.189.55 (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to be true. There is no ongoing discussions or any in the archive relating to this. FlalfTalk 22:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for resolving this 86.14.189.55 (talk) 10:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 06:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Initial review section

Well done on this article, it takes considerable skill to produce an article that is well-balanced and neutral on such a controversial subject, and I don't think I've seen your work before. Full disclosure up front, I am more than passingly familiar with the 1996 Osnabruck mortar attack, and I may be considered involved to some extent, so will be asking another editor for a second opinion once I've finished. Some initial comments, which I'd ask you to address before I go through in detail:

  • even with a controversial article, there is really no reason for the citations of everything in the lead and infobox. See MOS:CITELEAD. They break up the flow of the most-read part of the article and clutter the infobox. As long as all the information is reliably cited in the body, they can be dispensed with except for highly controversial material or direct quotes. I don't see anything that meets those criteria;
  • I'm happy to remove the cites from the lead, although personally I think they contribute to the stability of the article by preventing people adding their own opinion to various sentences. I will remove them later today. FDW777 (talk) 08:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I've written plenty of controversial articles that attract POV-pushers, and citations don't discourage them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • per MOS:SURNAME, please trim the first names of people mentioned for the second and subsequent time, unless they have the same surname; and
  • There's one small but significant reason I didn't do that, Seán Mac Stíofáin who is referred to repeatedly in the article. I thought the casual reader might be confused if we refer to him as Mac Stíofáin and think it's someone with the given name of "Mac", but if you still think they need to go please say so. FDW777 (talk) 08:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Hopefully all done, if there's someone I've overlooked please say. FDW777 (talk) 11:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • the IRA campaign against the British Army in West Germany/Germany in the late 80s/1990 is largely overlooked, including the various 1988 attacks, the killing of Heidi Hazell in 1989, killing of Major Michael John Dillon-Lee in Dortmund in 1990, and the killing of the two Australian lawyers in the same year;
  • It is not about a particular attack, this is a summary article, and it should summarise all aspects of the IRA campaign, including in Continental Europe. The treatment of Germany is currently wanting, with only the Osnabruck attack mentioned (no-one even died or was wounded in that attack, it was mostly cars and the chapel that got damaged). It wouldn't take much to summarise the Germany campaign in a sentence or two. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Added a sentence, if you need more just say so. The reason for including Osnabrück later wasn't because I think it's particularly significant, it's that I didn't want to say the IRA was only active in England between February and October 1996, the period it was not carrying out attacks in Northern Ireland. If I'd left out Osnabrück completely and said attacks were only in England someone was bound to come along and say "aha, you missed out this bombing in Germany". FDW777 (talk) 11:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Due to the length of time the IRA was operating, several photographic captions could do with the year added; and
  • Added one, I can't see any others that are obviously in need of a year. If I've overlooked any, just say. FDW777 (talk) 08:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Is the date the picture was taken significant though? That sign was described as vintage in 2004, and it looked a bit weather-beaten even then. I'm not even convinced it adds much to the article anyway. FDW777 (talk) 11:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • at the point in the article that you have decided to use IRA to refer to this organisation, use the formulation "IRA (used hereafter to refer to the Provisional IRA)" of words to that effect.
  • There isn't really a point where I made that decision. Uses of Provisional depend on context, for example the sentence The Provisional IRA maintained the principles of the pre-1969 IRA needs the use of "Provisional". Even in the last section of the article at Provisional Irish Republican Army#Splinter groups "Provisional" is still used to differentiate from "Real" and "Continuity" and the 2008 group who called themself simply "the IRA". If there is a specific place you have in mind for that clarification to be added, just say. FDW777 (talk) 08:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Basically with the exception of the Splinter groups section at the end, from the point it says that PIRA became the dominant organisation at the bottom of the second para of the Initial phase section, there are very few uses of Provisional IRA, except where comparing with the Official IRA in the ideology section and one example in the Categorisation section which probably isn't actually needed. The rest are article links in templates. The other option is to use Provisional IRA throughout, which seems excessive. You could do it with a note. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Note added. FDW777 (talk) 11:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Once these issues have been addressed, I'll make some other comments. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

  • I've been asked to provide a second opinion on this. I intend to do so in the next couple of days, but it may take me a while to get through the article. (t · c) buidhe 06:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Buidhe. If you could wait until I've finished, that would be great. I don't want you to have to do the heavy lifting here given I took it on. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, here are my thoughts on another run through:

Lead
  • suggest "It also carried out a bombing campaign in Northern Ireland and England against military, political, and economic targets, and British military targets in Germany."
  • It wasn't just Germany. See 1988 IRA attacks in the Netherlands and attack in Belgium, in addition to the "Death on the Rock" killings in Gibraltar. Would you prefer the later sentence The IRA's armed campaign, primarily in Northern Ireland but also in England and mainland Europe to be merged into the previous one, so the latter one would read The IRA's armed campaign caused the deaths?
  • I think if you are introducing the bombing campaign at that point, then mainland Europe should be mentioned there. The latter mention of the armed campaign is already fine. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I think the lead and body should have something about the attitude of other countries to the IRA in terms of whether any other countries sanctioned them or labelled them as terrorists
  • So, nothing more in International Politics and the Northern Ireland Conflict by Alan Macleod? Weren't there European Parliament debates in the 1980s? Possibly a mention of the Congressional Irish Caucus in the US? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The gist of what's available on Google Books preview for Macleod is that in ~1972 the US administration performed a bit of a u-turn and decided to refuse visas to suspected IRA members, although this suspicion had to be based on US intelligence not "undocumented assertions of local police authorities". This was largely to prevent IRA members speaking at fund raising events and to preserve US neutrality in the Northern Ireland conflict. This has to be balanced against the cases of Joe Doherty, Desmond Mackin and Peter McMullen, all of whom fought wholly or partially successful cases against extradition from the US to the UK claiming extradition was blocked due to their offences being of a "political character" (Mackin was deported to Ireland, Doherty eventually deported back to the UK for illegal entry, McMullen eventually extradited to the UK in ~1987 after the extradition treaty was changed). You also have to look at the Joe Cahill visa situation in 1994, with Bill Clinton responding to the visa request with "Have you seen this man's record?", prompting Taoiseach Albert Reynold's reply of "Sure, there's no saints in the IRA". I can find no trace of those European Parliament debates in the references I've checked. I've checked Google Books as best I can (but the generic nature of the search terms doesn't make things easy) and can't find anything relevant. What I did find was things like the 1983/4 Haagerup committee (which the UK government and unionists objected to as it considered them to be meddling in internal UK matters) which recommended a power-sharing solution, and was adopted by the European Parliament in March 1984. There was various other mentions such as the ECHR case over the "Hooded Men" during internment in 1971 and whether their treatment amounted to torture or "inhuman and degrading treatment" (a difference Peter Taylor describes as purely semantics). There's also intervention during the 1976-81 prison protest and the 1982 call for the use of plastic bullets by the security forces to be banned. There's also the 1977 European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, which was to do with extradition. But I'm not finding much that screams "this has to be included in the IRA article". Tonge says of the EU Historically, the EU eschewed direct political input into the conflict in Northern Ireland". I could include a mention of Congressional Irish Caucus at Provisional Irish Republican Army#Support from other countries and organisations, but if you're meaning the Friends of Ireland (U.S. Congress) I think it's difficult including them alongside the likes of George Harrison and NORAID, since they were about conflict resolution not taking sides. But if we're going to include that, it would seem odd not to include Bill Clinton given his hands-on involvement in the Northern Ireland peace process? Or is his involvement better off dealt with at that article and the Troubles article? It's a difficult balancing act, as there's been a lot written about the peace process (for example just one aspect of it, the long, winding road to the IRA decomissioning its weapons has been documented and analysed at length) but the article can't go on for paragraph after paragraph about decommissioning or similar post-ceasefire issues at the expense (there would be a WP:SIZERULE issue at some point) of when it was killing people in gun and bomb attacks.
  • I'm not going to insist on it at GAN, but it certainly wouldn't hurt to have a sentence or two about US visa controls on IRA members, extradition of IRA members, and the ECHR internment case, as they are directly about the members of the IRA itself, not about the Troubles in a more general sense, where some of the other material might be better located. You certainly will need to incorporate such information if this is going to Milhist ACR or FAC eventually. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm happy to add a couple of sentences about the US situation, it's just easier to present some information to potentially include first rather than start writing and it end up being tangential to what you want adding. I'll add them later. The ECHR internment case is of less direct relevance to the Provisional IRA. See Five techniques for more information on this. The reason it's not potentially particularly relevant to the Provisional IRA is it's unclear how many of the 14 suspects were Provisional IRA members, Official IRA members, or simply people thought to have information. If you see for example Independent and Guardian articles detailing who the Hooded Men are, there's not even a mention of the IRA.
  • Added a sentence about visas with an explanatory note, let me know if that's ok
  • On re-reading the lead, I think it needs a couple of additional sentences, one about the interaction between the IRA and revolutionary/terrorist groups outside of Ireland (and support from Libya, and another about the support for the IRA in the US. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Body
  • "The [[Irish Republican Army (1922–1969)|original IRA]] was formed in 1913,"
  • by the Dáil Éireann
  • Sorry, but that makes no sense, in particular when there is no contextual information about what the Dáil Éireann is. It could be a person as far as a casual reader would be able to tell without clicking on the link. It is a proper name and is begging for the definite article, or it needs to be reformulated to give a hint it is a deliberative body. ie something like "the 1919–1922 Dáil Éireann". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I assumed when you said by the Dáil Éireann you wanted the sentence to read that followed the Declaration of Independence by the Dáil Éireann in 1919? Although you get the occasional use of "the Dáil Éireann", it's not standard to use that construction in English. I'm not an expert on whether proper names need the definite article, but it seems to vary from one similar entity to another. For example the London Stadium, but not the Wembley Stadium. Nobody in Ireland would say the Croke Park. I've added the revolutionary parliament immediately before, hopefully that explains things?
  • link Northern Ireland
  • Done.
  • unlink the anti-Treaty IRA
  • Done, but unclear why since it's the first mention in the body (the previous links are in the infobox and lead)
  • "the IRA focused on overthrowing the Northern Ireland state" this is the defeated anti-Treaty IRA, right? Perhaps this could be clarified, like "the surviving elements of the anti-Treaty IRA" focused...? Also, is Northern Ireland a "state" per se? The UK doesn't have "states", so is it a country, province or region?
  • None of those fit the sentence particularly well either. I think it was @Scolaire: that wrote that sentence, but I assume in that context state is used in a state (polity) way. Perhaps link that?
  • It is commonly referred to as a province in reliable sources [1], but "political unit" would be fine. ie "the IRA focused on overthrowing the Northern Ireland political unit" Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Done. Regarding "province" or anything else, see Northern Ireland#Descriptions, there is no consensus among academics as to whether it's a province, region, country or something else. A search for the specific phrase "partitioned into two states" (including Ireland to avoid any similar disputes) brings up a host of results on Google Books. I still think "state" is a much better term than "political unit".
  • mention home rule and link Parliament of Northern Ireland when talking about the "de facto single-party system", which is the formulation I suggest. De-italicise de facto, as per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, de facto appears in multiple English language dictionaries like Merriam-Webster
  • Mention home rule at that point? The obvious place to introduce home rule at all would be right at the start before the Easter Rising due to the Home Rule Crisis, but it depends how much you want adding.
  • perhaps add home rule here "which remained under [[home rule]] as part of the United Kingdom under the [[Government of Ireland Act 1920]], caused"
  • I understand now. I'm used to thinking of home rule in a Home Rule Crisis context, with Unionists being bitterly opposed to home rule. Half done for now, including the Government of Ireland Act 1920 as well means it's probably better to split the ever expanding sentence, and I'll need to check footnotes/references go to the correct place.
  • Reworded the sentence completely.
  • Regarding "single-party system", I don't have any specific objection to changing it to that phrase, I was about to. However with "Northern Ireland became a de facto single-party system", it seems odd to refer to Northern Ireland as a "system". I did try and re-write it to focus on the parliament (the "system") but that causes problems with Catholics seeing themselves as second-class citizens, as that should be within the state not the parliament. So if you have any input as to what to do, please say so. FDW777 (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't love "state" in this context, as it is unclear, but I'm not going to die in a ditch over it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • suggest "the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), a [[paramilitary]] group which killed three people"
  • Done.
  • suggest "Ulster Protestant Volunteers, another paramilitary group, led by Protestant religious leader Ian Paisley."
  • Done.
  • a phrase explaining "The Twelfth" would be good, perhaps "Marches marking the Ulster Protestant celebration, [[The Twelfth]], in July 1969..."
  • Done.
  • "in the Catholic Bogside area of Derry"
  • Done.
  • any info available about the number of Protestant homes affected by the Northern Ireland riots of August 1969?
  • I'll do some research when I get back from shopping.
  • The Troubles has a referenced sentence reading 154 homes and other buildings were demolished and over 400 needed repairs, 83% of the buildings damaged were occupied by Catholics, incorporate some/all of that here or do I need to read a lot of books instead?
  • Added some extra detail from the pre-existing reference, which only covers demolished buildings and ones requiring "major repairs" (I assume the discrepancy is because the reference cited at the Troubles includes "minor" repairs as well). I'll leave it up to your discretion as to whether we need to include more detail or not.
  • "Boyle, County Roscommon, Ireland"
  • Are you sure that's needed? I like to think the reader realises things occur in Ireland unless specified otherwise.
  • Really? Why would they do that? Things occur in both Ireland and NI in this article. My view is that if I need to click on the link to find out whether it is in Ireland or NI, it needs the country/province as well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I assumed you meant Ireland the island, not Ireland the state. If you'd said "Republic of Ireland", which I've added, I'd have understood sooner.
  • link Parliament of the United Kingdom and Oireachtas
  • I assume you mean in the sentence "British, Irish, and Northern Ireland parliaments"? Oireachtas is tricky, since abstentionism (at least at that point in history) is always talked about in a Dáil Éireann context, not a Seanad Éireann context. I think linking either in that sentence has a touch of WP:EGG about it, but happy to link if really needed.
  • Well, there is nothing to indicate that abstentionism only relates to the Irish lower house, the Oireachtas is the whole Irish parliament AFAIK, and it isn't linked earlier, so it needs to be here. If abstentionism only relates to the Dáil, then use that rather than Irish. Perhaps a note that abstentionism only related to the Dáil might help. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • It's not a case of abstentionism only relating to the Dáil, it's just that references never, ever talk about it in relation to the Seanad. Seanad Éireann "elections" are a complicated business, as the article says it is not directly elected but consists of a mixture of members chosen by various methods, most of them by the vocational panels which consist of TDs (members of Dáil Éireann), outgoing senators and members of city and county councils. That doesn't really have the same publicity appeal as standing in a Dáil election. The only exception I can obviously find is Liam Kelly (Irish republican) (who'd left the IRA at this point anyway to form his own organisation), who abstained from the Northern Ireland parliament (due to rejecting British sovereignty over any part of Ireland) while attending the Seanad (as he recognised the Republic of Ireland and its constitution).
  • refused to vote→abstained
  • I think "refused to vote" is potentially better, due to the sentence before and after talking about abstentionism.
  • Happy to amend it if needed. If you look at the sentence in isolation obviously abstained makes much more sense, but I think having two different types of abstaining in the space of a few consecutive sentences is potentially confusing.
  • are Paddy Mulcahy and Sean Tracey notable as known members of the Army Council during the Troubles? Redlinks?
  • There's very little information about them in the books I have, they seem to appear virtually from nowhere and disappear again just as quickly.
  • link Sinn Féin at first mention in the body, and perhaps like this "The Irish republican political party, Sinn Féin, ..."
  • Done.
  • suggest "the party's highest deliberative body, the [[ard fheis]], ..."
  • Done.
  • link Kevin Barry
  • MOS:PARTIALNAMELINK suggests not to do that, saying Do not place a link to a name within another name and not to write [[Christopher Columbus|Columbus]] Avenue. I assume the same applies to Kevin Barry Hall?
  • OK, but why mention where the meeting was then? It does seem like unnecessary detail. Perhaps a note? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "Second Dáil of 1921–1922"

Down to the Initial phase section. I'll be doing in this in a few tranches. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Seems a sensible approach. FDW777 (talk) 10:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "to inflict such heavy casualties on the British Army"
  • Done
  • were the 342 suspects arrested on 9 August 1971 alone?
  • That seems to be the case, based on a quick check on Google Books and various news articles which say 342 were arrested on the first day. I'll investigate properly later, in case it's one of those details that's not strictly correct but gets widely reported.
  • Richard English's book says 342 in the first twenty-four hours, whether he means 9 August or a literal twenty-four hour period is open to interpretation. I've amended to use that wording, hopefully that's ok?
  • "the next three days" meaning 9-11 August 1971?
  • Yes and no, potentially. According to CAIN's Sutton database for 1971 there were 22 deaths between 9 August and 12 August. However the sole death for 12 August says he died two days after being shot.
  • "IRA recruitment was further increased"
  • Done.
  • Parliament of Northern Ireland is duplinked here
  • Already fixed. That had crept in due to a previous change.

Down to The Long War. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  • suggest "and Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR), a part-time element of the British Army,..."
  • Done.
  • suggest "and reduce the number of British soldiers recruited from outside of Northern Ireland being killed"?
  • Done.
  • you could be more specific and say "were successively elected to the British House of Commons"
  • Done.
  • suggest stating the total casualties of the Chelsea bombing, because it currently doesn't gel with "military targets" when you don't mention the 23 soldiers wounded
  • Done.
  • "on Lieutenant General [[Steuart Pringle]]"
  • Done.

Down to Peace process. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

  • comma after "interested in peace"
  • Done.
  • link Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at first mention in the body
  • Done.
  • is "Totally Unarmed Strategy" meant to be ironic?
  • The impression I get is that the use of Tactical Use of Armed Struggle/Totally Unarmed Strategy was double-speak, to avoid either a split in the IRA or the pan-nationalist coalition. They were saying to the IRA rank-and-file "don't worry, we can go back to war" while saying to the SDLP, Fianna Fáil et al "don't worry, we're committed to peace".
  • could you add in when home rule was re-instated at an appropriate point?
  • Done with an explanatory note at the point of suspension. Since it was in 2007 there doesn't seem an appropriate point in the body.
  • perhaps introduce the creation of the PSNI at the appropriate chronological point in the narrative and say that it replaced the RUC?
  • Explanatory note added.
  • General de Chastelain
  • Done.
  • "the Irish Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Michael McDowell, ..."
  • Done.

Down to End of the armed campaign. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:42, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

  • what did the IRA mean by "dumping" weapons? Destroying them, discarding them or handing them in?
  • None of the above. It meant returning the weapons to centralised arms dumps (ASUs would have their own local arms dumps hidden in the homes of sympathisers or elsewhere) to simplify the decommissioning process. Since there's no articles here or on Wiktionary explaining what an arms dump is, I decided to remove the phrase completely since it's probably redundant to the subsequent full decomissioning.
  • I'm not sure how "However, this was the first time that an Irish republican paramilitary organisation had voluntarily decided to dispose of its arms" is consistent with the preceding two sentences. Weren't the previous actions voluntary? In what way?
  • I had actually thought that references say the 2005 completion of decommissioning to be the crossing of the Rubicon (in that they only saw the IRA as disarmed when the process was complete), but the first couple I checked including the one cited do see 2001 that way. Moved the text earlier, with some moved into an explanatory note rather than the article body.
  • "decommissioning" is very vague, what does it mean in practice? Destruction? Securing in a facility they don't have access to? The linked article is singularly unhelpful.
  • You sound just like Ian Paisley! Due to a confidentiality agreement the amount of weapons decommissioned and the method in which it was done has never been publicly revealed, simply that they were put "beyond use". Early in the process, in May 2000 for example the IICD inspected some arms dump and installed some means of monitoring (Further inspections took place in October 2000 and May 2001, both verifying the weapons remained out of use, I think one reference speculated some sophisticated locking device). The generally accepted thinking is the actual decommissioning (as opposed to the monitoring) involved disassembling the weapons and covering them in concrete (presumably poured straight into the underground arms dumps). Or slightly differently, Boyne says There was speculation that arms were placed in a trench, and a corrosive substance poured over then, followed by the pouring of cement
  • no mortars were decommissioned? Weird given their importance as an IRA weapon for stand-off attacks on military bases.
  • I think The weaponry, estimated by Jane's Information Group, decommissioned as part of this process included might be too vague, since Oppenheimer's list is in a table titled Decomissioned Tranche of Weapons, September 2005. de Chastelain did state to the press that mortars had been decomissioned (Boyne, page 411) but the reference isn't clear if he's referring to the September 2005 event or an earlier one. If he was referring to the September 2005 event, it's curious that Jane's ignored it. Amended text to clarify.
  • say that the Gardaí are the police service in the Republic of Ireland
  • Done.
  • suggest "the IRA obtained a large array of weapons such as: surface-to-air missiles; M60 machine guns; ArmaLite AR-18, FN FAL, AKM and M16 rifles; DShK heavy machine guns; LPO-50 flamethrowers; and Barrett M90 sniper rifles."
  • Done.
  • "which by the 1990s were on a level comparable to military models" really? I don't think so in terms of range (the Mk 15 used at Osnabruck had a range of about 250 m, a WWII 120 mm mortar had a range of about 6 km) and accuracy. But what Ackerman is actually saying is their quality (ie the engineering) was comparable. This needs to be added, ie "which by the 1990s were built to a standard comparable to military models" or words to that effect
  • Done. The Ackerman text pre-dated my involvement with the article. As it was as online article I'd assumed its original addition would have been scrutinised and I didn't properly check the text.
  • Two important aspects of the IRA's choice of mortars were that they could be used as a stand-off indirect fire weapon and therefore fired from out of line of sight of the targeted barracks or OP, and that they could be fired on a timer, thus avoiding the crew being detected and captured.
  • Added some details. You might query the use of "generally" in "generally fired indirectly". This is because the Mark 12 mortar fired horizontally (although Oppenheimer says the Mark 12 was actually incorrectly called a mortar as it was more like a direct-fire missile. Happy to amend if needed?
  • "Mortars were useful to the IRA as they could hit targets at short range, which could lead to effective attacks in built-up urban areas" I'm not sure about the logic of this. I would have thought their main usefulness was as a stand-off weapon delivering a relatively large amount of explosive, and per my point immediately above. Ackerman says some of this, when talking about the differences between military mortars and PIRA mortars and the latter's specific tactical requirements, including range, remote firing and abandonment after a single use.
  • Removed, see also details added in relation to comment immediately above.
  • "The mortars were often self-made", but Ackerman says that "the PIRA never procured commercially available mortars" on p. 23, and they were never used by the PIRA either.
  • Done.
  • "by counter-terrorism expert Andy Oppenheimer"
  • Done.

Down to Casualties. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

  • the 100 IRA members killed by their own bombs info is repeated
  • Done.
  • were the General Army Conventions still called ard fheis?
  • No, ard fheis is the term for political party conferences, it's a term used by a variety of Irish parties, not just Sinn Féin
  • "counties of Donegal, Leitrim, Cavan, and Monaghan, and Louth,"
  • Done.
  • move the link to Clandestine cell system up to "introduction of cell structures"
  • Done.
  • which command was responsible for operations outside of Ireland/NI? In the UK and mainland Europe?
  • Neither, technically speaking. The England Department (called that by Martin Dillon and potentially a few others, but not called that universally) was directly under GHQ and not part of the Northern/Southern Command split. However in the 1990s the South Armagh Brigade took a leading role in IRA activity in England (particularly the major bombings), and they were part of Northern Command
  • link ASU in the narrative
  • Done, it was removed after being added as a "main article" link at the top of the section
  • why was the South Armagh Brigade different? Because it was on the border/difficulties for security forces operating there?
  • There's probably more about it in Leahy and potentially some others, but the Harnden page cited talks about slowly introducing new recruits into IRA activity, contrasting it to urban areas like Belfast where new recruits were dropped in at the deep end. He also talks about operational security and operating on a strict need to know basis and there being fewer arrests, plus they were happy to call off an operation at the slightest hint of being compromised. Although Harnden doesn't mention this, some others do (with the caveat they aren't contrasting them to the South Armagh Brigade) talk about Belfast volunteers and their loose talk in republican drinking clubs. Leahy also says the general pattern in most rural areas was that they vetted their own recruits and maintained a degree of autonomy, which was a crucial security measure, in a Stakeknife context, pointing out the South Armagh Brigade never allowed the Internal Security Unit to investigate in their area which may have contributed to their security, especially if Stakeknife is the person he is generally thought to be. I'm pretty sure elsewhere in his book Harnden talks about the lack of "boots on the ground" being one factor as to why the security forces found it difficult to recruits informers in South Armagh. There's actually a lot more in Leahy. He talks about rural volunteers knowing everyone in the locality, close family ties, their semi-autonomous nature, and he also points out the terrain helped. He quotes a British army soldier as saying rural areas were better at preventing infiltration … If you saw somebody loading chemical drums into … a van, it is very difficult to hide that in a city … Doing that in a rural area is a lot easier. He does also point out the border helped the IRA, as you originally suggested. He also quotes Séanna Walsh as saying as rural areas avoided arrests, they didn't need to add new people to the ranks, which carried a risk of infiltration. Also without arrests there was less opportunity for people to be "turned", so there were fewer opportunities to recruit informers.
  • Lengthy note added.
  • "Former IRA volunteer Tommy McKearney"
  • Done.
  • link BBC
  • Done.
  • suggest "General Sir Mike Jackson" that is how he is commonly referred to, and just link Mike Jackson
  • Done.
  • attribute "by the end of the year the IRA in Belfast had over 1,200 volunteers", as it could be read that the British Army estimates this
  • Done.
  • suggest "By the late 1970s the IRA had restructured the organisation, with the British Army estimating..."→"After the late 1970s restructure, the British Army estimated..." as this just repeats what we already know
  • Done.
  • link only James Glover's name
  • Done.

Down to Support from other countries and organisations. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:42, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

  • link LPO-50 flamethrower
  • Not done. Linked in earlier section "Weaponry and operations"
  • "two tonnes of the plastic explosive Semtex", also the caption says several tons, I would change that to "over two tonnes"
  • Done.
  • link Basques
  • "In 1973 it was accused" who? the IRA?
  • Yes, fixed.
  • "with volunteers attending training camps"
  • Done.
  • "were arrested and accused training Colombian guerrillas" of? with?
  • Of. Done.

Sectarianism

  • the non-sectarian stuff is not balanced and needs counter-weighting with other views other than White and Kowalski. For example, Steve Bruce calls the claim laughable, and Timothy Shanahan discusses this in some detail starting on page 32, providing three significant examples of sectarian violence by the IRA, and concludes that "Regardless of how sectarian IRA violence in fact was, it is safe to say that it was considerably more sectarian than the standard republican narrative concedes". This view needs to be represented in the article alongside the non-sectarian view.
  • It's covered in more detail at Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign#Sectarian attacks. The contrary viewpoint isn't excluded, it's stated as fact in the first sentence - however some IRA members did carry out sectarian attacks, followed by Of those killed by the IRA, Malcolm Sutton classifies 130 (about 7%) of them as sectarian killings of Protestants
  • That is far from adequate in this, the summary article, when you consider what Shanahan and Bruce say. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • It's stated as fact the IRA engaged in sectarian killings. Bruce's counter-point is to Bell, but Bell's claim isn't in the article. Even the points that are included are clear as not applying to the whole of the IRA - Many in the IRA opposed . . . but others, and the IRA was generally not a sectarian organisation and that was mostly blind. Patterson says the IRA's campaign was unavoidably sectarian, and McKearney acknowledges that Protestants viewed this as a sectarian attack on their community. Every single point includes that there were sectarian elements within the IRA, or that Protestants viewed the IRA's campaign as sectarian FDW777 (talk) 09:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Bell's claim might not be in the article, but several who see the IRA as essentially non-sectarian are, including a former volunteer, and that isn't balanced. What is there isn't strong enough on the counter-argument, and mostly reflects what is essentially a republican view, that of course the Protestants thought it was sectarian, because they were the ones in the UDR and RUC who were being targeted. Shanahan lists three major events that he considers support Bruce's view (Kingsmill massacre, La Mon restaurant bombing and Remembrance Day bombing), and I think they should be specifically mentioned as examples of sectarian attacks by the IRA, attributed to Shanahan. The article should also include Shanahan's statement to the effect that that the IRA was significantly more sectarian than republicans claim, attributed to him. He also talks about the motives for sectarian IRA attacks: a predictable consequence of being a Catholic defence force; relative availability of targets; and the political benefits of targeting Protestants. Given what he says, I am a bit leery of the fact that Shanahan hasn't been used at all in this section, given he examines this issue in some detail, and has some interesting things to say that contrast with what is currently there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Article - The IRA publicly condemned sectarianism and sectarian attacks, however some IRA members did carry out sectarian attacks
  • Bruce - claimed that ‘there was never any great element of sectarianism in the Provisionals’ campaign’ . . . Steve Bruce didn’t hesitate to call all such claims ‘laughable’ [because the IRA did carry out certain sectarian attacks]
  • Shanahan - "Regardless of how sectarian IRA violence in fact was, it is safe to say that it was considerably more sectarian than the standard republican narrative concedes [because the IRA did carry out certain sectarian attacks]}}
  • The IRA publicly condemned sectarianism and sectarian attacks covers claimed that ‘there was never any great element of sectarianism in the Provisionals’ campaign’ and the standard republican narrative
  • however some IRA members did carry out sectarian attacks covers Steve Bruce didn’t hesitate to call all such claims ‘laughable’ [because the IRA did carry out certain sectarian attacks] and Regardless of how sectarian IRA violence in fact was, it is safe to say that it was considerably more sectarian
  • What you are asking to be included as opinion is already stated as fact in the very first sentence. Shanahan doesn't need to be used since his central point (the IRA did carry out some sectarian attacks) is stated as fact in the very first sentence.
I don't think so. I'm going to seek additional opinions on this at Milhist. The relevant portion of Shanahan's book is here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
The relevant part of O'Leary's book begins here and continues for several pages. Yet O'Leary isn't cited in that paragraph either. FDW777 (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Shanahan's view is that None of these three operations involved attacks on the security forces. All of those killed were Protestants. That the La Mon restaurant bombing is a deliberate sectarian attack is not supported by any other author. I suggest reading the article, and the details about telephone warnings, vandalised phone boxes and people being stopped at checkpoints. Far from being a deliberate attack on Protestants (did the bombers ask all the 450 people inside the hotel if they were Protestant when planting the bomb? All, or almost all, the dead were members of the Irish Collie Club, is that an exclusively Protestant organisation?), it was an attack on commercial premises as part of the economic bombing campaign that went tragically wrong (see for example Ross, F. Stuart (2011). Smashing H-Block: The Rise and Fall of the Popular Campaign Against Criminalization, 1976-1982. Liverpool University Press. ISBN 9781846317439, page 46 The La Mon House Hotel near Comber in County Down had been targeted by the IRA as part of its firebomb campaign against commercial targets. However it was an 'operation' that went horribly wrong). Similarly the Remembrance Day bombing the IRA stated it was an attack on a military patrol, that involved the bomb exploding at the wrong time for reasons that are disputed. The backlash to the bombing was disastrous for the IRA, the idea that it was a deliberate sectarian attack is not one supported by academic consensus. There is no need to even bother attributing Kingsmill to Shanahan since that is universally agreed to be a deliberate sectarian attack, added that to the section. It was hinted at already, but not specifically mentioned, I have rectified that. FDW777 (talk) 09:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
The claims being made here about Shanahan's views about La Mon being fringe or undue are just wrong. For example, see Ulster Loyalism After the Good Friday Agreement: History, Identity and Change p. 202 here. With respect to the sectarianism of the IRA, Bruce is widely cited, see Native Vs. Settler: Ethnic Conflict in Israel/Palestine, Northern Ireland, and South Africa p. 56 here. Smith also has interesting things to say about IRA sectarianism and the advantages it gave the IRA in Fighting for Ireland?: The Military Strategy of the Irish Republican Movement here. Tonge also states in Northern Ireland that the mid-1970s phase of IRA operations was "nakedly sectarian", see this. For example, the La Mon bombing, while being a monumental cock-up, stigmatised the IRA with the sectarian label. This needs to be explained, as it undermined the "military" face of the conflict that the IRA was attempting to portray. This is explained in Moloney here. There is also the conflict between McKee and Adams about the former's encouragement of sectarian killings, which is also in Moloney. Finn, p. 134, also says the IRA was tainted by sectarian killings here. Laqueur, pp. 327–328, reinforces that sectarian elements were prominently involved in the IRA struggle, but that official pronouncements (which he describes as fictional), said the opposite here. Sanders, p. 149, writes of growing IRA sectarian violence, giving as examples the Tullyvallen Orange Lodge killings in late 1975 and the Darkley Pentecostal Church massacre here. O'Day, p. 98, describes the differing views on the sectarianism of the IRA. I acknowledge that O'Leary is critical of Bruce, but that doesn't mean that we just take his views and reflect them in the article. The argument that the IRA was sectarian is not a fringe view, there are ample examples of sectarianism by the IRA, and we should be comparing and contrasting the different views, as expressed by a range of authors writing in this space. The current section just doesn't do enough of this, and should be more balanced with a range of differing views, and therefore more densely cited. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
and thus there was the strong likelihood that those present in the hotel that evening would have been members of the Protestant community, am I supposed to take this nonsense seriously? How about the "strong likelihood" that if it hadn't been for a vandalised phonebox and a UDR checkpoint the telephone warning would have been delivered earlier and nobody would have been present in the hotel? Can you provide a single reference, other than Shanahan, that says La Mon was a deliberate attempt to kill Protestant civilians instead of an attack that went tragically wrong? I refuse to take anyone seriously that cites the Darkley killings as evidence of IRA sectarianism. FDW777 (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Re: Moloney and Adams/Mckee. Covered at end of Provisional Irish Republican Army#Initial phase with and McKee was criticised for allowing the IRA to become involved in sectarian killings (as well as The IRA was also involved in tit for tat sectarian killings of Protestant civilians a few sentences before). I had to skirt around mentioning Adams directly since he denies IRA membership, he's covered by "younger generation" in the preceding sentences. FDW777 (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I will summarise my points for you. It is stated as fact, in several places in the article, the IRA engaged in sectarian killings.

  • The IRA was also involved in tit for tat sectarian killings of Protestant civilians
  • McKee was criticised for allowing the IRA to become involved in sectarian killings
  • The IRA publicly condemned sectarianism and sectarian attacks, however some IRA members did carry out sectarian attacks

It's further stated how many were classed as sectarian killings, according to one estimate.

  • Of those killed by the IRA, Malcolm Sutton classifies 130 (about 7%) of them as sectarian killings of Protestants

The Sutton extract even defines what a sectarian killing is, Deliberate killings of Protestant civilians. The key word of course being "deliberate", since by definition a sectarian killing (at least in relation to The Troubles) is the deliberate killing of a Protestant (or Catholic in the case of loyalists) simply because of their religion. So while Shanahan (and everyone else who writes about Kingsmill, which is why there's no dispute about it being a blatantly sectarian massacre) has a point about Kingsmill, his other examples aren't reasonable since, by definition (see for example Oppenheimer to name but one, quote available on request), bombs are indiscriminate weapons. As O'Leary says (and he doesn't just talk about Bruce, but deals with the situation in depth), That said, it would be a very strange reading of the data to suggest that all IRA killings of Protestant civilians through explosions were deliberate and sectarian, whereas all killings of Catholic civilians through explosions were accidental, while earlier acknowledging the placement of bombs in certain locations predictably kills more people from a particular community—that is, deaths from bombings were often neither indiscriminate nor unintended. And apologies for this particularly lengthy quote, but The datasets therefore suggest that republicans partially fulfilled their primary objective of fighting “a war of national liberation,” as opposed to a sectarian war, though they did engage in sectarian killings. Many unionists, however, interpreted all killings of Protestant members of the local security forces as sectarian. There is no statistical evidence, however, that republicans targeted Protestant members of the security forces more than the much smaller number of Catholic members. As observed by Robert White, using the IIP’s database, the IRA’s killing of all civilians, Protestant and Catholic, in explosions fell significantly from 1979 onward, with the notable exception of the Enniskillen bombing (see Table 1.1.8). The ratio of Catholics to Protestants killed in this way, in this period, by the IRA was just over 42 percent—that is, a proportional outcome for the relevant civilian blocs rather than a disproportionate number of Protestants—which is what one would have expected from sectarian targeting of bombs. (Obviously the Enniskillen bombing is the Remembrance Day bombing referred to by Shanahan). Those are the cold, hard, facts of the situation. The IRA killed Catholic civilians as well as Protestant civilians, and the percentages mirror the overall demographics of Northern Ireland. As O'Leary notes, it's a strange interpretation of the data to conclude that all Protestant bomb deaths were deliberate yet all Catholic bomb deaths were accidental. I note Tonge, who you quoted above as saying the IRA's campaign was "nakedly sectarian" in the mid-1970s , also says the IRA rarely chose to attack Protestants just because they were Protestants. Is that really not covered by some IRA members did carry out sectarian attacks? FDW777 (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The mainstream viewpoint that the IRA did engage in sectarian killings is stated as fact in the very first sentence, and the most high-profile undisputed example is mentioned, as is one estimate of the total. Providing references that support the assertion that the IRA did engage in sectarian killings doesn't change anything, because we've already stated it as fact in the first sentence of the section so that viewpoint is already included. I'm happy to discuss specific changes to the section, whether it be removal or addition, but the general arm-waving is getting nowhere. FDW777 (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree it is getting nowhere. I have developed the view that dismissal out of hand is effectively your response to everything I raise about IRA sectarianism, when I linked half-a-dozen sources that show that IRA sectarianism is far more complex than it is portrayed in the article, you dismissed one of the sources (a book written by a widely published and cited associate professor of political science at Texas A&M who specialises in Northern Ireland and is published by a university press) based on your own opinion about an attack he describes as sectarian, effectively ignoring the rest of the sources that clearly make the point that the issue is far more complex than currently portrayed in the article. While my startpoint for GANs is that at this level of review it is not the reviewers job to suggest wording, I do on occasion attempt to assist the nominator with rewording sections that I consider need a rewrite. In this case, your responses thus far give me absolutely no confidence that you would adopt any of my suggestions on this aspect of the IRA. You have effectively dismissed pretty much everything I have said. There is no way I am passing this as a GA unless a consensus of uninvolved editors can be developed that says that what is currently in the article about IRA sectarianism is sufficiently neutral to meet GA criteria #4. The 3O request fell on deaf ears (I am not surprised, there are few editors that want to stick their head above the parapet on controversial subjects, particularly those that are under an ArbCom case), so given the current arbitration remedy for The Troubles states that all editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions, the only way I can see to get the consensus needed to get either determine that this should be failed on criteria #4 or passed is an RfC. I will draft one in the next few days and post it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I refer you to buidhe's comments below of FYI, after reading the exchanges above and considering it, I think that the sectarianism aspect is already covered sufficiently and NPOV in this article and DagosNavy's comments at Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army#Sectarian attacks of Furthermore, he is a tiny minority point of view to take in consideration. As for Shanahan remarks, they are in line with the first statement of the section, this is, the conflict between the mainstream IRA view against sectarianism and the realities on the ground, that pushed some of their members to carry out retaliatory attacks to the point to became involved in tit-for-tat violence. No matter how "biased" the section looks, we must follow WP:WEIGHT, and according to this WP guideline, a myriad of sources assert that the IRA did not commit systematic sectarian violence like their Loyalist counterpart. If A, B, C and D call it a dog, there is no point in citing E claiming the thing is a cat just because things seem to be "unbalanced". I haven't dismissed everything you've said, I've refuted it. You keep banging a drum that sectarian attacks are downplayed yet ignore it's stated as fact in no less no than three places that the IRA did engage in sectarian attacks, selectively cite references (Tonge), and ignore that the mainstream consensus does not accept that certain bombings were deliberate attacks designed to kill Protestant civilians. I've asked you to make specific suggestions, you refuse. FDW777 (talk) 08:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
You (presumably) refer to Andrew Sanders saying you dismissed one of the sources (a book written by a widely published and cited associate professor of political science at Texas A&M who specialises in Northern Ireland and is published by a university press) based on your own opinion about an attack he describes as sectarian, did you even bother to read what I said? It was I refuse to take anyone seriously that cites the Darkley killings as evidence of IRA sectarianism. I didn't dismiss Sanders based on my own opinion about an attack he describes as sectarian, but because he's made a mistake (or perhaps you have made an erroneous assumption, since he doesn't specifically attribute Darkley to the IRA. I will confess to only looking at Google Books just now, the Australian Google Books link you provided didn't let me view the page but I knew Darkley wasn't even IRA without checking). I purposely linked the Darkley killings in my post, since as the article makes clear the attack was carried out by a faction of the Irish National Liberation Army, apparently in an attack unsanctioned by the leadership. Thus I didn't dismiss Sanders based on my opinion, but because an attack he cites wasn't carried out by the IRA!! It isn't even one of the attacks that are seen as being carried out by the IRA using a covername, but by a totally different organisation. FDW777 (talk) 08:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, after some thought, I'm going to suggest a rewrite of the section incorporating the additional sources I've identified, attempting to reflect a wider range of views on IRA sectarianism and sectarian attacks, and see what transpires. I'll post it when I've finished. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, sorry about the delay, RW stuff has been taking priority for quite a while. After some thought, I'm going to suggest a rewrite of the section incorporating the additional sources I've identified above, attempting to reflect a wider range of views on IRA sectarianism and sectarian attacks, and see what transpires. Here is what is there now and what I suggest:

Sectarian attacks (current version)

The IRA publicly condemned sectarianism and sectarian attacks, however some IRA members did carry out sectarian attacks.[1] Of those killed by the IRA, Malcolm Sutton classifies 130 (about 7%) of them as sectarian killings of Protestants, 88 of them committed between 1974 and 1976.[2] Unlike loyalists, the IRA denied responsibility for sectarian attacks and the members involved used cover names, such as "Republican Action Force", which was used to claim responsibility for the 1976 Kingsmill massacre where ten Protestant civilians were killed in a gun attack.[3][4] They stated that their attacks on Protestants were retaliation for attacks on Catholics.[1] Many in the IRA opposed these sectarian attacks, but others deemed them effective in preventing similar attacks on Catholics.[5] Robert White, a professor at the Indiana University, states the IRA was generally not a sectarian organisation,[6] and Rachel Kowalski from the Department of War Studies, King's College London states that the IRA acted in a way that was mostly blind to religious diversity.[7]

Protestants in the rural border areas of counties Fermanagh and Tyrone, where the number of members of the security forces killed was high, viewed the IRA's campaign as ethnic cleansing.[8] Henry Patterson, a professor at the University of Ulster, concludes that while the IRA's campaign was unavoidably sectarian, it did not amount to ethnic cleansing.[9] Although the IRA did not specifically target these people because of their religious affiliation, more Protestants joined the security forces so many people from that community believed the attacks were sectarian.[8] McKearney argues that due to the British government's Ulsterisation policy increasing the role of the locally recruited RUC and UDR, the IRA had no choice but to target them because of their local knowledge, but acknowledges that Protestants viewed this as a sectarian attack on their community.[8][10]

References

  1. ^ a b English 2003, p. 173.
  2. ^ CAIN: Revised and Updated Extracts from Sutton's Book.
  3. ^ English 2003, p. 171–172.
  4. ^ McKittrick & McVea 2012, p. 115.
  5. ^ Coogan 2000, p. 443.
  6. ^ White 1997, pp. 20–55.
  7. ^ Kowalski 2018, pp. 658–683.
  8. ^ a b c Leahy 2020, p. 213.
  9. ^ Patterson 2010, pp. 337–356.
  10. ^ McKearney 2011, pp. 139–140.

Sectarianism and sectarian attacks (proposed version)

Sources have drawn conflicting conclusions about the sectarianism of the IRA. The IRA publicly condemned sectarianism,[1] the sociologist Robert White considers that the IRA was not a sectarian organisation, and the historian Rachel Kowalski states that the IRA acted in a way that was mostly blind to religious diversity.[2][3] In contrast, the philosopher Timothy Shanahan considers that the IRA was "considerably more sectarian than the standard republican narrative concedes",[4] and the journalist Thomas G. Mitchell observes that the wide range of targets considered acceptable for attacks by the IRA gave Protestants good reason to consider the IRA to be just as sectarian as the loyalist paramilitaries.[5] The sociologist Stephen Bruce considers that the republicans were just as sectarian as the loyalists,[6] and further, labels the claim that the IRA was not sectarian as “laughable”.[7]

The IRA also publicly condemned sectarian attacks,[1] denied responsibility for them and the members involved used cover names. [8][9] However, Shanahan observes that despite these condemnations and denials, there were many examples of sectarian attacks by the IRA, and highlights several examples, including the 1976 Kingsmill massacre, where IRA members using the cover name "Republican Action Force" separated Protestant and Catholic textile workers travelling on a bus, and shot the Protestants, killing ten.[10].[11][12] The IRA stated that their attacks on Protestants were retaliation for attacks on Catholics,[1] and although many in the IRA opposed these sectarian attacks, others deemed them effective in preventing similar attacks on Catholics.[13]

The political scientist Jonathan Tonge considers the mid-1970s phase of IRA operations to have been "nakedly sectarian".[14] According to the political scientist Michael Smith, there are substantive indications the organisation "contrived to turn a blind eye" to sectarian attacks, highlighting those during the 1975 ceasefire as an example.[15] The historian Henry Patterson concludes that the IRA's campaign was unavoidably sectarian.[16] Of those killed by the IRA, Malcolm Sutton classifies 130 (about 7%) of them as sectarian killings of Protestants, 88 of them committed between 1974 and 1976.[17]

Protestants in the rural border areas of counties Fermanagh and Tyrone, where the number of members of the security forces killed was high, viewed the IRA's campaign as ethnic cleansing,[18] but Patterson rejects this.[19] Although the IRA did not specifically target these people because of their religious affiliation, more Protestants joined the security forces so many people from that community believed the attacks were sectarian.[18] McKearney argues that due to the British government's Ulsterisation policy increasing the role of the locally recruited RUC and UDR, the IRA had no choice but to target them because of their local knowledge, but acknowledges that Protestants viewed this as a sectarian attack on their community.[18][20]

References

  1. ^ a b c English 2003, p. 173.
  2. ^ White 1997, pp. 20–55.
  3. ^ Kowalski 2018, pp. 658–683.
  4. ^ Shanahan 2008, pp. 32–34.
  5. ^ Mitchell 2000, p. 55.
  6. ^ Mitchell 2000, p. 56.
  7. ^ Shanahan 2008, p. 34.
  8. ^ English 2003, p. 171–172.
  9. ^ McKittrick & McVea 2012, p. 115.
  10. ^ Shanahan 2008, p. 34
  11. ^ English 2003, p. 171–172.
  12. ^ McKittrick & McVea 2012, p. 115.
  13. ^ Coogan 2000, p. 443.
  14. ^ Tonge 2013, p. 156.
  15. ^ Smith 2002
  16. ^ Patterson 2010, pp. 337–356.
  17. ^ CAIN: Revised and Updated Extracts from Sutton's Book.
  18. ^ a b c Leahy 2020, p. 213.
  19. ^ Patterson 2010, pp. 337–356.
  20. ^ McKearney 2011, pp. 139–140.
  • Oppose the main difference that I see between both versions is that the proposed version is longer and includes an excessive number of quotes/opinions from individual writers. Since the article is currently 9906 words, we should be trying to trim rather than expand. (t · c) buidhe 03:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Good grief. Why on earth that is a criteria to oppose is beyond me. The subject is complex and covers a long period of time. The current section is not neutrally written, the question is disputed and the additional information from a wider range of sources balances it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I could also support some concise combination of the above, that discarded the less prominent opinions. (t · c) buidhe 04:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Which ones would you suggest? None of the opinions are from people with a merely a passing interest in the IRA. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


Oppose At 20:58, 16 January 2021 I pointed out your selective quoting of Tonge, providing a phrase on the same page as the "nakedly sectarian" part. The passage in full reads ...the IRA rarely chose to attack Protestants just because they were Protestants. As such, the 'defence' was not under direct attack most of the time. When notable exceptions occurred, such as during the latter half of 1971 and the IRA's nakedly sectarian phase of the mid-1970s... We already document this mid-1970s phase as being sectarian, since the article states Of those killed by the IRA, Malcolm Sutton classifies 130 (about 7%) of them as sectarian killings of Protestants, 88 of them committed between 1974 and 1976. You cannot use Tonge's "nakedly sectarian" quote without using his quote from earlier in the same passage that the IRA rarely attacked Protestants just because they were Protestants, and that such attacks were exceptions.

At 13:25, 3 January 2021 I directed you to O'Leary's analysis of casualties and sectarianism, pointing out the analysis lasts for several pages of his book, considerably more than the people whose "analysis" (for want of a better word) lasts less than a paragraph. Yet for some reason O'Leary's in-depth analysis does not get mentioned?

Bruce (largely quoted in Shanahan, but I've included the original passage in full and underlined the part missed out by Shanahan) says When the IRA launched its bombing campaign, the targets were not only representatives of the British state but ordinary Protestants. The bombs of 1971 were placed inside and outside pubs and clubs in Protestant areas and were only as selective as the establishments in question were 'select'. That is, they were intended to kill Protestants and they did just that. Shanahan says of Bruce's opinion, Bruce doesn’t elaborate, but three examples out of many that could be chosen will suffice to substantiate this point. This is strange, since Bruce did elaborate by stating he was referring to the 1971 bombs, yet Shanahan excluded the part where Bruce did elaborate. Returning to Bruce's point, you'd think the way he talks pub and club bombings were the norm, but were they? The first documented pub bombing was an IRA bomb planted outside the Bluebell Inn on 20 September 1971, which injured 27 people. This was followed by another IRA bomb at Four Step Inn on 29 September, this killed 2 people. This was followed by a UVF bomb on the Fiddler's House Bar on 9 October, this killed 1 person. Then on 2 November the IRA's Red Lion Pub bombing killed 3 people and injured 26. The last pub bombing of 1971 was the UVF's McGurk's Bar bombing which killed 15 people and injured 17. All these events happened in Belfast. In 1971 there were 1,515 attempted bombings, 1,022 resulting in an explosion. By every account on the Troubles, the IRA was responsible for the majority of bombings. Even if we take "majority" to mean simply 51% in this case, that's still over 500 IRA bombs exploding in 1971. Three of those bombs, all in Belfast, were left inside/outside pubs. Yet the way Bruce writes you'd think there were bombs going off inside/outside pubs all the time and across Northern Ireland, but it's clear they were the exception (as suggested by Tonge) not the rule.

Shanahan starts by saying According to the standard republican narrative, Provisional IRA violence, unlike state and loyalist violence, is not sectarian in nature. He then starts talking about how Bell's 1976 statement was wrong. Bell's book was published on 5 February 1976, a mere month after the first incident Shanahan cites to discredit Bell, and two years and eleven years respectively before the other two incidents he cites. I'm not an expert on the timescales involved in book publishing, but the most obvious answer, one that Shanahan appears to have overlooked, in that Bell's book was written before the January 1976 incident. There's also cherry picking regarding which quotes from Shanahan are included, since his analysis is more about the comparison of how sectarian IRA violence was in comparison to loyalist violence, not looking at IRA violence in isolation.

The inclusion of quotes from Shanahan, Bruce, et al, adds nothing to the article that is not already stated. It is already stated as fact that despite the IRA's denial, the IRA did on various occasions engage in sectarian attacks, particularly in the mid-1970s. So what do these quotes actually add? There's no need for this desperate attempt to try and prove a point that's already been stated as fact. FDW777 (talk) 11:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Review continued

  • "Former IRA volunteer McKearney"
  • Done.
  • "RUC's Drugs Squad"
  • Done.
  • "official police force—the Royal Ulster ConstabularyRUC"
  • Done.
  • say that Nairac was an undercover British Army intelligence officer
  • Done.
  • it there any estimate of the numbers of informers killed by the IRA?
  • briefly say what the Mitchell Principles were
  • Done.
  • move the See also link to a main template at the top of the History section
  • Done.

Brief pause before I do toolkit checks and check the image licensing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Image review
  • the infobox image licence doesn't provide any information about the original film from which the image was screenshot, and the NFUR isn't for this use but for showing the mortar
  • Removed.
  • a better infobox image would be the PIRA badge
  • Done.
  • I'm going to ask Buidhe for an opinion on the Flickr licences for File:Martin McGuinness MLA (cropped).jpg and File:Birmingham pub bombings plaque Birmingham England.jpg when she does her second opinion review
  • There is no source info for File:AR-18.jpg to explain why it is using that licence
  • Changed to image with hopefully full information
  • same for File:Semtex H 1.jpg
  • Original uploader at de wikipedia only appeared to have made about a dozen edits, and unclear which US government website the image originally came from. No objection if it needs to be removed.
  • The authors of the proclamation were executed in 1916, it's PD no matter what website it came from originally.
Source review
  • you only have to author-link an author the first time (see Bowyer Bell, Coogan etc)
  • MOS:REPEATLINK says it's ok to repeat links in citations, as they stand alone (basically meaning you're not supposed to read the section containing them). That's why they are repeated, so people hovering over footnotes get relevant links to click on all the time, not just if they happen to hover over a footnote with the links in.
  • space after the colon in "Alternative Policing Styles:Cross-Cultural Perspectives"
  • Done.
  • on face value, all the sources seem reliable, although I am not familiar with some of the publishing houses. On this occasion, while it is definitely not a requirement, including the location of publication would be helpful to establish how many of the sources are Irish
  • There's not that many, and of the ones there are I'm hoping people would realise Irish Academic Press is an Irish publisher. I'm not sure if it's an issue, since there's far more British publishers.

OK, that's me done. Once you've addressed my remaining comments and I've done a check over the changes, I'll reping Buidhe for her second opinion review. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

That took a bit longer than I thought, Buidhe. Not everything is quite addressed, but we're very close, so if you could start having a look when you have some time, it would be greatly appreciated. There are a couple of image licensing queries that I'd like your input on, if you don't mind. Thanks for agreeing to do this, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe

Flickr looks OK to me. In the first case, based on the account content I'm fully willing to accept that this is the official Flickr for the party and that therefore they have the rights to the image. For the second one, we usually accept average quality photographs of public places as the person's own work regardless of whether they are originally posted to Flickr or Commons. (t · c) buidhe 02:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Other comments:

  • Footnote states, "Irish republicans do not recognise any of the Irish states since 1922, but declare their allegiance to the Republic of 1919–1922". I thought this was the position of Irish republican legitimism, rather that Irish republicanism in general which only rejects British rule.
  • Amended.
  • "However, on several occasions, the British authorities have recognised the IRA's policing role." What does this mean?
  • Difficult to tell what the reference cited means as it's only snippet view on Google Books, I believe it's potentially redundant to the rest of the paragraph which gives specific examples of that, so I am happy to remove it if that's the best option?
That's what I would do. (t · c) buidhe 15:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Removed.
  • "Alleged involvement in crime" If RS say it's known to be involved in crime, then misleading to say "alleged". (We're talking about an organization, not a specific living person).
  • Amended.
  • "Supporters argue that as the IRA was a clandestine organisation..." supporters of what?
  • Amended.
  • "It is estimated that, by the 1990s, the IRA needed £10.5 million a year to operate", "It was estimated that the IRA carried out 1,000 armed robberies in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, mostly of banks and post offices." whose estimates?
  • Amended one, the second is more difficult. Connolly says The IRA conducted an estimated one thousand armed robberies in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, small post offices being a favorite target, giving Bell, The Secret Army: The IRA, 465 as a citation. Bell says The most spectacular source, as was the case with many revolutionary organisations, was armed robbery, bank and trains and small businesses. A steady source was found in raids on small post offices in Northern Ireland-over a thousand successful armed robberies and still others aborted. So any suggestions on alternate wording would be good?
I would credit it to Bell. (t · c) buidhe 16:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Amended.
  • "The Official IRA had been seen as existing for the purpose of defence while the Provisional IRA was seen as existing for the purpose of attack, increased recruitment and defections from the Official IRA to the Provisional IRA led to the latter becoming the dominant organisation." Seen by whom?
  • Amended.

Disclaimer, I actually know little about this topic beyond the research I did to write Paramilitary punishment attacks in Northern Ireland. (That section of the article looks pretty accurate to me). The article overall seems to be quite well written and balanced. (t · c) buidhe 04:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Additional commentary

Placing on hold while the last comments are addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

On 9 January 2021 I asked for a formal third opinion about the issue of how the sectarianism of the IRA is treated in the article. If no-one steps up to do that within a fortnight of my posting the request (23 January), I will withdraw it and initiate an RfC to gain a community consensus about it. Given the importance of the issue to the IRA, I will not be passing the article unless an uninvolved 3O is provided or community consensus is achieved that considers the current treatment of the issue in the article is acceptable. Obviously, if the 3O considers changes are needed or the RfC consensus is that changes are required, it will not be passed until those changes are made. The review will remain on hold until the issue is resolved. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
The Third Opinion request has been removed as stale in accordance with the instructions at the Third Opinion page. The request may be relisted, but if no 3O volunteer has taken it by now, doing so would probably be futile. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC) (3O Volunteer)
FYI, after reading the exchanges above and considering it, I think that the sectarianism aspect is already covered sufficiently and NPOV in this article. (t · c) buidhe 19:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Final assessment against the criteria

OK. This has taken far too long to finalise, and it is clear that my concerns about the article meeting criteria #4 Neutrality (regarding sectarianism), will not be addressed by the nominator. In over 350 Good Article nomination reviews, I have never struck such a level of intransigence from a nominator when a serious concern has been raised about an article. In these circumstances, I feel I have no choice but to fail it on criteria #4. For the record, in my view it meets all the other Good Article criteria. Good luck with it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Instransigent for pointing out your highly selective quoting of Tonge and complete failure to cite the detailed analysis by O'Leary? Wow. FDW777 (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Sectarian attacks

The article currently states The IRA publicly condemned sectarianism and sectarian attacks, however some IRA members did carry out sectarian attacks. This is not a remotely disputed point, since it's a fact they did do both hence it's stated as fact. The sentence following it is relevant as well, stating Of those killed by the IRA, Malcolm Sutton classifies 130 (about 7%) of them as sectarian killings of Protestants. Do these sentences adequately cover the viewpoints of Bruce, who says the claim by another author that "there was never any great element of sectarianism in the Provisionals" is "laughable", and Shanahan, who begins his analysis by stating According to the standard republican narrative, Provisional IRA violence, unlike state and loyalist violence, is not sectarian in nature and ends it with Regardless of how sectarian IRA violence in fact was, it is safe to say that it was considerably more sectarian than the standard republican narrative concedes. @Flalf:, @DagosNavy:, @Scolaire:, @Snowded:. For futher analysis also see pages 84-90 of O'Leary's recent work (quotes/synopsis available if it's not viewable where you are). FDW777 (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

May be I am getting the point in the wrong way, but, despite being a prestigious scholar, Steven Bruce is a partisan source. I was taking a browse through some of his works, and there is some logic in his disregard for White Bell's opinions as "laughable", since he comes from a Protestant background. Furthermore, he is a tiny minority point of view to take in consideration. As for Shanahan remarks, they are in line with the first statement of the section, this is, the conflict between the mainstream IRA view against sectarianism and the realities on the ground, that pushed some of their members to carry out retaliatory attacks to the point to became involved in tit-for-tat violence. No matter how "biased" the section looks, we must follow WP:WEIGHT, and according to this WP guideline, a myriad of sources assert that the IRA did not commit systematic sectarian violence like their Loyalist counterpart. If A, B, C and D call it a dog, there is no point in citing E claiming the thing is a cat just because things seem to be "unbalanced".----Darius (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Bruce was referring to Bell, not White. Bruce doesn't appear to have read White's book, or spoken to any republicans to determine their perspective. FDW777 (talk) 09:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Can you explain why you pinged those specific editors? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
They are editors in good standing who frequently edit the article and/or its talk page. I don't always agree with them, but I always consider their insight to beneficial. FDW777 (talk) 12:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
In addition since I now have your attention, what do you think of O'Leary's analysis? FDW777 (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
As for why I even bothered to ping people in the first place, the recent history of this talk page shows quite often I'm talking to myself. At Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army/Archive 11#Marie Breen Smyth question I couldn't even get a reply about how to present Marie Breen Smyth's name... FDW777 (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Frankly, on the issue of sectarianism in the GAN review, I feel like I'm talking to myself too. So there's that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
You chose to dismiss a lengthy reply with "I don't think so", not me. FDW777 (talk) 09:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

"Unlike loyalists, who the IRA denied responsibility for sectarian attacks and the members involved used cover names"

This line from the first paragraph of "Sectarian attacks" isn't entirely accurate. Loyalists frequently used cover names, the most well-known probably being UFF, the cover name used by the UDA bombings and assassinations. "Protestant Action Force" was a UVF cover name often used for more openly sectarian attacks. There was also Red Hand Brigade, Loyalist Retaliation and Defence Group, Red Hand Defenders etc

I'm holding off editing until I can think of a suitable wording that won't draw attention from the main point; that the IRA nearly always using cover names for explicitly sectarian attacks.

--NelsonEdit2 (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

You have a point, kind of. I can see it might be improved, possibly with the addition of a note. It's actually a sentence I didn't write.
The point the reference is making is that the IRA wouldn't make claims of responsibility for deliberate killing of Protestant civilians, or if it did it would use a covername. Yes, the UDA used the UFF covername, but that was to allow them to maintain a public profile as the UDA (they had offices at various locations over the Troubles). UVF: The Endgame talks about PAF being used during the UVF's ceasefire period (the one where they did the Dublin/Monaghan bombings three days after being declared legal in the UK). I forget which book it was in, but I've definitely read about the UDA/UFF claiming responsibility for killings the UVF committed, and the UVF had no objection to this as it made the job of investigation by law enforcement more difficult. So essentially there's various different reasons for the use of covernames, but the point about the IRA not claiming responsibility for sectarian killings using the name of the IRA is accurate, it just doesn't give the whole situation. It can probably be re-written to either include an explanatory note (time consuming, as it'd involve cobbling together various bits and pieces from a variety of different references), or just remove the part about loyalists completely (it's covered elsewhere in the article). FDW777 (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Ideology Section: Content drawn from John Mulqueen

@FDW777: With regards to the section in ideology you reverted on the grounds it was "news", the source I was using was not "news" but rather it was John Mulqueen summarising a number of points he was making in his book "An Alien Ideology’: Cold War Perceptions of the Irish Republican Left". The purpose of the article was/is to promote the book. As such, while it might be an article in the Irish Times, it's closer to scholarly work than Journalism. It's an author describing conclusions and information contained in their own book, rather than a Journalist describing events. As such, I feel the reversion should be undone. CeltBrowne (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The addition rambled on for sentence after sentence while ultimately saying nothing of substance other than the IRA was socialist not Marxist, which is already covered in the section. As detailed elsewhere in the article the IRA had little time for politics at the beginning of their existence, so it is unclear why we need a huge paragraph talking about their position in 1970. This isn't new information uncovered by Mulqueen, it's been covered by everyone. The section ignores what they weren't, and talks about what they were. Furthermore adding text with maintenance tags or incorrect use of italics is disruptive. FDW777 (talk) 07:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I can take the point of it needing to be more concise and/or better formatted, however, I thought the addition gave further context to the PIRA/OIRA split. It demonstrates that it was more complex than a simple split of absentation or even the Popular Front concept, it shows that there was also an express rejection of the Communist views of the OIRA, which is not really discussed elsewhere in the article. To my reading, the section labelled "The 1969 split" gives the impression that the issues of Absentationism and the Popular front were the /only/ factors in the split. CeltBrowne (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
There were divisions in the IRA prior to December 1969, over the Goulding faction's shift to the left and the same faction's failure to provide arms in August 1969. Both are detailed at "Origins" with Chief-of-staff Cathal Goulding wanted the IRA to adopt a socialist agenda and become involved in politics, while traditional republicans such as Seán Mac Stíofáin wanted to increase recruitment and rebuild the IRA, and later ...remove the pro-Goulding Belfast leadership of Billy McMillen and Jim Sullivan and return to traditional militant republicanism.] On 22 September Twomey, McKee, and Steele were among sixteen armed IRA men who confronted the Belfast leadership over the failure to adequately defend Catholic areas. But the tipping point was the December 1969 General Army Convention. Mac Stíofáin had been opposed to the Marxist non-violent direction for years, yet didn't split until then. I think there's certainly potential to explain this a bit better earlier in the article if deemed to have not been covered properly already. FDW777 (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army/Archive_11&oldid=1042433809"