Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 13

"Abortive attempt at escalation"

The lede currently refers to an "abortive attempt at escalation" of the military part of the IRA's strategy after the hunger strikes. I'm not sure this is accurate - there was escalation, it just didn't achieve its goal.I therefore propose to remove the phrase "abortive attempt" and rejig the rest of the sentence accordingly. Irvine22 (talk) 06:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You did not propose anything, you just did it. Abortive is correct, the planned Tet Offensive never happened. O Fenian (talk) 10:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I proposed it then I did it, yes. Remember we are exhorted to be bold. The existing language, with its reference to an attempted escalation after the hunger strikes, was confusing. It certainly seems to have confused you. There was an escalation immediately after the hunger strikes. The contemplated Tet offensive, so-called, was later (mid-80s) and was always going to be beyond the capabilities of the IRA, as Loughgall tends to demonstrate. Irvine22 (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It did not confuse me, as unlike you I know where the wikilink in the sentence goes to - the Tet Offensive section. It would appear the only confused person is you. O Fenian (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2009(UTC)

Right, but the language about the aftermath of the hunger strikes and the reference to 1981 tends to confuse the issue. There was a temporary escalation of violence after the suicides of the hunger strikers. But that is not to be confused with the "abortive" Tet offensive, which came (or didn't come as it turned out) years later. Irvine22 (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Tendentious addition and system gaming

As is usual with Irvine22's editing, this edit uses a quote out of context to push a particular point-of-view. It is was disruptively adding by gaming 1RR and should be reverted. This is advance notice that if Irvine22 continues to edit disruptively a RFC will be filed regarding his editing. O Fenian (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I support the call for an RFC. Previous blocks and endless discussion here, and on other talk pages, have not had any effect on Irvine's editing. Something has to be done if he does not stop being disruptive. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The quote is informative, sourced and in-context. It was added to the section of the article on decommissioning, and represents the IRA's own clearly stated position on decommissioning at the time of the Belfast agreement. At present the "decommissioning" section jumps from the 1994/97 ceasefires all the way to the IRA's final disarmament in 2005. There is no reference to the long, drawn out process by which decommissioning occurred, or the multiple changes of position by the IRA in the intervening years. This should be addressed.Irvine22 (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Clearly out of context, clearly disruptive POV pushing, clearly short term blocks are not going to change the behaviour. Support RFC, its time.--Snowded ^TALK 01:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Clearly in context in the "decommissioning" section of the article. And given that the addition was a direct quote from a statement by the IRA issued April 30th 1998 and signed by P. O'Neill the only POV expressed is that of the IRA. That POV subsequently changed, of course, and it is the process by which it changed that is missing from the section in question, and that is what I propose to address. Irvine22 (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The quote was taken out of the context in which it was actually written, that much is evident to anyone who is not here to push a point-of-view. Also do not amend my title again, as it this section is referring to your disruption of this article and what will be done to prevent further disruption. O Fenian (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, a single quote like that doesn't tell us anything about the long, drawn out process. Its confusing to the reader unless there is some context to what changed between that statement and the decommissioning.

Your sort of editing technique, adding isolated, occasionally charged sentences here and there then trying to justify their inclusion as informative and sourced, doesn't really work in these sort of controversial, complex articles. Articles like these should not be looked at piecemeal (and really not edited piecemeal). Edits needs to be considered in the wider context of paragraphs and sentences, to ensure there is balanced, flow tone and coverage throughout the article. I would strongly suggest that, if you wish to contribute to these sorts of articles and become respected as a content contributor rather than a WP:SPA, you should try writing rather than editing. There is a difference. Take a paragraph that needs work, copy it to sandbox and re-write it. Then bring it to the talk page for discussion, then add it to the article.

Having observed your pattern of editing, Irvine, over the last few weeks. I can understand why other editors may have become disenchanted with your contributions (though I don't condone the immediate reversion of ALL your edits, as some editors appear to do). I fear, should this pattern of editing continue, some sort of probationary measures (perhaps under a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles remedy) might be needed assist you integrate into the editing culture better. It would be better, of course, if that could happen without the need for probationary measures. If you would be interested in becoming a better editor, I'd be happy to offer advice. Rockpocket 02:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to accept your advice. Irvine22 (talk) 02:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The single quote was misleading, if you read the article. That comment was in response to a demand that the IRA decommission, and was followed by "This issue, as with any other matter affecting the IRA, its functions and objectives, is a matter only for the IRA, to be decided upon and pronounced upon by us". Thus it was out of context. O Fenian (talk) 02:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There does seem to be an obvious gap in the article in respect of the long drawn-out decommissioning process and the PIRA's eventual change of position. That said, a single quotation does not fill the gap. Mooretwin (talk) 09:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. However, if we are to fill in the gap, it must be with sourced, in-context information as to what the IRA was doing during those times. Additions should, in my opinion, center around the process of disarmament, barriers to it, etc. The paragraph in question is sparse, and could do with a re-write. Given the sensitivity of the topic and how high emotions are currently running, I echo Rockpocket's suggestion that the draft rewrite be first posted to the talk page, before the article itself is updated. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Anyone have the time and inclination to attempt a re-write? Mooretwin (talk) 11:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'll have a go. Irvine22 (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy that you've decided to undertake this. Please remember the feedback you've received, as a biased or otherwise deficient paragraph will serve no purpose other than to engender more bickering, and would be unlikely to be adopted anyway. Throwaway85 (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Its an interesting test, to see if there is real intent to stop the disruptive behaviour and contribute. Happy to see what happens from this. --Snowded ^TALK 05:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's AGF, and take it from there. No need in dooming the project from the get-go. If Irvine22 submits a workable draft, then we have something to work from and the article is improved. If not, then other options become more likely. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• I echo the calls for an RFC on Irvine. BigDunc 14:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Not before time, I'd support the call. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

duuuuuuuuude... I have no idea what you just said. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Decommissioning

This would the kind of thing I would propose to add to the "decommissioning" section, to address the identified gap:

"After the Belfast Agreement of April 1998, the issue of IRA arms became central to the peace process. Unionists mostly took the view that the IRA should decommission its arms before Sinn Fein could take its seats in the devolved Northern Ireland Executive. Republicans and Nationalists mostly took the view that prior decommissioning was an unnacceptable precondition and not part of the Agreement. These entrenched positions were summed up by the slogans "No Guns, No Government" and "Not a Bullet, Not an Ounce".

The IRA itself, in a statement issued April 30th 1998, stated that "there will be no decommissioning by the IRA." Gerry Adams, speaking for Sinn Fein, said that he wanted to see "all the guns" taken out of the situation in Northern Ireland.

The British and Irish governments set up the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning to address the issue of paramilitary arms. After political progress towards an inclusive devolved government, and a reduction in the British military presence on the streets of Northern Ireland, the IRA engaged with the decommissioning body and completed decommissioning in 2006."''''

Refs to follow. Comments welcome. Irvine22 (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this some sort of bizarre joke? Not acceptable at all. O Fenian (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

In the spirit of constructive, collaborative editing, do you have suggestions how to improve it, O Fenian? Rockpocket 19:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not consider ignoring people's objections to the use of that quote out of context to be "constructive, collaborative editing" in the first place, do you? O Fenian (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, the quote above will be linked to the IRA statement in full. The longer quote you provided above about decommissioning being a matter for the IRA was, as I recall, in the context of other parties trying to compel Sinn Fein to pronounce on the issue, or otherwise to hold Sinn Fein accountable for the IRA's actions (or lack of them) in that regard. I tried to address this, without quoting at undue length from P O'Neill, by referring to Gerry Adams "speaking for Sinn Fein" and his linkage of the issue of IRA arms with "all weapons" in the conflict, including British Army weapons.Irvine22 (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't, O Fenian. And I told Irvine22 as much. But I do consider an attempt to write a section that is missing content, and bring it to the talk page for discussion first, to be firm step towards constructive, collaborative editing. Refusing to engage in that process based on a grudge appears obstructive, rather than constructive. Irvine22's proposal seems a reasonable starting place, why not try and help rather than scupper it? A good rule of thumb towards collaborative editing is to try to treat every edit or proposal with "beginner's mind", irrespective of past differences you may have had with the editor. Rockpocket 19:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not consider the attempt to include an out of context quote that has previously been disputed "reasonable", especially when the rationale for doing so is that people can see the quote in the correct context if they can be bothered to click a link to the original source! The argument about Sinn Féin is of no relevance. The IRA's comments on decommissioning specifically said "This issue, as with any other matter affecting the IRA, its functions and objectives, is a matter only for the IRA, to be decided upon and pronounced upon by us". If they had decided there would be no decommissioning ever, what could possibly be "decided upon and pronounced upon by us" in the future? The statement was made in response (in part) to a specific demand that the IRA decommission, they said no to that demand. The full statement implies that decommissioning may happen in the future, but that would be for the IRA to decide upon. Do you agree? O Fenian (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't read the IRA statement that way and indeed that is not how it was reported at the time. It's pretty clear (or as clear as P O'Neill ever gets - simple declarative sentences are not his forte) that the IRA, in asserting that decommissioning was a matter for them, was trying to take the heat off Sinn Fein. After all, it was Sinn Fein that was the putative target for sanctions if the IRA failed to decommission. Irvine22 (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I was not asking you, as I have zero to little interest in your rather biased opinions. You can choose to interpret a quote any way you choose, but that will not get round other people's objections to your interpretation, and will not build a consensus. O Fenian (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The included quote is problematic, but that can easily be removed or, better yet, replaced with the full, in context quote. I think the rest of the paragraph provides a good starting point. Overall, a decent contribution. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

O Fenian, it sounds like you have an alternative quote that could be used to better explain the IRA's position during that time. Great. Why don't you propose something based on that be used instead of the quote Irvine suggested. Do you see how this works? Rather than waste time and energy telling each other you are wrong, instead put the effort into working together towards achieving something constructive. Rockpocket 20:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not have an alternative quote, I am using the same statement only talking about the parts Irvine22 has deliberately left out in order to use the quote out of context. "to be decided upon" is future tense, surely that cannot be denied? O Fenian (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. Its like pulling teeth, here. Ok. Why don't you, using the same statement only talking about the parts Irvine22 left out, propose an alternative sentence that you wold be happy with to better explain the IRA's position during that time? Rockpocket 21:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps because during the long drawn out "will they, won't they?", "yes we will", "we've decommissioned some", "due to Unionist stalling we're not decommissioning any more", "we've decommissioned some more" seven year decommissioning saga the IRA made many statements? And that does not even take into account what people said in reaction to those statements either does it? O Fenian (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you prefer that the decommissioning section was not expanded? Mooretwin (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe what I said gives the opposite impression? O Fenian (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It gives the impression that you are filibustering. Why don't you try suggesting some alternative text? Mooretwin (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

How about expanding the proposed addition so it actually covers the entire long drawn out process before we start arguing over wording? O Fenian (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's really what I meant. I guess I should have said additional text rather than alternative text. Mooretwin (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Irvine, two things. Firstly editorializing is rarely helpful. It makes life a lot easier of everyone if you simply leave out your own thoughts on P O'Neill. Secondly, we should not be interpreting what the IRA meant with regards to Sinn Fein. Let them speak for themselves. If they say the are not decomissioning currently, and any decision to do so will be theirs and theirs only, then say that. Let the reader draw their own conclusion. You have put together a good framework, now let others offer their improvements. Rockpocket 20:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll be happy to see improvements suggested. There does at least seem to be consensus that there is a gap in the section that needs to be plugged. That's something, innit? Irvine22 (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Paragraphs one and two have some serious issues in the wording, and seem to be factually disputable. I wouldn't have a problem with the third paragraph at all, its fine. The Squicks (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Throwaway: a good starting point, with the rather obvious caveat that none of it appears to be sourced. The issue about the quotation to which O Fenian objects can easily be rectified, I'm sure. Mooretwin (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

For paragraph 2, (a)both quotes are utterly ripped out of context in a way that is confusing for the reader, (b)I don't believe Adams said that speaking for SF, only for himself, and (c)placing those quotes next to each other creates a clear WP:SYN- subtly leading the reader into thinking that there was some kind of black-and-white PIRA/SF conflict going on. The Squicks (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you suggest changes? Mooretwin (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

How can anyone suggest changes without the sources? O Fenian (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that they do. I should have thought that it goes without saying that sources are required. I even said so explicitly above. Mooretwin (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as the quote from Gerry Adams on decommissioning "all the guns" goes, it can be found here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/northern_ireland/understanding/profiles/gerry_adams.stm "In the run-up to the deadline for the formation of a new Northern Ireland executive in March 1999, he (Adams) insisted that the IRA could not yet be persuaded to give up its arms and that the weapons issue should be considered as part of a wholescale "decommissioning of all the guns", including the British security aparatus."

@The Squicks - the intention was not to set up a conflict between the PIRA statement and Adams's subsequent statement. Adams's point was to broaden the focus from simply IRA guns to "all guns", including British guns. I would be happy for that to be made clearer. And Gerry Adams was and is President of Sinn Fein. If he doesn't speak for Sinn Fein, who does?

@O Fenian - I understand your suggestion that the section could be much expanded. This initial draft was intended to be broad-brush, to fit with the broad brush approach currently in the section under discussion. Irvine22 (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources for the general narrative (the centrality of the decommissioning issue in the process after the Agreement and the characterization of Unionist and Nationalist attitudes towards the issue) include "Trimble" by Henry McDonald (Bloomsbury, London, 2000), esp Chapter 8 "Nobel, No Guns, No Government". Also "Great Hatred, Little Room:Making Peace in Northern Ireland", by Jonathan Powell (The Bodley Head, London, 2008).Irvine22 (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

When you hit enter on a talk page, you have to put the colons back in. It's annoying, I know. I editted your comment's spacing for you.

You will find Adams was saying that before 1999, in fact he said it before the IRA's statement. O Fenian (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

There you go - we can use that quote from Adams instead then. Irvine22 (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

An inclusion of something along the lines of this part: "At a press conference outside Number 10 Downing Street, Mr Adams said the issue of decommissioning IRA weapons was an attempt to block progress. He said: "We don't expect the British Army to disarm tomorrow morning. We don't expect the loyalists to disarm. "I don't see how anyone could expect the IRA to disarm. "Our view is that all of the guns being taken out of the equation as part of an overall settlement should be the objective." would be helpful, although we must be sure to include even this in context. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

And that is the whole problem. The history of IRA decommissioning is not short. To that one statement you would need to add the reaction to that statement so it is not one-sided, then any relevant analysis from secondary sources. If you do that for every twist and turn along the road to full decommissioning, it will be too long to comfortably fit in this article. O Fenian (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a very basic overview, then? Ideally, IRA Decomissioning should warrant its own article, with a stub in this one and a link to the full article. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Irvine22 might have a point in what they are trying to say but from what i learned in school this is a hughe issue and it would neet a lot of work before something was wrote in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.188.113 (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

As with any political/nationalistic conflict (arab/israeli, russian/eastern european, etc), this is a very sensitive issue, and a particularly contentious one on Wikipedia. That's not to say that it should not be editted, only that it requires a lot of due diligence and thought to be able to make effective edits that don't ignite another flame war.

PS: Dammit sinebot, stop conflicting my edits. go away.Throwaway85 (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hehe! I always add {{unsigned}} before Sinebot gets there so it doesn't mess me up.

Anyway, I think maybe it's time to set out what this section ought to say, and how to say it in a neutral way.

1. Decommissioning was covered in the GFA, although the IRA was not a signatory to the agreement.
2. The IRA initially took a tough stand; Sinn Féin, through Gerry Adams, called for "demilitarisation" on all sides i.e. including the BA.
3. The UUP, although it formed an Executive including Sinn Féin in 1999, continued to use decommissioning as a stumbling block.
4. Both before and after the collapse of the Executive, there was engagement by the IRA with the IICD and acts of decommissioning.
5. Full decommissioning was completed in 2005, as already stated in the article.

Does that about cover it? Scolaire (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the reference to the UUP is innacurate and misplaced: this article is about the IRA, and surely should focus on the IRA's process toward decommissioning, from initial flat refusal -"not a bullet not an ounce" - to its ultimate complete disarmament. Too much attention to the actions of other parties, even those that forced the IRA down the decommissioning path, will make the section too unwieldy.Irvine22 (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Disagree completely. The IRA did not exist in a vacuum, and the actions of the other participants were both causes of and responses to IRA actions. You simply cannot accurately describe the process while only referring to one party. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we refer only to one party. I do think that, in an article about the IRA, we should focus most on the actions and statements of the IRA.Irvine22 (talk) 02:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Focus yes, but we can't exclude the motivations for those actions, which were directly tied to the actions of other agents. See my cause/response argument above. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Unless Irvine22 is suggesting only the changing attitudes of the IRA should be included, and the abandonment of the "No guns no government" stance should be excluded? It would be nigh on impossible to write a neutral section without documenting the surrounding events, no matter how uncomfortable they are. O Fenian (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I am coming into this discussion a little later, but I have to agree with O Fenian and Throw, that, while the focus needs to be on the changing attitudes and stance of the IRA towards decommissioning, this change did not happen in a vacuum and the influences and contributions of other parties have to be considered when writing a history of the the decom process. Also, I support Throw's idea of a more extensive article on decommissioning. --BwB (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If a source claims that the IRA adopted or changed a stance based upon the actions of some other agent, then that needs to be included, otherwise the reader is left to interpret motivations that may or may not be correct. Full inclusion of the actions and their causes are needed to paint a full picture of what happened. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course, there is an alternative: not to mention the GFA, to which the IRA was not a party, and just say that between 2000 and 2005 the IRA unilaterally disposed of their weapons as part of their contribution to the peace process. Perhaps that is the version Irvine would prefer? Scolaire (talk) 08:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I see what you did there. While I appreciate the sentiment, I think that the proposed method is best. Let's say what they did, and why they did it, and be done with it. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It was a joke. I forgot to add the smiley :-) Scolaire (talk) 08:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Humor aside, let's just agree upon a course of action here. I propose we include some version of what seems to be the consensus, and roll with it. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm with you, Throw. Will you provide a version for discussion? --BwB (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't know too much about the period in question, aside from the basics. I also don't have access to any of the sources that are regularly quoted here, although I do have access to journals, etc. I'll use the current version and see if I can make it better, although I doubt I'd be able to do a complete re-write. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

To remedy the gaps in your knowledge you could do worse than to read "Great Hatred, Little Room:Making Peace in Northern Ireland" by Jonathan Powell. Powell was Secretay to the Cabinet for Tony Blair, and intimately involved in every step of the process under discussion.Irvine22 (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Would that be the peace-loving Tony Blair who shares the responsibility for the death of one million Iraqis? I'd assume Powell was still in his post when the invasion was decided. Thus sharing the guilt? Sarah777 (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the Talk page for the IRA. Not sure how one million Iraqis, dead or alive, are at all relevant. Irvine22 (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Gonna have to go with Irvine here. Whatever his involvement in other pars of the world, Blair was in large part responsible for achieving peace in NI, being the first British politician to honestly attempt to do so. Thanks Irvine, I'll check it out. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

A War Criminal is still a war criminal though he might love his pet Alsatians. It wasn't I who suggested improving background knowledge of NI by reading the works of such people. And the irony of the Blair Administration writing about peace is too rich to remain unremarked. Sarah777 (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

There's enough people spouting their particular political views on this page already. More, especially unrelated, views are unwelcome. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, Throwaway. You tell her, brother. Irvine22 (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The truth is often unwelcome. Sarah777 (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Your truth is your truth. That's okay. You're okay. Irvine22 (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I know. Sarah777 (talk) 00:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

On that note, here is some more useful reading: Wikipedia:The Truth. Rockpocket 01:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"Truth alone triumphs." --BwB (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

End of the armed campaign

I propose we remove this text from the section: "This is not the first time that organisations styling themselves IRA have issued orders to dump arms. After its defeat in the Irish Civil War in 1924 and at the end of its unsuccessful Border Campaign in 1962, the IRA Army Council issued similar orders. However, this is the first time in Irish republicanism that any organisation has voluntarily decided to destroy its arms." It is without reference. What do others think? --BwB (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it should be removed. I essentially don't see the IRA's decommissioning action as voluntary - it was imposed upon them by unionism and the British and Irish governments. Irvine22 (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I find it's often easier and more productive to simply ignore those comments. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I fully intended on ignoring RJ's comment, which is neither informative or helpful.Irvine22 (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You'd certainly know about being neither informed nor helpful. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't feed the Trolls RJ, it just encourages them --Snowded ^TALK 04:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, you should probably strike that last comment per WP:CIVILITY. Irvine22 (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't think so quack quack. BigDunc 16:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Enough. Please get back to working on the article. Remember, comment on the content, not the contributors. --Elonka 20:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly right, Elonka. On the content question raised by BwB, I agree that the text should be removed, as it draws an essentially misleading distinction between PIRA's disarmament and prior disarmament by earlier IRA's (the Stickies etc) after their failed campaigns.Irvine22 (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

There was no prior disarmament by any variant of the IRA. O Fenian (talk) 11:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

References needed

In reading through the article again today, I see that there are many statements in various section that have no citation. We need to find references for these, or else they should be removed form the article. Please see Wiki policy at WP:Cite and WP:Verify. Suggestions? --BwB (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many of the uncited statements were originally attributable to sources that were cited later on in the paragraph. With time and editting, this became muddied. I suggest we throw tags on every uncited statement then go through them one by one and see if we can find a source. If not, it gets the ax. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

As an addendum, less information that is fully cited is preferable to more information that is not. A cull is in order. Let's be ruthless with uncited statements, then strict about citing new statements. If we can do that we can greatly improve, albeit shorten, the article. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree with this approach, Throw. Let's do it! --BwB (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Article Redraft

I've set up a draft copy of the article here: User:Throwaway85/PIRAdraft

At this point, I've mainly just gone through and added tags where appropriate. My goal in doing so is to try and remove all of the unsourced information from this article, of which there is plenty. I also cleaned it up a bit, mainly rewording awkward sentences and removing some of the more egregious ones. There's plenty of work left to do, however.

I've also organized the talk page, here: User_talk:Throwaway85/PIRAdraft I've set up categories corresponding to the article, so we can keep discussion organized.

I realize that this is a big undertaking, but I believe if we all give this an honest go we can move beyond the partisan bickering and really improve the article. I feel our first priority must be to cull the unsourced claims from the article. once we know what we're dealing with, then we can begin to rebuild it, section by section. In the meantime, I suggest leaving the current article as is until we complete a section, then copy it over. In this way, we can centralize discussion and avoid edit warring.

I look forward to working with all of you on this project. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Me too. Thanks for the initial work, Throw. I will work on your new version in the coming days toward the collective goal of removing unsourced material and general clean-up. --BwB (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. What I'd like to see is a section-by-section cull, then transfer the clean section over. It will be a lot easier to decide if new material suits the article if we know we have a clean base to start with. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've pared down the lede quite a bit. It's a hack job, and will need re-wording, but I think it's better than the current version. the lede doesn't need to be a history lesson, merely a who/what/where/when/why/how. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the paring down is wrong. The lead is supposed to summarise the article. A long article means a long lead. O Fenian (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"Summarise", O Fenian, yes. But the lede, as it currently stands, is much more than that. It needs some serious pruning. Let's all use Throw's sandbox as a place to make the serious changes needed. --BwB (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm liking your new addition. If people truly feel married to having additional info in the lede then we can add it, but the goal should be to Convey the most basic who/where/what/why/how about the IRA, leaving all of the history, personalities, etc for the article itself. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

its a crime jim but not as we know it

Why is robberis left out of the Fundraising via organised crime section when the source clearly says they use it. Moreover the issuem of the IRA's involvent in the drugs trade was also removed. Whilst it is true that the source does not say it is used for fundraising all that means is the section needs renaming to IRA links to crime, not the removal of the ionformation.Slatersteven (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Your edits significantly mispresented the sources in numerous ways. You also accused a living person of a crime he has not been convicted of, or even charged with for that matter. Various claims were also wrongly attributed, and when a source does not even believe its own story enough to state it as fact rather than hide behind numberous uses of "allegedly" there are always problems with BLP. O Fenian (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree the person named hasn't even been charged let alone convicted of said crimes, serious BLP violation. BigDunc 10:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue of criminality needs to be expanded in the article. I'm not saying it should be given undue weight, but the Northern Bank robbery isn't even mentioned. The Storey allegation shouldn't be included though. But criminality, including Slab's activities and the Dublin drug involvement, need to be included. Otherwise, the article does not conform with NPOV, as "Articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem with that. We just have to make sure it's well-sourced and doesn't violate BLP. Throwaway85 (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

What would be the Dublin drug involvement? BigDunc 17:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Stu's comments above. We might also think to include something about the death of Mountbatten, Warrenpoint, and other such IRA activities. --BwB (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: the Dublin involvement:The (London) Times mentioning involvement with Dublin gangs, again in the Tribune. Just a quick search, referencing would obviously need to be improved. There are others by Jim Cusack, but I can only imagine the reaction I'd get using him as a source. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 23:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with any addition that doesn't violate BLP or NPOV. Also, fresh sources are welcome. I'll check them out in a bit. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence of the "Other activities" section, and the last subsection of that section, "Fundraising via organised crime" kinda overlap. I would propose creating a new subsection, possibly called "Criminality". I'm flexible on the article title, but it's the term usually used to describe the IRA's (and the other paramilitaries') "other" activities. The new section would include the existing material, plus the Dublin thing and the NB robbery (can't believe this isn't in the article, was it at one point?) Per BwB, Warrenpoint should be included (in another relevant section as it was such a major event. Obviously every action shouldn't be included, there's a separate article for those, but Warrenpoint certainly.

I've read a couple of sources about the IRA's involvement in drug trafficking, including one in Tim Pat Coogan's book. They appear to be individual volunteers' activities, rather than Council sanctioned actions. So I'm undecided on it at present. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

My removal said "Take to talk". The Times article would be a good source to actually expand the section instead of the current rather pointless list provided by McDowell that has little context. So I was expected discussion about a draft addition, not a discussion about whether it should be used? O Fenian (talk) 11:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that a long list of Crimianl activity is not needed (as by infernace all of the IRA's activity was criminal, at least according to the UK governemnt). Perpahs this (note this is jusrt a basic discusion edit)

==Organised crime==

The IRA has been accused of being involved in more general criminal activity (source) (possible include'unlrelated to the strugle'). These indclude alledged involvment in armed robberies (source), such as Northern Bank robbery (source), The NI drugs trade (source), counterfitting and smugglaing (source).

Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not a laundry list no, but the main points should be covered. And maybe expand it a bit. The NB robbery deserves a few sentences. It was the largest in the UK at the time. The IRA's denial should of course be included. The NB robbery article needs updating too, with the two guys charged in May. The "unrelated to the struggle" part needs careful sourcing. The Coogan source I mentioned above also talks about this - proceeds going to volunteers and not the cause. You'll struggle to find sources about involvement in the drugs trade in NI. The only ones I have read relate to the south. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 16:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggested wording below, to replace the existing first paragraph and last section of the "Other activities" section. Needs a few more references and tidying. I think I've removed all of the McDowell sources, better, unbiased ones are available. Maybe add one more sentence about Slab and his £1m assets agreement. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 13:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You will need to be very careful on any reference to Slab because of WP:BLP. His activities were only regarded as criminal under McDowell's definition. The Irish Revenue gained substantially from his activities. UK C&E were at a loss. Smugling by people who didnt recognise the legality of the order was never considered a criminal activity and continued from the foundation of the Saorstat.Cathar11 (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Criminality

As with other paramilitary groups and similar organisations, the Provisional IRA has also been involved in many other activities, including racketeering, bank robbery, fuel laundering, kidnapping and alleged involvement in the Dublin drug trade. While this has been primarily to raise funds for the republican cause, it has also been suggested that some funds went directly to volunteers for personal gain.

In 2004 £26.5m was stolen from the Northern Bank's vaults in Belfast city centre. The British and Irish governments agreed with the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland's report blaming the robbery on the IRA. On 18 January 2005 the Provisional IRA issued a two-line statement denying any involvement in the robbery: "The IRA has been accused of involvement in the recent Northern Bank robbery. We were not involved". In February 2005 the Independent Monitoring Commission's Fourth Report found that "We believe that the Northern Bank robbery and abductions and the other robberies and abductions referred to above were carried out with the prior knowledge and authorisation of the leadership of PIRA." Commentators including Suzanne Breen have stated that the IRA was the only organisation capable of carrying out the raid. In May 2009 two men were arrested in Cork, and charged with IRA membership and offences relating to the robbery.

According several sources the organisation has also been involved in the Irish drugs trade. A 1999 Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering report by John Horgan and Max Taylor cited Royal Ulster Constabulary reports, alleging that this involves the "licencing" of drug operations to criminal gangs and the payment of protection money, rather than direct involvement. The IRA has consistantly denied involvement in the drugs trade, and has taken action against dealers in the past.

According to Horgan and Taylor's report, the IRA are also involved in several legitimate businesses including taxi firms, construction, restaurants and pubs. The IRA have also been involved in racketeering, which involves the extortion of money from legitimate businesses for "protection".

Speaking at the party's 2005 Ard Fheis, Gerry Adams stated that "'There is no place in republicanism for anyone involved in criminality". He however also went on to say "we refuse to criminalize those who break the law in pursuit of legitimate political objectives".

---

Looks good so far.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this effort. Just want to sure to keep the text tight and well referenced, and NPOV. --BwB (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems to have lots of claims that are not attributed, amongst other problems. It is a decent starting point though. O Fenian (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, still working on attribution and sources. What other problems do you see? Will add a sentence about the Sinn Fein's view of the IMC. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Re McCann. Coogan does not say he was an IRA Volunteer at the time of his arrest, and it is debatable as to whether he ever was. Although not an entirely RS for our purposes, this says when he wasn't a member of the Republican Movement prior to escaping from the Crum. He definitely told Marks he was a member of the IRA when he first met him (if you have not read "Mr Nice" I can summarise the McCann parts if needed, as they are quite important in the timeline?), but that was in 1971 and quite a lot happened in between then and 1979, including him threatening war on Canada and claiming to be a member of the Sticks when attempting to avoid extradition to Germany. Just because Coogan says his arrest caused embarrassment for the IRA it does not logically follow that he was a Volunteer at the time of his arrest, given his past association (perceived or otherwise) with the IRA it would have been embarrassing for them either way. O Fenian (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, having read more on McCann his status isn't quite clear. (He should have an article BTW, fascinating guy) I wouldn't use Rushlight as a reference in this case. I did on the Buck Alec article though, as it's not a BLP. Alternative text could be "However in 1979 James McCann was arrested following the seizure of £1m of cannabis in Naas, County Kildare. McCann is a former associate of Howard Marks. According to journalist Joe McAnthony, who interviewed McCann on two occasions, he was a drug trafficker who also supplied arms to the IRA in the 1970s. When transferred to Portlaoise Prison later in 1979, McCann was beaten by the IRA, who denied any involvement with him."

? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 23:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I also do not like the "David Lister and Sean O'Neill" sentence. My main problem with this part is that the Times article is generally quite good, and for most parts attributes the allegations of activity to the people concerned, such as Special Branch, Customs and so on. However when it comes to the drugs allegation, it uses "but it is believed" without saying who is actually believing it. While searching I found this which I think will be far more useful than random news articles? O Fenian (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[1] More on McCann's pre-initial arrest activities, he did not seem to be part of the IRA at the time. O Fenian (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Will look at those new sources tomorrow. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 23:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've amended the section a bit more, based on the Horgan source. The section could be expanded substantially using that report, but I think the main points are covered already. I added one sentence about the running of legitimate businesses. One of the sources I read described the IRA's involvement in these as a "silent partner", but I can't find the source now so haven't inlcuded it. Any more thoughts? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Any further comments folks? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 23:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

There are a few problems with it. Do not have time to explain fully now, will hopefully do so later today otherwise tomorrow at the latest. O Fenian (talk) 10:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Are we ready to add this section to the main article? --BwB (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm okay with a tentative add. I see no glaring problems that can't be fixed through the usual processes. If there's no strong objections, I say add it. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There are many objections, it is a shame you could not have bothered to wait. Firstly I object to the title it has been give. Why is Breen's opinion some time after the event being presented as an opinion being held at the time of the event? Why is the IMC's opinion essentially in there twice, it's redundant. The Independent relies on a vague "sources in south Armagh say" despite the PSNI and gardai saying different. That source also says it as fact to begin with, then downgrades it to a claim by the unidentified sources. The Horgan/Taylor report ignores a lot of what it written about the drugs trade, and the attribution to them is incorrect, as they generally attribute claims to sources which is what we should be doing. If it's the PSNI that have made the claim, that is what it should be inline. I am unhappy with the McCann part for two reasons. Firstly McCann was not involved in the Irish drugs trade, he used Ireland as a landing point for drugs which were then shipped on to Great Britain. Secondly as numerous sources testify to, the world of arms smuggling is a murky one where you do not tend to find many vicars who help old ladies across the road. The fact that someone involved in arms smuggling is involved in other sorts of criminal activity is not a surprising one, and combined with my first point I believe the mention of McCann is inappropriate especially when the only source for the claim of smuggling arms for the IRA is McCann himself. Those are the major objections at present. O Fenian (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

That's disingenuous, O Fenian. He waited 9 days for comment. That's plenty of time. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

We welcome your comments, OF. Please feel free to edit the section as you see fit. Thanks. --BwB (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll take this point by point.

1. I'm open to suggestions on the title. I chose this title as it's the term most commonly used in the media to describe paramilitary groups' "criminal" activities. "Criminal activity"? "Allegations of criminal activity"?
2. I take your point about Breen. I've moved it to later in the section. I think it's an important point and should be included.
3. IMC - fixed
4. Fuel laundering - this source also mentions fuel laundering. This is more specific, attributing the claims to the Organised Crime Task Force.
5. Horgan/Taylor - The report references the RUC and a report by Vincent Kearney in the Times. The link to the Times article is dead. I would be keen on seeing what it says before attributing this. I'm at a loss as to how to find it though. Any ideas? Same goes for what might be another useful source An Imperfect Peace: Paramilitary Punishments in Northern Ireland by Rachel Monaghan from the University of Ulster. It's only available to buy, and I'm cheap! I'll maybe email her and chance my arm. UPDATE - the Kearney article says pretty much what the other Times article does. Haven't managed to get the Rachel Monaghan paper yet, it can be covered at a later point, I think this is well referenced enough already.
6. McCann - I've commented this out for now, needs further consideration.
7. I've added a bit about racketeering, which really should be mentioned. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 20:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Could the part about "As with other paramilitary groups and similar organisations" possibly be moved to the beginning of the section, ending with something like "accused of involvement in organised crime". It just seems strange to only mention it in conjunction with protection rackets, when all paramilitaries are accused of involvement in various aspects of organised crime. Admittedly they aren't all involved in all sorts of crime, but that the loyalists aren't involved in smuggling is more to do with geographic location (them being nowhere near the border for the most part) and a probable unwillingness to deal with people in the south and vice-versa. O Fenian (talk) 01:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. Done. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 13:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Stu and OF. --BwB (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Doherty/Egan

News reports are very conflicted on this, see for example Garda denies IRA link in death probe. This came after the reports where nobody was quoted and this has a statement from an official spokesman compared to rumours from nobody in particular. It is pure speculation which has since been denied that this was IRA linked, and I have removed it. Discussion welcome. O Fenian (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for improving this article

Two ideas:

1. Go to a library or bookshop and acquire as many of the books already listed as sources in the article, ideally concentrating on the IRA or Troubles specific ones. Then use these to source what's in the article, and anything that can't be sourced tag for a cite then remove it soon after.
2. Don't bother getting any books, just butcher any sentence that doesn't have a source despite the majority of them being easily sourced by books (there's a world beyond a Google search you know?).

Option 2 doesn't really seem like a good option to me. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes! Agree totally. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The second option tends to be all to regular around here lately. BigDunc 23:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody seemed interested in the former, which is why I attempted the latter. The options, in reality, appear to be as follows:

1. Do nothing, bicker, revert the slightest changes, bicker some more, do more nothing; or
2. Actually make an attempt to improve the article by attempting to source the claims that are made, and removing those which cannot be sourced, so we can see what we're dealing with.

I totally agree. The first option is clearly the better choice. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Pardon? Do you know how many sources I actually added to this and directly related articles? How many have you added during your "improvements"? You talk about "bickering", yet have just totally ignored the rather sensible advice I just gave you (ie, get some books) and still expect others to do everything at a click of your fingers. If I wanted to improve an article about say, nuclear fission (which is missing hundreds of footnotes), I wouldn't go along there and demand other people source the article immediately on pain of death because I don't have any books/journals/whatever. No, it's pretty obvious that if someone wants to improve an article, it's a sensible idea for them to actually have access to relevant source material in order to do that, instead of having access to Google and demanding others do it. All I see is you tagging things for cites, then another editor removing them within days. Do either of you actually have any relevant books? You're not improving this article doing that, and you wouldn't improve any other article doing that. Does a plumber or electrician turn up to work without the tools to do their job? No, so why should editors on this article? The relevant tools for improving this article include the books listed in the article, if you're not even willing to obtain a couple of those then it's clear to me you don't actually have any intention of improving this article. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hear, hear!! Well said, Hackney. Editors, either make a commitment to article improvement, or go away. It really should be that simple. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Have fun, kids. I'm out. Throwaway85 (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's an interesting response. So, I have to assume from this that the very thought of finding a book and using it to add useful information to the article is simply too great a demand? Isn't that what we are supposed to be doing here? Is that not the purpose of this site? What have you been doing here all this time? I am really interested in knowing. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I've done more than my fair share of source-searching. I just don't like working with assholes. Peace. Throwaway85 (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"Peace"? Are you kidding? You call people "assholes" and then say peace? This will be my last comment in this exchange because you clearly haven't a clue and are not worth bothering with. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

And the Lord sayeth "Ye, peace be unto he who, seeing the sphincter expungeth the excrement from yon holy body, sayeth unto himself 'I shall be as the sphincter, and that which I put forth shall be as the excrement.'" For he so doing hath seen the holy workings of the Lord, who createth the body that houseth the sphincter, and hath undertook to emulate said workings. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Folks, agree to disagree & leave it at that. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it not the responsibility of the editor who adds text to the article to provide the ref? If a ref is not provided by the editor, then it seems reasonable for another editor coming to the page to ask for a ref. I am happy to do some further research on the topic and add relevant material. --BwB (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but unless you're planning to go through the history of the article and see exactly who added each unsourced sentence, then go to their talk page and ask them for a source, then hope they're still active and actually reply with a source, that doesn't solve the current problem. I'm not against the removal of sentences that can't be sourced, I'm against the removal of sentences that can be sourced in lightning quick time as the result of the actions of two editors, neither of which actually seem to have access to most of the sources required. While I appreciate you saying you will do some further research, your actions subsequent to that comment don't exactly fill me with much hope. For example this edit, which could be sourced incredibly easily at the click of a mouse. I'll assume that you are asking for a source for the heaviest IRA loss being at Loughgall, did you even look before asking for a source? I count two reliable sources on the first page for a Google search for IRA Loughgall heaviest loss, one clearly visible result for the same search on Google Books. Similarly changing "heaviest" to "biggest" there's plenty of sources and many more for thesame search on Google Books. I don't have anything more to add to that at this time. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm commenting as an uninvolved admin. I have no opinion on how this article is written, as long as it abides by policies. On the source question though, Bigweeboy is correct: The responsibility for adding the source is on the editor who has added the information, not the one who wishes to remove it. Per WP:V, if text is challenged, it can be removed by any editor. However, it is a better practice to add a {{cn}} tag next to the information that is contested. Then, if no source is provided in a reasonable amount of time, the information can be removed. Also, it's not necessary to personally track down the editor who added a sentence -- anyone can help out by providing additional sources as requested. In fact, if the sentence that's in the article does not have a clear easily found source, then there may be a good chance that it shouldn't be in the article anyway, either because it's unsourced, or because it's referred to so rarely in sources, that it might even be giving undue weight to a particular viewpoint. -Elonka 15:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You ceased to be uninvolved on any dispute involving me when I called you out on your abusive actions, a dispute which will only end when you cease to be an admin, be that through voluntary means or others. You also overstate your role, admins have no special say in any talk page discussion especially when they mispresent the nature of the current problem and selectively interpret policy. And speaking of policy, I assume you read the discussion in full prior to commenting so perchance you'd like to explain your selective application of a certain policy? And down to business, yet again you wade in without bothering to investigate what is actually being discussed. I am referring to the history of this draft, where one editor without access to sources goes along and tags a large number of sentences, then a second editor without access to sources goes along and starts removing what has just been tagged. So spare me your lessons on policy, because I am well aware of exactly what the policy says. Evidently neither you nor the editors being referred to have actually read the policy in full, otherwise you may have read the part that says "It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them". Or is a rather selective application of policy the way things are? The issue is whether the exercise being undertaken actually has any point if neither editor is willing to look for sources, instead of relying on others to do it. There is little point two editors who are seemingly unwilling to even try and source anything to butcher an article in the space of several days. Look at the example I just provided above where a simple Google search or two returned dozens of reliable sources. Or if you want another example, how about this request for a source (top one, dealing with October 2001)? The sentence is about the IRA decommissioning weapons in October 2001, so lo and behold exactly what happens if someone searches Google for IRA decommissioning October 2001? Look at all those reliable sources, well I never eh? Don't you consider tagging of information which can be sourced so easily to be disruptive? I certainly do, which is what led to this discussion. And just in case there's any argument about whether any of those sources actually reference the beginning of the sentence ("Calls from Sinn Féin led..."), then it's basic editing and hardly rocket science to remove that part of the sentence when adding a source. If there's a genuine willingness to improve the sourcing on this article I'm all for it, but I'm dead against blind tagging without even bothering to look for sources, which is policy says not to do. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hackney, perhaps you'd like to take a breather. I have no opinion on your disupte with Elonka, but please recognize that everyone here is just trying to improve the article. There's no need to get angry. If you disagree with a particular proposal for improvement, say so, and give your reasons why. Simply saying "you don't know policy like I know policy", or something similar, is not helpful. Everyone here is editting in good faith, so I'd appreciate a less combative tone. You seem to be well-versed in the subject area, and have access to many relevant sources. If you could lend your skills and resources to the drive for improvement, instead of deriding the actions of other editors, that would be greatly appreciated. *edit* Also, the entire point of the draft I set up on my userpage was to see if we could improve the article by paring down unnecessary and unsourced information. As per what I wrote there, the intention was to use it as a sandbox, then bring whatever we came up with to this talk page for comment. At no time was anyone "butchering" the article itself. That was the whole point of the draft I set up--to leave the existing article in place and see how we could improve it without butchering it. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Since this discussion is about editors taking reasonable actions towards improving this article, leaving out the part of the policy which actually addresses that when replying isn't helpful. That's exactly what Elonka and others have done, claiming only one editor is right when both are actually right. I count *four* editors saying obtaining some books is a reasonable suggestion, as recommended by the policy in question. I see nobody has attempted to address the damning diffs I provided that show two editors aren't making any effort at all. Adding tags without bothering to even try and source material is not improving an article, all it is doing is prompting others to improve an article. So are you here to help improve the article by adding sources, or are you simply here to add tags? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hackney, thanks for you suggestion. I will take the time to research some sources. However, when an editor comes to an article with a view to improving it, it is not a requirement to have all the sources at hand. If the editor sees POV text, or non-referenced material, or weasly wording, he/she is within their rights to change text, tag or comment on these issues so that other editors who may have the source material at hand can provide the references. Since I did not have any source material, but wanted to make some initial contributions, I started to work ion the existing text. As we move forward together to improve the article, I will participate more on a content level. Thanks to all for their feedback. --BwB (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

How about before tagging anything taking the time to look for sources on Google, Google News, Google Books and Google Scholar, to name but one search engine? That is what the policy says you should do, look before tagging. You've continued to disruptively tag on this and another article, if this disruption continues I'll be going for an RFC on your editing. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Elonka for your comment and support above. This was exactly the point I was trying to make and the reason I added to certain sentences in the article. I came to the article as a neutral editor interested in the subject and improving the article. When I noticed POV and weasle text, I removed or reworded it, and asked for references where needed. I understand that this article has been contentious in the past, but I am happy to work on this article going forward. --BwB (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Try reading the policy properly, since you've added at least one disruptive tag since my last post. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, appreciate your contributions. However, I find the antagonism on this page to be disheartening, particularly as there is no POV dispute, just plain incivility. Yes, I am aware that I have participated in said incivility, and frankly don't care to have that pointed out.

As Elonka said, unsourced information does not belong in the article. The proper course of action is to tag it, wait, then remove it. To the editors making loud noises about "grabbing a book", that's where you come in. If you have access to a source that backs up a claim that has been fact tagged, then add the bloody source and remove the tag. Don't get your knickers in a twist because you happen to think the article should be improved some other way. Nobody is deleting claims willy-nilly, and no sentence that is NPOV and not weaselly will be deleted without waiting an appropriate amount of time for someone to fix the problems with it. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Try reading the policy, that isn't the proper course of action. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thaks for your comments Throw. Glad to see you back. --BwB (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Define reasonable?

If someone happens to be at a university where the library holds these books, many of them available for lending, would it be unreasonable to suggest they actually borrow them from the library?

• IRA by Tim Pat Coogan
• IRA and armed struggle by Rogelio Alonso (original and translated version)
• Provisional IRA in England : the bombing campaign, 1973-1997 by Gary McGladdery
• Terrorist propaganda : the Red Army Faction and the Provisional IRA, 1968-86 by Joanne Wright
• Secret army : the IRA, 1916-1979 by J. Bowyer Bell
• Provos : the IRA and Sinn Fein by Peter Taylor
• Armed struggle : the history of the IRA by Richard English
• Politics of illusion : a political history of the IRA by Henry Patterson
• Long war : the IRA and Sinn Féin, 1985 to today by Brendan O'Brien

I'd suggest that it's a perfectly reasonable request that anyone wishing to see things sourced gets hold of some or all of those books? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If you have them, why not simply add sources where people have asked for them? Throwaway85 (talk) 03:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've got Coogan, Bowyer Bell, Taylor and Patterson. How does that help you? Irvine22 (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Rework "Origins"

Here is my proposed rework of the "Origins" section:

The Northern Ireland riots of August 1969 forced 1,505 Catholics from their homes in Belfast, with over 200 Catholic homes being destroyed or requiring major repairs. The Irish Republican Army (IRA) had been poorly armed and unable to defend the Catholic community adequately. Some Republicans were critical of the IRA's Dublin leadership which had refused to prepare for aggressive action in advance of the violence. On 24 August, Joe Cahill, Seamus Twomey, Dáithí Ó Conaill and several others came together in Belfast intending to remove the Belfast leadership and turn back to what they considered to be traditional republicanism. Although the pro-Dublin commander Billy McMillen stayed in command, he was told it was only for three months and he was not to have any communication with Dublin.

The "Provisional Army Council" was formed in December 1969, when an IRA Convention voted to recognise the Parliaments of Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. Opponents of this change in the IRA Constitution argued strongly against this move. When the vote took place Seán Mac Stíofáin, the IRA Director of Intelligence, announced that he no longer believed that the IRA leadership represented Republican goals. Those opposed, who include Mac Stíofáin and Ruairi O Bradaigh, refused to go forward for election to the new IRA Executive.

Mac Stíofáin was a key person making a connection with the Belfast IRA, under Billy McKee and Joe Cahill, who had refused to take orders from the IRA's Dublin leadership since September 1969, in protest at their failure to defend Catholic areas in August 1969. Nine out of thirteen IRA units in Belfast sided with the Provisionals in 1969, roughly 120 activists and 500 supporters. The new group elected a "Provisional Army Council" to head the new IRA. The first Provisional IRA Army Council was: Seán Mac Stíofáin, C/S, Ruairi O Bradaigh, Paddy Mulcahy, Sean Tracey, Leo Martin, and Joe Cahill. A political wing, Provisional Sinn Féin, was founded on 11 January 1970, when a third of the delegates walked out of the Sinn Féin Ard Fheis in protest at the party leadership's attempt to force through the ending of the abstentionist policy, despite its failure to achieve a two-thirds majority vote of delegates required to change the policy. The early Provisional IRA was extremely suspicious of political activity, arguing rather for the primacy of armed struggle.

Roughly £100,000 was donated by the Irish government to "Defence Committees" in Catholic areas and, according to historian Richard English, "there is now no doubt that some money did go from the Dublin government to the proto-Provisionals".

The Provisionals maintained a number of the principles of the pre-1969 IRA. It considered British rule in Northern Ireland and the government of the Republic of Ireland to be illegitimate and that the IRA Army Council was the legitimate government of the all-island Irish Republic. Most of these abstentionist principles were abandoned in 1986, although Sinn Féin still refuses to take its seats in the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

The Provisionals inherited most of the existing IRA organisation in the north by 1971 and the more militant IRA members in the rest of Ireland. In addition, they recruited many young nationalists from the north, who had not been involved in the IRA before, but had been radicalised by the communal violence that broke out in 1969. These people were known in republican parlance as "sixty niners", having joined after 1969.

Key figures

The main figures in the early Provisional IRA were Seán Mac Stiofáin (who served as the organisation's first chief of staff), Ruairí Ó Brádaigh (the first president of Provisional Sinn Féin), Dáithí Ó Conaill, and Joe Cahill. All served on the first Provisional IRA Army Council. The Provisional appellation deliberately echoed the "Provisional Government" proclaimed during the 1916 Easter Rising.

References

1. ^ Jim Cusack (28 December 2008). "Fuel-laundering still in full swing". Irish Independent. [2]

2. ^ Diarmaid MacDermott and Bronagh Murphy (14 June 2008). ""IRA kidnap gang 'captured' seven gardai and soldiers"". Irish Independent. [3]

3. ^ Coogan, Tim Pat (2002). The IRA. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 429. ISBN 9780312294168. Retrieved 23 November 2009.

4. ^ Suzanne Breen (18 December 2006). "Two years on, do they really want to find the IRA Northern Bank robbers?". Sunday Tribune. [4].

5. ^ Alan Erwin (18 February 2005). "Gang threatened to kill abductees and families". Irish Examiner. Retrieved 2007-03-11.

6. ^ Independent Monitoring Commission (2005) Fourth Report of the Independent Monitoring Commission . The Stationery Office. (Report). Retrieved on 23 November 2009.

7. ^ Henry McDonald (12 May 2009). "Two charged over IRA Northern Bank robbery". The Guardian. [5].

8. ^ John Horgan and Max Taylor Playing the 'Green Card' - Financing the Provisional IRA: Part 1 . Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering. (Report). Retrieved on 25 November 2009.

9. ^ David Lister and Sean O'Neill (25 February 2005). "IRA plc turns from terror into biggest crime gang in Europe". The Times. [6].

10. ^ Joe McAnthony (26 August 2001). "Provos used drug runner to import arms". Irish Independent. [7].

11. ^ Coogan, Tim Pat (2002). The IRA. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 430. ISBN 9780312294168. [8]. Retrieved 23 November 2009.

What do people think? --BwB (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I like it. I would change "Opponents of this change in the IRA Constitution argued strongly against this move, and when the vote took place, Seán Mac Stíofáin, present as IRA Director of Intelligence, announced that he no longer considered that the IRA leadership represented Republican goals." to "Opponents of this change in the IRA Constitution argued strongly against this move. When the vote took place Seán Mac Stíofáin, the IRA Director of Intelligence, announced that he no longer believed that the IRA leadership represented Republican goals." I think it just tidies it up a bit. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

DONE! --BwB (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Some small points:

• First para, second sentence - there's a split infinitive - change to "adequately to defend" or "to defend adequately".
• First para, third sentence - should read "Some republicans ...".
• First para, fourth sentence - should probably say "turn back to what they considered to be traditional republicanism".

CHANGES MADE. --BwB (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• First para, fifth sentence - reference to "pro-Dublin commander" appears to come from nowhere - reader needs to know what the significance of "pro-Dublin" is - need an explanation of differences between Dublin and Belfast.

THANKS FOR YOUR COMMENTS, MOORE. PERHAPS YOU WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST A REWRITE FOR YOUR POINT ABOVE? --BwB (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Second para, second sentence - no need for capital "c" in "constitution".

Mooretwin (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't IRA Constitution its poper name? Like House of Parliament? Throwaway85 (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but - even if it is - the capital "c" is unnecessary, as the reference could be in the generic as well as the specific. Mooretwin (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, the split infinitive thing is a bit nitpicky, like ending a sentence with a preposition. I think both "poorly armed and unable to adequately defend the Catholic community" and "poorly armed and unable to defend the Catholic community adequately" are fine. Throwaway85 (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Why split the infinitive if you don't have to (and risk offending those readers who like to read elegant prose)? Your second suggest avoids and is perfectly acceptable? Mooretwin (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've altered the draft to include my second sentence above. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but why was it necessary to propose, discuss and implement changes within less that 24 hours? Are we all supposed to be on standby to approve or amend instantly? And why are you suddenly posting in ALL CAPS? Scolaire (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Relax. Nobody has implemented anything. BwB rewrote the section and is putting it up for discussion. I, for one, think his version is a big improvement. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Apologies! It was the all caps that threw me. I saw the "DONE" etc., plus the fact that BwB had made several edits in the small hours, and I jumped to conclusions. I will try to look at it at the weekend. I'll probably have suggestions then, based on what I posted a few weeks ago here and only partly worked in before I got sidetracked into Talk:Sinn Féin. Scolaire (talk) 07:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I look forward to your input. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry everyone if the caps threw you off. I know CAPS are bad form, so I will refrain from using them. Just wanted to be sure people saw I was making the changes they suggested. Thanks Scolaire for your input. I will read through you suggestions later today from Sept to which you have provided a link. --BwB (talk) 11:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

All, it's been 10 days since I posted my proposed rework of the "origins" section. Can we try to wrap up the discussion n the next day or so so we can post the revised version? Thanks. --BwB (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with the version as is. If anyone dissents, please do so quickly and succinctly so we can address your points and move on. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it it a step backwards. If anything, the origins section should be split into two smaller sections. One section dealing with the IRA pre-1969 including Goulding's attempts to take them down a more Marxist road prior to 1969, the emergence of the civil rights movement and so on. Then the second section should deal with the split in the IRA. O Fenian (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Why not simply link to the Irish Republican Army article for pre-1969? Throwaway85 (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about the pre-1969 events that led up to the split in the IRA. O Fenian (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

We can do the split that OF recommends later. Why not just put the proposed version "live" for now, and then OF and others can work on the split proposal later? --BwB (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The proposed version is a big improvement over the current one. The beauty of the project is that we need not seek perfection with every edit, merely improvement. If someone feels that more needs to be added, they are at liberty to do so. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not. How is the addition of unsourced commentary an improvement? It is the exact opposite of an improvement. I have improved it, with correct, sourced information, and the restoration of key facts and the removal of chaff. The section does not need shrinking, as when split into two sections both would need expanding. O Fenian (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Have to say I am a little disappointed in the editing process on this article. I posted a rework of the Origins section on 30 November and asked editors to give their feedback and to make recommendations for changes to the draft. One or two editors did make some comments. Ten days went by and I decided to put the reworked section, with the suggested changes other made, into the live article. Now an editing war has started. From my experience with other contentious Wiki articles, editors try to thrash out differences on the Talk page and not on the live version. Perhaps I should have given people more time to comment here on the Talk page, but I felt 10 days was a long stretch and that people were generally OK with the changes since very few editors commented. That seem not to be the case. For future reference, do editors, particularly those who have recently joined in the lively debate on the article and made some large reverts, think we should try to resolve issues on the Talk page (a reasonable Wiki standard, I think) before going live? Do people feel that 10 days for discussion is reasonable to wait for editors to comment? Thanks. --BwB (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I agree fully. Any editor who disagreed with the proposed version had plenty of time to voice their concerns. The problem here seems to be ownership more than anything. A good faith attempt to improve the article, and engage in discussion, would be appreciated. It cerntainly beats saying nothing while the proposed changes are up for discussion then getting your nose out of joint when it goes live. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)