Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

External Links

Per WP:EL "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links", I am going to removed a few of the links on the page. I'll do it gradually in case others want to comment --BwB (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Remove Sections

Do people feel that the article should keep the two sections at the end:

• Armed Republican Groups in Ireland
• The Northern Ireland 'Troubles'

Are they adding anything to article? --BwB (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean the templates? Yes, the templates should stay, since the IRA is one of the topics covered by both templates. Whether the templates themselves are due for an edit is another question :-) Scolaire (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I was suggesting that the templates could go, but not fussed really. If we can tidy up the templates. Let's worry about this later. --BwB (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The Armed Republican Groups template has only just been amended, a long mooted improvement to it. The Troubles template is absolutely hideous, has major format problems on various browswers, and generally fails at trying to be several things at once and not doing any of them particularly well. I generally remove it from any good or featured articles as it's that bad, it really needs either a complete overhaul or better still splitting down into several different templates. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Rework "Origins", continued

Sorry to leave it so late to come back to you. I had deadlines in real life that allowed me to be involved at Talk:Sinn Féin or here, but not both. I was happy for the BwB edit to go live, on the basis that I could discuss changes to it later on. That's not the way it turned out, but c'est la vie!
My issue with the edit would be that it was a "trimming down" exercise aimed at making the section "look good" rather than a critical analysis of what was there. Taking sentences or phrases individually, it appears to have asked the questions, Is it concise? and Does it flow? The questions that need to be asked are, Is it true? Is it sourced? Is it necessary? Is it in context? Has it been said already? Is there anything that is not being said? A few examples:

• "Roughly £100,000 was donated..." This is only relevant in the context of allegations that the Fianna Fáil government, as opposed to the generic Irish government, funded the Provisionals with a view to breaking the Marxist IRA leadership. Standing alone as it did in the reworked edit, the paragraph was pointless.
• The one bit that could have been left out of the paragraph was "according to historian Richard English". This is not necessary if there is not a direct quote and English is cited in the footnote. But it was kept.
• "A political wing, Provisional Sinn Féin, was founded on 11 January 1970..." was left in despite agreement last August to remove the phrase from the lead because it was inappropriate (I was astonished that both O Fenian and Domer48 reverted to a version that contained that phrase).
• "The 'Provisional Army Council' was formed in December 1969" is followed, late in the following paragraph, by "The new group elected a 'Provisional Army Council'...".
• "Key figures", whether a subsection or not, expanded or condensed, is only a repetition of names already mentioned. The whole of the PAC is already listed; Mac Stíofáin, Ó Brádaigh, Ó Connaill and Cahill are all mentioned frequently, making it obvious they were key figures.
• English does not say that Mac Stíofáin was "a key person making a connection with the Belfast IRA, under Billy McKee and Joe Cahill". On p. 106 - not p. 105 - he says that Mac Stíofáin went to Belfast and spoke to IRA dissidents. He doesn't say that they were "under" anybody; he doesn't name them at all. Plus, the fact that they "had refused to take orders from the IRA's Dublin leadership since [August, not September] 1969" has been stated two paragraphs previously.

I still think this section needs a lot of editing, and I still hope to get involved, either before or after Christmas. In the meantime, however, it doesn't matter a lot to me which of the current alternatives is kept. Scolaire (talk) 12:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"Is it true? Is it sourced?", quite! The "discussion" largely consisted of Mooretwin suggesting adding unsourced commentary to the draft, and it being added without any questions such as those. So rather than revert particular changes I disagreed with to the old wording which was also unsourced, I made sure I added sources. Then Mooretwin reverted to his point-of-view version anyway, bizarrely claiming I had edited the lead.

The changes I made compared to the original version can be seen here, and some of the changes made in the draft were incorporated into my edit.

The Fianna Fáil part does need to be included, but that was not obvious based on the original incorrect wording. The allegations that Fianna Fáil provided arms and funding to the IRA and/or defence committees were not proved false during the Arms Trial, that is a myth generally propagated by Fianna Fáil supporters based on the acquittals. The acquittals were not because no arms had been imported, but because it was a legal shipment of arms while the defendants were on trial for illegally importing arms.

As no changes had been made to the part about the "formation" of Sinn Féin in 1970, I did not do anything with that sentence. I did not revert "to a version that contained that phrase" as such, as the phrase was in the original version and the new version.

I removed the sentence that said "The new group elected a "Provisional Army Council" to head the new IRA" for two reasons. As you say it duplicated other information, and it was also incorrect. There was no "new group" and the PAC was not elected to head "the new IRA". The PAC was elected by current IRA members to head the current IRA, the sources make this point clear.

I removed the hideous key figures subsection for the reason you said, and also saw no reason to add it back to the main section for that same reason.

Your last point is quite correct, but I did little with that part of the Mac Stíofáin sentence only the first part. I do think there is still work needed to be done as you point out. For example I was stunned that Cathal Goulding was not even mentioned in that section at all.

I did not perform any wholesale revert to any previous version. I took some improvements from the draft, added some sources and made some improvements of my own. The only wholesale revert was done by Mooretwin when he changed sourced information back to his own unsourced version. O Fenian (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Scol and OF for you thoughtful comments. Hopefully we can get other engaged in the discussion here. --BwB (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

FTO, again

This has been discussed, many times, and at great length, but since it's come up again, let's be clear. The State Dep't. has not declared the PIRA to be a FTO. See here:

• May 2001 IRA not classed as an FTO in 1997; no mention of receiving the classification subsequently and it being revoked.
• August 2001 IRA not classed as an FTO at that time, either.
• Now, this link "Other Terrorist Groups" is a different matter; these are not groups designated as FTOs, as that designation has specific legal meaning and was amended in the PATRIOT act.

If they were designated that equals legal status which equals notable. Not designated but mentioned in part two equals opinion equals not notable.

Is that clear? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Crystal :-) It should be mentioned that they were a FTO prior to the 1997 ceasefire, if they actually were? I thought so, but I'm struggling to find a source. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 10:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Lede

In my opinion, the Lede is too long. Perhaps we can break it up into different sections? Any suggestions? --BwB (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It has just undergone a major rewrite with lots of stamping of feet and screaming, I don't think you will get consensus to trim it, but for what it is worth I think it should be shortened also. BigDunc 22:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I too would like to see it be a bit shorter, but, as BD said, we just got done rewriting it. Part of the reason that it is as long as it is is that everyone felt the need to have some fact or other included. Let's work on the rest of the article first, then go back to the lede once that's done. I think a section-by-section partial rewrite would be best. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Could we not summarise those facts in the lede though? Right now it's like an article in itself. Jdorney (talk) 12:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I also feel that there is quite a bit of POV and weasel words WP:WEASEL in the article that could be change or discussed, as we see fit. In general, in Wiki vagaries and the overuse of adjectives is considered non-encyclopedic. I will make a few changes today and people can give feedback. I'll start with the lede section. --BwB (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems good so far. Yes, the article itself is in rather poor condition, due to edit warring and POV pushing. Now that things have died down, it would be a good opportunity to go through the article and fix it. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The "believed to be" wording is one of the only ways to present people's opinions, they cannot be presented as fact. That wording was agreed as part of a lengthy discussion, and it should not really have been changed without discussion. The vague figures are also inescapable due to there not being exact figures that sources agree on. As such, I have reverted some of your changes. O Fenian (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. As all available figures are estimates, "believed to be" is the closest we can get. It's unfortunate, and somewhat unecyclopedic, but in the absence of firm figures, and the questionable bias of some of the sources, it's the best we can do. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with the reverts, but do we have to use the word "around" 3 times in the same sentence? --BwB (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No, we most definitely do not. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

How does the "marxist v. non-marxist" bit keep getting re-added? I agree with the removal, but it's been taken out several times and keeps finding its way back in. This is a 1RR article, let's keep that in mind. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree that the marxist text should not appear. Ref is also weak. --BwB (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

A user has twice reverted my inclusion of the very important fact that the IRA killed, by far, the largest number of people of any organisation involved in the Irish Troubles. How can this revisionism, which is rampant throughout this article, be justified in the interests of fairness and neutrality? And reverting my deletion that the IRA "is believed" to have killed 1800 people is justified on the grounds that the IRA did not claim all its victims. If that is so, then the subsequent sentence about the IRA's own casualties cannot stand without the word "believed", otherwise the article states that it's ok for IRA not to claim responsibility for deaths it inflicted but to acknowledge its members killed on what it would term "active service". As it happens, the IRA sometimes failed to do the latter, for reasons of expediency (propaganda or compensation from the [hated] British government. Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The current lead is the result of long discussions and was agreed between all parties as the wording least likely to lead to edit-wars. Specifically, the discussion on deaths is here. --Scolaire (talk) 06:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree by all parties "within Sinn Fein", you mean?! I've added that info. to the text instead of the introduction, so as not to offend Connolly House. Happy New Year. Billsmith60 (talk) 13:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It might help if you actually read a section before adding to it, and stop questioning the motives of others if you expect anyone to listen to you. O Fenian (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Smith, you reveal your POV with every comment you make, both here and in your edit summaries. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It is completely acceptable to have a POV. That's human nature. The problem is the violation of WP:NPOV. And everyone is welcome to express their views here, again within the Wiki guidelines. --BwB (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The information that PIRA killed more of every category of people (currently tagged for citation) can be found through the crosstabulation information on the Cain website: http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/crosstabs.html Would someone with a knowledge of Wiki policies inform us if that ref. is specific enough or would copies of the relevant tables need to appear in Talk without anyone being accused of fabricating them? Thanks, Billsmith60 (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we could include wording such as "Reports on the Cain website indicate that the IRA killed more people than any other group during the Troubles". Need to be careful how this is written. Perhaps others have suggestions. --BwB (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my original suggestion, which was to read the section before adding to it. O Fenian (talk) 10:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestion. The current version does mention the numbers "believed" to have been killed by IRA. The text is fine by me, but perhaps others feel differently. --BwB (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously others feel differently, but in the discussion I linked to, which Bill apparently didn't read though, everybody concerned - Sinn Féiners, anti-Sinn Féiners and neutrals - decided that a compromise wording was preferable to an endless edit-war, or a protected page with the "wrong" version. Scolaire (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

OK I'm happy with the current version and happy to end the discussion on the issue. --BwB (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Outlawed

See there has been some back-and-forth on whether or not to use the word "outlawed". Is not the IRA "outlawed' by the British and Irish governments? If so, can we not use the term? --BwB (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

In the UK it's a proscribed organisation, which means that membership of it - and certain other supportive activities - are illegal. And given that it is not (AFAIK) a formal legal entity itself (such as a limited company, charity, etc.) in effect the totality of its existence is its membership. So, that's a long-winded way of saying that I think "outlawed" is an apt word. Incidentally, the link on the page at citation 22 to http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/security/terrorism-and-the-law/terrorism-act/proscribed-groups is broken - maybe someone has an adequate substitute source? Barnabypage (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Outlawed is redundant to proscribed in the same sentence. "classified" and "outlawed" are not synonyms. O Fenian (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Push for Good Article status

Now that the article is generally more stable, what is the appetite around here for pushing for GA status? The only issues I can see blocking a successfull attempt would be ensuring there are no nagging POV issues, and ensuring that it complies with WP:SS. That might require that we go through the article and see if there aren't any sections that can be split of into their own articles. What does everyone think? Throwaway85 (talk) 08:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure if you can get the by-in of most other editors. We really do need consensus on this before we start. Otherwise we may get some edit conflicts. --BwB (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Throwaway85, nobody is stopping you going to your university library and borrowing the books the library has that I helpfully listed here. If you're not going to bother doing that and instead are intent on acting as some self-appointed foreman who doesn't actually bother to improve the article in any meaningful way I intend to ignore you, and suggest others do likewise. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with ONiH, start adding content Throwaway instead of making general statements. BigDunc 14:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

So much for being more stable. My intent was never to act as a "self-imposed foreman". Far from it, I was merely gauging everyone's opinion on pushing for GA status. The suggestions I made in regards to the article were taken from the criteria for GA status. I don't think sparsity of information is one of this article's problems, but I would be happy to grab some books and help flesh out any sections you think require further exposition. Alternatively, if there are any sections someone thinks could be spun off into their own article, I would be more than happy to assist in that. As for ignoring me, you're well within your rights to do that, although I would ask you to AGF and realize that everyone here is just trying to improve the article. I'll be in the library on Monday; I'd appreciate any suggestions on what to focus on in the meantime. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

As regards stability, that's always going to be a potential problem with a topic such as this. I haven't read the criteria lately, but I think maybe borderline vandalism by IPs is not enough to rule it out.

I haven't responded to your suggestion previously, because I was unsure whether by "pushing for GA status" you meant to put in a GA nomination, or to embark on some sort of "article improvement drive". If the former, I think it would be premature; if the latter, I would like to be a part, but not right at this moment. Maybe a couple of months down the line.

I presume that K is referring back to his earlier point that your emphasis was on "culling" the article by removing "unsourced" information rather than actually reading it up. Your later endorsement of BwB's butchering of the Origins section as "a big improvement over the current one" probably didn't help there. If you're going to the library on Monday, then maybe the thing to do is study the article closely beforehand and identify any gaps, contradictions or possible misstatements, or issues that you are having difficulty in grasping. Then you can debate these issues based on what you learn from the published sources. I believe you to be committed; if I felt you were fully informed I would be happy to have you "chair" any improvement drive. Scolaire (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no real desire to chair anything, just wanted to see if we could set a goal and then work together towards achieving it. Your comment about me being not being well-informed is well taken, but please understand that it is one of the things behind my desire to "cull" the article. The article, as it stands, is massive. That's not to say it is too detailed. We're talking about a large and influential organization over the course of 40 odd years. I simply think that the article, as it stands, presents something of a barrier to the layman, like myself. My first instinct was to summarize more and not go into so much detail, to make the article more accessible. Perhaps a better approach would be to add content to some of the lengthier sections to the point where they could be split off into their own article. I realize that as the authours of much of the article, certain editors here take offense to the removal of content that they worked hard creating. I would like to hear from some of the more experienced content creators as to how this issue might be addressed. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

My advice would be, don't summarise just for the sake of summarising, and certainly don't add more stuff just for the sake of splitting! For each of the sections that you think are too long, ask the questions: what is it trying to say? What is the most efficient way of saying it? What significant points of view need to be included? etc. That's where the reading up comes in - you can't just go at it like a bull in a china shop. Figure it out for yourself, then discuss it here. As I say, I believe this article can be much improved, and I hope to contribute to that some day soon, but I'm not even going to make any tentative suggestions until I have time to do the hard graft that I know will be involved. Scolaire (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Not that it will come as a great disappointment to many of the editors here, but I'm going to put this one on the backburner and cut me teeth on Said the Whale first, as one of the band members has provided me with a treasure trove of documentation and images. I also think it will be easier to build a stub than to try and improve such a contentious article. See y'all when i'm done. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who's written six good articles (four brand new, two improvements to existing articles, and five of them in the Troubles area), I'd like to think I know what makes a good article. The most pressing problem with this article would be the lack of sourcing in many areas, I wasn't referring necessarily to missing content. So as the lack of sourcing would need to be addressed before this is nominated for GA, it'd be a good idea if editors with access to sources sort the article out. Yes I have access to dozens of sources but I'm busy with other projects right now and I'm not the one considering nominating it for GA. So that kind of brings me back to my original point, if you're considering nominating it for GA and you have access to those sources at your university library why not add some sources yourself? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I may do that, although I'm somewhat busy right now. I've got midterms and projects (spring break comes early on account of the olympics), am currently involved in a medcab dispute, and would like to cut my teeth on a couple of articles that won't require quite as much digging. If nothing's happened by the time I get some spare time, I'll definitely seek out your advice on how best to proceed. Throwaway85 (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

ProvisionalIRAGalbally.jpg

Is there any particular reason why the men depicted are wearing jackets with German flags on the shoulder? Are they simply military surplus, or is there something else behind it? Throwaway85 (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if that is a serious question, it is a re-enactment from last year, the actors obviously went to the local military surplus shop and bought them. BigDunc 23:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It was indeed a serious question, wasn't aware it was a reenactment. Thanks. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It says it under the picture, but no harm no foul. BigDunc 23:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hidden in plain sight. Sneaky... Throwaway85 (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there much point having a picture of a "re-enactment"? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I could see how it would add some value, but, given that this is more a historical than cultural article, I would argue for real depictions only. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

coin

I have seen British sterling pound coins over-struck with the letters ‘I R A’ circulating in Northern Ireland. Does anybody have a photograph of such? – Kaihsu (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead

A recent addition to the lead inserted that 200 were injured and two killed in the Docklands and Manchester bombings. This was reverted as unsourced. The first source is clear on the two deaths, so I reinserted that. It's been removed again with an edit summary of "Please discuss additions to the already lengthy lead on the talk page, it has been debated at length)". So when and where did WP policy change, where sourced material can be removed and needs agreement before it's inserted? Where is this agreement on an (immutable) lead? "These included the Docklands bombing and the Manchester bombing, which together caused around £500 million in damage.[21][22]" becomes ""These included the Docklands bombing and the Manchester bombing, which killed two civilians and together caused around £500 million in damage.[21][22]" An addition of 4 words. Sourced. Or has Jimbo's recent anti-porn campaign resulted in the deletion of WP:NOTCENSORED? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with you Bastun. The sourced material should not be removed and the addition does not violate any Wiki policy. --BwB (talk) 08:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It does however violate the basic rules of the English language. If someone can actually suggest an addition that makes sense in English there may be something to discuss. Shall I also add "sourced material [that] should not be removed and the addition does not violate any Wiki policy" about the so-called "city-destroyer" bombs being the Achilles heel of the British government? O Fenian (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is ungrammatical about the addition? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I can detect no rules of the English language, basic or otherwise, which the sentence violates. Mooretwin (talk) 10:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well it is ambiguous for one thing. Reading it for the first time you could take it, due to the word order, that it was the Manchester bomb which killed two civilians. It simply isn't clear. Also, yes it's only four words, but the lead is a bit chunky as it is and in the context of those bombs, the important thing about them in relation to the lead is where and when they occurred. Including those two casualties in the lead but not casualty figures for other IRA bombs, many of which caused greater casualties, seems a bit arbitrary. Bastun is right about not censored so the information should be included in the body of the article. Valenciano (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair points. Mooretwin (talk) 11:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to it being in the body of the article, I assumed it already was. O Fenian (talk) 11:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

IRA and drug dealing

Over-all article is very good. All I just added were some details about the origins of it including the 1969 Army convention. However the paragraph relating to drug dealing only quotes one source and in my opinion is dubious. There is a large body of evidence which states the PIRA were not involved in drug dealing and in a large number of cases took a hard-line against drug dealers. Tim Pat Coogan has written: "Drugs, or rather drug traffickers, have at times been the subject of very severe IRA punishments. Even women have not been exempt, and the of being implicated through the capture of a man once prominently associated with the IRA in drug running was both infuriating and, particularly where their conservative supportersin both Ireland and America were concerned, was potentially highly damaging to the Provisionals." - The IRA 5th Edition pg 430. The head of the Garda drugs squad stated in the Irish Times that it was his opinion that the PIRA were never involved in drugs dealing. Also many former IRA volunteers such as Christy Burke, Martin Ferris and Dessie Ellis have become well known through campaigning against drug dealing. I think that paragraph in particular should include other sources in addition to that one that comes from the RUC. Exiledone (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Images of pictures

I honestly believe there is a point beyond which an image does not add to an article. I've stated the view before (e.g. here) that images of memorials do not in general add to an article. But when the image consists of a picture of a picture at an exhibition, from a bad angle, with a shine off the glass, then to my mind it only detracts from the article.

I am linking to this post from a couple of other talk pages. It is likely that such images have been added to other articles that aren't on my watchlist; if so, I would encourage editors (or preferably the uploader) to remove them. Scolaire (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Despite their standard, I do think these pics give some historical context, aid understanding and show their continuing relevance as they are in a current exhibition. These are relevant contemporary media, useful for readers and for their understanding. I agree memorials pictures are not helpful, but I would have thought contemporary posters were. If you don't agree, remove the pics, life's too short.Ardfern (talk) 09:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ardfern. ~Asarlaí 13:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that they are in a current exhibition is actually part of my problem: it's against WP:RECENTISM. In five years time, the fact that there was an exhibition related to the topic in 2010 is not actually going to aid understanding. I feel that images should not be added willy-nilly; they should be there for the long term and therefore they should be of a suitable quality and relevance. Otherwise articles will just be filled with "what we did on our holidays" type images. Scolaire (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Organised crime section

I have removed the recent addition to this section. Books by Jack Holland and Tim Pat Coogan written before the Money Laundering report cannot be used to counter it, especially when what they say does not contradict it anyway. For example the existing text says "alleging that this involves the "licencing" of drug operations to criminal gangs and the payment of protection money, rather than direct involvement" is not contradicted by Coogan's "Drugs, or rather drug traffickers, have at times been the subject of very severe IRA punishments. Even women have not been exempt, and the of being implicated through the capture of a man once prominently associated with the IRA in drug running was both infuriating and, particularly where their conservative supporters in both Ireland and America were concerned, was potentially highly damaging to the Provisionals". Neither is the "licencing" and/or protecting money contradicted by Holland's "Drugs were a complete taboo. The official policy of groups like the Provisional IRA was to prevent the spread of drugs in nationalist areas. Indeed the Provisionals were extremely active in the Concerned Parents against Drugs movement in Dublin during the heroin crisis of the early 1980's. In contrast to Dublin Belfast's working class areas were relatively drug free because of the hardline taken by paramilitaries." The other sentence of "The head of the Garda Siochana drugs squad stated in 2005 that there was no evidence to suggest that the PIRA were ever involved in drug dealing" is a distortion of what the source says also. Given the source in the article is not contradicted by any of the other sources, I do not see the benefit in adding sources to counter an accusation which they are never accused of the in the first place. There is no accusation of direct involvement in drug dealing, so there is no need for those additions in my opinion. There is no need to rebut an accusation that is not even made in this article. O Fenian (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes but the RUC source implies that the IRA were involved with drugs while the Gardai, Tim Pat Coogan and Jack Holland maintain that there was no involvement. Also the Jack Holland statement is credible if you look at the statistics of drug usage in Belfast compared to Dublin in the 80's. Many people involved with the PIRA and Sinn Fein were involved in local campaigns against drugs. The issue is really disputed and the section should state that the charge is really disputed. For the sake of neutrality and balance the source from the RUC should be included and an opposing viewpoint

Exiledone (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not see that the sources provide an opposing viewpoint, given the viewpoint you are attempting to oppose says the IRA are not directly involved in drug dealing. O Fenian (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There is ample evidence to suggest that the IRA were not involved in drug dealing and the evidence that suggests an indirect involvement in drug dealing comes from newsprint sources. The only official report which states that the IRA were involved indirectly in drug dealing came from an RUC source. The reference for that source is a news article from the Press Association news entitled "H. MacDonell, 'MPs told of paramilitary ecstasy rake-off-. Press Association News, 1 May 1996." Also if you read through the document it gives numerous accounts of incidents such as a case in 1996 where the RUC were informed the location of an ecstacy shipment which the PIRA had stumbled upon, Cllr Hugh Brady who was expelled from Sinn Fein in the 1970's for posession of cannabis and was beaten up when imprisioned along with the expulsion of James McCann for managing a cannabis shipment. The document cites the case of Tommy Mullen a Dublin drug dealer who had to flee Dublin due to threats from the PIRA. In addition the Metropolitan Police and the head of the Garda drugs squad have both stated that the IRA were not involved in drugs. Then you have the Tim Pat Coogan and Jack Hollands statements that the IRA took a harsh line against drugs and dealers.

The section needs to include other views on the matter and not just one view which implies that the IRA were financed by drugs. Exiledone (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

IRA murders

O Fenian has the audacity to my referring to the murder of two children by the IRA in Warrington as 'non-neutral'; also by my referring to the IRA's claims of targeting only economic and military infrastructure. The IRA has always indiscriminately murdered, whether pub customers in Birmingham, Guildford and Woolwich, shoppers in Harrods in London or those two children in Warrington. It is O Fenian and this article that have an IRA bias and are not in the least bit neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yacht Dance (talk • contribs) 14:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources, for either the opinions you added to the article or the ones here? O Fenian (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

How would OF define "murder"? Wiki article on the subject opens with "Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with "malice aforethought"". Would you say OF that the IRS'a bombing activities fit with this definition? --BwB (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean like Bombing of Dresden in World War II, Bombing of Hamburg in World War II, Bombing of Pforzheim in World War II, Bloody Sunday, or countless examples of UK/US/NATO bomb/missile attacks in various wars and non-wars that kill civilians, including the "drone" attacks in Pakistan? I asked for sources for the opinions that were expressed here and were added to the article, do you have any? Do you have a reliable source that says "The IRA has always indiscriminately murdered"? There is no point getting involved in a discussion about morals and ethics is there? You want a discussion, you bring sources to the table. O Fenian (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear!! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Been down this road enough times. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sick the way some would defend the actions of Irish Republican terrorists by comparing it to military action during a world war to defeat one of the most evil regimes the world had ever seen. Oh but i forgot southern Ireland was "neutral" in that conflict, whilst it sat back and let other nations fight for European freedom. Doesnt it make you so proud! BritishWatcher (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The bombing of Dresden was an act of war, and therefore not governed by ordinary civil law and could not have been murder, although it may have been a war crime. The killing of people in Warrington took place during peace-time and was clearly murder: it was unlawful and planned. Mooretwin (talk) 08:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It is exceedingly easy to take one piece anecdotal evidence, true as it may be in one particular instance, and create a broad generalization as if it is representative of a group or period of which it is not. This is a common tactic that has long been used to brand the IRA a criminal/terrorist organization but fails to properly contextualize atrocities with greater trends, remains highly one-sided in its telling, and assumes the legitimacy of the British presence in Ireland in its arguments. According to the Sutton Index of Deaths, the Provisional IRA killed 1709 people, 29% of whom were civilians, 54% members of the British security forces, the remaining being either other paramilitaries or suspected informers from within the IRA. To put this in context, 50% of people killed by the British Army were civilians, while 32% were IRA members; 82% of people killed by the UVF were civilians, the rest were mostly its own members. Despite the fact that it wasn't proscribed by the British Government until 1992, 75% of the people killed by the UDA/UFF were civilians while nearly all the rest were its own members. (http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/cgi-bin/tab2.pl) The general description of the IRA as a 'terrorist' or 'criminal' organization has a clear ideological bias and therefore has no place in an academic article. Describing the organization as paramilitary and its members as either volunteers or members is the most strictly accurate and value-free, as is appropriate for this article. To classify the IRA's acts against the British Government as criminal assumes the legitimacy of Northern Ireland as established by the 1920 Government of Ireland Act, which of course assumes the right of the British Parliament to legislate for Ireland and the British monarch to serve as its head. 168.122.11.24 (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Kilkeel 168.122.11.24 (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Kilkeel

We could get even more academic and say that the taking of any human life by another, no matter what their political, religious, national or philosophical views is murder and a crime against them and a crime againt Nature. Your assertions are biased and reflect a certain POV that it is not criminal to kill another human being in certain circumstances. You accuse others of being "one-sided", while taking "one side" in the presentation of your arguments. --BwB (talk) 11:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

If you think there is no moral circumstance in which it is acceptable to kill someone, that is your moral opinion which you are entitled to but this isn't a forum for passing moral judgment on anything, it here to get the facts straight. None of what I said above isn't grounded in facts, and it is intended to maintain logical consistency in the manner in which we categorize the various belligerents of the Troubles. Labeling any group involved as criminal presupposes the legitimacy of the assertions of governmental sovereignty of ONE SIDE, which is exactly what is in dispute. 'Criminal' is a legal term and 'wrong' is a moral one, which you have mixed up. I don't think you can point out one sentence I wrote that is a discussion of opinion rather than fact, as your contribution is. 155.41.24.50 (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Kilkeel

Classed as a terrorist group.

The lead paragraphs on the Ulster Defence Association article correctly states that it's classed as a terrorist organisation by the United Kingdom government. Is this the same for the IRA? Should it be mentioned? (Oh no! I'm about to be accused of being a British troll. Hooray.). Also, observing this article and the one on the UDA, the IRA seems to be more condoned than condemned. Most of the IRA antics are glossed over with neutral words and sources. The article seems terribly imbalanced, and I see one editor above comparing the calculated murder of two children by the IRA to the in-discriminant, yet still just as terrible, drone attacks in places like Afghanistan that kill Children, I assure you, these drones don't specifically target Children, unlike the antics of the IRA. (And at least the operators express some regret, even if it is highly dubious). I would be saying exactly the same if the UDA was as imbalanced as this. The fact wikipedia is swung by consensus is in full swing here, it seems. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it says it in the lead paragraphs. Did you read the article? As in the above discussion, do you have sources for your other assertions? O Fenian (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

No I must of missed it, honest mistake. And I'm not proposing anything for the article, actually, that's why I mentioned about the consensus thing. Can't do anything. I have an intense dislike of all forms of nationalism, by the way, an I guess...thinking about it that's what I was letting interfere.. Actually the UDA article is written the same, my apologise. English is not my first language, but as you can hopefully see, I am an advanced speaker. Apologise *Bows* --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that someone should say that they are a terrorist organization in the opening paragraph. It says that al-Qaeda is one in the 3rd sentence. Czarcalvinsk (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

False claim removed

"It should be noted that often drug dealers were attacked because they interfered with the business of IRA supported drug dealers rather than due to any moral reasons" is what was claimed, complete with an alleged source. However what the source actually says is "Because most of the drug dealers killed by this group [Direct Action Against Drugs] were considered small time by the Royal Ulster Constabularly (RUC, precursor to the PSNI) and because PIRA involvement in narcotics sales was not unheard of, most of those in Northern Ireland law enforcement were lead to believe that these killings of drug dealers around Belfast were not acts of vigilante justice but rather of the PIRA removing small-time drug dealers who either opposed the group or refused to pay their protection fees". This clearly does not match, so I have removed the addition. Discussion is welcome as to how this might be incorporated into the article. I would suggest reading this which is already cited in the article first, before any suggestions are made. O Fenian (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The claim is not false I quote from the article you suggested was read. "There is evidence that DAAD is being used not to eliminate the sale of drugs, but to enable the IRA to control the lucrative trade. Police and dealers say the IRA controls the distribution of drugs to criminals on both sides of the border. Narcotics are smuggled into Ireland through Dublin and Cork and distributed after prices and quantities are agreed at meetings in hotels in Dundalk and Drogheda. The IRA does not handle the drugs, but oversees the operation and takes a percentage from each deal. In return, it sanctions the dealers' activities and moves against their opponents." (p.29-30) The claim should be reinstated, potentially with the above used as a source instead of the original. (86.173.156.238 (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC))

You said it was sourced by "Shanty, Frank. “Organized Crime: from trafficking to terrorism, Volume 2. ABC-CLIO Inc. 2008, p.146". In my post above there is the exact quote from page 146, it bears little to no resemblance to what you added to this article. I would also quote you the conclusion on the page you mention - "For the moment, we can conclude, as a Research Institute for the Study and Conflict and Terrorism (RISCT) report has done in 1991 128 that regarding alleged PIRA involvement in drugs, 'until there is clear cut evidence to back up these allegations it would be wise to suspend judgement'". O Fenian (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I accept the original source could have been better but I disagree that it was totally out of context. The claim could be modified to "It has been alleged that often drug dealers were attacked because they interfered with the business of IRA supported drug dealers rather than due to any moral reasons." This can be backed up with the last quote I gave. I would suggest that you are intent on avoiding the PIRA being linked with the drugs trade despite ample evidence. Such an approach is not acceptable given wikipedia's NPOV policy. (86.173.156.238 (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC))

You are wrong. O Fenian (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You are delibrately missing the point, I'm not arguing that PIRA directly carry out drug dealing, they do however as the article already states licence and allow it. They attack drug dealers they have not licenced. Unless selling drugs when sanctioned by the PIRA is somehow morally superior to selling drugs in other circumstances (it isn't) my original statement that "often drug dealers were attacked because they interfered with the business of IRA supported drug dealers rather than due to any moral reasons" is entirely correct. (86.173.156.238 (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC))

So their alleged involvement in the drugs trade also involves Direct Action Against Drugs, their alleged covername, also killing dealers because they do not pay protection, allege the RUC? There are one or two too many "allegedly"'s in that sentence for my liking. Your sentence was your own point-of-view, it had no resemblance to any source. O Fenian (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Added casualty figures

... in the opening section, not sure why the economic cost was included but not deaths and injuries, can only assume that the editor responsible was trying to infer that no people were hurt in those bombings...

Also find it slightly disturbing that certain contributors are clearly biased and are obviously letting their own political beliefs influence their work on this page, disturbing but not surprising.90.209.124.230 (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is one of a few topics, the others being Israel/Palestine and some Eastern European countries where editing on Wikipedia is dominated by POV-pushers and characterized by never ending battles between the two sides. It's a shame, but that's the way it is. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

And this isn't POV-pushing, of course! It seems it's so "disturbing" he even reverted himself! Scolaire (talk) 07:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No, no you don't get it. It's only POV-pushing if it's a view you disagree with. ;) Throwaway85 (talk) 10:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes of course! I forgot that rule :) Scolaire (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

In the infobox where it lists the PIRA's opponents, I notice that it fails to name the Ulster Defence Association and Ulster Volunteer Force. Surely the loyalist paramiltary organistions were as much their foes as the British Army and the RUC!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I tried to add "loyalist paramilitaries" to the infobox a little a while ago and I was told to "see previous discussions regarding opponents". I think the argument rests upon the fact that the loyalists weren't stated enemies of the PIRA, but, as you rightly say, they certainly were in practice. JonChapple^Talk 08:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I refer you to Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army/Archive 7#Opponents (this includes CIRA, INLA and any other articles people try it with), and also Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army/Archive 7#British Army v British Armed Forces which although not dealing with the exact same content, deals with a similar concept. The relationship between the IRA and loyalist paramilitaries was not a two way street, except on brief occasions. This quote may also be of interest - "...the UDA opened up a new front against Northern Ireland's nationalists; it targeted the Gaelic Athletic Associsation (GAA). On 8 October the UDA, via its UFF cover, declared that members of the GAA were not considered to be 'legitimate targets', claiming that the association in the North had close ties to the 'republican war machine'." on page 205 of UDA: Inside The Heart of Loyalist Terror by McDonald & Cusack (ISBN 1-844-88020-6). So, any objections to the GAA being added to the UDA's list of opponents in their infobox? That's a rhetorical question by the way, since I already know what the answer is likely to be. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I wish you'd stop trotting out the GAA argument. It's a straw man. How many times did loyalist paramilitaries fight gun battles in the street with Gaelic athletes? JonChapple^Talk 12:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That was a bit curt. My point stands though. JonChapple^Talk 12:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Besides loyalist paramilitaries, the Ulster Defence Regiment also needs to be included in the infobox. I do realise it was a regiment of the British Army, but I feel it should be specified considering the large number of UDR soldiers (both full- and part-time) who were killed by the PIRA during the Troubles.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You're just repeating yourself and not attempting to discuss. Since the UDR were part of the British Army, I don't see why any differentiation is needed. Jonchapple you should choose your words much more carefully, since you are about to regret them. "How many times did loyalist paramilitaries fight gun battles in the street with" the Provisional IRA over the approx 30 years of The Troubles? Stick to verifiable examples obviously please. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Here were plenty in the early days, including during the 1969 Northern Ireland riots that kicked the whole thing off. The Battle of St Matthew's? The Timeline of Ulster Defence Association actions and Timeline of Ulster Volunteer Force actions articles also appear to contradict the claim that the IRA didn't regularly go around shooting loyalists. JonChapple^Talk 13:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I thought you'd say 1969 Northern Ireland riots which is why I specifically included the word "Provisional" before "IRA", so would you like to try again? You chose the "gun battles in the street" wording, so how about you provide verifiable examples of it? So far, you've got one. Doesn't sound like many considering The Troubles lasted approx 30 years does it? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, alright, you win, I've got one. Nice work. What of the countless loyalist volunteers shot dead by the Provisional IRA? JonChapple^Talk 14:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

ONIH, considering that the main premise of the PIRA's existance was to rid Ireland of British occupation, and thus regarded the British forces present in Northern Ireland as their enemies, surely the loyalist paramilitaries (who declared themselves British and were prepared to fight to the death to maintain British rule in the North) would consequently fall into the category of opponents? And as JonChapple says, what about the numerous loyalist paramiltaries who were killed by the IRA such as John McMichael, Frenchie Marchant, John Bingham, Lennie Murphy, Robert McConnell, Ray Smallwoods, etc.?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

And what about rival nationalist gangs with whom the Provisionals were in conflict, such as OIRA, INLA, etc.? Mooretwin (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

According to database, IRA killed 44 loyalist paramilitaries and 130 Protestant civilians in sectarian attacks - most of which were prompted by loyalist attacks on Catholics.There were also throughout the Troubles sporadic gun battles between IRA and loyalists in interface areas. I think it's therefore accurate to include loyalist/republican violence as one of the dimensions of the conflict. Jdorney (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Correct. JonC^Talk 16:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

At least have the courtesy to reply properly. CAIN is not my research it's citing the best source on Troubles-related casualties. Replying with a 'rule' in that way is somewhat uncivil and something I'd hoped we'd left behind on WP. Jdorney (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I did reply properly. You are drawing the conclusion from primary source data that because the IRA happened to kill some loyalists, they were opposed to them in some way. They killed more civilians than loyalists, shall we add civilians as opponents too? How mant times was the Europa Hotel bomb? 24? 25? More? Shall we add Europa Hotel too? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Egan shooting

I removed the paragraph claiming the IRA killed Egan, the drug dealer, as sources are divided on this question:

• http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/dublin-man-sentenced-to-12-years-for-shooting-father-of-two-529615.html

"Egan was believed to have been killed by former members of the Provisional IRA"

• http://www.communityvoice.ie/pages/CV146/CV146n01.htm

"former paramilitaries"

• http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/kfaueykfeygb/rss2/

"former members of the Provisional IRA"

• http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1108/1224282868141.html

The Real IRA claim they killed Egan. It doesn't show on the preview, but can be read in full here: http://www.usira.org/?p=473

• http://www.tv3.ie/article.php?article_id=64874&locID=1.2&pagename=news

"by an off shot of the IRA"

The last one refers to the verdict and still says it wasn't the IRA itself. As such, that claim should not be reinstated. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 23:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Referring to the Electoral and popular support Paragraph

User:One Night In Hackney reverted an edit I made on this paragraph. Firstly there were no local elections held in 1981 in the RoI. While there were ones held in NI no SF candidates stood. Secondly the wordpress website I referred to - irishelectionliterature - contained a number of excel spreadsheets which listed the results of local elections in the Republic of Ireland including the ones for Monaghan and Leitrim County Council. I'll provide the link again: http://irishelectionliterature.wordpress.com/others-project/old-local-election-results/ .The site has been used as a reference in other articles . Exiledone (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No claim is being made that local elections were held in 81. Mo ainm~Talk 18:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The original source is too cofused to be used, and wordpress sites aren't reliable sources see WP:V. It isn't being used in a single article as a source as I just removed all of them, since it isn't reliable. That's the thing about Wikipedia, we don't do things per other articles as they can be changed at any second, we do things per guidelines and policies which are generally stable. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You'd want to have the intelligence of a digestive biscuit to deem that source as being "too confused". I fail to see how it is unreliable. It tallies with the results on electionsireland. And also why would the creater of the site actually bother to fake all those documents.

Exiledone (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Erm, it would appear you do indeed have the intelligence of a digestive biscuit, since I refered to the "original source", not the wordpress site *rolls eyes* Nice of you to remind me about the other problem with the site that I hadn't mentioned yet, namely it hosts many documents in violation of copyright and therefore can't be linked to per WP:LINKVIO. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Infobox strength

Removed the unsourced part, namely "~1,000 in 2002, of which ~300 in active service units". I originally added the sourced part of ~10,000 here, then unsourced additions were made to that here and here. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 19:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I was about to delete the 2002 figure since I didn't find it in Moloney's book, but I wasn't sure thus I only reverted the IP edit.--Darius (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

RUC not a reliable source?

A statement from a 1998 newspaper article based on an RUC report was removed on the grounds that citing the RUC breaches WP:NPOV. The author of the article seems to fulfil the requirements of WP:SOURCES and WP:THIRDPARTY, and the info is presented in an objective way, expressly mentioning that the RUC document is the primary source and Horgan and Taylor a secondary source. Any suggestions?--Darius (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It does breach WP:NPOV as Horgan and Taylor are only repeating the claims made by the RUC. Also, the head of the Garda National Drugs Unit (the gardaí certainly aren't pally with the IRA) said there is "no evidence to suggest paramilitary figures are involved in drug dealing". http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2005/0829/1122072845392.html --CommieMark (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You removed reliable, verifiable sources. If you have a source that disputes the other sources, please add it. But, do not remove cited material. Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 13:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

One source added doesn't support the claim being made, the other isn't relevant due to it countering an accusation that isn't being made. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 21:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Name

"The Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) (Gaeilge: Óglaigh na hÉireann) is an Irish republican paramilitary organisation whose aim was to remove Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom and bring about a socialist republic within a united Ireland by force of arms and political persuasion."

OK, so "Óglaigh na hÉireann" is the name of the "original" IRA and also the "provisional" IRA established around 1969 , and also apparently the official name of the defence force of Ireland ( the Republic of ).

So in the Irish language, are these disambiguated at all ? Or is "provisional" some kind of invisible word in Irish ?Eregli bob (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

There isn't a 'direct' translation for it into English. It is taken to mean volunteer soldiers/men of Ireland or similar. It is a loosely interpreted phrase which is why it easily lends itself to different groups and organisations.SRaemiA ^talk 02:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

"Provisional IRA" is translated into Irish as IRA Sealadach—sealadeach being the Irish for "provisional"—but "Provisional Irish Republican Army" does not have an Irish translation, because the Provisionals never called themselves "Provisionals". They called themselves, and are generally called by others, simply the Irish Republican Army, or Óglaigh na hÉireann. Scolaire (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Requested

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Provisional Irish Republican Army SonofSetanta (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Re Bold changes

This lead has been stable for a while now so could editors please discuss their bold changes to the lead after being reverted rather than attempting to force them through against consensus.--Domer48_'fenian' 18:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The reasons for the censorship of the official Irish name are spurious. If for a second we accept that Wikipedia is somehow bound by Irish law (and "Óglaigh na hÉireann is the legal name of the Irish Defence Force - Section 3, Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Act 1923. also Section 16, Defence Act 1954" doesn't prove that the use of the name is illegal) then we'd better remove the English name too per S.I. No. 162/1939 — Unlawful Organisation (Suppression) Order, 1939. Just to expand on the Defence Act 1954, Section 16 reads "It shall be lawful for the Government to raise, train, equip, arm, pay and maintain defence forces to be called and known as Óglaigh na hÉireann or (in English) the Defence Forces". It does not say it's unlawful for anyone else to use the name, that's a conclusion being drawn from a primary source that isn't present in the source. Section 3 of the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Act 1923 doesn't even contain the phrase "Óglaigh na hÉireann". 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 21:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It might help if it was made more clear exactly who uses the term to refer to PIRA. After all when someone in Ireland says Óglaigh na hÉireann he means the Irish defence forces. Also, as I understand it, "Óglaigh na hÉireann" is not a translation of "Irish Republican Army." It seems to be a useage favoured only by PIRA themselves and perhaps that could be made clear somehow. If someone was to search for Óglaigh na hÉireann on WP or any other quality reference source they're not going to find PIRA, so some confusion could result.--FergusM1970^{Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution.} 22:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

When someone in Ireland says Óglaigh na hÉireann what he (or she) means depends on the context. An English-speaker generally doesn't use the term at all! "The Army" (for the defence forces) or "the IRA" is what is commonly used. An Irish-speaker generally doesn't use the term at all either! "an tAirm" or "an tIRA" are the preferred names. Óglaigh na hÉireann was originally a loose translation of "The Irish Volunteers". When the Volunteers became the IRA, it continued to be translated as Óglaigh na hÉireann. When the pro-Treaty IRA was replaced by the National Army. that continued to be translated as Óglaigh na hÉireann. So the claim of any IRA to the Irish title of Óglaigh na hÉireann is as valid or more valid than that of the Defence Forces. Far from banning the use of the name, Irish legislation actually recognises that "illegal organisations" go by this name! But in fact this is much ado about nothing because you won't find a media source that says "Óglaigh na hÉireann did this or that", so there is no danger of confusion about which "Óglaigh na hÉireann" is being referred to. Scolaire (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

In fact, I looked up "Oglaigh na hEireann" in Google Books and guess what? Only two out of twenty books on the first two pages (and both of them "no cover image" and "no preview") are primarily about the Defence Forces. Some of the others note that Ó na hÉ is also the name of the IDF, but to say that it is the primary usage of Ó na hÉ seems entirely unjustified on the basis of this search. Scolaire (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Scolaire I always read your very informed comments and opinion with great interest. I take on bnoard all of your points. May I ask you to consider this (http://www.independent.ie/national-news/mcguinness-says-army-is-oglaigh-na-heireann-2891290.html) however and give me your considered opinion? I'd be very grateful. SonofSetanta (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I read that when I was doing my Google search on Wednesday. It illustrates nicely my point above that "what he or she means depends on the context." The context here was a man going for the job of commander-in-chief of the IDF, and he used the term in a dramatic way to indicate that he acknowledged the legitimacy of the IDF and that as president he would be loyal to them. He did not say – and it would be stretching it to say he meant – that it is wrong to style the IRA as Óglaigh na hÉireann. I imagine if you asked him if that was his position you would get a short, sharp answer. Scolaire (talk) 07:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Scolaire I fully agree with you. It is not wrong to "style" any IRA grouping as Óglaigh na hÉireann. There are good, solid historical reasons for them to do so. My point here is that this must be pointed out in the article. What we have at the moment is a school of thought which says this was their "official" name and that it is also the translation into Irish. Neither is true, as Martin McGuinness says: it is a "styling". Therefore the item must be rewritten to show the correct etymology of the name and why PIRA chose to use it. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

At the Dispute resolution noticeboard you were told that "Your reasoning for removing the mention amounts to original research." Please listen to what is being said. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No I wasn't Domer. You're resorting to bullying again and really must control yourself. DRN is about opinions and discussion and as my discussion point included sourced quotes by the well knmown Provo Martin McGuinness then it's very obvious that I wasn't relying on Original Research. You need to concentrate on your close reading skills? SonofSetanta (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

So you weren't told that "Your reasoning for removing the mention amounts to original research."?--Domer48_'fenian' 15:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No Domer but I have included a quote from a respected Republican who is also deputy leader of the Northern Ireland administration. Perhaps Wolfie and you missed that? Read it again and see if you can spot it. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

SoS I think you misunderstand the word "style". The verb style means "to call or give a name or title." To say that the IRA are "styled" Óglaigh na hÉireann means that that is the name or title which they are given and by which they are called. Their name in English is "Irish Republican Army"; their name in Irish is "Óglaigh na hÉireann". Therefore that title correctly goes in brackets after the article title.

As regards OR, please read what I said above: McGuinness did not say – and it would be stretching it to say he meant – that it is wrong to style the IRA as Óglaigh na hÉireann. Quoting a respected Republican is not OR; saying that he meant something that he did not say would be. Scolaire (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. You've said both here and on the DRN that McGuinness used the word "styling". He did not. The Independent said "In the past, the IRA has styled itself Oglaigh na hEireann", ignoring the fact that numerous books and academic articles have styled them that as well. Scolaire (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Scolaire I hear what you are saying but MMG's comment, "As far as I am concerned, the Irish Army are Oglaigh na hEireann" is unequivocal. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It's unequivocal that the Irish Army are Óglaigh na hEireann. It doesn't say that the IRA are not. If I say that Fionn mac Cumhaill's band were the Fianna, its doesn't mean that the republican youth group were not, or that Fianna Fáil is not entitled to have "Fianna" in its name. McGuinness is a politician; he chose his words carefully. NOR means that you cannot say that what he did not say is unequivocal. Scolaire (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite

I am attempting a rewrite of this article as I have noticed that much information is repeated in the article which is in the leader. Also I have noticed some self contradiction and POV. Using several volumes which I have at hand I intend to remove repetition, cruft and POV. Having made a start I will now cease for long enough for interested editors to include their own opinions and make suggestions. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Bearing in mind the difficulty for either side of this conflict to maintain a neutral POV, I would suggest perhaps waiting for a resolution to the above conflict with regards to the use of Óglaigh na hÉireann before making serious changes to the article. As most of your edit history seems to focus on this and similar topics, it may appear as if you have an agenda if you try to push through too much change at once, especially considering historically some of your edits significantly change what the article states (for example), and your most recent edit on this article is the biggest single edit for about two and a half years. I'm not at all suggesting your edits are wrong in any way, but I believe it may help reach a new consensus as to what should be in the article if you considered this. BulbaThor (talk)

I have no agenda except to competently rewrite the article. I am interested in Irish affairs as you rightly point out and some may misconstrue that as having a POV because many of my articles have been on the British military. I say; let the results do the talking. I have no intention of removing any information from the article unless it is repeated, incorrect, or POV. I may well add to the overall impact of the piece which at the moment looks sadly neglected. The leader is far too long and much of the information is repeated in the body of the article. Notwithstanding the discussion under way at DRN regarding the use of an Irish name I can see much which could be done to improve the article. Perhaps I can come up with some images and colour to brighten it. The Provisional IRA played a large part in the Northern Ireland Troubles and I have no intention of trying to downplay that. Perhaps you should watch, take part, advise, guide or play any role you wish to during the coming days? SonofSetanta (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Partially agree, the lede should be summarized and some sections reworded, although the article is well sourced in its current status, IMO.--Darius (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Existence of Provisional IRA

It seems we also need to resolve the question of existence. In the article Gerry Adams is quoted as saying "the IRA is no more". This means to me that the Provisional IRA doesn't exist and that the wording in the leader should be changed to the Provisional IRA was instead of is which it currently reads. It's only one word but I feel that the current status of the organisation is important. I'm inviting comments for discussion. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, all that is needed is a reliable, third-party secondary source saying the IRA does not exist, and one that is not contradicted by multiple other secondary sources. Given the amount that has been written about the IRA since 2005, if there is a definitive answer it should be easy to find. If there is not, then we cannot assume that it has actually gone out of existence. Scolaire (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The BBC reports that nothing has been heard from PIRA since 2005. Gerry Adams says they have gone away. 7 years would be long enough to apply for a "deceased" insurance claim on a missing person. Do you not feel it's long enough to decide that an organisation has ceased to be? SonofSetanta (talk) 12:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be wise to note that Armed Republican tradition is to assert that "they have not gone away". That being the case it should be noted in the article. Notwithstanding my above comments however we can see that there is a split in the Republican movement with the doves flocking to Sinn Fein and the hawks gathering with CIRA, RIRA, Oglaigh na hEireann. There has been a recent statement that two of these organisations will now band together under the name IRA. This is par for the course. They will attempt to find a link to continuing the 1916 tradition in order to gain legitimacy in the Republican cause - it's not difficult to do. what is important for this article however is that PIRA have "gone away". Yes they may come back; anyone can ressurect the title. The article must refelct this however and state clearly that PIRA, at this moment in time, do not exist as an organisation. My comparison would be the Royal Irish Regiment. They exist but it's not the same regiment which laid its colours up in 1922. Just a reuse of the name. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You have been asked to provide a source which states that the IRA no longer exist, and have yet to provide one. Removing the text and not providing the source requested is disruptive. Please stop.--Domer48_'fenian' 13:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. If such a fact is unassailable, a simple Google search will bring up plenty of reliable sources to say it is so. Link us to a single reliable secondary source to say the IRA does not exist (not that "nothing has been heard from them") and we can discuss the edit. Writing long essays giving us your view of the world is not a substitute. Scolaire (talk) 13:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm with SonofSetanta on this one and asking them to prove a negative is a bit sneaky. If there is any evidence the PIRA (as a whole, rather than the odd local bank-robbery/killing of a drug dealer by people who were in it at one time or another) are still in existence then references for that should be easy to come by. Otherwise, I would support changing references to them to past tense. GiollaUidir (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I think I've possibly resolved this GiollaUidir by removing the word altogether leaving the lead in a more satisfactory fashion. Perhaps you'd have another look and see if you agree? SonofSetanta (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As it stands the sentence needs "was" or "is". Would changing it to something like: "The PIRA is the name of a militant Irish Republican organisation that between 1969 and 2005 carried out a campaign..." work better?

To be clear though, I think the current old version reads better and we should resolve the is/was dispute.GiollaUidir (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I've used the Oxford English Dictionary wording and referenced it. I am making an effort to get rid of the controversy. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• NOTE: Comments from DRN "note that you appear to be forcing your changes despite the DRN being open." they go on to note that you "Setanta appears to be edit warring for his changes at present...(with non-policy based arguments as well)," while your reluctances to provide sources was apparent on the DNR also. At DRN you were told out right that the name was correct and that "Your reasoning for removing the mention amounts to original research." Please stop, this is disruptive. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

All this bold type and shouting Domer is not constructive. As you didn't take part in the DRN case I really don't see how you can post dialogue from it however the volunteer you are quoting was alone in his opinion. The other contributors to the case noted that change was needed. Opinions which I might add are reflected here. As a result of my efforts here today this article looks better, reads better and gives the correct information. Improve it if you will, there's nothing stopping you. Perhaps a few suggestions from you instead of complaints at AE might be more conducive to establishing a better article. I might add that you don't have the authority to stop someone editing an article. I strongly suggest you read up at Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Italics added: At DNR the volunteer stated that there is nothing immediately wrong with the current wording...Óglaigh na hÉireann is by far the more common name amongst the sources as discussion on the article talk page had only begun 1 day the volunteer said that it seems far too early to bring the issue to DRN. The next day you were told that Your reasoning for removing the mention amounts to original research. You have denied that you were told this twice, despite it being there in black and white here and here. The next day you were asked by another volunteer the same thing we've all being asking for Just because you've never come across anyone who does doesn't mean no one does...source, please. Now what could I possibly add to what two volunteers have not already said. During all this there was a discussion going on in which I did participate right here. You have now been told that you are editwarring to insert your changes at DRN. You were told on your own talk page that you appear to be forcing your changes despite the DRN being open... and were told on the volunteers talk page that you forcing your changes through anyway despite the DRN thread. You were told out straight that You have made your changes despite them being reverted, then you made them again, that is edit warring (some support is not enough, you need consensus). I strongly suggest that you listen to what is been said, and not to be giving advice.--Domer48_'fenian' 16:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Domer I'm not edit-warring. I'm improving this article. No-one is disputing that PIRA used the name Oglaigh na hEireann but the context in which they used it is mentioned elsewhere on the wiki and this article must reflect what is there. If you can show me a source which says that PIRA had/have exclusive rights to the name then we can change the article back to the way you want it and reference that change. Wikipedia relies on authoritiative sources for claimed facts however and I have provided those sources to verify the way I have treated the name. I respect you as knowledgeable on the organisation and would prefer you put forward clear objections based on sources, not what is coming across to me as opinion and pleas to "leave the article alone".SonofSetanta (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The lead as it stood did not say or suggest "that PIRA had/have exclusive rights to the name". "The Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) (Irish: Óglaigh na hÉireann)" means nothing more or less than that Óglaigh na hÉireann is the Irish language name (or "style" if you prefer) of the IRA. It says nothing about exclusivity, any more than saying "Gerry Adams (Irish: Gearóid Mac Ádhaimh) means that the Sinn Féin leader has exclusive rights to that name in Irish. Since the {{lang}} template is not preceded by the word "styled" in any other article—although that's just what it is—there is no reason to do so here either. Scolaire (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I've just noticed that a whole lot of Óglaigh na hÉireann discussion has gone into the "Existence" section. Never mind. I have a suggestion for the existence issue that might get around the "no sources that they don't, no sources that they do" dilemma:

• The Provisional Irish Republican Army...is a now-inactive Irish republican paramilitary organisation whose aim was...

Scolaire (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I would find that wording agreeable but I'm still not happy about the styling of the name in Irish. My feeling is unchanged in that, as it stands, it looks as if the name is a translation into Irish - which we know isn't correct. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

As long as you understand that your happiness isn't my primary concern ;) We have established that the {{lang-ga}} template does not mean "translation into Irish". The first para of the lead says in black and white that it is a name, not a translation; what its origins are; and that it shares the name with the IDF. Scolaire (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you've misinterpreted my politeness when I said I was "happy". Let's change that to "agreeable". Ok, from my perspective it's been done to death. Let's leave it as it stands.SonofSetanta (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead

I have now reduced the size of the leader and introduced a new image for the article. No information has been deleted but merely moved to the correct category headers within the article. As it stood it read like two separate articles on the same subject, as at least one other involved editor has noted. These are Bold Changes but I feel the article is much better for them. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It could do with a bit of expansion if the move is to stand. The intro paragraph should summarise the article not abruptly end after giving a few facts (including the most recent editors favourite point of contention!).GiollaUidir (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you fancy having a wee go at it yourself? Obviously the version standing at the moment is only temporary but I genuinely feel that the older leader read like a separate article and the main body of the article was repeating most of it.SonofSetanta (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Scolaire. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Regarding your previous comment, the lead really is supposed to read like a separate article. If you read the featured article on the front page on any given day what you are actually reading is the lead from the article itself. According to WP:LEAD, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points". There's a lot more in it than that - I would recommend reading it before editing any lead. But basically, too much was taken out that should have at most been re-written as a précis. Again from WP:LEAD, "The lead should normally contain no more than four paragraphs"; you can take that to mean that for an article of this size the lead should be three or four paragraphs. Scolaire (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes I agree, I have cut the lead down too much and more needs to be fed into it to make it a more complete synopsis of the main article. I'll have a little look today and see what I can do with it. More needs to be done to cull repetition too but hopefully more editors will be as generous with their time as you and I have. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Scolaire (and others). I've now rewritten the lead in a considered attempt to provide a synopsis of the article. It would be great to hear any comments you've got and see any improvements you could make. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Nationalist Community

In the leader I see a sentence referring to "violence against the nationalist community". This implies to me that only nationalists in Roman Catholic areas were affected by this violence. I propose changing this wording to "violence against the Roman Catholic community" which would be much more accurate. Implying that all Roman Catholics are nationalists is totally incorrect and is POV pushing. This is actually explained in the Wiki at Catholic Unionist, at Unionism_in_Ireland#Unionism_and_religion, CAIN at (http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/ni/religion.htm) claims that only 54% of Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland consider themselves to be nationalists which means that 48% don't. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You have touched on a question here that bedevils all writing about the Troubles. Just as not all Catholics are nationalists, not all nationalists are Catholics, nor all supporters of civil rights. Was Ivan Cooper ever hit over the head with a truncheon? I seem to remember he was. So it was not only Catholics who were being attacked. The qustion is, was the Troubles a religious conflict or a political conflict? Very few people today would say that it was religious. But back in the sixties is was portrayed as "Catholics" and "Protestants". Areas like the Falls or the Bogside were referred to as "Catholic areas" when in fact "nationalist areas" would have been more appropriate, and is used nowadays. The term "Catholic community" really referred to the residents of those "Catholic areas" rather than the more conservative Catholics on, say, the Malone Road. If Catholics in those areas were indisciminately attacked, as they were, it was because the attackers assumed that all of them were nationalists trying to drive them into a united Ireland, rather than because they had a devotion to the Blessed Virgin or believed in transubstantiation. Indeed, it is hardly less POV to imply that everybody who was attacked was a practising Catholic than that they were nationalists. It was because they lived in a particular area, that's all. Scolaire (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Your opinions are superb. These titles are mostly media driven and at times manipulated by canny politicians. I feel that we, as historians and Wikipedians however shouldn't fall into the trap of using these misnomers. As you rightly point out the names in common parlance at that time would have been Protestant and Catholic. It's a given that many of the Protestants would have been loyalists and many of the Catholics nationalist even though as you imply, many of them wouldn't have seen the inside of a house of worship since christening. My thinking would be to treat any words like nationalist, loyalist, republican and unionist as contentious and dumb them down. If we don't we are giving too much emphasis to the styling of the various groupings. Would you agree or could you put it better? SonofSetanta (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with Scolaire; "nationalist" is by far less PoV and misleading than "Catholic". Try it in the other way, by labeling the UDA as "Protestant" instead of "loyalist", and you will find the difference.--Darius (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think nationalist is more misleading to tell you the truth and much more POV - for reasons already discussed with Scolaire. I personally think the UDA is a Protestant organisation although Protestant Loyalist would be accurate too. The problem is that not all Catholics are nationalist and not all Protestants are Loyalists (or even unionist). With specific regards to 1969 however; nationalism wasn't the issue, rights for the Roman Catholic section of the population were and that's what caused the riots (loosely speaking). I'd be grateful for your further comments, always bearing in mind that the agenda is to rid the article of POV. Perhaps we could have a go at the UDA one next? That would be equally interesting. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I've noted that in the rest of the "Origins" there is constant reference to "Catholics", "Catholic Homes" "Official IRA unable to protect Catholics" yet when it deals with the riots the word "nationalists" is used. I find this very incongrous, especially given my previous comments. For the sake of the article I'll change the "nationalist" reference back to "Catholic", for the moment anyway until we have more comment and eventually reach a concensus. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that I said above, "back in the sixties it was portrayed as Catholics and Protestants", and that "'nationalist areas' would have been more appropriate, and is used nowadays." How to deal with contemporary sources is always problematic (hence the mixing of terms in the article), but I think it is a well-accepted principle that we use modern terminology when writing articles, except within direct quotes. The conflict was political, not religious. The "Protestants" believed all "Catholics" were disloyal, and wanted to drive them into a united Ireland. The "Catholics" believed that "Protestant" hegemony (and consequent discrimination and violent attacks) was a direct consequence of the union with Britain. So, despite the labels, they were acting as unionists and nationalists against nationalists and unionists. A man cudgeling another man didn't ask him first if he ever cast a vote, but neither did he ask him if he was a regular church-goer. He was just a unionist (or loyalist) thug attacking somebody from the nationalist community, or vice-versa. I would favour removing "Catholic" and "Protestant" altogether, except (a) in reference to, say, a Catholic church or a party called the "Protestant Unionist Party"; (b) in direct quotes, or (c) when it is just too awkward to use an alternative. Scolaire (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm for keeping the terms Protestant and Catholic because I think they remove the assertion that all members of either faith were automatically categorised as unionist, nationalist, loyalist or republican. I would assert the troubles as a socio-political issue. Religion and politics became linked and that link is strengthened when all Protestants are categorised as loyalist and all Catholics are seen as nationalists. It wasn't nationalists rioting in 1969 looking for a united Ireland. It was Catholics wanting fair housing and job allocation. It's a huge can of worms but I firmly believe we must keep this as neutral as possible. I've seen another article on the wiki in the last couple of days which asserts that Protestants and Catholics live separate existences in Northern Ireland. I dispute that most vehemently whilst recognising the problems of ghettoised housing estates and I think that putting people into those kind of loyalty boxes like nationalism or loyalism is wrong. I'd like the article to reflect that if possible. Less of a POV don't you think? I think we need more opinion though because you and I aren't going to solve this issue alone when we have disparate views. I'm happy to leave any further instances unchanged until we do have a concensus. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

BTW, please note that there are instances of use which I think are totally appropriate. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)