Jump to content

Talk:Dissident Irish republican campaign

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Loyalists in infobox

[edit]

Why are these being added back? This article is 'Dissident Irish Republican campaign', so it's generally Irish republicans not a complete history of Northern Ireland post-GFA. While The Troubles has loyalists in the infobox Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign 1969–1997 doesn't, and this embarrassment of an article is the same as the latter not the former. Have dissident loyalists carried out any attacks on dissident republicans, or vice versa? Rhetorical question by the way, unless sources are provided. Similarly is there even a dissident loyalist campaign at all? Dissident groups may exist, but they don't seem to be going much. Any "campaign" by dissident loyalists appears to have absolutely nothing to do with the campaign by dissident republicans, other than the ostensible reason for their campaign in the first place. They are not so much ships that pass in the night as ships in different oceans. 2 lines of K303 06:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to lead

[edit]

None of the sources actually source the majority of the text which was added to the lead, so I removed it per WP:BURDEN Mo ainm~Talk 21:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too minor at this point to be listed as ongoing

[edit]

There have been very few deaths in recent years. There is a defacto truce in place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pug6666 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Until January 2019 - things have heated back up, unfortunately.50.111.61.157 (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

R

[edit]

Why is republican capitalised in the title? Gob Lofa (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? Gob Lofa (talk) 09:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little perturbed by this creeping capitalisation. Does anyone know the answer? Gob Lofa (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Needs improvement

[edit]

Article is outdated, new information is needed for the timeline & main article. More information should also be researched about the Irish & Ulster militias participating in the conflict and there various splits, to see if they should be included in the infobox. Citadel48 (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article renaming?

[edit]

Should this article be name 'Dissident Republican campaign' when it also involves loyalist paramilitaries? I have altered the title to a more accurate one in the infobox for now. Leanseahy (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the infobox, the article exclusively covers the activity of dissident republicans. The loyalist paramilitaries are included in the infobox on the basis that they are a belligerent in the Dissident Irish Republican campaign, ie they are in conflict with dissident republicans. Maybe it would be more appropriate to create a new article at Northern Ireland conflict (1998–present) to summarise the situation overall. Similar to how there is The Troubles and Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign. Rob984 (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dissident Irish Republican campaign. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dissident Irish Republican campaign. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you Simon Levchenko (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dissident Campaign Edits

[edit]

Hello sir. I would liked to comment here on why I undid your edits to the page Dissident Irish Republican campaign. As with the page for WWII, the Oka Crisis, Operation Harvest, Loughgall Ambush, American Civil War, and Years of Lead (Italy), and many others, the flags are for illustrative purposes solely. No objection was raised there as to their neutrality, thus it I am confused why suddenly there is here.

The page said For example, with an English flag next to him, Paul McCartney looks like an "English singer-songwriter from Liverpool who was in the Beatles"; without the flag next to him, he looks like an "English singer-songwriter from Liverpool who was in the Beatles. This is not an individual; and as the afore-listed pages illustrate, others have done the same.

Sincerely, Simon Levchenko (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FLAGCRUFT applies, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't, and your edit summary of "Aspersions of nationalistic bias are highly unnecessary and beyond erroneous" is puzzling. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a place for nationalistic pride. First sentence in the link from your own edit summary.

With all due respect sir; I would appreciate you telling me why you reference FLAGCRUFT in this case, whilst not in the pages nonpertaining to your nationality. Simon Levchenko (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you're asking is why I've not removed flags from those other articles. Well, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but mainly because I've never edited them, to the best of my knowledge. Flagcruft now removed from Loughgall Ambush. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is your primary objection to flags and "British Security Forces" vs. "Security Forces" that you feel they are somehow sectarian in nature? Simon Levchenko (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Once again - WP:FLAGCRUFT. Can you actually read that guideline, please? There are several examples on that page listing why flags should not be used on this or similar articles. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It lists "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason"; mentioning individuals. Also "Do not use a flag when a picture of the subject is not available"..."Do not use subnational flags without direct relevance"..."Do not use supernational flags without direct relevance"..."Do not use flags in genocide-related lists and articles"..."Biographical use"..."Sportspersons". None of these apply. "Do not rewrite history"; the flags illustrate rather than alter anything. Sincerely Simon Levchenko (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Where ambiguity or confusion could result, it is better not to use a flag at all." Listing proscribed organisations, designated as such by the government of Ireland, under the flag of Ireland, is certainly confusing - and incorrect. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does not explain why you removed the flags of recognized nations and entities. I myself never added the tricolor to represent Republican groups, though such is done on the page for The Troubles. Simon Levchenko (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the last time - I removed them because they're unhelpful cruft that add nothing to the article. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edits 22 February

[edit]

Simon Levchenko, be aware that there are editing sanctions in place on this article, including a limit of 1 revert per day. As you are a new editor, you may not have previously been aware of this; you are now.

I have deleted the flags and emblems in accordance with WP:FLAGCRUFT - a WP guideline. There is no good reason for their inclusion. I have removed the Provisional IRA from the infobox because there is no mention whatsoever of them within the body of the article in relation to any actions post-1998, let alone any referenced material. If they are worthy of inclusion in an infobox, they should already be covered within the article body. Any unreferenced material may be challenged. This has been. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a timeline which features their activities post-1998. Likewise, the article does not mention a single Loyalist group. Does not mean they were not involved. Simon Levchenko (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not in this article, there isn't... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't such sanctions supposed to be highlighted via a banner at the top of the page; placed by an administrator? Sincerely, Simon Levchenko (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh - so you're not a new editor, then. What account have you previously edited under? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army_actions_(2000%E2%80%9309) Timeline showing PIRA carried on well after the GFA. I am in fact a new editor; just not a gullible one. I don't understand why you saw the need to lie about this article having been subject to 1RR. Sincerely, Simon Levchenko (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Once again: there is nothing in this article about the PIRA. If there is, and it's referenced, then sure, we can discuss. But the PIRA are not classed by anyone as a "dissident republican group." In other news, I didn't lie about anything, and it is subject to 1RR, in common with all Troubles-related articles, broadly construed. Apology welcome at your leisure. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dissident 'Irish' campaign?

[edit]

Clearly this post-Troubles conflict isn't necessarily one performed strictly by republicans. Dissident loyalists are also active with their own activities. Doesn't that mean that the title of the page is wrong and misleading? This conflict is simply a much smaller-scale version of the Troubles, with both republicans and loyalists involved. --Gateshead001 (talk) 12:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. This article is about the dissident movement of nationalists. If you wish, you can create a similar article about the Loyalists - providing the sources are there. 50.111.61.157 (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Gateshead001, a more comprehensive title is needed.---Darius (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There really isn’t any loyalist paramilitary dissident campaign. There is the political group Traditional Unionist Voice, which rejects the peace process largely because they object to forming government with Sinn Féin because they are or were the political voice of the IRA and many Sinn Fein members are former terrorists. The TUV attract a very small percentage of protest votes from unionist/loyalist voters come election time. The problem is reliable sources do not or extremely rarely describe the TUV as dissident loyalists. The TUV do a bit of knocking on doors and posting leaflets through doors saying please vote for us because of xyz. That is about the height of it.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of sources describing terrorist activity from loyalist groups well behind the GFA. I concur with you, however, that there never was a "loyalist dissident campaign" as opposed to the republican one, they were (or are) just "a bunch of armed thugs out to protect their criminal empires" (see as an example the view expressed in this article). Conversely, to establish an equivalence between the "republican dissident campaign" and the Troubles is, IMHO, as user Gateshead001 said, "wrong and misleading". What I mean by a "comprehensive title" is not to include loyalist criminal actions after 1998 intermingled with dissident republican terrorism on the same period; my proposal is to replace the term "campaign" for "activity" or "violence". Sporadic attacks carried out by small groups and the lack of a single command falls short of the definition of "campaign"; the use of this word inflates the importance of the topic. The end of Operation Banner in 2007 and the withdrawal of British military forces is another factor that diminished the legitimacy of the dissidents' actions in the eyes of other republicans.---Darius (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there was a very low level loyalist dissident campaign post the GFA, mostly carried out by the Red Hand Defenders and the Orange Volunteers but that loyalist dissident campaign dried up in about 2009. I guess if you or someone else are motivated enough to dig through enough old sources such an article could in theory be created.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The current British campaign against the small number of dissident republican terrorists is conducted by the PSNI and MI5. Loyalist paramilitaries don’t get involved probably because dissident republican groups are very small and their attacks are few and far between and the PSNI and MI5 largely have republican dissident groups well infiltrated with informants rendering their campaign to be mostly one of failure. I guess you could have an article about successful prosecutions through the British courts of dissident republicans and thwarted terrorist attacks.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Basically agree on this. Not only their actions are spasmodic and erratic, they were doomed since the very beginning for the causes you have described. Yet another reason for removing the term "campaign" from the title. Not a military conflict in the same sense of the Troubles.---Darius (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the attacks, combined with the political ideology and agenda, are enough for it to qualify as a low level campaign and this article and sources describe it as a campaign anyway.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brexit Day bomb plot

[edit]

Hi just though this page should be updated to mention a recent event involving this page's topic. Reference: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-51401435 UkPagan2020 (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maths failure

[edit]

The bottom of the infobox claims "Civilian deaths: 97 (including 2 informers, 19 alleged criminals, and 7 former paramilitaries)". Other casualties listed are "PSNI: 2 killed", "RUC: 1 killed" (the only RUC member killed since 1997, was killed by loyalists by the way, just thought I'd mention it), "British Army: 2 killed", "Garda: 2 killed", "NIPS: 2 killed", "NIRA: 2 killed by gangs", "RIRA: 4 killed", "3 Killed" (presumably INLA, since the infobox doesn't actually say), "IRLA: 2 killed by CIRA", "ONH (Real IRA): 1 killed in murder-suicide". That's 118 by my calculations. Yet the infobox claims 145. Who's writing this rubbish? FDW777 (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Culprit identified. I am removing a vast amount of unreferenced information from the infobox, in addition to many entries the endless list of splinter groups. See MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is supposed to summarize key facts, including splinter groups whose attacks are in single digits (if they've even carried out any attacks at all) is pointless. I've also removed the "arrests" from "Casualties and losses". Cobbling together a few news reports and saying 31 CIRA members have been arrested doesn't result in an accurate figure, unless you're prepared to check for every arrest in all media outlets for the last 20+ years. FDW777 (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

INLA and Dissident Republican campaign

[edit]

There's disagreement over whether INLA actions in 1998, particularly the Newtownhamilton bombing, constitutes part of the dissident Irish republican campaign.

Some references in favour:

According to the The Conflict Archive in Northern Ireland (CAIN) Chronology of the Conflict Security sources believed that the "real" Irish Republican Army (rIRA) was involved in supplying the INLA with Semtex commercial explosive which was thought to have been used as a component in the bomb [1]

According to an Irish Times article from June 26 1998 warning was given by the INLA but there is widespread speculation that the device was made by IRA dissidents. [2]

An Associated Press (AP) report from 24/06/1998 on the bombing describes the INLA as a Republican splinter group that opposes the Good Friday peace agreement and a Republican splinter group which remains opposed to a peaceful solution to the problems in Northern Ireland. [3]

Also, the Newtownhamilton bombing is already actually included as part of the dissident republican campaign in this article's expanded infobox list of incidents.

I'll go and re-add INLA with expanded references but would like your input first FDW777 

 NelsonEdit2 (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but as stated the INLA were active during the Troubles, and it's unclear whether this incident was part of the Troubles, the dissident campaign, or even both. You are using "splinter group" to try and present them as being similar to other splinter groups which were dissidents, but they splintered in 1974! FDW777 (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

lol to be fair that wasn't the important part of the quote (they aren't dissidents because they splintered and the label was used in the media for the group throughout The Troubles) but their opposition to the Good Friday Agreement which had been signed a few months earlier. In the "Abstracts on Organisations" page CAIN explicitly lists the RIRA as perpetrators of the Newtowhamilton bombing [4]. --NelsonEdit2 (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black Operations states it was a Real IRA bombing, albeit one done with a car provided by INLA members, who also apparently drove the car bomb into place. But the bomb was definitely constructed by the Real IRA. That book and others detail how, especially in that time period, the lines between the various groups were increasingly blurred and people were just getting involved in any activity going, and often claims of responsibility were deliberately wrong to confuse police investigations. There's various claims about individual Provisional IRA members having a degree of involvement in dissident bombs around that time as well.
Involvement by INLA members (and it's not clear if that involvement was sanctioned by the leadership) in one bombing by another organisation two months before the INLA declared a ceasefire doesn't justify adding the INLA as participants in the campaign. FDW777 (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright resolution: Don't include INLA as a participant in dissident Republican but place significantly more emphasis on complicity of RIRA in Newtownhamilton bombing page and Timeline of Irish National Liberation Army actions Appreciate the dialogue --NelsonEdit2 (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few quotes from Black Operations regarding this.
  • Page 126 'There was a floating membership between Continuity and the RIRA. Sometimes we didn't know who was in what group. Lads from Continuity would often be asked to take part in an operation for the RIRA. I suppose they took the attitude that they were fighting the British and it didn't matter what organisation they belonged to', said one RIRA Army Council member.
  • Page 135 Campbell's strategy was to destabilise the ongoing negotiations in Northern Ireland through the work of the INLA, CIRA and RIRA. When the CIRA joined the border rebellion, the INLA got involved. The strategy had three components. The INLA would provide stolen vehicles, which the RIRA would transform into car bombs. A mixture of RIRA and CIRA men would oversee the third stage of the strategy by delivering bombs to targets
  • Page 148 eventually decided on a series of car bombings mounted by a coalition of republicans drawn from the CIRA, INLA and the RIRA
And from Bandit Country.
  • Page 313 although a stream of intelligence reports indicated the Provisionals were helping McKevitt launch car bomb attacks across Northern Ireland . . . 'PIRA-Real IRA co-operation in South Armagh was happening at a frightening rate prior to Omagh and causing great concern within the PIRA hierarchy in Belfast,' one of Northern Ireland's most senior anti-terrorist offices commented several months later . . . Again, Provisionals were believed to have assisted the Real IRA in planning the attacks
I hope that demonstrates how the lines were very blurred in 1998. It was an uncertain time for the rank-and-file who were unsure about whether the ceasefires, peace process and Good Friday Agreement were a good idea or not, and they weren't averse to helping out other people. FDW777 (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Would it be worthwhile having a few lines on this group dynamic of the early dissident campaign? --NelsonEdit2 (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to have a look at Black Operations again and a couple of other books, and some IMC reports too. There were some other quotes regarding the crossover, only they weren't specifically about the point I was making so I didn't bother to type them up. The crossover tended up stop post-Omagh, since the RIRA were seen as toxic and they were under severe pressure from law enforcement. FDW777 (talk) 08:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties

[edit]

This reference does not reference 184 deaths from the Dissident Irish republican campaign. The figures are clearly marked as being from 1989-2019, with the vast majority of the deaths occurring 1989-1998. Even if it was simply listing deaths from 1998 onwards, it isn't the case that every single death is automatically part of the Dissident Irish republican campaign. FDW777 (talk) 10:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since a certain IP editor doesn't understand the figures, I'll explain more. There's a graph at the top of the page of the claimed reference for 184 deaths. The legend on the graph shows it goes from 1989 to 2019, and by hovering you see the deaths for each year (it's quite simple to tell which years have 0 deaths by the flat line). As this article states, the dissident campaign began in 1998 (although it could be debated as early as 1994, but the dissidents didn't verifiably kill anyone before 1998). The graph lists 29 deaths in 1998, 2 in 2009, 1 in 2011 and 1 in 2019. 29+2+1+1 does not equal 184. There's not even any point adding the claimed total of 33 deaths, as it excludes 2 deaths that are indisputably part of the campaign (David Caldwell in 2002, Stephen Carroll in 2009), one that should be almost certainly classed as part of the campaign (Real IRA volunteer Ronan MacLochlainn, killed by the Garda during a RIRA organised armed robbery) and various other killings that are open to debate. FDW777 (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any objection to using "33+" using the above reference (which does list 33 people killed by dissidents), in this and some other articles? I ask because I've had to be slightly inconsistent this morning. At List of conflicts in Europe I replaced the absurd figure of "145 killed" with "Unknown". However at List of wars by death toll there is a list that's not in table format that claimed 158 deaths, and I did replace that with "33+" since it seemed inappropriate to, for example, list it at the bottom of the list with "Unknown" and I wasn't sure what else to do. FDW777 (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There were not 180 deaths (presumably between 1998 and 2002, since those are the only years cited) caused by the dissident republican campaign. There were 29 killed in the Omagh bombing and David Caldwell in August 2002. To that you could probably add Joe O'Connor (RIRA volunteer killed in 2000) and Rónán Mac Lochlainn (RIRA volunteer killed in 1998). That's it prior to 2009, except for the occasional punishment shooting or killing as part of a feud. I'm not feeling inclined to count up how many that would come to, except to say there's no way it comes anywhere close to the 140+ needed to get to a claimed total of 180. FDW777 (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the lead section

[edit]

Forgive me for barging into fields I am not an expert on (meaning both the Troubles, and editing ongoing events and disputes). As a neutral reader, I wonder if the number of casualties caused by the opposite side, inserted at the end of the lead, does not give the impression of, to coin a phrase, comparatism in violence; of leading the reader to justify by comparison - without implying that User:Buidhe, or anyone else, had this intention. NikosGouliaros (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given that this is a sectarian conflict, the violence by one side can't be fully understood without reference to the violence of the other side. However, I wouldn't object to moving the figure to a different part of the article if that's best. (t · c) buidhe 08:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that this article might superficially appear similar to The Troubles in terms of scope, it actually isn't. It's more similar to Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign, just covering the campaigns of several different groups rather than just one. Most, if not all, the killings by loyalists are other loyalists, although there is the occasional sectarian murder of Catholics. Loyalist paramilitaries and dissident republican paramilitaries appear to be ships that pass each other during the night considering the lack of interaction between them. The question does have to be asked, exactly what do deaths like these have to do with the dissident republicans? FDW777 (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The dissident Irish republican campaign began at the end of the Troubles"

[edit]

Did it really? Or did it begin during the Troubles? FDW777 (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been hoping wiser editors than me would have resolved this. It's a tough question that honestly may be subjective. I think one way to approach it is there are 2 POVs, if the The Troubles ended with the ceasefire the Dissident Campaign began after, if it ended with the Good Friday Agreement-during. The Troubles is a term for what some academics also called the Northern Irish Civil War-my point only being there was undoubtedly a war being fought, not just protracted unrest or conflict. In light of this fact I lean towards interpreting through the lense of any other modern war. Accordingly, when neither side surrenders or is destroyed, long standing consensus is war ends with ascension to a lasting peace.[a] Most historians will note a war only ended *officially with the signing of a treaty, here that would be the Good Friday Agreement. At the risk of blabbering on, I'm gonna ask @FDW777: where do you stand on this? OgamD218 (talk) 00:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Horgan (I think, it's definitely in one of the books on dissidents I own, just don't see the need to dig it out this minute) is clear that dissident violent activity began in 1994 during the Provisional IRA's 1994-1996 ceasefire. This article has them becoming active in 1996, which is still before 1998. This article also documents extensive Real IRA activity before the Good Friday Agreement. That there is some kind of defining date where both the Troubles stopped and the "Dissident Irish republican campaign" began appears to be a complete invention of whoever wrote this article. FDW777 (talk) 07:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh ok. I originally read “at the end” to mean during the final phases, not after or following it’s conclusion. Maybe the former just made more sense. Is the 1994 activity you’re referring too the CIRA bombing? OgamD218 (talk) 08:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well we can certainly agree the wording should be changed to something less ambiguous in that case. Any objections from anyone to 1994 referenced by Horgan? Obviously we can also document the Real IRA split later in the lead as well. FDW777 (talk) 09:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections OgamD218 (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Loyalists, casualties and Liam Christie

[edit]

Unlike the Provisional IRA's campaign, there is no counter-campaign by dissident, or even mainstream, loyalists. See page 256 of Loyalists by Peter Taylor

The following month, the UFF and the UVF passed an even bigger test when they did not retaliate in the wake of the 'Real' IRA's Omagh bomb...The temptation to retaliate in kind, as they had done so often before in the wake of IRA atrocities, was resisted. Times and strategies had changed.

There is not a single incident mentioned in the whole article detailing loyalists actions in reaction to those of dissident republicans. Loyalists feuding with each other are diddly squat to do with the dissident republican campaign.

Since I will be mentioning this discussion thread in relation to other articles, a career criminal being gunned down by an LVF-linked drugs gang following a row over missing money is nothing to do with this topic. Also 158 "security-related" deaths in Northern Ireland since the 1998 Good Friday Agreement are not deaths caused by the dissident republican campaign, since that article specifically says that the "majority of the deaths were murders carried out by republican and loyalist paramilitaries, who mostly targeted victims within their own communities". To repeat my earlier point, loyalists killing other loyalists are nothing to do with the dissident republican campaign. Kathleen's bike (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kathleen's bike: "Since the police officer is still alive"? About who 're you talkin' about?
"Also you are ignoring the objections raised in the discussion page thread regarding both the 2022 claimed death and the claimed deaths total" I see the discussion about Liam Christie and you were right, so I found a new confirmed source about another republican homicides, a confirmed one, so I inserect it. What's the problem now? Also in the conflict there were +100 deaths since 10 april 1998, the start (?) linked to dissident republican kills, so not the loyalist kills. MorteBiancaFan (talk) 11:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except you didn't. You added an unreliable tabloid newspaper, which failed to quote the PSNI properly since they actually said It is also now our assessment the murders were carried out by an organised group of criminals who operate like terrorists and who may be, or have been, members of terrorist organisations. That's not the same as it being part of the dissident campaign. You've also failed to add a source that the dissident campaign has caused 100+ deaths, since your claimed sources for 100+ are nothing except you misinterpeting primary source data. Kathleen's bike (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kathleen's bike: bro, can you please use the ping when you're answearing me? You're gonna made me a really pleasure. Anyway, what source that I inserect is wrong? Cain Ulster or the source about Sean Fox? Anyway, both are correct 'cause those are sources made up by peoples that have studied and are studying the conflict, you can count by yourself the body count on Cain Ulster that in those years inserect all the deaths releated on The Troubles and the Dissident Irish republican campaign perfectly and with precision. I used the better sourches to know the real body count of the conflict, so can I undo your edit now? MorteBiancaFan (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't call me bro. CAIN do not source your edit. You completely fail to understand the data they have published, since it is not clear which deaths are by dissident republicans since "non-specific Republican group (REP)" includes all republicans not just dissidents. Regarding Sean Fox, as stated what the PSNI said (using a source that quotes them in full) is "It is also now our assessment the murders were carried out by an organised group of criminals who operate like terrorists and who may be, or have been, members of terrorist organisations". So that's nothing to do with the dissident campaign, therefore no you can't undo my edit. Kathleen's bike (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kathleen's bike: bro, calm down and use ping XD. Anyway, "non-specific Republican group (REP)" it means that the republicans were responsible but is unknown the specific dissident group, so it is part of the conflict. How do you not understand that? It refear obviously about dissidents, its eazy XD. For Sean Fox case, dissident republicans are probably the murders 'cause he was paying them to be save from the war on drug dealers started by dissident republicans, so I inserect his death, also CAIN inserect him into the body count. Cain from 1968 inserect the total number of casualties linked into the Troubles and the ongoing campaign, so I used it. Can I undo your edit now? MorteBiancaFan (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to be deliberately offensive? Do not call me bro. Once again, your interpretation of CAIN's figures is incorrect and your attempt to ignore the PSNI's quote about Sean Fox's murder is unacceptable. Should you wish to continue asserting a total of 100+, please list every single death you believe is part of that total? I will be generous and say you don't need to list the 29 from 1998 in Omagh. Kathleen's bike (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kathleen's bike: can you please use PING? It would be great for me, so please use it. USE IT. Anyway, you can check by yourself the 100 deaths using CAIN ULSTER. Go count if you don't believe me. Go check MorteBiancaFan (talk) 12:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've counted. I don't see 100+ deaths attributed to the dissident campaign. Therefore you need to list the ones you claim are part of your total. Kathleen's bike (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You say "Anyway, "non-specific Republican group (REP)" it means that the republicans were responsible but is unknown the specific dissident group, so it is part of the conflict". Let's examine the very first year you are using on your version of the article. It's CAIN's list of deaths for 1998, you title your source "1998 death count of the conflict from 10 april, only republican kills". There is only one person killed by a "non-specific Republican group (REP)" listed in 1998, Andrew Kearney killed on 19 July 1998, a month before the Real IRA killed 29 people in Omagh bombing. So as he's been killed by a "non-specific Republican group (REP)", he'd have to be on your list, since according to you "non-specific Republican group (REP)" means "dissidents". Except it doesn't, because you've misinterpeted the meaning of that. There's even an article about that specific death, it can be seen at Murder of Andrew Kearney. And guess what? He was apparently killed by the Provisional IRA (who aren't dissidents), as well as the sources listed in the article you can also read news article like the Irish News. So the very first person who should be on your list wans't killed by dissidents at all, therefore proving your "non-specific Republican group (REP)" = "dissidents" assumption is incorrect and has caused you to come up with a fantasy figure of 100+. Kathleen's bike (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kathleen's bike: PING, USE IT. Anyway, why PIRA is not a dissident group? MorteBiancaFan (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kathleen's bike: PIRA killed peoples also after the peace so it was a dissident group until 2009 when it stopped doing attempts. MorteBiancaFan (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute garbage. The Provisional IRA cannot be classed as a dissident group, since the whole point of dissident republicanism is they are dissenting from the Provisionals! Kathleen's bike (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kathleen's bike: "Dissident republicans, renegade republicans, anti-Agreement republicans or anti-ceasefire republicans (Irish: poblachtach easaontach) are Irish republicans who do not support the current peace agreements in Northern Ireland." not against PIRA MorteBiancaFan (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kathleen's bike: Dissident Irish republican campaign is only the name of the continous violence perpetred by republican groups since peace MorteBiancaFan (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That should be "violence perpetred by DISSIDENT republican groups". Kathleen's bike (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kathleen's bike: PIRA and others are/were dissident groups 'cause they continued to kill and do terrorism MorteBiancaFan (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kathleen's bike: can I readd the conflict? MorteBiancaFan (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have zero sources that there have been 100+ deaths and the full PSNI quote attributes the death to a criminal gang, the answer remains no. Please stop with your bizarre theory that post-ceasefire deaths by the Provisional IRA are classed as being part of the dissident campaign, they aren't. The Provisional IRA are by definition, not dissident. Kathleen's bike (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is enough evidence that this ought to continue to be listed under “minor skirmishes/clashes”, as dissident actions continue at a low level today. The Border Campaign is considered to have been a conflict, so it’s obvious to me the dissident campaign should not be removed at this point, considering there are sporadic ongoing attacks. An unrelated user with more knowledge/authority on here ought to look into its continued admissibility. NateBoyer2000 (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion criteria at List of ongoing armed conflicts say "Listed conflicts have at least 100 cumulative deaths in total and at least 1 death in current or in the past calendar year". Neither of those applies. I don't dispute that it's ongoing in a broader sense of the term, but it doesn't meet the threshold needed for inclusion at that article. Kathleen's bike (talk) 08:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arm na Poblachta Wiki page

[edit]

Isn't it time that ANP get its own page as they're an active independent organisation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.237.18 (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dissident_Irish_republican_campaign&oldid=1255554902"