Talk:List of members of the Irish Republican Army

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


Mrlol12324. Redlink for The real Irish republican army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Irish_Republican_Army — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrlol12324 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Gerry Adams[edit]

Shouldn't he be included

Red links[edit]

I ask that these be sourced, otherwise I'm removing them. One Night In Hackney303 15:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect links[edit]

There are a myriad of links on this page that lead to the wrong people. Editors cannot assume that the link they are adding will just happen to lead to an article on an IRA member of that name. Just a few examples I removed earlier: Tony Campbell, various Michael Clarkes (dab page), Edward Grant, Tony Jordan, David Kennedy. This is a breach of WP:BLP in many cases. At some stage when its not so late I'll go through the list and remove any not leading to the correct person. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 00:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you'll pipe then to include (Irish republican) after their name, as after your previous actions you are clearly being disruptive and not acting in good faith. One Night In Hackney303 00:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What previous actions? I am complying with WP:BLP. And I am not going to create a myriad of additional redlinks! BastunBaStun not BaTsun 01:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that's too much effort for you, I suggest you unlink the articles. One Night In Hackney303 01:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one who created them in a very lzay manner. And why should I unlink them when you've already stated you'll be removing them. And I ask again - what previous actions? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 01:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These previous actions. One Night In Hackney303 01:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

Right, I've done some substantial work on part of this article. The list was (and probably still is) of a very poor standard, and as I have only really looked at the '1969-present' sub-list so far, the prior sections probably require as much work.

What I've done and why:

1. Redlinks - removed: Against my better judgement and although under no obligation to do so, I first searched under 'name (Irish republican)' to make sure there was no existing article that had been incorrectly linked to. Basis for removal: Various, including mainly WP:BLP and WP:VER. Attesting that somebody was/is a member of a terrorist organisation, without citation, is a breach of policy. It has already been stated (in various AFD debates) that it is not intended to create articles on every *IRA member. I am sure that those who are/were actually *IRA members and were removed for the reasons stated, will, if notable enough, eventually have an article created and can then be included here.

(And apologies - I should have taken a note of the deletions of redlinks as I was making them, as I did for the rest of the deletions, but didn't think of it till I was half way through. They should be easy to recover from the edit history, though, for anyone who wants a handy list of articles needing creation (assuming the subject is notable enough)).

2. Corrections: Incorrectly linked (now corrected to point to the correct article) Patrick Campbell is a dab page containing a link to the article Patrick Campbell (INLA member)

3. Removed names that were just links to a dab page, which has an entry with [name] or [name (Irish Republican)] (usually unlinked at all, though) leading back to the list (circular reference):

4. Removed names that were just to a dab page, not listing anyone with a connection to the IRA:

5. Removed links to an article about someone other than an *IRA member, containing a dab statement linking back to this list - (circular reference):

6. Removed links to an article about someone other than an *IRA member, no dab statement linking back to this list

"*Edward Grant (Eddie Grant) [citation needed]" South African-born British politician

  • Paul Fox TV executive and former Controller of the BBC
  • Brian Fox software programmer
  • Joseph Cunningham Scottish historian
  • Sean Campbell Canadian hockey player
  • Joseph Campbell - an Irish poet. This person might be properly included in one of the earlier segments of this list as he (the poet Campbell) apparently fought on the Republican side in the Civil War. However, there is a dab link on the article that links to a dab page containing a dab statement linking back to this list. Different person?

7. Removed links to something other than a person/persons

"*Frederick Leonard aka "Big Freddie" or Freddie Leonard" - the former leads to Freedom Riders, an article on US Civil Rights demonstrations, which contains the dab statement "For MICHAEL ZUBIATE the member (Volunteer) in the Irish Republican Army see List of members of the Irish Republican Army". The latter is a redlink.

Ignoring redlinks, that's 36 removals and one correction, leaving links to approx. 90 articles in place. That's a very high error rate and to be honest is unacceptable. Practice should be - write the article first (and make sure its properly referenced to ensure compliance with WP:BLP and WP:VER if it's attesting membership of an illegal organisation), create it, categorise it and link to it from here. Do not assume that throwing a link on here to [Joe Bloggs] will magically lead to an article on the correct person - it is neccessary to check first.

Now - anyone want to check the rest of the list? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 15:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue disrupting this article instead of performing the simple task of unlinking or disambiguating names, you will be reported. One Night In Hackney303 15:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What, you're telling me to unlink redlinks from the earlier version - so we have a list like:
Joe Bloggs
Jane Doe
etc.
No. Not on a page titled "List of Members of the Irish Republican Army". That would be a breach of WP:VER and WP:BLP. Please go and read those policies. Similarly, I cannot disambiguate names because there is nothing to disambiguate them to. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 15:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All those you have listed are either on the OnahE Roll of Honour or within Tirghra. If you put even a quarter of the effort into disambing the page as you did in arguing and removing them then this issued would be resolved. It is my opinion that you editing over the past week has been very disruptive and not in the spirit of wiki.--Vintagekits 16:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This list should contain only linked names, and where those names are linked they must to be the correct, fully disambiguated name. If the individuals do not have an article, and it's unlikely that they ever would, then they should not be on the article. Wikipedia lists are navigational aids, not directories. A few redlinks are OK as long as the individuals are genuinely important (e.g. a chapter in a reputably-published book on the republican movement) and we just don't have an article yet. And yes, WP:BLP and WP:ATT do apply to lists as well. I urge you both to work tgether instead of fighting over this. Guy (Help!) 16:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have enough material to write an article on each of them, how as per the recent spate of AfD's on bio's of members of the republican movement it was choosen that this list should be made and then if an editor is ready to write a full article on the person then its should be proposed on the WP:IR page and developed through that and then brought in as a full article. What I can do is pipe all the necessary names to add (Irish republican) and add a short summary for those who have yet to have articles.--Vintagekits 16:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to work with him, but he's ignored everything I've said. You only have to look at his response regarding Peter Doyle to see he's a dick trying to make a point.One Night In Hackney303 16:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me he's raised a valid point. Just being on alist somewhere is nto grounds for an article, and if there are no grounds for an article then removing the name is prudent per WP:BLP and correct by WP:NOT a directory. Guy (Help!) 16:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On that occasion his point was that WP:BLP applied to the Peter Doyle born in 1953, when this article clearly referred to the one who died in the 1920s. So if anything the entry needed to be unlinked or piped to include (Irish republican). As you're aware redlinks are there for a reason, and therefore Peter Doyle should have been piped to a redlink so an article could be created if necessary, and removed at a later date if not. One Night In Hackney303 16:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, redlinks are there for a reason. They are there to say that a known notable subject is currently missing. Since most of these have no evident potential for sourcing, the sole source mentioned being biased and hard to find, I see no real merit in them as redlinks. Guy (Help!) 00:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect what do you know about the subject or the people listed within the article. I could article an article on each person I have listed no problem and have plenty of material on them, however, at this moment I 1. do not think that would be productive, 2. I havent got the time at the moment and 3. since the beginning of the WP:IR project it has been a policy to not create stub articles and to build them to propoer article before they hit wiki, so it would be stupid to start creating loads of stubs even if they are notable.--Vintagekits 00:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably more than most Americans. I am at least English, and I was growing up during the troubles (I am in my mid forties now). Guy (Help!) 16:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vintagekits, as I've already indicated above, if a former redlinked entry I've removed is notable enough for a Wikipedia entry, then by all means write an article, then correctly add an entry here (not to some other notable person of the same name). On your talk page, in response to my comment "I doubt very much if Tony Campbell, various Michael Clarkes, Edward Grant, Tony Jordan et al would be pleased to know they were being accused of IRA membership.", you responded "I am actually sure they would be honoured." I very much doubt that to be the case, but regardless, it should not be necessary for Wikipedia to be put in the position of having to find out. User:One Night In Hackney, please see WP:NPA. And note that I have not done anything bar correct one mistaken link, remove incorrect ones, and - as you yourself said you would do just two sections up on this talkpage - removed uncited redlinks. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 17:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SPADE, and also WP:POINT. I did suggest the remove of redlinks (of possibly living people for clarity), however you removed any links in a pointy manner, including people who were clearly dead such as Peter Doyle then replied sarcastically when this was mentioned to you, or in the case of Colombia Three failed to reply at all, given that you were completely in the wrong. If you wish to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point then feel free, but your actions have been noted for future reference, and will not be forgotten. One Night In Hackney303 00:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks 2[edit]

An admin has said "If the individuals do not have an article, and it's unlikely that they ever would, then they should not be on the article. Wikipedia lists are navigational aids, not directories. A few redlinks are OK as long as the individuals are genuinely important (e.g. a chapter in a reputably-published book on the republican movement) and we just don't have an article yet." - which seems fine to me. However, Vintagekits has now added approx. 150 redlinks back in. Most now at least have "(Irish republican)" appended to the name, but some at least are still incorrect - e.g., Frederick Leonard and a couple are deemed worthy of two redlinks.

A single reference has been added to all of the restored entries: "Tírghrá, National Commemoration Centre, 2002. PB) ISBN 0-9542946-0-2" The referenced book does not appear to exist, at least with that ISBN.[1] [2] [3] Googling further demonstrates that a privately-published, restricted-circulation book does indeed appear to exist [4] [5] - but at 368 pages you're talking what, a page and a bit per person?

Note also that the Guardian article states "The book, meant to be seen only by the relatives of the IRA dead, claims..." (my emphasis added). This, if true, means it cannot be used as a reputable, neutral, reliable reference. (Sidenote - is there not some way of pointing multiple instances of the same reference to a single footnote rather than repeating the same footnote 150+ times?)

I have outlined to Vintagekits the way articles should be created (which, coincidentally, appears close enough to the method suggested, and the consensus view, in WP:IRA[6], but apparently he does not feel the need to do that. Wikipedia is not a memorial and notability of subjects must be established. WP:N is worth quoting: "The primary criterion for notability, and one shared by many of the subject-specific notability guidelines and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is that:

" A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the sources should be considered in determining the number of sources needed. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view and is credible. Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic is more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic."

So - we have a page containing 150+ redlinks to people, many of whom will never be notable enough for their own article, either because of WP:NOT or WP:ATT. "Was in the IRA - had a notable Republican uncle/grandfather" or "Was in the IRA - got killed in a car crash/blew himself up." doesn't really cut it.

I do not want to get into an edit war, but at the same time I am not prepared to see policy and guidelines ignored when it suits a particular POV. Suggestions - either:

  • Remove the redlinked names entirely;
  • Remove them to WP:IRA's sandbox until the articles have been created;
  • Remove them, and create an article on this Thirgrá book in which they can be included.

I'm not deleting/removing anything for a few days, and someone else may have better suggestions in the meantime. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 15:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • These redlinks look awfully pointy to me. The IRA was never a terribly big organisation, and it looks like we're trying to list the entire membership. Wikipedia articles are for the notable examples, like Bobby Sands and Martin McGuinness. If you want to make a directory of IRA members, do it somewhere else because Wikipedia is not a directory. It's extremely unlikely that most of these guys will get articles, most of them appear to be mentioned only in one source of dubious reliability. Please be sensible and cut the list down to those individuals who are famous or notorious as members of the IRA, the list will be more meaningful, have more impact, and offer more utility as a navigational aid. Guy (Help!) 16:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where do you start when you come up against those with limited knowledge in a specific area but they think that they have vast knowledge. I have already said that I could easily write an article on each of the entrants however I have already stated that that is not the best route ot go down at the moment for the reasons I have already outlined - I will continue to add the bio summaries over the weekend and will also remove some of the red linking until I create an article for each of these people. I could have used multiple sources for each person however, the reason I used the Tirghra references (a book which was on general sale by the way) is because that book have detailed information on all of those people in question. Both of you are being unreasonable with your requests at this moment - there are only 24 hours in a day!--Vintagekits 16:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could easily write an article on each of the entrants - I don't doubt you could. However, would it meet Wikipedia's standards for notability and attribution is the question. On the book - could you check the ISBN to make sure its correct? Note that I have said I am not doing anything for several days. I am not being unreasonable. I am merely requesting that policy and guidelines be adhered to - and my suggestions above are perfectly reasonable compromise. What would be unreasonable would be expecting that policy shouldn't apply. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 17:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given its six days since I posted the above and no alternative suggestions have been made, I'll proceed to move the post-1969 redlinks to WP:IRA's sandbox until the articles have been created. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 08:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks have been moved to here. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 11:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't do that due to GFDL, so thanks for wasting everyone's time especially when VK hasn't been editing for the last couple of days. One Night In Hackney303 11:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 23[edit]

User:Vintagekits - please see the discussion above for the reasons why the redlinks have been removed. In addition, your new link to James Saunders goes to an English playwright, not to an IRA member. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 17:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the redlinks should be included - they are referenced and I am currently adding further details on each of them.--Vintagekits 17:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, you'd be owning a cat, then? :-P I'm reverting again, please see my concerns above about the reference in question, shared by at least one admin. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 17:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no consensus to remove the redlinks - usually disruptive editing from yourself!--Vintagekits 17:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see above. My views are clear. Guy said "This list should contain only linked names, and where those names are linked they must to be the correct, fully disambiguated name. If the individuals do not have an article, and it's unlikely that they ever would, then they should not be on the article." ONiH said: "I ask that these be sourced, otherwise I'm removing them." (And he has subsequently removed them from a sub-page of my user page (after moving them from a preparation page I created on WP:IRA, quoting WP:BIO. That's three people who want them removed(including an admin), versus one who wants them. What, exactly, is wrong with creating an article first? (In userspace or WP:IRA's preparation subpages, if necessary - that's what they're for?). BastunBaStun not BaTsun 17:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added the sources that ONiH requested - done deal - I'll wait for the revert.--Vintagekits 18:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you added one source (which is hardly neutral, and in fact comes under WP:SPS) and again, notability has not been established - mere membership of the IRA does not confer notability. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 21:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ignorance, if you are going to quote wiki guidance and policy please ensure that you what you are talking about. For example if you were writing a book about say Mike Tyson and during the research for the compliation of that said book you interviewed Mike Tyson, Cus D'Amato, Michael Spinks and Teddy Atlas and then you used that information along with your other research to write that book would that come under WP:SPS? No - you have a clue what you are talking about - stick to article and policies that you actually know about!--Vintagekits 23:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

INLA[edit]

" Since when were the IRA and INLA the same organisation?!)" Good question. I did say the (post69) the list was in a terrible state, didn't I? But seeing as I was accused of being disruptive for removing links to the likes of East Enders scriptwriters, I was hardly going to remove one to an actual Irish Republican when I was working on it this morning. Actually, the remainder of the valid links should probably be checked - I did catch a couple this morning that went to disambig pages; there are probably a few more bad links still there. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 13:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to blame the person who created the list, who for the record is not a member of the WikiProject. One Night In Hackney303 13:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my defense, I did fix all the broken and red links which Bastun pointed out (see [7]) despite it again being reverted. As per WP:RED I don't believe there is anything prohibiting red links from appearing on lists however I would be more then willing to provide references for the existing ones. I had originally created the list to establish notable members of Irish nationalst movements (see [8]), as there had been prior issues of articles being created whose verifability was uncertain, however I had hoped it might prove to partially serve a helpful wanted articles list for the project as well. MadMax 16:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tírghrá,[edit]

Tírghrá is virtually the only source cited in this article. The Observer's political editor describes the book as "a 368-page tribute to every IRA member to die in Northern Ireland's Troubles" [9] and notes that it claims membership for individuals who are explicitly not identified as members in other works which are considered authoritative.

Other portraits of dead IRA volunteers in Tirghra also contradict claims that several of the victims of loyalist terrorism were not involved in the IRA.


They include Danny Cassidy, a 40-year-old Sinn Fein election worker shot dead by the UDA in Co Derry on 2 April, 1992.

In the book Lost Lives, the definitive index of all the Ulster Troubles' dead, the authors mark Cassidy as a Catholic civilian. It quotes a priest at his funeral who said: '[Cassidy] was killed simply because he was a Catholic.'

But in Tirghra Cassidy is referred to as an 'oglach' - the Irish word for soldier and thus a Provisional IRA volunteer.

Here's a source for the idea that the primary intended audience was the families of the dead: [10].

From this it looks as if the book is not a reliable source, both on the grounds of content which conflicts with more widley-accepted authorities, so inclusion may be questionable, and on the grounds that as a tribute written by one side of a highly polarised, long-running and savage dispute its content should not be considered neutral or reliable either. There is, as far as I can tell, vurtually no independent critical review of the book and its reliability, unlike Lost Lives, which seems to have gained a good deal of independent attention from those not obviously promoting one side or other. It may well be that individuals within the movement actually did know these people and that the facts are correct, but our standard is verifiability not truth and information which looks to be disputed by more respected sources absolutely should not be taken on trust, so I propose that we remove both the citations, as failing WP:ATT / WP:RS, and any names which are not identified as members of PIRA by independent reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Cassidy is also named as an ex-IRA member at the Sutton Index, which is a comprehensive and reliable source. An archived version of the Sutton page from March 2001 confirms Cassidy was ex-IRA, so it hasn't been changed since the publication of Tírghrá. Tírghrá doesn't state he was an IRA member at the time of his death, it actually states:

While still in his teens Danny became involved in the Republican Movement and was a Volunteer in the Kilrea unit in South Derry. During the 70's and into the 80's Danny remained faithful to the republican cause and during the Hunger Strikes he was a committed member of his local H.Block/Armagh Committee. After numerous arrests Danny was remanded in custody in 1983 and subsequently released. The Brirtish Army then began a campaign of harassment against him. At this time Danny was a member of the local Sinn Féin Cumann.

As you're no doubt aware, IRA membership is quite a secretive affair. I'm sure you're also aware the Republican movement likes to maximise propaganda. Therefore it would be in the movement's interests to portray Cassidy as a civilian, even ignoring that in the eyes of Loyalist paramilitaries (and Ken Maginnis) the IRA and Sinn Féin are one and the same anyway.
While it is true the book was initially limited circulation, it is now available from Sinn Féin and Amazon. Note that the Guardian says the book is hardback, whereas the general release on Amazon is listed as paperback, which I can confirm as I have a copy.
As for McKittrick, no doubt he is an excellent journalist but he does make mistakes too, as can be seen here. One Night In Hackney303 12:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tirghrá clearly fails WP:RS, per reasons stated by Guy above. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 12:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you take the time to read the evidence I presented, it clearly shows that there is currently no evidence that it is an unreliable source. One Night In Hackney303 12:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether it's an unreliable source, but it's clearly been misused; it looks like the editor has just typed in names from the book and linkified it, without caring if the link is to anyone who could possibly be a dead IRA member. Joseph McKinney is an American bishop who died in 2010 so how he can possibly appear on a list of dead IRA members published in 2002 I don't know. Jim McGinn is a fictional soap opera character. Tom McCann was an American sportsman. Michael Magee is an actor who was still alive at the time your source was published. The bulk of entries are not notable enough for a wikipedia link. You clearly went to a lot of trouble, but this edit is terrible and could cause legal issues. 217.43.46.72 (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ Vintagekits[edit]

User:Vintagekits, in your last but one edit summary, you said: "Stop edit waring and discuss - there is an ongoing discussion please get involved in that, ta". Yes, I'm aware of the discussion, I started it, have tried to be reasonable, have offered various alternatives, and have done quite a lot of work on this page. I fail to see exactly what was wrong with moving all the redlinks off mainspace to a preparation page of WP:IRA, as I did previously, then moving names from there onto this list as and when articles have been created. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 14:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. You're relying on proof by assertion that the source is unreliable, yet I have produced indisputable evidence that the one example being used to claim the source is unreliable is in fact incorrect. One Night In Hackney303 14:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is response to what I've said about Tirghrá? WP:SPS and the section immediately above it apply. The publisher is partisan. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 14:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find partisan sources can be used. One Night In Hackney303 14:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please remind me how WP:SPS applies?--Vintagekits 23:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup still needed[edit]

Managed to find how to multilink to one reference, and did so last night. The following still need addressing:

  • Easter Rising & Irish War of Independence: 1916-1922
Unreferenced (and redlinked): Sean Harling, Patrick Moylett, Michael O'Sullivan, Liam Tobin
Sandy Lynch: Unreferenced, and surely in the wrong section?
  • The Official Irish Republican Army & Post-Independence: 1922-present
Unreferenced (and redlinked): Patrick Fleming, Seán Harrington, Pearse Kelly/Paul Kelso (same person?), Tomás MacCurtain, Seán McCool, Willie McGuinness
  • Provisional Irish Republican Army: 1969-present
Unreferenced (and redlinked): Joseph Campbell, Patrick Carty1, Seamus Cassidy, John McErlean, Henry McIlhone, Jackie McIlhone, Desmond Morgan, Patrick "Maguire" Pendleton, Michael Joseph Quigley, Denis Quinn.

1Supplied reference does not implicate him with membership of the IRA. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 00:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updated above. Nice work, MadMax. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 11:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "*James Sheridan (13 January 1951 - 18 December 1971)", which points at a British Labour politician. There is no entry at James Sheridan (Irish republican) or Jim Sheridan (Irish republican). BastunBaStun not BaTsun 14:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with article[edit]

This article seems incorrect to me, as the Officials are in the same section as all post-1922 members. This is not correct, it gives undue prominence to the Officials. After the GAC and Ard Fheis in September and October 1970 respectively, the Provisional Army Council ceased to be Provisional and became the legitimate Army Council of Óglaigh na hÉireann following the recognition by Tom Maguire. Official IRA members should be in a different section because of this. Brixton Busters 17:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1916 list complete?[edit]

Is the list for those who participated in the 1916 Rising and War of Independence complete?--jeanne (talk) 09:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2015[edit]

Please change name Daniel Head to Daniel Heade

Please see action report - http://www.bureauofmilitaryhistory.ie/reels/bmh/BMH.WS0774.pdf Penguincub (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Stickee (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of members of the Irish Republican Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of members of the Irish Republican Army. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2020[edit]

Please amend the flawed tabloid phrase "convicted p_________" to "convicted child sex offender". Paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder, not a criminal act of which one can be convicted. Thanks. 151.229.26.18 (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you're probably flicking through these requests with a broad strokes approach, but consensus is absolutely irrelevant here: we're dealing with phrasing that is utterly, unequivocally incorrect. Have you been jailed for having depression? I haven't. One cannot be "convicted" of a psychiatric disorder, of which paedophilia is one (child sex abuse, on the other hand, is very much a crime). This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Thanks. 151.229.26.18 (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done – Thjarkur (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed removal of lots of entries[edit]

Per WP:LISTPEOPLE, people are supposed to have articles. I intend to remove people without articles, unless there are reasons why the guideline doesn't apply? FDW777 (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since there were no objections, I have removed people without articles. FDW777 (talk) 10:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fuller brothers.[edit]

Stephen Fuller, and younger brother Sean (John) Fuller seem to get mixed up in many accounts. Please check. 88.97.108.45 (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2022[edit]

Paul Murphy soldier of the IRA 2A02:C7E:2C98:3D00:5D41:6311:D447:3849 (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: This list is for people who already have articles. You can create the article yourself (see Wikipedia:Your first article for important information) or request that someone else create it at Wikipedia:Requested articles. QuietCicada chirp 13:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_members_of_the_Irish_Republican_Army&oldid=1210409011"