Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army/Archive 11

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

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

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

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

Alleged support from Iran
Provisional Irish Republican Army has the following

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


 * So what is inaccurate about the sentence you removed? "approximately 60" would seem to cover everything, no? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, after some reflection I've also wondered what's so important about England? The sentence read The bombing campaign principally targeted political, economic and military targets, and approximately 60 civilians were killed by the IRA in England during the conflict. Don't civilians in Northern Ireland and elsewhere deserve a mention too? I've tracked down one reference, which states that in England there were 115 total deaths and 2,134 injuries from almost 500 attacks, obviously that includes soldiers. That book cites Gary McGladdery's book in the footnotes, so as already said it was information I'm hoping to add back, not information I was planning on removing permanently. FDW777 (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The lead says The dead included around 1,000 members of the British security forces, and 500–644 civilians. Provisional Irish Republican Army deals with things in more detail. I'd have no problem trying to add 115 deaths in England to that section, since it can be referenced to Irish Freedom by Richard English. What I'd prefer not to do is use Sutton's raw data to squeeze in statistics at random points in the article. FDW777 (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Acceptable enough for you ? FDW777 (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * The BBC ref I added isn't low quality & it does mention Bloody Friday, as well as including a picture of some of the damage caused by it. It's clearly stated - it's not synthesis or unrepresentative. You're the only person opposing it being added. Stop talking down to me as though you're the gatekeeper of this or any other article. Warrenpoint not being mentioned doesn't mean that BF shouldn't be - both are easily important enough to be included. Many reliable sources state that the PIRA did target civilians and killed several hundred of them. You using one that says they didn't shows your bias, not mine. The lead of this article says that they killed at least 500 civilians. Their attacks were often against civilian targets, including buses, trains, restaurants & shops. Calling them economic targets is a ridiculous way to try to justify attacking civilian targets. Jim Michael (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * It's a low quality reference (that also, as stated doesn't mention the economic bombing campaign), if you want to improve the article use proper references. You're the only person saying it should be added. Do you have any reliable references to support your claim Many reliable sources state that the PIRA did target civilians? FDW777 (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Jim Michael, you should know by now that adding controversial material without agreement on teh talk page is generally a bad idea. You are also SYNTH|using selected sources to make a political point on a matter which has been discussed and resolved here many times in the past.  -Snowded TALK 15:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * It's neither a selected source, nor makes a political point. It's a mainstream media source which is very commonly used in WP. Jim Michael (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you Snowded. For the benefit of anyone not paying too much attention, this refers to the addition of, including at least 20 bombings on Bloody Friday to the existing sentence This policy involved recruitment of volunteers and carrying out attacks on British forces, as well as mounting a bombing campaign against economic targets My belief is that Bloody Friday is an unrepresentative example of the bombing campaign, picked to advance a particular point-of-view. It is synthesis. FDW777 (talk)


 * In what way(s) do you claim it unrepresentative? Other than the larger than usual number of attacks in 1 day, it's similar to many others in terms of method, location & types of target. Jim Michael (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Which references say it was representative? I'm not interested in your own analysis, and since you want to add it to the article the onus is on you per WP:BURDEN to provide references demonstrating it's a representative example. I can't be bothered to investigate too much in the absence of any references from you (and based on past experience none will be forthcoming ever), but Thin Green Line: The History of the Royal Ulster Constabulary GC, 1922–2001 by Richard Doherty says Bloody Friday caused widespread revulsion and was a considerable tactical setback to the IRA, although the organization claimed that it did not intend to cause casualties but only widespread disruption. FDW777 (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Just for the record I checked multiple works cited in the article (Taylor/Bowyer Bell/Coogan/Moloney/English/Geraghty/White/Dillon). A big fat none of them say Bloody Friday was part of the economic bombing campaign, with one small exception of one reference mentioning Mac Stíofáin saying there were three types of target on Bloody Friday and one of them was economic. Pretty much all of them agree it was a disaster for the IRA due to poor planning and/or over-estimation of the authorities ability to cope with so many bomb alerts in the city centre in a short period of time. Several of them (White/Bowyer Bell/Moloney) do however give a reason as to the reasoning behind Bloody Friday, it was intended to be a show of IRA strength relating to the talks with William Whitelaw. So the idea that it's a representative example of the economic bombing campaign is a non-starter. FDW777 (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You're stubbornly insisting that it was an economic campaign rather than an anti-British one, despite the great evidence against it having been solely or primarily economic - including roughly 600 civilians killed by them. It would obviously be ridiculous to claim that all of them were mistakenly killed or were mere collateral damage. They attacked many civilian targets in a long, failed attempt to make the British general public want to give away NI. Jim Michael (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Media, Myth and Terrorism book
I have removed this addition. My problem with it is that the book itself is not advancing the argument that the IRA bombed their way to the negotiating table, it's referring to a letter to the Independent newspaper by "Eddie Johnson" making that argument. FDW777 (talk) 10:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, no problem, but I guess Brian Jenkins dissertation is quite more assertive than Malliot and should remain. Feel free to revert and discuss if you disagree. Best regards.---Darius (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed the second reference, apologies. I think it's also problematic since it doesn't specifically refer to the bombing campaign. Having looked at the relevant page on Amazon Agnès Maillot shouldn't be added back either, since she doesn't properly reference the sentence either, pointing out (as do others) the new British government in May 1997 was more important in changing the situation. FDW777 (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed on Maillot, so I have already removed the citation. I promise to review whether Jenkins should be cited or not in this section, but IMHO his conclusions are still pretty valuable elsewhere in the article.---Darius (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think Jenkins makes a broad, if rather obvious point. You can't negotiate a settlement to end the violence without including what was the main violent group. It stands to reason that any attempt to end the Troubles would have needed the support of the Republican Movement, and any negotiations not including Sinn Féin would have been pointless. If the article is going to make the more specific point that the Conservative government repeatedly said they wouldn't talk to Sinn Féin but subsequently did (admittedly to a very limited extent) possibly due to the IRA's intensified bombing campaign in England then that could possibly be referenced, but certainly not to Jenkins. FDW777 (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have already removed Jenkins' citation; I agreed that he makes a broad approach unsuitable for this specific point.---Darius (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have looked into this, and the new book The Intelligence War against the IRA by Timothy Leahy (cited in the article multiple times is an excellent reference for this specific point on pages 195–196. He cites Gerry Bradley's book, Shadows: Inside Northern Ireland's Special Branch by former RUC Special Branch officer Alan Barker, Peter Taylor and Gary McGladdery all as stating the British were keen to begin talks due to the intensified IRA campaign in England, although Leahy himself disagrees with this stating But it is also evident that IRA attacks and threats led to the British government delaying face-to-face talks. The British consistently stressed in backchannel meetings with republicans that the number of ‘events on the ground’ had to decrease before intensive discussions with Sinn Féin could take place. However since the sentence in question begins It has been argued that this bombing campaign his disagreement isn't that important, since him disagreeing serves actually to confirm "It has been argued" is the correct wording.
 * However the sentence will actually need some amendment, firstly to re-focus it on the 1990s English part of the bombing campaign and secondly to move the Oppenheimer part of it (since he's talking about the entirety of the bombing campaign) to somewhere else in the article (don't know where yet, I've only just moved it there). Also we need to consider how to phrase it. We could keep it as "It has been argued" but someone might come along and all by whom to it. We could change it to say who's argued it (Taylor/Barker/Bradley/McGladdery) but since Peter Taylor is the only person with an article it'd just be a sequence of names, unless we're explaining who each person is as well. Or we could just say "argued by Peter Taylor and others" but someone might come along and add by whom to that too. I'm inclined to go with the first option and deal with adding names if and when the situation arises? FDW777 (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Good find regarding Timothy Leahy's citations. I concur with you on including the whole string of authors and facing the occasional template if it comes to existence.
 * From my part, I was re-reading Oppenheimer's book two days ago or so. I found that (besides the page 43 citation) a statement directly related to this issue appears on page 38, which is quoted by a contributor to the Docklands bombing. This remarks are repeated by the same author on page 130, also cited in the mentioned article. You can get a look at page 130 here. Oppenheimer, however, is focusing (in this occasion) specifically on the British government dropping disarmament as a precondition for talks with SF, not on the negotiations as a whole. So I for keeping Oppenheimer only on the Docklands' page for now and replacing him for the proposed string of authors cited by Leahy in this article.---Darius (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppenheimer appears to be making a slightly different point to the others, who are making the point it was the pre-first ceasefire bombs. As the CAIN peace process choronlogy (used for ease of reference really, since they have everything on one page) says there were talks between the British government and Sinn Féin prior to 1996, it was the slow progress that resulted in the end of ceasefire/Docklands bombing. I will add a sentence or two about the increased activity in England to the article soon, I have a note made of the citation I need. FDW777 (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppenheimer (pp. 38 and 130) refers to the multi-party talks, something quite different than the first exploratory bilaterals talks between the British government and SF. The pre-condition for SF inclusion in the multi-party talks until the Docklands had been PIRA's disarmament, something the British dropped after the bombing.---Darius (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

I propose to remove the following parts of the section.


 * In August 2008, The Sunday Times quoted a "senior Garda intelligence officer" as saying that the IRA was being maintained "in shadow form"; that it had recruited in recent years, still had weapons and was still capable of carrying out attacks. PSNI Assistant Chief Constable Peter Sheridan, said it was unlikely the IRA as a whole would formally disband in the foreseeable future


 * In September 2008, the IMC stated in its nineteenth report that the IRA was "committed to the political path" and was no longer "a threat to peace or to democratic politics". It concluded that the IRA as an organisation was being allowed to wither away and was "beyond recall": it had disbanded its military departments, stopped recruiting or training members, lost its military capability, and the Army Council was "no longer operational"


 * Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams said in 2011: "The war is over. The IRA is gone. The IRA embraced, facilitated and supported the peace process. When a democratic and peaceful alternative to armed struggle was created the IRA left the stage."[122] In 2014 Adams said: "The IRA is gone. It is finished"

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

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


 * There have also been claims that the IRA is still active and has carried out punishment shootings


 * Some former members of the IRA have joined dissident republican paramilitary organisations, including the Continuity IRA, the Real IRA, Republican Action Against Drugs, and the New IRA.

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


 * Everything I have read would support talking about dissident organisations -Snowded TALK 14:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * It does currently talk about dissidents, albeit briefly. That can be expanded upon, and I think that would definitely improve the article. Do you have any objections to the repeated assessments being cut down to just the 2015 ones? FDW777 (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * None - there is a lot of bloat in the article as in anything which is controversial -Snowded TALK 14:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree there is other material in the article which could be considered bloat. However, other than the material we agree should be removed, it's quite possible one man's bloat will be another man's important information. My view is that the article goes into a little too much detail about more recent events while barely covering more important (such as everything pre-1997 ceasefire, or pre-2005 end of armed campaign/decommissioning depending on your perspective) events at all. However, rather than make dozens of potentially controversial changes all at once or starting dozens of simultaneous discussions about separate items of content I'm taking a slow, steady approach so people have time to raise any objections. If you have any suggestions for areas of the article you feel are in need of change I would be glad to get someone else's perspective. FDW777 (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Since there were no objections, I have removed the essentially repetitious assessments of post-2005 IRA activity, leaving in the 2015 assessments as mentioned. I have not moved the other sentences referred to as yet, I might create a new section in the article dealing with splinter groups rather than deal with them in a single sentence. FDW777 (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

French TV year
Where is the evidence the video is from 1991? It certainly contains some snippets of news footage from 1991, but that doesn't mean it was from 1991. CAIN has a broadcast from Thu 15th Oct 1992 which includes French TV clip of Southern Command training in Ireland which is presumably the footage. FDW777 (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Already fixed, given date in the file's rationale coincides with CAIN.--Darius (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Categorisation section
I'm removing the following text.


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

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

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

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


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

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


 * In general, I favour the use of "nationalist" and "unionist" for the respective communities. The 1968–69 period is particularly problematic, though, because the sources overwhelmingly talk about Catholics and Protestants. When we talk about Belfast in August 1969, for instance, we still think in terms of Protestants driving Catholics out of their homes, no matter how much we tell ourselves that the division was ethnic and political. See this discussion, where it was agreed to change a sentence in the lead of The Troubles to "Despite the use of the terms 'Protestant' and 'Catholic' to refer to the two sides, it was not a religious conflict." If it was possible to put a similar disclaimer at the start of the "Origins" section, in such a way as to avoid someone adding a tag, then it would be safe to change to "Protestant" and "Catholic" throughout. I admit, though, that I don't know how to do that. And if we can't, we might have to change to "Protestant" and "Catholic" anyway.  Scolaire (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * In the references you also have "Paisleyite", particularly in relation to attacks on civil rights marches. I think it is probably preferable to stick to Catholic and Protestant in relation to the events of August 1969, I can imagine there being potential objection to the phrase "unionist mobs". FDW777 (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree as regards "unionist mobs". Scolaire (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the section is missing a paragraph introducing things anyway, since at present the Battle of the Bogside appears from thin air. Obviously we need a bit about the history of Northern Ireland and the IRA, and the emergence of the civil rights movement. That paragraph would seem to be the appropriate place to introduce the generally nationalist Catholics and generally unionist Protestants I think? FDW777 (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Sound good! Scolaire (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I think "a paragraph" may have been a very conservative estimate, as my addition was a bit longer than planned. I tried not to go into too much detail while still covering the key issues. FDW777 (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

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


 * The IRA was formed in 1913 as the Irish Volunteers, at a time when all Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. The Volunteers took part in the Easter Rising against British Rule, and the War of Independence, during which they came to be known as the IRA. The subsequent Anglo-Irish Treaty, which partitioned Ireland between the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland, which remained part of the United Kingdom, caused a split in the IRA, the pro-Treaty IRA being absorbed into the National Army, which defeated the anti-Treaty IRA in the Civil War. Subsequently, while denying the legitimacy of the Free State, the IRA focussed on overthrowing the Northern Ireland state and the achievement of a united Ireland, carrying out a bombing campaign in England in 1939 and 1940, the Northern Ireland campaign of the 1940s, and the Border campaign of 1956–1962. Following the failure of the Border campaign, internal debate took place regarding the future of the IRA. Chief-of-staff Cathal Goulding wanted the IRA to adopt a socialist agenda and become involved in politics, while traditional republicans such as Seán Mac Stíofáin wanted to increase recruitment and rebuild the IRA.


 * Following partition Northern Ireland became a de facto one-party state, governed by the Ulster Unionist Party, which was almost exclusively Protestant. The Unionist government practiced discrimination against Catholics, who were almost all nationalists and therefore viewed as "disloyal". Protestants were given preference in jobs and housing, local government constituencies were gerrymandered in places such as Derry, and policing was carried out by the armed Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) and the B-Specials, who were also exclusively, or almost exclusively, Protestant. The IRA was involved in the setting up of the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA) in 1967. NICRA organised protest marches against discrimination; these were met by violent suppression by the RUC, or by counter-protests by Protestants, including the Ulster Protestant Volunteers led by Ian Paisley, often resulting in violent clashes.

I think this also explains the Protestant/Catholic divide better than the generic "most Protestants want the Union, most Catholics want reunification" version.

I have deliberately not included wikilinks or refs, since I am only offering this as a rough draft. Wording can be changed at will, and any fact that you disagree with can be corrected or deleted without discussion. Scolaire (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with the first paragraph, although I'd prefer to keep in some mention of Dáil Éireann due to the contents of the December 1969 announcement. If that's not possible, no big deal.


 * The second paragraph I'm not so happy about certain aspects of. The Unionist government practiced discrimination makes it sound like it was only the government, when it was throughout society. The IRA was involved in the setting up of the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association plays into Paisley's "IRA front" narrative. While I agree we don't necessarily need to have a lengthy list of the people involved, I do believe we need to stress the IRA wasn't behind the NICRA steering wheel. Also I strongly disagree with the removal of all mention of the UVF. It was a clear sign on the wall for the Goulding faction, that Irish nationalist action and/or Protestant fears resulted in a Protestant action. This was shown by the reaction to the 50th anniversary of the Easter Rising, and the reaction to the civil rights march. Leaving one out doesn't properly explain why the Belfast faction believed the leadership had failed to prepare for the violence. FDW777 (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * As I said, my text was only meant as a point of departure; the actual edit can be quite different. I agree that discrimination was endemic, and that should be stated, although I can't think of a concise way of saying it. I absolutely take your point about NICRA; it might be changed to "The IRA was (or members of the IRA were) among a diverse group of organisations (including liberal unionists) that set up NICRA." There is no reason not to mention the UVF, but again it should be concise and to the point, e.g. "The formation of the UVF in 1966, and a spate of killings by them, created a new threat to Catholics." Likewise for the Dáil: "They took part in the War of independence that followed the creation of the revolutionary assembly, Dáil Éireann, and the Declaration of Independence."
 * To be honest, I was kind of hoping that you would do the re-write. You have the sources in front of you, and I have too much going on IRL to go hunting them up. That's why I'm stressing that my suggested text is not meant to be taken as gospel. You're doing a great job on the article, and I'm sure I'd be happy with whatever you write. Thanks for taking the trouble to consider and respond to my proposal. Scolaire (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm quite happy to do the re-write, it's just easier if I know what general points need to be included to make research easier. I'm a bit stuck on the sentence regarding the Dáil, as I don't know how to include that followed the creation of the revolutionary assembly, Dáil Éireann, and the Declaration of Independence in addition to the during which they came to be known as the Irish Republican Army part.
 * I'm still working on the second paragraph. FDW777 (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * More changes made. I decided to cut down on the Battle of the Bogside detail a bit, while it's obviously a key event that needs to be mentioned I felt the detail involved was a bit too much for this article. As Taylor notes in the chapter on Bloody Sunday, The imperative to defend the nationalist areas from loyalist attack was never as strong because in Derry nationalists were in the majority and separated from the minority Protestant population by the River Foyle, which acted as a barrier between them. So while Derry might have been the spark that set Belfast on fire, it was the failure of the IRA to defend Catholic areas of Belfast that's the important issue for this article I feel. FDW777 (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. Might I suggest "...and the War of Independence, during which they came to be known as the Irish Republican Army, and members took an oath of allegiance to the revolutionary assembly, Dail Éireann"? Good call on Derry, by the way – much neater. Scolaire (talk) 09:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually, on reading it again, I do have a problem with the edit. I wrote, "governed by the Ulster Unionist Party, which was almost exclusively Protestant. The Unionist government practiced discrimination against Catholics, who were almost all nationalists and therefore viewed as 'disloyal. We agreed that it was (Protestant) unionists as a whole who practiced discrimination against Catholics. It has now become "Catholics viewed themselves as second-class citizens." The paragraph has thus lost the unionist = Protestant, Catholic = nationalist = disloyalty distinction that was the reason for editing this section in the first place. It also makes Catholics look like whingers rather than the unionists as oppressors, the following sentence notwithstanding. Is there any way this can be rephrased? Scolaire (talk) 10:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to stay accurate to the references, since there's an article about second-class citizens and what it means I hoped it would be a more useful addition than a few words about Catholics being considered "disloyal". The sentence is immediately followed by Protestants were given preference, it's not like it says Catholics believed Protestants were given preference. I'm paraphrasing from memory as I don't feel like reading all the books again to find the exact quote, but the gist of it is There is no serious dispute that Catholics were discriminated against, only the degree to which it happened. FDW777 (talk) 12:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Catholics being considered disloyal is central to the discrimination issue. They weren't discriminated against because of their devotion to the Blessed Virgin. Here is one source for that: see the long paragraph at the bottom of p. 100, starting, "Catholics were also presented as disloyal, an idea that is as ancient as anti-Catholicism itself." Here is a book taking a different view of discrimination (i.e. questioning the degree to which it happened). It says straight out that disloyalty, and not religion, was the reason there were few Catholics in the higher levels of government, and goes on to quote Basil Brooke when he "appealed to loyalists wherever possible to employ good Protestant lads and lassies." It leaves out the bit where he said "Many in this audience employ Catholics, but I have not one about my place. Catholics are out to destroy Ulster", but that can be found here and here. Linking to the second-class citizens article is fine, but why were they treated as second-class citizens? Because unionists were Protestants who wanted to keep down Catholics who were nationalist and therefore disloyal. Scolaire (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * But is a detailed explanation of the discrimination issue central to this article, or do we simply need to establish it existed? I'm struggling to find any IRA-related references for the "disloyalty", the best I found was Richard English. After a few paragraphs detailing discrimination, including As authoritative scholarly judgment has it, ‘Northern Ireland was created and defined so as to guarantee a perpetual Protestant and unionist majority. As the new state became established, so Protestant power became entrenched within all the major institutions.’ he then touches on it with Ironically, unionist anxiety about the threat posed by ‘disloyalists’ itself led to discriminatory practice which was likely to create or reinforce disloyalty to a state that treated people in this way. So I really object to the inclusion of a "disloyalty caused discrimination" narrative when English says each one feeds off the other; discrimination causes disloyalty which causes more discrimination ad infinitum. Brooke talked about disloyalty in the 1930s, they'd been discriminating against Catholics for over a decade with the help of the Special Powers Act. FDW777 (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * First off, I'm not asking for a detailed explanation of the discrimination issue; I'm asking for a concise (10-word), clear and sourced explanation.
 * Put yourself in the reader's place. You read "Twomey, McKee and Steel were among sixteen armed IRA men who confronted the Belfast leadership over the failure to adequately defend Catholic areas." But the IRA's aim was to end British rule in Ireland; why should they take any trouble to defend some second-class citizens who were only interested in jobs and housing? The reader needs to understand that Catholics were under attack because they were nationalists, just as they had been discriminated against because they were nationalists.
 * You "really object" to a "disloyalty caused discrimination" narrative. But that's not what I said; I said that they were discriminated against because they were viewed as disloyal. And your quote from Richard English says exactly that: unionist anxiety about the threat posed by 'disloyalists' itself led to discriminatory practice. Nor does it go on to say that there was and had been an endless loop of disloyalty causing discrimination causing disloyalty, only that discrimination – the result of a depiction of Catholics as disloyal – was likely to create or reinforce disloyalty. Regardless of whether it might or did, discriminatory practices against Catholics were the result of unionists viewing them as disloyal. I've provided you with reliable sources for that (there's no rule that only "IRA-related references" can be used to verify a fact in an IRA-related article), and your English quote backs them up rather than contradicting them.
 * And I never said that Brooke inaugurated the practice of discrimination against Catholics. I noted (as did the four sources I provided) that his speech illustrated the rationale behind it. Scolaire (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't believe a concise, neutral explanation of discrimination can be written in 10 words, as it's a complex issue. You said this article shouldn't be a history of the Troubles, and in my opinion discrimination is a Troubles-related issue not directly related to the IRA. It's certainly related to the civil rights movement and the Troubles, but not so much the IRA. There's certainly been an ex post facto attempt to reframe the IRA's campaign as a fight for civil rights and against discrimination, but it was always about ending British rule in Ireland. Also, the IRA's failure to defend nationalist communities was in Belfast. Were the Protestant mobs really burning Catholics out of their homes because they thought they were "disloyal"? Or was it mob mentality? Or simply sectarian hatred? Or a combination of factors? FDW777 (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Walkout
Due to me removing the section about the leadership, and specifically the Executive, further down the article. The "1969 split" section contains some information that has the potential to confuse the reader, since the Executive hasn't yet been defined when we talk about elections to it. "IRA Director of Intelligence Seán Mac Stíofáin announced that he no longer considered that the IRA leadership represented republican goals, however there was no walkout. Those opposed, who included Mac Stíofáin and Ruairí Ó Brádaigh, refused to go forward for election to the new Executive."

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

1971 membership
I have removed the following sentence

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

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

Marie Breen Smyth question


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

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

Feedback requested, if anyone is willing
I have made what I believe are significant improvements to the article recently, particularly in referencing and adding missing detail. Before I nominate it as a good article, does anyone have any issues with the changes or other feedback/suggestions? Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, sorry for my long overdue reply. I think the "Long War" section is under-developed; it should deal more in depth with the "Armalite and ballot box strategy" and the SF/RSF split in the 1986 Ard Fheis, which later became the seed of dissident republicanism (CIRA, RIRA et alia). The section could also include (chaptered in sub-sections, if you want) the effects on British politics (Ulsterization, 1985 Anglo-Irish treaty, recently revealed Thatcher`s threats of unilaterally withdrawing troops by 1988).
 * The "Peace process" section in its present form also seems to suggest that the failure of the "Tet Offensive" prompted the peace process. The issue of the "Tet Offensive" is raised mostly by Moloney, but, if true, it departs from the very strategy of the "Long War", which according to O'Brien (and others) went on at least until the first IRA ceasefire in 1994. The "Tet Offensive" is shown here as a mainstream PIRA policy, when the Army Council actually didn't sanctioned it. Furthermore, despite the capture of the Elksund, the IRA had enough stockpiles to wage war for the foreseeable future per most bibliographical sources. My point is that this stuff would be better if placed on the last paragraphs of the "Long War" section, whith the proposed changes, and not in the first ones of "Peace Process".Darius (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The 1986 split is difficult, because reference are pretty clear there wasn't much of a split in the IRA, it was a few of the old guard who hadn't been active service volunteers for years and had been removed from IRA leadership positions over the previous decade. Obviously the split did occur more in Sinn Féin and it's covered in reasonable detail at that article, but I'm unsure as to how much detail this article should go into. It is covered at Provisional Irish Republican Army, and I'm not sure of the benefit of duplicating that. If you think the Long War section is under-developed now, bear in mind it previously finished at the 1981 Sinn Féin ard fheis and jumped straight to the Tet Offensive.
 * I'm not so sure about the Anglo-Irish Treaty. While it was intended to halt the rise of Sinn Féin, its impact was on the unionist and loyalist communities. Not much has really been written about the effect of the treaty on the IRA, because there didn't seem to be much. It's difficult to know how much detail to go into in relation to Troubles events that didn't directly involve or affect the IRA, as some might wonder why we're talking about them so much while not talking about gun attacks or bombings instead.
 * White (2017) confirms the Tet Offensive plan (or in his exact words the army leadership unveiled their plan to move into constitutional politics and, at the same time, take the armed campaign to another level. He then talks about the Libyan arms and the Tet Offensive. Obviously it's unlikely the full plan was told to the whole convention for security reasons) was unveiled by the leadership at the 1986 GAC. I take your point about the placement of the material though, and will re-organise appropriately. FDW777 (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Also could you expand on how it should deal more in depth with the "Armalite and ballot box strategy"? Sinn Féin activity is better off dealt with at the Sinn Féin article (while potentially briefly summarised here, which is currently the case although I'm happy to discuss an appropriately sized expansion). I wouldn't expect the Sinn Féin article to have an in-depth summary of 1980s IRA activity, so I'm not sure why the opposite would apply here. Per above it's difficult to talk about support for Sinn Féin (again, I believe that's a matter for the Sinn Féin article) in terms of IRA support. Once you start including one set of election results it's difficult to justify not including others, and suddenly this article will become a history of Sinn Féin election results in the 1980s and 1990s when we should be talking about the IRA instead. FDW777 (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Armalite and ballot box quote
Centralised discussion at Talk:Armalite and ballot box strategy. FDW777 (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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


 * The paragraphs seem fine as is. Also, FDW, don't engage in insults, it's not worth it. Flalf Talk 22:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't believe I insulted anyone, except perhaps a hypothetical person who I'll be happy to apologise to should they turn up. The paragraph split seems completely arbitrary to me, since there are several other larger paragraphs elsewhere in the article. Obviously fresh eyes are sometimes useful and I would be happy to have constructive input into any paragraphs that could be split. Instead the fixation is on a single change was has been objected to. FDW777 (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The paragraph split seems arbitrary and fine to me as well, but are you referring to the ip as a hypothetical person? You did insult them by telling them to read a childrens book. I respect the work you do here a lot, but don't do that. Flalf Talk 22:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The IP's edit summary and comments here refer to "readers" and "Casual readers" having difficulty, not themself. So I don't believe I was referring to them, especially as I said I suggest they, not I suggest you. But anyway, let's draw a line under that and see if there's any other suggestions about improvements to be made to the article? FDW777 (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Nonetheless that comment is very borderline. Be careful in the future. Flalf Talk 23:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. User FDW777 has become abusive and derogatory about potential casual readers. Please advise 86.14.189.55 (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This doesn't appear to be true. There is no ongoing discussions or any in the archive relating to this. <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk 22:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for resolving this 86.14.189.55 (talk) 10:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Sectarian attacks
The article currently states The IRA publicly condemned sectarianism and sectarian attacks, however some IRA members did carry out sectarian attacks. This is not a remotely disputed point, since it's a fact they did do both hence it's stated as fact. The sentence following it is relevant as well, stating Of those killed by the IRA, Malcolm Sutton classifies 130 (about 7%) of them as sectarian killings of Protestants. Do these sentences adequately cover the viewpoints of Bruce, who says the claim by another author that "there was never any great element of sectarianism in the Provisionals" is "laughable", and Shanahan, who begins his analysis by stating According to the standard republican narrative, Provisional IRA violence, unlike state and loyalist violence, is not sectarian in nature and ends it with Regardless of how sectarian IRA violence in fact was, it is safe to say that it was considerably more sectarian than the standard republican narrative concedes. ,, , . For futher analysis also see pages 84-90 of O'Leary's recent work (quotes/synopsis available if it's not viewable where you are). FDW777 (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * May be I am getting the point in the wrong way, but, despite being a prestigious scholar, Steven Bruce is a partisan source. I was taking a browse through some of his works, and there is some logic in his disregard for White Bell's opinions as "laughable", since he comes from a Protestant background. Furthermore, he is a tiny minority point of view to take in consideration. As for Shanahan remarks, they are in line with the first statement of the section, this is, the conflict between the mainstream IRA view against sectarianism and the realities on the ground, that pushed some of their members to carry out retaliatory attacks to the point to became involved in tit-for-tat violence. No matter how "biased" the section looks, we must follow WP:WEIGHT, and according to this WP guideline, a myriad of sources assert that the IRA did not commit systematic sectarian violence like their Loyalist counterpart. If A, B, C and D call it a dog, there is no point in citing E claiming the thing is a cat just because things seem to be "unbalanced".Darius (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Bruce was referring to Bell, not White. Bruce doesn't appear to have read White's book, or spoken to any republicans to determine their perspective. FDW777 (talk) 09:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why you pinged those specific editors? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * They are editors in good standing who frequently edit the article and/or its talk page. I don't always agree with them, but I always consider their insight to beneficial. FDW777 (talk) 12:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In addition since I now have your attention, what do you think of O'Leary's analysis? FDW777 (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As for why I even bothered to ping people in the first place, the recent history of this talk page shows quite often I'm talking to myself. At Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army/Archive 11 I couldn't even get a reply about how to present Marie Breen Smyth's name... FDW777 (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Frankly, on the issue of sectarianism in the GAN review, I feel like I'm talking to myself too. So there's that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You chose to dismiss a lengthy reply with "I don't think so", not me. FDW777 (talk) 09:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * You have a point, kind of. I can see it might be improved, possibly with the addition of a note. It's actually a sentence I didn't write.


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

Ideology Section: Content drawn from John Mulqueen

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

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


 * I can take the point of it needing to be more concise and/or better formatted, however, I thought the addition gave further context to the PIRA/OIRA split. It demonstrates that it was more complex than a simple split of absentation or even the Popular Front concept, it shows that there was also an express rejection of the Communist views of the OIRA, which is not really discussed elsewhere in the article. To my reading, the section labelled "The 1969 split" gives the impression that the issues of Absentationism and the Popular front were the /only/ factors in the split. CeltBrowne (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * There were divisions in the IRA prior to December 1969, over the Goulding faction's shift to the left and the same faction's failure to provide arms in August 1969. Both are detailed at "Origins" with Chief-of-staff Cathal Goulding wanted the IRA to adopt a socialist agenda and become involved in politics, while traditional republicans such as Seán Mac Stíofáin wanted to increase recruitment and rebuild the IRA, and later ...remove the pro-Goulding Belfast leadership of Billy McMillen and Jim Sullivan and return to traditional militant republicanism.] On 22 September Twomey, McKee, and Steele were among sixteen armed IRA men who confronted the Belfast leadership over the failure to adequately defend Catholic areas. But the tipping point was the December 1969 General Army Convention. Mac Stíofáin had been opposed to the Marxist non-violent direction for years, yet didn't split until then. I think there's certainly potential to explain this a bit better earlier in the article if deemed to have not been covered properly already. FDW777 (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)