Loading AI tools
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
A disagreement exists as to whether or not the Categorization section should make any mention (and if so to what extent) of the the fact that although the PIRA was illegal in the Republic and a Proscribed Terrorist group in the U.K., such was never the case in the United States. This meant tremendously less law enforcement scrutiny fell on the PIRA's American base, American sympathisers broke far fewer laws and faced punishment of far severity than they would have if the IRA was designated as a FTO (foreign terrorist group, in which case virtually any interaction, including purely peaceful would be seriously illegal). The CIA could not share any intelligence they gathered on the IRA with the FBI if it might be used directly or indirectly to prosecute Americans domestically. Groups like the NORAID and CNG were able to fundraise out in the open and could even use US banks to transfer funds. Activities like straw buying weapons and US veterans training IRA members were only on the fringe of illegal. In contrast, US federal law actually forbid govt cooperation with the RUC. IRA volunteers who restricted their activities to attacks on british combatants within Northern Ireland were initially granted asylum in the US as well. None of this would have been possible without the IRA's legal status in the US. Considering that significant amounts of aid from the middle east did not materialize until the troubles was well under way, simply put, had the IRA been designated as an FTO by the US govt like it was in the UK and Ireland, it is highly unlikely the group would've had much an impact any greater than the IRA Border Campaign in the 1950s-60s. OgamD218 (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
we don't need to spend significantly longer talking about somewhere they weren't designated than places they were. Various other points.
Following trips both the U.S. and the continent facilitated by the Irish Government, the PIRA quickly built up a network for acquiring weapons and fundingand
The IRA's status as a de-facto legal entity in the U.S. meant American citizens could purchase the Armalite Assault Rifles that became synonymous with the IRA's armed campaign with relative easeis inaccurate and I would simply remove it except for the 1RR rule. The IRA already had a support network in place prior to John Kelly's trip. IRA supporters could legally buy weapons no matter that the legal status of the IRA, that's assuming they were American citizens. It's what they did with them next that was legally problematic. FDW777 (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
its authority to bar aliens who are believed to belong to terrorist organizations or to advocate the overthrow of any legitimate governmentand specifically mentions the INA. FDW777 (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
The Caucus sponspored two committee members, Congressmen Hamilton Fish and Joshua Eilberg, on a trip to Ireland to inquire into the United States visa policies restricting IRA and Sinn Féin spokesmen from visiting America. Denials are most often issued under Section 212(a)(28)(F) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which bars from entering the U.S. people who belong to an organisation advocating the overthrow of a government by force. How is that "misinterpreted"? FDW777 (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes by then new guns from the US had slowed to trickle, but they still depended on US manufactured ammo for their ARs, says who? Boyne details no significant, successful importation of ammo from the USA after the 1970s. FDW777 (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
“IRA members were often refused travel visas to enter the United States, due to previous criminal convictions or because the Immigration and Nationality Act bars the entry of people who are members of an organisation which advocates the overthrow of a government by force”, should instead be closer to “prior to the initiation of peace negotiations in the mid 1990s, the US State Department used its discretionary authority, to deny entry visas to IRA volunteers and Sinn Fein representatives.” OgamD218 (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
American supporters re-focused on sending small arms (handguns) and AR ammo from the late 80s onward(the latter point is the unreferenced part). One page 283 he also says
There was also a change in 'weapons culture', with the Libyan-supplied Kalashnikov succeeding the US-origin Armalite as the assault rifle most often used by the Provos, so your earlier unreferenced assertion that the IRA were actually in need of Armalite ammunition from the US does not appear to be accurate, and I doubt the US has a monopoly on ammo manufacture in the first place. See also Boyne page 275 which details the seizure in early 1986 of thirty semi-automatic rifles and 7,000 rounds of Yugoslav-made ammunition. Other countries make ammo too you know. If you haven't read McErlath I suggest you stop making assumptions about what she said, as it is absolutely nothing to do with
she was aware that this particular area of US policy is decided by sitting President, as she is being used for visas being denied due to criminal convictions. If you had read McErlath, you would also know your suggested text of
prior to the initiation of peace negotiations in the mid 1990s, the US State Department used its discretionary authority, to deny entry visas to IRA volunteers and Sinn Fein representativesisn't even correct in the first place. FDW777 (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
after you completely ignored what I did ref (a founding PIRA member noting the significance of est US supply routes). Except I didn't ignore this, I refuted it. The relevant text you added to the article can be seen here. It says
Following trips both the U.S. and the continent facilitated by the Irish Government, the PIRA quickly built up a network for acquiring weapons and funding
Boyne (cited in article) pages 96-97 details the Harrison network in the USA being revived in early 1969, and some weapons were shipped to the pre-split IRA, including some weapons he had stored from his Border Campaign smuggling. When the split occurred he sided with the Provisionals
...Harrison returned to his gunrunning activities. He was approached in early 1969 by his friend of long standing, Eoin McNamee, who had been visiting Derry, one of the main centres of civil strife. McNamee's message was simple - the movement needed weapons . . . Harrison still had about seventy weapons stashed away that had been collected in the late 1950s or early 1960s for the abortive Border Campaign, and these were quickly dispatched to Ireland . . . It is believed they reached Ireland in mid-1969 . . . This first shipment of arms went to the pre-split IRA . . . Despite his left-wing views, when the split in the IRA came, Harrison threw his weight behind the physical-force Provos rather than the Marxist-leaning Officials
Meanwhile Sean Keenan, the Derry republican who had accompanied John Kelly on the abortive arms acquisition trip to New York in December 1969
Early in 1969, the Emissary came to visit Harrison and Cotter . . . The Emissary said he was going back to Ireland and heading for Derry. The movement needed weapons . . . Harrison said he agreed to turn over whatever they still had left in their dumps to the IRA. These were weapons collected in the late 1950s for the border campaign . . . They made plans to have them taken across to Ireland, but it was not until mid-1969 that they reached the North-in time to be used in the fighting that erupted that August
In those days guns were easy to come by. The IRA had a network in place in the United States in the 1950s and it was a simple task to reactivate it when violence erupted in 1969. Headed by George Harrison . . . Harrison was the single most important source of weapons in these years
The nucleus of the gun-running network was the same as with Harrison's previous arms provision
But, said Mr Kelly, Mr Blaney scuppered that plan . . . I think that with hindsight Blaney was afraid of the US connection because the government would have no control over the guns coming in. So, as Boyne says, Kelly's plan was the
abortive arms acquisition trip, because it came to nothing. Per Boyne and Holland, Harrison's network had already been revived in early 1969. The Irish government may have been involved in Kelly's various trips, including to the US, but they had absolutely nothing to do with the revival of the Harrison network or its activities. That you have what can at best be described as a sloppy approach to accurately reflecting what references say, means I will be requiring direct quotes from references (which per above, I'm happy to provide) to substantiate any of your claims. FDW777 (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
The IRA was banned in both the UK and Ireland but such was never the case in the U.S., where their supporters could openly fundraise on their behalf. Donations from America's large Irish-American community were often used to fund black market arms deals and helped the IRA obtain a large array of weapons such as surface-to-air missiles; M60 machine guns; ArmaLite AR-18, FN FAL, AKM and M16 rifles; DShK heavy machine guns; LPO-50 flamethrowers; and Barrett M90 sniper rifles
is so laughably incorrect it's difficult to know where to start. I'll simply say that many items on the list did not come from Irish-Americans, nor were the purchases of all of them funded by Irish-Americans. You were bold, you've been reverted, and now we discuss. And by discuss I mean provide quotes from references, not your walls of text of your own arguments about the article should say. FDW777 (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
a lengthy analysis of a side issue? You said
you completely ignored what I did ref (a founding PIRA member noting the significance of est US supply routes).I demonstrated that I didn't, and provided further evidence to prove that what you added isn't correct. And yes, I'm going to ignore anything you say that isn't supported by a direct quote from the reference.
partial "sloppy" flaw? Your addition said
Following trips both the U.S. and the continent facilitated by the Irish Government, the PIRA quickly built up a network for acquiring weapons and funding. Your reference says nothing of the sort. Your suggested text was
prior to the initiation of peace negotiations in the mid 1990s, the US State Department used its discretionary authority, to deny entry visas to IRA volunteers and Sinn Fein representatives. This implies that after the peace process began, the State Department changed its stance, it didn't. See for convenience the New York Times which states of Joe Cahill's 1994 visa (the one mentioned in the article as an example of exceptions being made)
The White House ordered that the visa be issued, overruling objections from the State Department, Administration officials said. McErlath details the 1996 refusal to grant visas to three former IRA prisoners invited to address a lecture by the World Affairs Council. You see, this is why I'm insisting on direct quotes from references, as every time I independently try and verify many of your assertions they turn out to be not quite on the level. So quotes from references please, if you wish to continue this discussion. FDW777 (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
prior to the initiation of peace negotiations in the mid 1990s, the US State Department used its discretionary authority, to deny entry visas to IRA volunteers and Sinn Fein representatives, i appreciate you switched from saying i said to backtracking to i implied there was some kind of change in state dept policy-I did neither however and am not bound to your fictionalizations when I was right and repeatdly said in this area the decision is made by the US President. Cahill was not the only one granted a visa to travel to the US during this time, Gerry Adams was at the start of the peace negotiations[2], and he was again granted a visa later that same year [3] and yet again in 1996[4], more would follow but i've made my point. Him and Cahill were not alone, Martin McGuinness was granted a visa "more than half a dozen times", including in 1995 and again in 1997. [5]. This reference [6], mentions and discusses how as i said a million times, these were decisions that the Presidential administration decides. There are more examples but I think i've made my point here even though I was always right on this.
prior to the initiation of peace negotiations in the mid 1990s, the US State Department used its discretionary authority, to deny entry visas to IRA volunteers and Sinn Fein representativesis correct despite referenced evidence to the contrary is unhelpful. As proven, the US State Department continued to deny visas during the peace process, although occasional exceptions were made as documented here and in the article. Providing more evidence of occasional visas being issued does not change the fact that many references says Clinton personally intervened on two occasions, and potentially more, to overrule the State Department's refusal to issue visas.
you would also know your suggested text of prior to the initiation of peace negotiations in the mid 1990s, the US State Department used its discretionary authority, to deny entry visas to IRA volunteers and Sinn Fein representatives isn't even correct in the first place, it is clearly correct.......I also said
excluding IRA members was policy decided by Pres Admins, not the INA.you replied
INA is referenced by Holland, and the exact text of the Act doesn't only apply to overthrowing the US government, as it's people who "advocates or teaches, opposition to all organized government"."see for example quoting a State Dept official that it had used "its authority to bar aliens who are believed to belong to terrorist organizations or to advocate the overthrow of any legitimate government" and specifically mentions the INA.When I
you're misinterpreting those/it’s up to the discretion of the sitting Pres Administration to decide who to exclude for what causes, “quoting a State Dept official it had used ITS AUTHORITY to bar aliens...”, the INA grants them such discretion, if under the INA IRAs couldn’t come in then the state dept would not be using its own authority and Clinton would not have been able let Cahill in.You then doubled down
Saying I'm misinterpreting Holland is a brave statement. His exact words are "The Caucus sponspored two committee members, Congressmen Hamilton Fish and Joshua Eilberg, on a trip to Ireland to inquire into the United States visa policies restricting IRA and Sinn Féin spokesmen from visiting America. Denials are most often issued under Section 212(a)(28)(F) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which bars from entering the U.S. people who belong to an organisation advocating the overthrow of a government by force". How is that "misinterpreted"?OgamD218 (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
my point all along has been in fact that this was staticis simply incorrect, or you don't understand how the English language works. The inclusion of "prior" in the phrase
prior to the initiation of peace negotiations in the mid 1990s, the US State Department used its discretionary authority, to deny entry visas to IRA volunteers and Sinn Fein representativesautomatically implies that after the "initiation of peace negotiations in the mid 1990s" the State Department changed its stance and did something different, when as you now admit they didn't change their stance at all. FDW777 (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Known IRA members were often refused travel visas to enter the U.S., due in part to previous criminal convictions and because American immigration law gives the State Department broad discretion to deny foreign citizens entry on policy grounds.All along i've been trying to work with you to find some common ground, show good faith and avoid edit warring but I'm really out of patience here. I never claimed either of these was perfect, I've been attempting to be inclusive. Please tell me what you think now that WE (I always did) both now know the facts bc the current version with Cahill as a note level lone exception and ref to the wrong INA law as being the basis for visa denials is not accurate. I'm not going around in a million circles with suggestion after suggestion again with you bc look what happens. Both suggestions were closer to the truth than what's there now, either is an improvement but please by all means help with a final draft and we go from there/finally move on. Also re this issue (let's just go 1 by 1 for now), I'm not forcing the inclusion of Irish-Americans, this was always there, I edited it, i did not create it. OgamD218 (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
References
I beg to differ.
Edit at 12:30, 2 February 2021
The enabled greater flexibility for the IRA’s supporters in the U.S. than was possible in either Ireland or the U.K
Unreferenced.
Prior to the mid 1980s, IRA volunteers living in the America were often able lodge successful asylum claims against extradition requests by the British government. U.S. federal courts found depending on the circumstances that the IRA volunteer was wanted for “political offenses” and therefore could not be extradited from the U.S. Political offenses, at times included being convicted of murdering British citizens
The reference has 31 pages, unclear which page(s) references which part of that passage. The "murdering British citizens" part is particularly dubious, since the murder cases cited involve those of British soldiers, not simply citizens.
In these cases however, the IRA member was almost always deported since they still entered the U.S. illegally and the State Department refused to grant them any kind of visa
Unreferenced, despite the note and references at the end of the sentence which were pre-existing, and moved to the wrong place during the edit.
Edit at 18:44, 2 February 2021
As a result, the U.S. became an epicenter for IRA fundraising and organizing. Organizations such as NORAID and Clan Na Gael operated openly, enjoying the liberty to transfer funds through U.S. banks. American citizens were able to legally purchase the Armalite Assault Rifles that later became synonymous with the IRA's armed campaign
Unreferenced.
Prior to the mid 1980s, IRA fugitives in the U.S., were often able to claim asylum against extradition requests by the British government. In several cases, federal courts found that the charges against the volunteer, were “political offenses” and denied the request for extradition. Political offenses, at times included already being convicted of murdering British citizens
See 12:30, 2 February 2021 analysis of this passage above.
In these cases however, the IRA member was almost always deported for entering the U.S. illegally
Unreferenced.
Edit at 18:59, 2 February 2021
Known IRA members were often refused travel visas to enter the U.S., due in part to previous criminal convictions and because American immigration law gives the State Department broad discretion to deny foreign citizens entry on policy grounds
Unreferenced/distortion of existing references. McErlath emphasises that it wasn't just "known", but also "suspected".
Edit at 19:31, 2 February 2021
Following trips both the U.S. and the continent facilitated by the Irish Government, the PIRA quickly built up a network for acquiring weapons and funding
Unreferenced and incorrect. The reference is clear that the planned arms importation from the US by the Irish government never even took place. As detailed in the section above, the IRA had a network already in place before this visit.
Edit at 19:31, 2 February 2021
IRA's status as a de-facto legal entity in the U.S. meant American citizens could purchase the Armalite Assault Rifles that became synonymous with the IRA's armed campaign with relative ease. Prior to the passage of the FOPA in 1986, the purchase of fully automatic rifles was legal and often poorly regulated, a situation that facilitated the flow of battlefield effective weapons to the IRA from the United States.
First sentence is unreferenced, the second is original research. The book cited (Kruschke, Earl R. (1995). Gun Control: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 0-87436-695-X. OCLC 260209689) contains no mention of the IRA.
Edit at 17:49, 5 February 2021
The IRA was banned in both the UK and Ireland but such was never the case in the U.S., where their supporters could openly fundraise on their behalf. Donations from America's large Irish-American community were often used to fund black market arms deals and helped the IRA obtain..
Unreferenced. The addition of Irish-Americans before the list is inaccurate, since as documented above the list contains many items that were not obtained from the US but donated by Libya.
Prior to the passage of the FOPA in 1986, the purchase of fully automatic rifles by American citizens was legal and often poorly regulated, facilitating the flow of battlefield effective weapons to the IRA from the United States.
See 19:31, 2 February 2021 analysis of this passage above.
WP:V is non-negotiable. FDW777 (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
IRA's status as a de-facto legal entity in the U.S. meant American citizens could purchase the Armalite Assault Rifles that became synonymous with the IRA's armed campaign with relative ease. Prior to the passage of the FOPA in 1986, the purchase of fully automatic rifles was legal and often poorly regulated, a situation that facilitated the flow of battlefield effective weapons to the IRA from the United States.
The ref is for the Law /clarifying the legal situation. I gave cites for the IRAs status, being a legal vs illegal org objectively gives a group greater ease. If your want more refs for how they could purchase guns legally fine https://www.irishtimes.com/news/whitey-bulger-and-the-fbi-deal-that-opened-up-boston-to-the-ira-1.1314282?mode=amp
The IRA, 1968-2000: Analysis of a Secret Army, Page 183 https://books.google.com/books?id=IRqWjIVE_QUC&pg=PA183&lpg=PA183&dq=guns+purchased+for+the+ira+legally&source=bl&ots=bQt5H5dRIy&sig=ACfU3U37Dn_K3kx2Sqa0Cn2yxwwSmK6qPw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjS1-nK7tPuAhXkM1kFHXEXB8w4FBDoATAOegQIExAB#v=onepage&q=guns%20purchased%20for%20the%20ira%20legally&f=false OgamD218 (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Getting weapons in America in those days was easy, as all you needed was a driving licence as proof of identity, and gun shops were everywhere. The guns were purchased by American citizens, although there were some black market arms deals done by IRA volunteers at other times. So your addition of
IRA's status as a de-facto legal entity in the U.S. meant American citizens could purchase the Armalite Assault Rifleswas simply wrong, because even if the IRA was illegal in the US (and it wasn't) that wouldn't have stopped US citizens being able to buy Armalites. FDW777 (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I’ll get more into this more later bc it’s just draining my energy. I’ll make it more concise since a lot of this has been my trying to comprise when I was just right. I really have zero concern that on outside review anyone but you is gonna think it was in totally “tangential” that the IRA was legal in the US vs illegal in the UK and Ireland-at the very least that you think the later merits mention in the Categorization section but not the former. OgamD218 (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that the legality, or otherwise, of the IRA had absolutely no impact on the ability of US citizens to buy guns from gun shops?
As stated already, the addition doesn't belong in that section wedged in between actual offensive operations. Do those people appears on the lists of targets detailed the references cited? FDW777 (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Like I said I’ll get back to rather simple point of legal makes it easier later. It was wedged between sentences on offensive operations, it was placed at the end of a list of IRA targets. OgamD218 (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
The question was Do those people appears on the lists of targets detailed the references cited?
Your answer is yes it is in the list of targets detailed
. So I will ask again, which of the references already cited (those being Dingley (2012) pages 130–131 and McGladdery (2006) page 77) lists them as targets? This is a straightforward request for a clarification. You have just said a reference already cited in that sentence explicitly says something. Which reference? FDW777 (talk) 07:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
As detailed above, repeatedly, this discussion will go much more smoothly and quickly if you provide quotes from references to support your assertions. As requested twice, please ensure all future posts are in one of the following formats, or something similar
I will not ask a third time. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
known as the shankill road bombing, in which 8 protestant civilians, 1 member of the UDA and 1 of the IRA's own members died in a botched attempt to kill the leadership of the UDA-sounds like the UDA was being targeted?OgamD218 (talk) 09:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Still waiting for a proposed changed to be requested in the correct format. FDW777 (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
At times, IRA operations members of both loyalists[1] and republican[2] paramilitaries were targeted as wellI get the impression you've made up your mind no matter what but given your input I am not sure if "though this was not part of the IRA's overall offensive strategy" would improve the proposed change?
@Peacemaker67: Am I in breach of this rule? If so I apologize and will immediately comply, I would prefer a third party to weigh in though.OgamD218 (talk) 10:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC) In the meantime I will revert it to avoid any issues.OgamD218 (talk) 10:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
The Caucus sponsored two committee members, Congressmen Hamilton Fish and Joshua Eilberg, on a trip to Ireland to inquire into the United States visa policies restricting IRA and Sinn Féin spokesmen from visiting America. Denials are most often issued under Section 212(a)(28)(F) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which bars from entering the U.S. people who belong to an organisation advocating the overthrow of a government by force, and a contemporary New York Times reference that says
The spokesman, responding to an inquiry, said that the department had acted in each case under its authority to bar aliens who are believed to belong to terrorist organizations or to advocate the overthrow of any legitimate government. The authority is stipulated by the Immigration and Nationality Act. It's quite easy for an editor to claim to be an expert in anything they like, but their claims are completely irrelevant to the content of articles. If there are references that say Holland and the State Department's own spokesman are in fact wrong about this then let's have them, but I very much doubt they exist. FDW777 (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
It's quite straightforward. You have repeatedly misrepresented what references say, and attempted to change referenced text to what you believe it should say based on little more than your own opinion. Case in point your lengthy walls of text claiming that the overthrow governments part of the Immigration and Nationality Act didn't apply to the IRA, despite Jack Holland and a State Department spokesman saying exactly that. Second case in point your Irish Times reference which you used to reference your addition of Following trips both the U.S. and the continent facilitated by the Irish Government, the PIRA quickly built up a network for acquiring weapons and funding
which is firstly inaccurate, and secondly unsupported by the reference since it does not confirm the trip facilitated by the Irish government resulted in an arms network being established. Quite the opposite in fact, since it says But, said Mr Kelly, Mr Blaney scuppered that plan . . . I think that with hindsight Blaney was afraid of the US connection because the government would have no control over the guns coming in
and Boyne describes that exact trip as an abortive arms acquisition trip
.
Given you are either incapable of accurately reflecting what references say, or deliberately misrepresenting them, I feel I am fully justified in asking for the relevant part of WP:V to be fully complied with. This reads When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy
. If you have the references in front of you (which you must have to be citing them in the first place), it's a simple task for you to provide the quotes. It is not reasonable to expect other editors to chase round after you making sure your edits are properly referenced. FDW777 (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
As for your claim of moving goalposts, no this is also quite straightforward. It is impossible to accurately evaluate the text until what the reference says is known. So it is your failure to provide the constantly requested quotes that is the only barrier to progress at present. FDW777 (talk) 11:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Following trips both the U.S. and the continent facilitated by the Irish Government, the PIRA quickly built up a network for acquiring weapons and funding. There is the reference. It does not confirm the IRA arms network was set up following a trip facilitated by the Irish government, since it says in black and white that the planned arms importation from the US did not take place. So either you did misrepresent what the reference said, or you are in complete and total denial about how the text you added and what the reference actually says differ from each other. Neither one fills me with any confidence about your competence to edit this article.
I asked you earlier if you had any suggestions on that sentence’s location, you were useless bc you’re just thinking of new reasons to keep it out. Its fine where I put it and certainly should precede to mention of Shankill road bombing-an event you’ve pretended the whole time isn’t an offensive operation. Also I never placed that sentence in between discussions of offensive ops, it’s always been in between or at the end of a list of ira targets, which seems appropriate. OgamD218 (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Also I never placed that sentence in between discussions of offensive ops, it’s always been in between or at the end of a list of ira targets, which seems appropriateThis is simply incorrect. There is your edit. I will put your addition in bold in the passage below
The IRA's offensive campaign mainly targeted the British Army (including the UDR) and the RUC, with British soldiers being the IRA's preferred target. At times, members of both loyalists and republican paramilitaries were targeted as well. Other targets included British government officials, politicians, establishment and judicial figures, and senior British Army and police officers.
Also I never placed that sentence in between discussions of offensive ops, it’s always been in between or at the end of a list of ira targets, which seems appropriateplease just re-read that, for starters this is another ex of you ignoring past version and going with one that we only ended up with bc i was trying to reason with your crazy standards.
The IRA's offensive campaign mainly targeted the British Army (including the UDR) and the RUC, with British soldiers being the IRA's preferred target. At times, members of both loyalists and republican paramilitaries were targeted as well. Other targets included British government officials, politicians, establishment and judicial figures, and senior British Army and police officers.. OMG NEITHER OF THE preceding or succeeding sentence is describing a single offensive op, OMG AS I SAID, it is clearly one list of targets SEE
targeted the British Army (including the UDR) and the RUC, with British soldiers being the IRA's preferred target, see look the word targeted followed by a list of (drum roll please) TARGETS--RUC, UDR etc. Zero mention is made there of any operations, just targets. The succeeding sentence literally begins
OTHER TARGETSfollowed by, you didn't guess it no, it is NOT FOLLOWED BY an offensive op it is followed by more targets. The preceding sentences, lists offensive ops, such as bombings (like Shankill). You're simply confirming my suspicion that you lack fluency in the english language.OgamD218 (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
So we're not only not quoting anymore, no need to even give pages lol...So it is a different thing entirely from the offensive campaign
, you're really gonna stand by that? different entirely, one could just as easily argue that entire PIRA offensive campaign was realiatory for civil rights abuses or just being occupied. Its too subjective.OgamD218 (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
".....potential intervention by the Irish govt-some of whose officials had arranged at least 1 clandestine supply of arms to protect N. Catholics" and "They (Provos) also est NORAID, which became the best organized and funded of Irish Americans orgs to fund the PIRA"O'Learly page 54.OgamD218 (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
potential intervention by the Irish govt-some of whose officials had arranged at least 1 clandestine supply of arms to protect N. Catholics, and the same for the other quote too. FDW777 (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
They are not Oglaigh na hEireann and Wikipedia must not promulgate their fantasy in that regard. It is highly offensive to all those who served honourably in the genuine Oglaigh na hEireann of the Irish State (Army, Navy and Air Corps). Referring to any one of these subversive IRA groups as Oglaigh na hEireann must not be allowed by Wikipedia.
Additionally the primary image currently on this page, the 'badge', has no provenance and should be replaced with a genuine image such as:
In 2005/6 some Provisional IRA members defected and formed Óglaigh na hÉireann, which became active in 2009including the article linked to in the text, you might understand why it cannot be changed to
In 2005/6 some Provisional IRA members defected and formed the Real IRA splinter group, which became active in 2009. FDW777 (talk) 07:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
The PIRA members defected and formed Óglaigh na hÉireann (ONH) in 2005-2006. As for your suggestion that I point to
official articles of association or legal equivalent, had you read Moloney (conveniently cited for that very point) you would known it's quoting the IRA's own written constitution and says the very first entry in the constitution is
Title: The Army shall be known as Óglaigh na hÉireann. FDW777 (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
The Defence Forces are rightly very proud of their exclusive historic title, Óglaigh na hÉireann. No other body, grouping or organisation is legally, morally or constitutionally entitled to misappropriate that title.
— J.P.DUGGAN (Lt Col), (retd), "OGLAIGH NA hEIREANN", The Irish Times (Mar 1, 1996)
It is deceptive and inaccurate by Wikipedia not to list the Republic of Ireland as an enemy of the Provisional IRA. They claimed the State was illegitimate and attacked the security forces killing a number of Gardaí (e.g. the Killing_of_Jerry_McCabe) and also an Irish soldier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74 observer (talk • contribs) 23:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
No one could suggest that Ireland was the main enemy of the IRA. It was however an enemy. There is no attempt to draw an equivalence but to simply pretend that in denying the legitimacy of the state and attacking state security forces they were not one of the enemies of the IRA is blatantly false? Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
I've reworded this slightly, it now reads Twenty-two people were killed in the next three days, including six civilians killed by the British Army as part of the Ballymurphy massacre on 9 August
(previously the bolded words said simply "in". The difficulty is that various authors define the Ballymurphy Massacre differently, one seeing it as simply the first six, another seeing it as ten deaths (presumably Paddy McCarthy is excluded), and others as all eleven. Obviously yesterday's inquest has changed things a bit, but I think a nine versus ten versus eleven deaths argument in this article is potentially outside its scope. Since the disputed tenth shooting victim was John McKerr who was killed on 10 August, it is undisputed that six died on 9 August. If anyone has any suggestions about how this can be handled better feel free to make suggestions. FDW777 (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that you removed the word atrocity from the Claudy bombing article as it was too emotive. Should the word “massacre” be removed from this article for the same reason?
Notice I am discussing these issues on talk pages as opposed to making the changes myself in an effort to achieve consensus. Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
This statement, under the categorisation section is opinion.
American TV news broadcasts tended to describe IRA members as "activists" and "guerrillas", while British TV news broadcasts commonly used the term "terrorists",
A quick scan of US media turned up several descriptions of the IRA as terrorists, I found no references to them being Guerrillas though I imagine there are some. Should this be removed in its entirety or altered in some way? Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
I am not suggesting that my own cursory look trumps a published study, however, the original research you refer to is from 1988. It’s not current. Furthermore it has a chart showing that the terms Guerrilla or activist were used five times as opposed to terrorist or suspected terrorist which were used four times. I hardly think that a study of terms used over thirty years ago (using just March 1988), quoting such a small sample amount is sufficient to draw the conclusion that US media had a tendency in how they referred to the IRA. The most frequent description of them was as not as either terrorists or Guerrillas, but simply IRA (a total of 26 times). I can provide screenshots of the page in question from the book if you wish to see it yourself? Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Sorry but you are asking me to accept someone’s interpretation of a report as opposed to accepting the actual report itself. I have read both. The interpretation of what the report states is incorrect. May I suggest that you read the actual report, once you’ve done so I have no doubt you will agree with me that the interpretation is incorrect and that the article should be revised to acknowledge the actual findings as opposed to someone’s else’s interpretation. Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Apologies, that was not clear. Let me try and summarise:
The book cited is 30 years out of date. It’s sample size was small. Five references to one set of terms versus four references to another does not indicate a tendency.
Three points, any of which should be sufficient to remove the opinion under discussion. Can you refute these or will you accept them?
I think I may need to escalate this revision as I do not believe we will be able to achieve a consensus. Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
I would agree that in this section there is a lot of opinions in this section should be reviewed as they are not properly sourced. For example, the use of the word 'tended' is open to interpretation and the statement is not referenced or corroborated with any research. I would suggest removing that bit entirely Jdaly81 (talk)
FDW777 just to clarify, you believe that 5 vs 4 statements taken over a one month period 30+years ago is enough to use the term tendency in describing how American news referred to the IRA? If there is any revisionism going on, it’s in that statement. It needs removed or reworded. Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
When you say things like "since they didnt have an oficial socialist ideology , such as OIRA , which was openly socialist . So provisionals , in an effort to convince irish americans to help with funds , did not assume a socialist ideology ( wich caused the 1969 anti-treaty partition" it only demonstrates you don't actually know what you're talking about. What on earth is the 1969 anti-treaty partition
? The IRA very much did have an official socialist ideology, as evidenced not only by the section at Provisional Irish Republican Army#Political ideology but by the IRA's own constitution which says their second objective is "To support the establishment of an Irish Socialist Republic based on the 1916 Proclamation. Also edits such as this not only misrepresent the existing reference but cause a broken reference later in the article. Please stop disrupting the article based on an erroneous understanding of the subject matter. FDW777 (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
The claim that "the reason of the 1969 partition in anti treaty was that OIRA wanted to be openly socialist , and PIRA to recieve american money" is not one that appears in any of the vast amount of books that cover the 1969 split in the IRA. Please stop disrupting the article based on a faulty understanding of the subject matter. FDW777 (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
1969 anti-treaty partitionI don't believe I'm too far out a limb by suggesting their understanding of English might not be at a professional level... FDW777 (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The argument The article mentions how many British soldiers the PIRA killed. So mentioning the civilians they killed makes sense and is referenced
makes no sense, since the lead already says The IRA's armed campaign, primarily in Northern Ireland but also in England and mainland Europe, killed over 1,700 people, including roughly 1,000 members of the British security forces, and 500–644 civilians
(my emphasis). Also as my edit summary when reverting the first attempt at adding this factoid said, rv. WP:LEAD. Unclear why we'd need to point out one category, when they were the deadliest in many categories. See WP:ONUS
. FDW777 (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.