Talk:Irish Republican Army (1919–1922)/Archive 4

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 18 July 2005 and 7 Augst 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Please add new archivals to Talk:Irish Republican Army/Archive07. Thank you. Palmiro | Talk 21:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Complete rewrite

The article as it originally existed as way below expected Wikipedia standards, and inexcusably blurred different organisations into one mess of an article. I have rewritten it to focus on what the IRA actually was, which is the Irish Republic Army of the Irish Republic (pre-1922). Later organisations aren't the IRA by their own admission but the Provisional IRA, the Real IRA, etc and have their own special articles under those names. So it is needless duplication to include them here also. The opening line links all the other IRAs so people can go to those articles easily. I also moved the genealogical section to a separate article called List of IRAs which can cover the genealogy and be edited as a unit. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with what you are saing here Jtdirl that more clarification is needed. Looks a good job at first glance, but haven't actually read it in any detail yet. However, I think this edit may actually make things worse and add a great deal of confusion. I see that you are a historian and seem greatly interested in Irish history. In the context of greater Irish history then you are probably correct. However, this is an encyclopaedia and many people throughout the world who are interested to know more about the IRA will most likely be thinking of the modern terrorist/paramilitary organisation(s) and not understand fully the full context of Irish history (and the most common modern usage of the acronym "IRA" throughout the world is most definitely referring to the PIRA). I know that you have clarified this at the top of the article, but don't think it is clear enough.

Perhaps the best solution would be to have some sort of disambiguation page that lists all the various IRAs, without any bulk of any article? What do you think? I also think that the UVF article needs this sort of treatment too. Jonto 04:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• First of all, well done to FearÉIREANN on the rewrite of the pre-Treaty IRA. The original article was terrible. This new version is to be welcomed, although there is plenty more information to be added, such as organisation, leadership, strength, tactics, etc etc. That will come in due time and I'll do my best to contribute.

However, like Jonto, I think Wikipedia users deserve to land on a disambiguation page when they search for IRA. Whether we like it or not, the acronym IRA is not automatically taken to mean the pre-Treaty IRA (more a NPOV term than the ridiculous "Old IRA") nowadays. The "official" history books may argue otherwise, but historian after historian have written top-class academic books on the post-Treaty IRA and have used those three letters alone (eg "IRA, 1926-1936" (Brian Hanley). If serious academics can do it, surely Wikipedia can follow.

FearÉIREANN is correct in stating that the majority of the pre-Treaty IRA supported the Treaty and went over to the National Army. However, the fact remains that today the majority of people worldwide associate the letters IRA with the Provisional IRA.

I propose therefore

Irish Republican Army page to be a disambiguation/short overview page leading users to the following

- (pre-Treaty) Irish Republican Army (-1922),
- National Army/Irish Defence Forces
- (anti-Treaty)Irish Republican Army (1922-1969)
- Provisional Irish Republican Army (1969/70-present)
- Official Irish Republican Amry (1969/70-present)
- Continuity Irish Republican Army (1986/94-present)
- Real Irish Republican Army (1997-present)

There is corresponding problem with the Sinn Féin pages. IMO, something similar needs to be done.

--Damac 07:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, looking at my last comment I mentioned a disambiguation page for "IRA" - this already exists - silly me. What I meant was for "Irish Republican Army" to be disambiguated in the same manner, as many articles will link to "Irish Republican Army", and possibly be referring to the wrong one. People may also type "Irish Republican Army" into the browser directly and become confused. Jonto 04:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

While I understand why it's being proposed, I think that making this a disambiguation page is a bad idea for a number of reasons. First of all, I don't think any organisation other than the main paramilitary organisation is recorded as having used the title IRA between the mid-1920s and the 1970, so there doesn't really seem to be any ambiguity there. Furthermore, the IRA in the North never had the option of joining the National Army, and it's well known that Collins remained in contact with them after the treaty split.

It's also incorrect to say that all the organisations subsequent to 1970 called themselves by another name. The IRA majority after the split still called themselves the IRA. They were referred to as the Official IRA to differentiate them from the splitters, but they remained the same organisation, with the same name and the same ideology, just minus O Conaill and Mac Stiofain and their supporters.

In addition, the fact that many members of the IRA left it at the time of the treaty split doesn't mean that the name IRA no longer applied to it. There again, it remained the same organisation. It was the IRA army executive (minus the pro-Treaty ones obviously) who commanded the Republican forces in the civil war. For that reason some sources refer to them as the 'Executive Forces' (such as Dorothy McArdle's book, cited in the article).

To sum up, we are talking about one organisation from 1919 until 1970 at the very least - albeit one that like many other political organisations changed dramatically, lost many members and became a political pariah instead of the national army it was once tantamount to. It is also commonly known by this name throughout this period. It would be unreasonable, in my view, to turn the article into a disambiguation page. Far better to give an overview of all the twists and turns in the IRA's history, and direct people as necessary to 'main pages' on say the Old IRA (i.e. the former volunteers who described themselves as such for a period in the 1920s), the Officials and the Provos. This is the normal practice for long articles.

Damac says:

The "official" history books may argue otherwise, but historian after historian have written top-class academic books on the post-Treaty IRA and have used those three letters alone (eg "IRA, 1926-1936" (Brian Hanley). If serious academics can do it, surely Wikipedia can follow.

This seems to me to support the idea of having a general IRA article even more than it supports the idea of a disambig page. Cheers,Palmiro 15:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I did mention "short overview page" above and I think you've done a better job in describing what I'm on about. There is a strong argument for a general IRA introductory/overview page (a glorified disambiguation page). This should describe the common features of all IRAs (like aims, organisation, terminology (they all have Army Councils, Executives, Army Conventions, Chiefs of Staff, volunteers, etc) and also very short, 1-2 paragraph descriptions of each organisation bearing the name IRA. It could function like the wiki page for a country, with numerous "Main article: Provisional IRA" etc links.

Glad to see that there is some interest in this. As I said, the various Sinn Fein pages are a similar mess. The centenary of the foundation of the first Sinn Fein party is approaching and something should be done. --Damac 16:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The problem with the IRA is the question - which IRA? The reason why I focused on the 1917-1922/3 IRA is because it is the only undisputed IRA. Everyone accepts that it was acknowledged as the army of the Dáil and Aireacht (but that does not mean, of course, that everyone accepts the legitimacy of the Dáil and the Aireacht). Later IRA are disputed - are they genuine IRAs? Are they real successors of the Old IRA? Or are they just sectarian killers trying to provoke civil war in Northern Ireland. In addition, different claimants to the IRA name co-existed in similar timeframes, with each saying "we are the IRA. You aren't." So I think the best solution is to have this article for the only undisputed IRA in existence, one that can be defined within a narrow timeframe and leadership. Later periods, 1920s-1950s, move to marxism as the Official IRA, split that created the PIRA in the late 1960s and 1970s, Real and Continuity IRAs, etc, can best be dealt with as separate articles, each of which can be focused on as a unit. I deliberately put a disambigulation link at the very start of the page to other pages about other IRAs.

Putting them all on the one page is also POV - it implies that the modern PIRA is the successor of the Old IRA. Many Irish people do not accept and would regard it as a minority point of view. Indeed some would regard it as a slur on people like Collins to link him to the people who carried out Enniskillen or Warrington, for example. Keeping them separately allows Wikipedia to avoid appearing to link all the IRAs as if they were one. But linking successive articles on different IRAs allows people to read through all the articles and reach their own conclusions, which is what NPOV is all about. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 17:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it is possible to write an introductory page that can provide short and concise paragraphs on the organisations styling themselves IRA as well as emphasising that such an overview does not confer legitimacy or continuity on any of the organisations. As an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia must be descriptive rather than prescriptive in persenting information. Whether an IRA is genuine or not is a question we should not be attempting to answer. We must describe and explain what existed and not what we want to exist. I propose that each IRA section have a paragraph on legitimacy. This would allow the reader learn how these organisations see themselves (e.g. the Continuity IRA's claim to be the legitimate govt of Ireland is bizarre but this is what guides them). I think the mass of Wiki readers would be in a position to make reach their own conclusions on the validity/legitimacy of particular organisations. --Damac 07:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Moral arguments like the one that Irish people would regard it as a slur to the memory of Collins to have all IRAs appear on one page has nothing to do with an encyclopaedia. The IRA you've written so well about carried out some obscene atrocities during 1919-1921 which were regarded as terrorist by many thousands of Irish people (nationalists included) at that time.

I agree with Damac's proposal. I looked for how others had done it in other encyclopaedias - here's a quote from the first paragraph of Encarta's "Irish Republican Army" page:

"Irish Republican Army (IRA), name adopted by a number of armed groups who have been dedicated to ending British rule in Ireland and have claimed allegiance to an independent Irish republic. The term is most commonly applied to the contemporary Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA, also known as “Provos” or “Provisionals”) formed in 1972. Since that date the IRA has waged a terrorist campaign against Britain to force the British to withdraw their military forces from Northern Ireland and to establish a united Irish republic."

I think the way they have described it as the name of several armed groups is best. The 1917 IRA may be the only one which is undisputed to have the name, but the usage of the term to describe the provisionals is certainly the most common. The provisionals were also in action for a lot longer than the three years of the "olds" from 1917-1919! Putting them all on one page does not have to be POV if the summary page states very clearly that the PIRA etc. are not the successor of the old IRA, and that the term is the name of several different organisations. A summary page is absolutely necessary for clarity - if you leave the page as it is, then many ignorant to the various IRA organisations who skim read the article and don't read the first line (which can easily be done) may leave thinking that what they think of and see in the news as the provisionals are now also the same IRA from 1917!! This is exactly the opposite of what you are trying to say, and not putting them on the same page makes the whole situation a lot worse IMHO. Jonto 19:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm very much with Jonto on this. The question of legitimacy is of limited relevance, and whether the IRA in later years was a worthy successor of the IRA that fought the war of independence or not, or whether its allegiance to a purely metaphysical republic entitles it to use the title it was known by or not, is also only of limited relevance. The fact is that it used that title, was not as far as I know known by any other title, and was organisationally and ideologically a continuation of the IRA that split over the Treaty.

After all, what page would we put the Progressive Democrats under if people had to live up to their names ;) ?Palmiro 20:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I support FearEireann on this one. Encarta is deeply wrong to omit the original Irish Republican Army. Anyone coming new to this must begin here: absence this, they have no context, no way to understand the assertions of legitimacy, no basis to evaluate those claims. It is completely unwieldy to have an article that goes from the Fenians to the present day, and to do so would confirm a legitimacy on the present mobsters that they don't deserve. The narrative reaches a clear break point with the Civil War and that's the point where different articles begin. --Red King 23:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Nobody suggested beginning the article with the Fenians, although there is a case for an article on what was referred to as "physical force" Irish nationalism in the 19th century.

The Provisional/Continuity/Real IRA claims to legitimacy can be simply exposed by describing the obscure thought behind these claims. --Damac 07:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Definitely the article should deal with the 1919 IRA before any others. That stands to reason. The intro paragraph can deal in summary with the long-term history of the IRA(s). There is also no reason why the article should't talk about the roots of physical force republicanism in the C19, insofar as it's relevant to understanding the IRA.

But the current article, even on its own terms, has a big problem. It begins with a notice

For other Irish paramilitary organisations after 1922 that use or have used using the acronym IRA see Continuity IRA, Official IRA, Provisional IRA and Real IRA.

Then the article stops dealing with the IRA at the time of the treaty split. So it refers us to post-1969 versions of the IRA, tells us about what happened up to 1922, and leaves everything between 1922 and 1970 hanging in the ether. Sorry, but that won't do.

And at the risk of repetition, the IRA between the 20s and 1969 was universally known as the IRA, was not known by any alternative title (except Oglaigh na hEireann, which won't do the job for us), and was the only organisation using the title IRA. So I can't for the life of me imagine why the IRA from 1922 on has any less business being in an article entitled Irish Republican Army than the IRA from 1919 to 1922.

Whether most Irish people viewed this continuation of the IRA as a legitimate army of the Irish people or their make-believe Republic as the legitimate Irish government is another question entirely, and should have no bearing on how we name the article on it.Palmiro 11:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Encarta does not omit the original IRA - quite the opposite - I just gave you the first paragraph, so go and see for yourself. You say that someone new "must" come to the old IRA article first - why should they? People shouldn't have to understand the complete 100 year history of Irish republicanism, before they should be able to get to the main points relating to items more relevent to republicanism of the current day. Many people will want some quick and simple information on what they have seen about the IRA on the news - i.e. the provisionals, will most likely come here and see the article, assume the provisionals are the same as the old IRA and go away with completely false ideas in their heads. A summary page stating that several groups use the name "Irish Republican Army" should suffice, along with a brief distinction of each. The page should highlight that the most common usage is for the provos, but that the undisputed name is for the "olds". Perhaps modify the current IRA page and use this in the Irish Republican Army page. As things stand in there current form, they are a complete and confusing DISASTER!! Jonto 01:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

As far as millions of Irish people are concerned (and I am one) the Provisional IRA is not the same as the Old IRA and any article that suggested otherwise would be POV. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 17:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

An article won't be POV if it explicity states that the organisations aren't the same. I think the article as it stands is actually POV because it ignores the most common usage of the term (and I'm Irish too).Jonto 20:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

But if you say they aren't the same again you are expressing a POV. (It happens to be my POV, but it is still a POV.) If they feature except as a link on this page, either it will be to imply a continuity with the Old IRA (a POV) or to stress that they aren't the same (a POV). Either way, you break Wikipedia rules on NPOV. Simply saying go elsewhere for more modern organisations which use the name IRA avoids that completely, because you aren't saying there is a continuity or a discontinuity. People can focus on each organisation completely and give that organisation's perspective on itself (and the critics view) without getting bogged down in edit wars on one page. It is 100% unworkable to cover them in any way on the same page. Those who believe the IRA ended in 1922 will revert claims that they didn't. Anti-Treatyites may revert claims that the modern IRA dates from them. PIRA supporters may revert claims that they aren't descended from the Old IRA. Official IRA supporters may revert changes which suggest any legitimacy for the PIRA. Instead of having a two-way edit war you could have a four-way edit war, with each side putting their point of view as correct.

Giving each IRA its own self-contained IRA minimises the dangers of endless edit wars, and should an edit war break out, probably would limit it to the PIRA and OIRA pages. The Old IRA is perhaps the only user of the name with a general consensus of validity behind it. It is also, unambiguously, the IRA. All the others qualify their names with words like Official, Provisional, Real. The original IRA is quite literally the IRA and should be the focus of its page, with later claimants given their own pages where there own history, and own view of history, can be explored. It is 100% unworkable to have them on the one page, as the previous mess of an article here shows. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but what I am proposing is a very brief summary page - you can word it in such a way to say that is "widely regarded that they are separate organisations" (or something to that effect - maybe it is still POV, but you could water it down if so), and why it is important to jtdirl that the dictinction is made. Then explain that some others would contend that they are the same and why.

There are also many articles on wikipedia which link to Irish Republican Army when they really mean Provisional Irish Republican Army, and it will be easy to forget for many when writing a new article that what they are actually referring to is the "Provisional" IRA, causing many editors to inadvertently link to this page instead of the PIRA page. I am agreeing that each IRA needs its own page for the exact reason you state, and actually reserving the Irish Republican Army page for the "olds" is enforcing your POV that this is the most legitimate usage of the term!! If we are still in a catch-22 (which I don't think we are) then a summary of each gives the best clarity to an ambiguous subject. Perhaps the article on the olds that you refer to should be called "Irish Republican Army (1917-1919)".

"go elsewhere for more modern organisations which use the name IRA" doesn't spell out the lack of clarity in a clear and non-ambiguous enough way for the casual observer. Due to the nature of the medium, edit wars are an inherent part of Wikipedia, and while I agree that we should try to reduce them as much as possible, it will be futile to attempt to completely eliminate them altogether. Clarity should not be compromised for the sake of attempting the futile task of preventing inevitible POV edits.

Jonto 22:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

There are many articles that begin "for other meanings see ABCDE". For example, see Dublin. I accept that it is my POV too, but it seems to me that the original Irish Republican Army deserves the principal page and the other charlatans merely a disambiguation. I'd even go so far as to suggest replacing the opening sentence with For other Irish paramilitary organisations after 1922 that have called themselves "the Irish Republican Army", see IRA (Disambiguation). --Red King 22:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Charlatans — now that made me smile. Nice way of putting it. Not NPOV, unfortunately, but it does represent my view and the view of most Irish people. But I do believe that to write about the likes of the PIRA, Official IRA, the Real IRA etc to a page on the Irish Republican Army given legitimacy by the First Dáil would be

• extraordinarily offensive to many Irish people and guaranteed to cause the mother of edit wars;
• tactless in the extreme;
• breaching NPOV completely.

I don't think, to be fair, that Jonto fully understands just how provocative, and for many people downright offensive that would be. Putting on my historian's hat, I'd have to say it would be an almightly clanger. It would be a quite elementary error and would undermine Wikipedia's credibility as a sourcebook that knew what it was doing. It would be the equivalent of insisting that part of an article on steak be given over to McDonald's beef-burgers! FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Jtdirl - I do understand what you're saying, and the importance of the Old IRA in the formation of the Irish Republic to many Irish people. I have studied Irish history myself, so please do not underestimate my knowledge in this area. As I have already mentioned, the same principle applies to when talking about the Ulster Volunteer Force to many in Northern Ireland, and thinking that the current UVF is the same as the "old UVF" ( most noted as being a major factor in preventing Northern Ireland from leaving the UK at the start of the 20th century, and forming the British 36th (Ulster) Division of the British Army during the battle of the Somme). You also mention "putting on your historian's hat" - perhaps you are doing this too much - this is an encyclopaedia, not a history book - other people will come to an encyclopaedia thinking of the present, and wanting information about the present - they may not instantly realise that you are talking about history - this is precisely why this issue causes so much ambiguity.Jonto 00:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The Dublin example you gave is rather different situation - Dublin (Ireland) is the original, the most commonly used of the terms today, and the term that has been in most common use over the longest period of time. In the case of the old IRA, only the first of these three points applies. I don't think a disambiguation page is the right way to go as there is already one for "IRA", but a summary page.Jonto 23:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

That is the point. The IRA of the War of Independence is the original. The others are self-proclaimed copies who unlike the original IRA have never received an electoral mandate, never received an legitimacy from the democratic process and never had their status as an 'army' approved by a parliament. There is no way that an article about the original IRA can be turned into some sort of summary page. That is a non-starter. They are different organisations, with different names. So the Provos belong at at article on the PIRA, the Officials at a page on the OIRA, the Reals at a page on the RIRA. The only option is a disambigulation page. You cannot seriously suggest bastardising a page on the Irish Republican Army to fit in groups who in the view of the great majority of people are not the IRA but self proclaimed other IRAs. It is a ludicrous argument without any logic. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Who ever said this was to be an article on the original IRA? It is your POV (openly admitted by yourself) that the originals should have exclusive usage of this term, despite the fact that the same term is more widely used (not just be the self-proclaimed organisations themselves, but by others too) to describe other organisation. This is an article on the "Irish Republican Army", which is an ambiguous and widely used term. The page should be on the term, not the organisation. And I have never suggested "bastardising" the page on the officials - I have supported your proposal for individual (non-"bastardised") pages on each usage of the term. My proposal is for the article on the olds to be called "Irish Republican Army (1917-1919)".

Any summary/disambig page should be short - not a couple of paragraphs on each as suggested above by another user, but a couple of lines on each. Actually, I don't see anything wrong with taking the current IRA disambiguation page, copying it to Irish Republican Army, and deleting anything not related to Ireland from it. This should solve all problems.

Jonto 00:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

OK - I've done just this - please discuss. I don't want a revert war. Took wording from IRA disambig page and changed slightly. Probably needs tweaked.Jonto 01:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you did, Jonto, but you should have waited until some kind of consensus was reached before doing so. You have renamed FearEireann's article on the first IRA (I despise and reject the term Old IRA) but this organisation did NOT exist from 1916 to 1919, rather from 1919 to early 1922, when the Civil War broke out. If you had read FearEireann's article this would have been apparent.

In addition, it was wrong to move FearEireann's article in the way you did as he is no longer attributed as the author.

I'd like to see these matters cleared up before I make the changes I think necessary. The Irish Republican Army page you have created is the way to go, but the organisations should be listed chronologically, not in order of importance.

We also need to work out how to refer to the organisation that went under the title IRA from 1922 to 1969/70. A note to FearEireann - a glance thru the record of Dail Debates thru the decades proves that the letters IRA has been used to describe the organisations he claims are invalid IRAs. Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, the media, the Unionist Party etc etc have always referred to the PIRAs and the OIRAs and the IRA (1922-1969) as the IRA. Think of the IRA Border Campaign for example. I've never heard that called anything else, nor have I heard of people like Sean South etc ever being referred to anything else other than an IRA man. Internment was introduced by govts north and south against the IRA etc etc. --Damac 07:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I apologise for not waiting for a consensus, but I wanted to demonstrate what I was talking about by example (in the same way that jtd/FE demonstrated by example in his complete rewrite), and this now opens further debate as to the best method of organisation. It may easily be reverted to its previous state if not liked - it mentions in the guidelines to be bold in your edits, unless in a revert war (which we thankfully have not reached, and I hope we will avoid in the near future). I named the article "Irish Republican Army (1916-1919)" specifically to avoid using the term "old IRA", and in order to imply the more official recognised status to the "olds" than the other organisations. I was aware when creating the article that the dates may have been wrong (Thinking after I did it that perhaps "Irish Republican Army (1916-1922)" should have been the name), and I quickly based this on the opening paragraph from Jtdirls/Feareireann's article (by the way jtdirl can you make your username and sig the same thing - the dual identity confuses things a bit!!). The detail of the dates is pedantic, and may easily be fixed - I think the example of structure that I was trying to show is much more important.

I also apologise for the point in your second paragraph. I was unaware of any other means of moving the article, and keeping the credentials. If there is any way to move it, then I'll be happy for it to make sure that FearEireann get credit for the article. Perhaps jtd/FE should move it himself so he gets the credit.

I suggest calling the article of the organisation from 1922 to 1969/70 "Irish Republican Army (1922-1970)".

I disagree that the list should be in chronological order - it should be in order of usage of the term - this is a disambiguation page of the highly ambiguous term. Putting them in chronological order will imply that these organisations are new versions of the same thing, and be POV. This is the exact reason why I added the line:

"For more details of the usage of the term "Irish Republican Army", and a genealogical tree of Irish nationalist movements, visit List of IRAs."

This line gives an indication to the chronological order of things if that knowledge is dersired - perhaps it should be made bolder.

It is also important that this page remains a disambiguation page - if it changes to anything more, then we move away from talking about the term to talking about the organisation, and therefore also implying that the organisations are the same.

Jonto 12:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I reverted back to the pre-disambiguation version, not because I'm interested content-wise, but because Jonto had performed a crude cut-and-paste move of the article content. If the content is indeed to be moved to a new location, the move function must be used, to preserve the article history at the correct location, and avoid breaking or forking it. zoney ♣ talk 14:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

OK - sorry about that again - I never noticed the "move" tab before, so thanks to zoney for making me aware of that one. I propose to move the "old IRA" content to "Irish Republican Army (1916-1922), or whatever date is decided, and reverting the "Irish Republican Army Page" to the disamiguation page last edited by myself. Comments Please. Jonto 20:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

There is absolutely no justification for having the 1919 - 1921 IRA on the Irish Republican Army page and the 1922 - 1969 IRA not on it. The only reason for doing so is that you think they weren't entitled to use the name IRA, which is an entirely POV position. Actually nobody else claimed that name in the meantime. According to Wikipedia naming principles, an idea about somebody's moral entitlement to a particular name is not an adequate basis for a decision about the name of an article.

It can't be denied that there was overwhelming organisational continuity between the pre-Treaty split IRA and the post-Treaty split IRA. Therefore, they both belong on a page about the IRA. What the rest of the country thought about them is something to be explained in the article, it's not a reason to chop it up into different articles.

I am utterly opposed to the Irish Republican Army page being turned into a disambiguation page. It should cover the IRA in general, throughout its history, explaining the nature of the various splits and what other people thought of the resulting formations. Certainly it should point people to the appropriate detailed articles, but it's also the right place for an overview of the IRA.

Putting in a disambiguation page would be a bit like abolishing the page on France and redirecting people to different articles on the Kingdom of France, the First Republic, the First Empire, the Bourbon restoration, the Orleanist monarchy, the Second Republic etc...Palmiro 20:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I have corrected the article IRA - also indicating where the same thing for Irish Republican Army will get us. --Red King 00:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Palmiro is right. For more than eighty years, when anyone referred to "the IRA", they were'nt talking about the Old IRA. Electoral mandates did'nt seem to bother the Old IRA when they were the Irish Volunteers. I don't think it bothered too many of them much even after Sinn Féin won the election in 1918.

Lapsed Pacifist 15:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

IRA ceasing to exist after Civil War

The article says "Others hold that the IRA went out of existence after the defeat of the anti-treaty side in the Irish Civil War."

Does anyone believe this? I'd like to see a source for this remark cited. The IRA received no order to disband at or after the end of the civil war; the only order was to "dump arms". I don't think anyone believes that it ceased to exist; De Valera's election promises to unban it suggest that he certainly thought (1) that it existed in 1932 and (2) that it still commanded a reasonable level of popular sympathy. As far as I can tell, the current statement is of little historical value and should be recast as something like "while the IRA continued to exist after the Civil War, by the late 1930s it had lost most of the legitimacy with which which most supporters of the Republican side initially regarded it." That's awkwardly phrased I'll agree but as a starting point it's more accurate than the current sentence. Palmiro 11:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I accept that it does depend on historical perspective. According to the majority view at the time, the IRA became the National Army in 1922. A group of mutinous irregulars reclaimed the name. I won't pretend that groups have not continued to use the name for another 80-odd years and should be described. The real problem, continued below, is whether they are the same IRA and therefore should be on the same article. --Red King 12:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Whether they're exactly the same organisation or not (they're clearly not) isn't necessarily an argument for putting them on separate pages, given the considerable organisational and ideological continuity involved. It's a long way from the difference between a sort of salad and a village in Italy!Palmiro 16:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

DeV (Aiken) did say "dump arms". He explained later that he hoped that executions were less likely if there still were arms dumps. However of July 24 he (deV) issued a further statement "It is not the intention of the republican Government or Army Executive to renew the war"--ClemMcGann 19:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)--ClemMcGann 02:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

IRA 1922 - 1969

I've added some information to the article concerning the IRA between 1922 and 1969. Unfortunately I don't have any references available to me here except the internet and my memory of when I studied this subject, so it could do with careful checking, a rewrite and more info.

I felt this addition was necessary as it was a clear omission in the article -which stated that it covered the IRA up until 1922 and then directed readers elsewhere for information on the IRA from 1969 on, but no mention of the 47 years missing in the middle. In the discussion above under "complete rewrite" no-one appeared to offer a short term alternative to the inclusion of this period or indicate that the IRA was not known under this name (or indeed that any other organisation was) in this period.

I personally would think it acceptable to expand this page to cover all the organisations known as "the IRA", but until such time as we can reach a decision on how to approach that question, this addition covers a yawning gap in Wikipedia's coverage of the organisation(s). Palmiro 13:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this change. The Army of the Irish Republic became the National Army in 1922. Every subsequent group is without legitimacy and doesn't belong here. All the discussion above has been to acknowlege that only the 1916-1922 movement is undisputed. The stuff about the irregulars belongs elsewhere. Move it to the Officials if you like. --Red King 23:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The IRA split in 1922, and it was the irregulars who retained the name. Wikipedia naming principles are based on use, and a moral entitlement to use a name, as perceived by Wikipedia editors, is explicitly excluded. Nobody on this page has justified excluding the 1922-on IRA on any grounds other than a view of whether they were entitled to the name, and neither is there any other obvious home for it.

I don't disagree with that. My issue is whether they are the same IRA and so whether they belong in the same article. --Red King 12:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Official IRA is the wrong place for this: the term 'official IRA' was only used after the 1969 split with the Provos.

On reflection, perhaps either (1) a summary page like your model on IRA or (2) a disambiguation page is the only way of finding consensus. I don't particularly think either of these solutions are ideal, but it would be better to find some solution that will keep most people more or less happy. What do you think? Palmiro 10:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Much to my surprise, my version of IRA (disambig) has not been subjected to further change. So now I think that this is the only way forward. I'll start a new topic (below) to debate this.

I would also add that when I queried on this page the contention in the article that the IRA was seen by Republicans as ceasing to exist after the Civil War, nobody appeared to support it. This being the case, it seemed logical to follow through with its history after the 'dump arms' order. Palmiro 10:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The problem is one of semantics. It's an awkward question because the words are value-laden. --Red King 12:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Until such time as we have consensus on what belongs on this page, there can be no excuse for deleting material which doesn't appear to belong anywhere else. Let's try to reach consensus on how to proceed before losing important information (or our tempers!). Palmiro 11:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I could equally argue that there can be no excuse for adding material that is incidental to the topic of the article. There is substantial opposition to blurring the line between the War of Independence veterans and the subsequent claimants to the name. However, I accept that it is valid and should go somewhere. --Red King 12:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your basic points, Palmiro. The IRA did not cease to exist in 1922 or all join the National Army. Referring to those who continued to style themselves the IRA as irregulars is to wage Irish Civil War politics on Wikipedia. It seems that a small number of people are determined to enforce their agenda regardless of the dicussions taking place here. This minority is ideologically driven and seeks to prescribe rather than to describe what the term IRA means for the vast majority of poeple internationally. I think it is worthwhile reminding these people that the letters IRA have been used frequently by every nationalist and unionist political party in Dáil Éireann (see Dail debates), the Houses of Commons of Northern Ireland and the UK (see Hansard etc), by the media across the world to describe the post-1922 organisations. It is not our job here to proscribe which IRA is legitimate but to provide an historical overview of those organisations that were seen as the IRA by contemporary society.

Professional historians (and I am one) are much more flexible in this regard and Wikipedia should reflect this.

I agree that Wiki should reflect it. The question is how it should do so. To blur clear historical boundaries is not the way to do it. I don't think that you realise how offensive it is to have them merged. --Red King 12:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

However, it's not a bad idea for reasons of space to have a seperate article for the (post-Treaty) IRA. This would allow for a deep investigation of an organisation that did exist despite the claims of some otherwise. --Damac 11:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

So how do you propose proceeding? Move this additional info to an article entitled Irish Republican Army 1922 - 1969? or perhaps Irish Republican Army (post-treaty)? How should this page be named? Perhaps Irish Republican Army (War of Independence)? That would seem to be totally neutral.

The best approach in my view - from the point of view of ease of use and NPOV - would be to have a short summary page under Irish Republican Army such as the one RedKing has been working on under IRA. (Personally I think IRA should - once this is resolved - be either a redirect to here or, if it seems necessary, a disambig with other uses of the initials)

I see two main difficulties with this approach. The first is that any splitting up of the IRA articles means that for the resulting articles to stand on their own, a good deal of repetition is necessary to establish historical context. The second is that it's the nature of Wikipedia to gain ionformation and just because we decide a 'short summary page' would be a good idea doesn't prevent other people from adding information to it, thereby turning it once again into a full page. So perhaps the only way around the issue is for this to be a disambiguation page. Any views? Palmiro 11:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Re size of the IRA, perhaps we could get some sources regarding membership levels? If I remember correctly, it was in fact a claim of some Free State sources that lots of people who hadn;t been involved in the War of Independence joined the IRA after the ceasefire. Also, on some (undoubtedly partisan) websites I've seen estimates that the IRA had many members in the 1930s. I've no idea as to the truth of this, but it was a significant organisation in the 1930s. It's already clear from the article that the IRA as it stood in the late 20s was the result of several splits; there's no need to gild the lily in this regard, but sourced membership estimates would add to the article. Palmiro 17:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Do you know anyone in the Special Branch#Ireland? More realistically, are the figures for numbers interned in the Curragh during WW2? Though I'd be cautious about that. The 1970-something internment in NI rounded up a load of people who had nothing to do with the IRA before they went in, but everything to do with it when they came out. The various IRAs have always exagerated the size of their membership. --Red King 17:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't, alas. A look at Bowyer Bell's book on the IRA might be some help, if you have it handy; I'm unlikely to come across it in the bookshops of Beirut... Palmiro 14:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

There are detailed membership statistics for the 1926-1936 period, compiled by the IRA itself. These are all contained in Brian Hanley's book (details on this page somewhere), which is based on Moss Twomey's personal papers. As Hanley's book makes clear, the post-Treaty IRA filed reports, held conventions, paraded etc and Twomey received correspondence from all over the country on the IRA. He never disgarded this mass of paperwork, which is now held at UCD Archives. If I get a change, I'll provide some stats on membership. --Damac 11:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

note 1926 onwards. The IRA of deV and Aiken stopped fighting in May 1922. They did not resume hostilities. It was because of the political split (deV left Sinn Fein and set up FF) that Twomey was made chief-of staff. It could be said that Aiken never stepped down, just as it could be said that he stepped down in 1922.--ClemMcGann 09:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The above makes little sense, historical or otherwise. DeV had very little to do with the IRA and played no role in the leadership of that organisation during the period in question. Aiken signed the dump arms order in May 1923. He remained active in the IRA and attended the 1925 IRA Army Convention. At that same convention of November 1925, Andy Cooney was elected chief of staff of the organisation, and he was subsequently replaced by Twomey. It is also worth pointing out that the membership of the IRA in 1925/26 was between 15,000 und 30,000 men and that Frank Aiken and later Seán Lemass continued to style themselves ‘Ministers for Defence’ of the government of the Irish Republic that they still believed existed. The IRA was not an insignificant movement and one that was extremely influencial in the political situation of that time. I'm not conferring legitimacy on that movement by saying that, I'm just simply stating reality which is a completely different thing.

This attempt to define a clear break between a legitimate-respectible and illegitimate-murderous IRA is pathetic. First we had the loyal Cumann na nGaedhael view condemning the post-Treaty IRA as irregulars, murderers and upstarts. Then, the Fianna Fáil element rowed in to defend their founding fathers. Now we have the Cumann na nGaedhael/FF defending their heroes against the savages and murderers who followed in 1926. When might see some more ingenious moral bordermaking in order to encompass the likes of Tom Barry and Seán MacBride later. --Damac 11:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)