Talk:Irish Republican Army (1919–1922)/Archive 7

This article isn't even about the IRA

Could someone please make an article that is actually about the IRA instead of the war of independence?209.194.173.227 (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

? Sbfenian1916 21:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

How about reorganising this article

Now that the above debate seems to have died down and reached some kind of consensus, would it be possible to work on editing this article, that is the "original" IRA up to 1922 or whatever. As it stands, the present article is a cut and paste job from other wikipedia articles and contains very little fact on the IRA itself. The Easter Rising, First Dail, King George proposals etc etc are all fine but they do not relate to the IRA directly. This article should mention these features, but as it is Wikipedia, readers can click on items that they need more info on.

I've inserted a piece about the re-emergence of the Volunteers/IRA in 1917. What is now needed are sections on ideology, motives, membership, arms, tactics, as well as statistics on fatilities caused and endured etc. --Damac 14:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. Much of the context material could be resuméed if accompanied with {{seemain|Irish Republic}} and {{seemain|Anglo Irish War}}. Of course it might not leave a lot! --Red King 19:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The article as it stands has to be renamed. The term "Irish Republican Army" has been a part of the political lexicon in Ireland for almost ninety years. To confine an article with that title to its original incarnation is disingenuous, to say the least. --Lapsed Pacifist 13:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Not so. The disingenuity would be to accept at face value the claims of subsequent organisations to be the Irish Republican Army, when if fact it ceased to exist at the same moment as the Irish Republic ceased to exist, which was when the Treaty was ratified by democratic decision of Dáil Éireann. The article begins by directing readers to other articles if they want to find out about later organisations which recycled the name. It might be arguable that the term IRA has had gained wider meaning through widespread misuse, but not the long form. Any attempt to include the OIRA/PIRA/CIRA/RIRA/INLA here is disputed POV. --Red King 20:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The name was not recycled. Like it or not, there is a direct continuity between the original incarnation of the IRA and the groups who still use the name. Your references to democratic decisions are naive. Armed militant republicanism preceded the establishment of Dáil Éireann, and by your logic the rebels of 1916 have only as much legitimacy as the Provisional IRA. Try and convince Bertie Ahern of that, and see if he takes down Pearse's portrait from his office wall. Name one senior Irish politician or serious political commentator, past or present, that has insisted that the term "Irish Republican Army" should only refer to the organisation that existed before the Treaty. The idea is laughable. Your POV is not unique, but it is far from encyclopaedic.

Lapsed Pacifist 20:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

LP you will do any say anything to push your misguided political agenda - it is not convincing. Bertie Ahern can put up a picture of the three stooges in his office but it does not change the fact that the IRA was a complex series of different organisations. Djegan 22:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Your comments on my "misguided political agenda" are almost as incisive as your argument. I'm not disputing that the IRAs of 2005 are not the same as the IRA of 1919. But to argue that the later incarnations of the IRA came out of thin air is foolish and deliberately misleading, as is insisting the term "Irish Republican Army" be used solely to describe the original. You're right in saying the series is complex, but much of the nature of that complexity seems to have passed you by.

Lapsed Pacifist 00:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd hardely expect Ahern to appreaciate being reminded that Fianna Fáil was founded by the people who refused to accept the democratic decision of the Dáil, only to decide after four years of bloody civil war that, oops, they had made a mistake after all. It is only in the warped world-view inhabited by the Provos and their offshoots that the Irish Republic still exists and they are its army. That position is wildly POV and has no place here. If anybody wants to read about them, there is a link at the beginning of the page. --Red King 19:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

For a wildly POV position, you don't have to look too far, RK. There is and there has been a lot of senior politicians and serious political commentators in Ireland since the '20s. Why not name just one who shares your viewpoint, that later incarnations of the IRA should never be called the IRA as the IR ceased to exist. Are you going to come up with a new name for the INLA as well, seeing as the nation of Ireland has not yet been liberated? Perhaps the IRB should also be renamed, as I'm not aware of any Republic doing the rounds when the Fenians were on the go. Spare me the spiel about "democratic" decisions, it never bothered the '16 rebels. If Sinn Féin had lost the 1918 election, do you really think the Irish Volunteers would have called it a day?

Lapsed Pacifist 18:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Your track record doesn't indicate that you are in any position to give anyone lessons in NPOV writing. I won't pretend that the term "IRA" hasn't gained widespread usage and there are at least three, maybe four organisations that assert that they, uniquely, are the one true IRA. The disambiguation article IRA reflects that - I wrote most of it. But I know of no credible writer who recognises and accepts the claim of the PIRA/CIRA/RIRA to be the army of the Irish Republic. Including them in the historic article would pretend that their assertion has merit.

You asserted earlier on that it was foolish to claim that the Provos appeared out of thin air. Well, I hate to disapoint you, but that is exactly what happened. The Stickies made it clear that they were not going to take sides in a petty bourgeois sectarian squabble, which Marxist analysis put the horrors into the holy maries in Donegal Fianna Fáil (the Blaney brothers) [oh sorry, I forgot you dispute my view that the Brady Bunch regard(ed) the planters as traditional enemies]. So the guns materialised from other sources and suddenly we had yet another bunch of nutters who needed yet another 25 years to work out that unification will never be any earlier than 100 years after the "armed struggle" ends. --Red King 19:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Make this one "(1916-1922)" and create a DAB article?

This edit war could take us to 2116! I really don't see any prospect of agreement. I don't enjoy making this proposal, but it seems to me to be the only way forward. Is there any alternative to

• Moving the current article to Irish Republican Army (1916-1922)
• Making a new Irish Republican Army that is a very simple, no comments, disambiguation article like IRA as it is now.

? I know we've been here before - last time only FearÉIREANN was opposed. Comments? --Red King 19:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• I agree entirely, if everyone is satisfied with the time limits of 1916-1922. Things won't get anywhere otherwise - no POV judgement is implied by differentiating like this between organisations with the same name. This is a general encyclopaedia for ordinary people who use 'Irish Republican Army' to refer to many organisations from different time periods in history. --Kwekubo 00:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• why not until 24 May 1923 ? --ClemMcGann 08:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

1923 is not a suitable cut off date. The IRA of 23 May 1923 was the same as the IRA of 27 May 1923 with the same ideology, leadership, membership. The only difference was that it was on ceasefire. --Damac 08:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

1923 takes us into disputed ground. During 1922 and 1923, there were two organisations calling themselves Óglaigh na hEireann, and the regulars would not accept that the irregulars had any right to call themselves the IRA. Furthermore, I don't think that the irregular IRA would accept that the "dump arms" order in 1923 meant that they were finished - as indeed subsequent history confirmed. So I don't think we can include the Civil War period (other than maybe a brief paragraph giving the Aftermath of the split). Otherwise we get bogged down again. --Red King 22:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I beg to differ, It was made clear that all hostilities would cease - and they did. After 1927 - after Aiken - after Fiannna Fail was formed - the IRA was a different organisation. Almost all of it political and 'active service' members left and followed deV --ClemMcGann 19:24, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

You may beg to differ but that does not alter history. The mass of "active service" members did not leave the IRA in 1927. If you read Brian Hanley's recent book, you'll learn that many FF members, including some TDs, remained on as members and even officers of the IRA for a number of years after the foundation of FF. In addition, there was remarkable continuity between the pre- and post- 1926/27 Army Council and Executive of the IRA which does not suggest that the organisation became a "different" one after De Valera (who was not a member or had been active in the IRA for a considerable time).--Damac 12:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with the idea of breaking up the articles and creating a simple DAB article. My problem is with the periodisation. This particular article should not cover 1916 as the IRA did not exist at that time under that name. I've never heard a historian refer to the 1916 Rising as the work of the IRA. All reputable history books speak of the Irish Volunteers in relation to the Rising.

Actually most decent historians mention a number of organisations involved in the rising, and three of them are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, 'The Irish Republican Brotherhood', 'The Irish Volunteers', 'The Irish Citizens Army', three other organisations took part in the rising but aren't mentioned in the declaration, 'Fianna Éireann', 'Cumman na mBan' and 'The Hibernian Rifles'. During the rising the Provisional Government issued a number of official newsletters and in one of these they declared that the various forces had been merged into the Irish Republican Army, which was the first use of the term in post 'fenian' usage. The first reference to the Irish Republican Army that I have come across was during the Fenian Invasion of Canada, the term Irish Republican Army was also used during one of the Irish Republican Brotherhood risings in Ireland (I'll have to check which one). Perhaps mention should be made of these usages as well as they provide a context for the use of the term in the 1916 rising and afterwards. - Mark Jones

October 1917 should be the starting date as that is when returned internees convened and established a national and resident executive (see Irish_Republican_Army#The_emergence_of_the_IRA_after_the_Easter_Rising. This body became the IRA. 1922, shortly before the organisation split along pro/anti-Treaty lines, should be the cut off point. So, my suggestion is Irish Republican Army (1917-1922). --Damac 08:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

My original 1916- was to take in the IRB, but (based on strict NPOV definitions that we must use to achieve compromise), I accept Damac's proposal that it should start in October 1917. The end point (of this phase) has to be the day in December 1921 of the Dail vote to ratify the treaty and the immediate walkout. That marks the split. 1922 is too messy becuase it means gtting into specific months. (I think that it was the National Army that accepted the British handover in 22?). --Red King 22:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• So the revised proposal is that we have Irish Republican Army (1917 - 1921).

Do we have a consensus? --Red King 22:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

No! This article is about the IRA, not Sinn Féin or the Dáil or whatever. Therefore, the cut-off point should not be December 1921 (when the Treaty was signed), or January 1922 (when it was ratified). (BTW, there was no dramatic walkout and Dev and co were back in the Dáil - it was still the Dáil of the Irish Republic until the end of the year when the Free State was established).

The cut off point here - this being an article on the IRA - must be the split in the Executive. I'll look it up tomorrow, but this was when the Executive and sections of the Army Council demanded an Army Convention to discuss the Treaty, but this was refused by the chief of staff (Eoin O'Duffy), Richard Mulcahy and the Provisional Government. These anti-Treaty elements went ahead with their convention and elected a new C/S. That is where the IRA 1922-1969 should take off. --Damac 23:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy with 1917-22, but I have problems with the later periodisation. I don't think the IRA from 1922 to 1969 should be covered in just one article. I originally suggested two, but perhaps more would be better. Thoughts?

Lapsed Pacifist 10:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

A logical solution to distinguish between the army as empowered by the Dail and the organisations that claimed to be the army later on, would be to use the full name Irish Republican Army with dates for the official army, and the acronym IRA for the later claimants, given that they are referred to by the acronym rather than by the full name in the vast majority of cases. That would also allow Wikipedia to remain impartial by not suggesting, as Mr Pacifist seems to want to do, that later IRAs were the legitimate successors of the earlier Irish Republican Army, when officially they were claimants to the title, not universally accepted possessors of it. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 15:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back - I was afraid you had left for good! Well, as you can see from the discussion above, the civil edit war is still rumbling on. I agree with your logic — unfortunately 99% of the world's press and 95% of wikipedia haven't a clue what we are talking about. So there have been multiple irrelevant edits to this article and there are multiple links that should go to the provos. Neither of us are going to be here forever and, sooner or later, LP or other revisionists will drift this article until it runs from 1916 through 2016 without a break. At least in a DAB article, the bogus claims can be highlighted, not lost in the detail. As i said, it seems the least worst of the options. --Red King 18:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Another welcome back - and I still advocate 23 May 1923 as the cut off point--ClemMcGann 19:24, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

No, because it is after the 1922 split as described by Damac above. If this compromise is going to work, there can't be any room for different Ps of V. A very brief para on the aftermath could be added but, following another of Damac's sensible suggestions, the article shouldn't repeat all the stuff that is in the Civil War article. A {{seemain|Irish Civil War}} should be enough, without any summary of it. --Red King 19:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC) (written after Palmiro's next).

I agree that the article shouldn't repeat what's in the Civil War article, but in general I think 'seemains' with no content are extremely ugly and unhelpful for the reader. A sentence or two explaining what happened next and leading naturally into the IRA (22-69) article (since presumably a considerable proportion of readers will head on there) should suffice. Palmiro | Talk 19:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

No, I didn't mean no content, I meant something very short - nothing more than a trailer for the main article. What it mustn't do is facilitate a drift past the split. If there is any danger of that, it would be better to stop there and let readers follow whichever thread of FearEireann's infobox they like. --Red King 20:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back, indeed. We still look unlikely to agree with each other, though! In particular, I don't really think that it is very logical to use an acronym that stands for Irish Republican Army, and the full name, in order to make a distinction between different IRAs. Also, Wikipedia policy indicates that generally full names should be used. I think that the best result we're likely to get that doesn't run into massive POV problems and keeps most people not too unhappy is something along the lines being worked out here. Palmiro | Talk 20:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Article should begin in 1916, but after rising

I had earlier suggested beginning this article in October 1917, as this is when the Irish Volunteers held a convention. However, I've just read that the first steps towards reorganising the Volunteers were taken in November 1916, when Cathal Brugha was released from hospital. Along with Seán Ó Muirthile and Diarmuid O'Hegarty, they organised a small representative meeting of the Volunteers at Fleming's Hotel in Gardiner Street later that month which was attended by about 50 Volunteers. Then, August 1917, a meeting was held in the offices of Craobh Chéitinn of Conradh na Gaeilge in 46 Parnell Square. Those in attendance included Eamonn de Valera, Cathal Brugha, Thomas Ashe, Diarmuid O'Hegarty, Diarmuid Lynch, Michael Collins, Michael Staines and Richard Mulcahy. It was decided at this meeting that an Army Convention would be held to establish a National Executive of Óglaigh na hÉireann.--Damac 08:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The cut-off point

Red King asked me to propose when this article on the IRA (which I have argued should begin in November 1916) should finish.

I propose March/April 1922, specifically 26 March. On that day, an IRA Convention of (pre-dominantly) Anti-Treaty delegates met in Mansion House, Dublin with between 220 and 223 delegates present. The convention past a resolution saying that the Army "shall be maintained as the Army of the Irish Republic under an Executive appointed by the Convention". A temporary Executive of 16 was elected headed by Liam Lynch (and including O’Connor, Mellows and O’Malley). They adjourn until the 9 April when a new constitution would be discussed.

In the main article, I've removed the terribly simplistic and biased account of the IRA split and replaced it with the main facts relating to developments within the IRA from the ratification of the Treaty to the IRA convention. I recognise that this is a simple chronology and needs to be reworked. Feel free to boil it down where possible.

Now that the beginning and the end of the original IRA has been written, the next stage is to completely rewrite the content in order to shift the focus on the IRA--Damac 22:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not organisation, it's organization. Please change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.236.11.68 (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

On a point of order...

any objections if I archive all but the last two sections of this page, as it's getting pretty massive again? Palmiro | Talk 19:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I think thats reasonable but make the more recent, controversial sections obvious? Djegan 19:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. --Red King 20:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Phew! That took a while. Feel free to make any necessary fixes. or some reason the "small" code for the internal headings in the archive pages hasn't worked.

We've obviously been pretty productive: archive no. 5 gets the following warning:

This page is 52 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size.

And it only runs from 29 July til 1 August. Palmiro | Talk 21:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• On another point of order: even though there appears to be about five in favour with one opposed at this stage, I presume we need to do a formal Request to Move. Given the months of debate, it would be unreasonable to just hit the Move tab. --Red King 23:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Do please. I've taken the disagreement tag off since we now have a reasonable level of consensus. Palmiro | Talk

Confusing

New Discussion: I came to this page to read about the IRA, and just want to let you know that I found the introduction to be very confusing. I am leaving after clicking through a variety of different IRA pages here. There is lots of info and I will try to come back later for it, but it does not help the layman who wants to know about the IRA (the one in the news) Basically, you need to do research elsewhere before you are able to navigate the wiki pages to find what you want! (and p.s., I'm not the one to fix it! I have little knowledge of the subject obviously) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.18.178 (talk • contribs • WHOIS)

Agreed - the organisation of articles certainly lacks clarity to an outsider. Will someone therefore be bold and move the article to Irish Republican Army (1916-1922) - or whatever dates you lot eventually agreed upon (can't be bothered reading it to find out!) as proposed above? Jonto 19:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

No. As has been made clear the Irish Republican Army was the army of the Irish Republic. Later IRAs were mere claimants to the name, and disputed ones at that. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like going round in circles again. Jtdirl - from reading above most people are happy renaming the article to include a date (or something in brackets), which I feel is perfectly neutral and clear. The only person who seems to have problems with this is you. Also, an encyclopaedia is NOT a history book! I'd like to remind you that you point out so often on the Talk:Derry article that the official name is not always used and quote: "Wikipedia is guided in cases of naming disputes by most common name", and since this "Irish Republican Army" term can mean so many different things to different people then we can't reserve the "official" name for one particular meaning of the phrase (Unlike the Derry case, the official name here is also disputed). IMHO clarity should prevail above everything else, and in this case clarity most certainly is not evident Jonto 21:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Jonto, you've hit the nail on the head.

Lapsed Pacifist 15:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Confused, possibly due to ignorance. I expected a summary to indicate what the primary goals of the recent IRA were/are and how that tied into historical info. I read the page a few times and it didn't really clear up too much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.151.113 (talk • contribs) .

Yet another person confused by this POV page. Lapsed Pacifist - you were right to move the page. 5 to 2 votes seems like a consensus to me too. Perhaps you should add another request to move. That view from HappyCamper was before most of the main people involved in the discussion had cast a vote. Jonto 12:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No, just one person who failed to read the clear statement at the beginning that says that this article is about the original (and only) army of the Irish Republic, which told him about other articles if he wants to read about a later organisation that has usurped the name. One person does not make a trend. --Red King 01:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll find that under this heading alone there are 4 people eho find this page confusing. This article is different because there are so many similar paramilitary orgainisations (some would argue the same organisation!) claiming the same name. I have spotted many instances on WP where people have been meaning the provos, but link to this page (some possibly intentionally - the result is that this does the opposite for what you say and gives the provos more credibility!!). Disambiguation is the only option. Jonto 10:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Given that consensus has been reached here (a long time ago, but we were all too worn out by the process of getting there to actually do anything about it) on the move to Irish Republican Army (1917-1922), I have put the page on requested moves: Any further discussion can take place in this section. Palmiro | Talk 16:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Support. This has been discussed over and over again and I feel that the majority of people concerned with the issue are in favour. It will help in establishing what this article is all about and should assist the vast majority of Wikipedians and general users who are looking for information about the "IRA" find the article they are looking for. --Damac 21:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Against Their was only one Irish Republican Army, that of the Irish Republic declared in 1916, and consiquentially resulted in the Irish Free State. Any other potential Irish Republican Army, notwitstanding that they are illegal and attempt to undermine the state and its institutions, are dealth with in their respective articles. Djegan 21:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Against. There was only one Irish Republican Army of the Irish Republic. Others claimed the name. Just because others purported to be the same does not mean that WP can accept the claims. The names used have to reflect the reality that one organisation is universally accepted as being entitled to use the name, and other organisations are accepted by some and not accepted by others. To claim an accepted linear descent in name format when that is widely disputed would be a blatent breach of NPOV and undermine WP's credibility. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Support. A painfully lengthy debate established this as the only option that most people were not overly discontented with. Damac sums it up pretty well. Palmiro | Talk 01:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Support. Lapsed Pacifist 18:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Support.Jdorney 00:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC) Only way not to confuse the general reader is move and disambiguate

Support. Jonto 04:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC) For clarity

I'm closing the vote, as it's been a month since the last one. Five out of seven is more than the 70% we need to move. I'm going to make it a disambiguation page for now, but that is not necessarily my preference.

Lapsed Pacifist 05:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment: I don't know if this will help with disambiguating links here if the move is made, but these are the articles who used to link to IRA: the vast majority were switched to here, Irish Republican Army (1922-1969), or Provisional Irish Republican Army. TimBentley 05:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Their was only one Irish Republican Army, that of the Irish Republic declared in 1916, and consiquentially resulted in the Irish Free State. Any other potential Irish Republican Army, notwitstanding that they are illegal and attempt to undermine the state and its institutions, are dealth with in their respective articles. Djegan 21:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

How was the IRA of 1916 legal? Although I would agree that it can be argued that it was a legitimate one, Ireland was part of the United Kingdom and at the time and AFAICT the IRA was at that time an illegal army. The Provos and all the other IRA groups which use the name "Óglaigh na hÉireann" would contend that they are the legitimate descendents of the first organisation to use that name. You may argue against this but as the army split over the issue of the dominion status offered by the Brits, who is to say which part of the army was the legitimate descendent of the initial illegal organisation? --Philip Baird Shearer 11:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the Irish Freestate was not legally a continuation of the 1916 'Republic' but of the 'Parliament of Southern Ireland' which is why the members had to technically meet as that Parliament and accept the treaty. This meeting of the 'Dáil' caused problems as a northern TD had to be ejected as he wasn't a member of the 'Parliament of Southern Ireland'. The Pro-Treaty forces did not come under the command of the Republican Army Executive at any time but were organised as a separate force and held different commissions from those in the Republican Army, some held dual commissions and the who situation became complex, particulary as the Chief of Staff had stated that the Army remained the Army of the Irish Republic after the vote to accept the treaty and the subsequent meeting of the 'Parliament of Southern Ireland'. In essence the Irish Freestate Forces were established in 1922 under different military rules and commissions held prior to its establishment in the IRA were not treated as official under the Irish Freestate. Again the whole question of what was the IRA is further complicated by the Military Service Pensions Act 1934 which recognised service post 1922 in the IRA as Irish military service, the act specifically refers to Óglaigh na hÉireann (Irish Republican Army) and sets a cut of date of service as 1923. The reference to (Irish Republican Army) was needed as there had been earlier pensions acts which has already encompased those who served in the Freestate Forces. This would seem to suggest that the Irish State recognises the claims of the IRA to exist until at least 1923! This act reconciled a lot of ex-IRA soldiers to the Freestate as they were now able to be paid pensions on the same basis as Freestate soldiers. - Mark Jones

If you read my comments (abeit carefully) they dont actually state that the Irish Republican Army was founded in 1916 rather that the Irish Republic was. Regarding legitimacy Peter makes the point that I would otherwise of made. The unilaterally declared Irish Republic of 1916 led to the creation of the internationally recognised Irish Free State of 1922, and the Irish Republican Army was a fundemental and indivisable part of that process. Only Sinn Fein/IRA would argue to the contrary about legitimacy of army and of government during this period. Djegan 19:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The Pre-treaty the IRA fought the British, at that point it was an illegal organisation. I do not think that "Sinn Fein/IRA" would support that statment. --Philip Baird Shearer 01:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Admittantly that last sentence does not make any sense in retrospect. Djegan 19:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

There was no "IRA" in the Eastern Rising 1916. It was then the "Irish Volunteers". I would also contend - as would most Irish people - that there is a difference between fighting when you represent a majority of people in an area, and when you don't. The current "IRAs" are not the same organisation as the originals, but rather descendents of the Anti-Treaty IRA that fought the Irish Government in the Civil War. This is an important distinction to make because otherwise, it portrays Michael Collins as being like the PIRA, even though the Old IRA did not target civilians - unlike the Black and Tans. - Peter O'Connell

Oh yes, the Old IRA most certainly did target civilians, it is a sad fact but still a fact, as has been shown by the excellent book "The I.R.A. and Its Enemies: Violence and Community in Cork, 1916-1923" by Peter Hart. We should avoid romanticising the Old IRA, they were an army the same as all armies and many were willing to use terror tactics if they felt that was called for, just as the British, just as all armies do. - Mark Jones

The Most of the members of the Anti-Treaty IRA were fighting in the IRA against the British in the Anglo-Irish before the treaty was accepted. They were not men new to the struggle in 1921. Are you sure that the "Old IRA did not target civilians"? Not even those who were economically wealthy and supported the Union? Not even if they were in the North and being attacked by unionist civilians? As an aside I remember reading in "Dare You Ripple My Pond," about a Limerick shopkeeper who put up an Anti-Union sign and who took it down when the Black and Tans threatened him. The Irish amell. The IRA then demanded that he put it back up or else. Louis Byrne writes about the man sitting in a pub lementing his position and asking for advice on what to do. That would seem like an IRA targeted civilian. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The Irish Republican Army was accredited with a status as the army of the Republic by the First Dáil in 1919 and was put under the official control in theory of the Minister of Defence. It therefore had a status and definition that all subsequent IRAs never had. They never had approval of the Dáil, never had recognition under any subsequent Irish constitutional framework and the modern IRAs operated illegally under Irish law. Equating an organisation which was accredited by a parliament (even a UDI one) and put under control of a minister in a government, and which was given a name naming it as the army of the republic, with illegal organisations of frequently a couple of hundred members at most, and whose status had been continually rejected by an Irish parliament, would be nutty history. It would be POV history, not NPOV history. One needs to understand the constitutional framework which legitimated the existence of the original IRA and which had no comparible aspect with the claimed methods of legitimation of later claimants to the name. If there was similar methology of legitimation then one could claim a definite lineage. But there demonstrably isn't. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Belfast IRA were legal before the treaty and illegal after the treaty or were they always illigal? Those who in the South who fought against the treaty considered that they had right on their side and would not have recognised your argument. It would seem to me that your postion is a victors POV: We won the Anglo-Irish War so we was legal, we won the Civil War so they was illegal. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You clearly have a decidedly shaky grasp of Irish history of the period, my friend. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

What makes you say that, Man of Ireland? Every incarnation of the IRA has been illegal under the law extant at the time. If Sinn Féin had not won a majority in 1918, would that have reduced the increasingly well-armed and trained Volunteers from the legitimate army of the Republic to a murderous, unrepresentative rabble? If say, they fell just short of a majority, do you think the men who had fought in the Rising without ever receiving a vote as mandate would have accepted the will of the Irish people, democratically expressed, would have decommissioned and resigned themselves to being loyal subjects of the King for the foreseeable future? If so, your naïveté is stunning.

Lapsed Pacifist 18:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Finding myself agreeing with LP and PBS at the same time is strange experience, but I do. Ireland was still part of the British state in 1919 and as far as I know, the IRA was illegal under British law. Ergo it was illegal, whether we would see this law as being legimate is another question entirely.

Another point, the IRA did not have the sanction of the Dail for its armed campaign of 1919-21 until the final months of the war. The guerrilla campaign was started by militants raiding for arms, carried on under the initiative of local leaders like Barry, Treacy, Breen etc under the informal leadership of Collins, who was supposed to be the minister for finance. As Ernie O'Malley put it, "if we had asked the people, we would never have fired a shot". Finally, most of the original IRA were against the treaty and fought against the first free state government, it therefore seems to that there is a lot of continuity between the first IRA and its successors.

Whether we interpret this as providing legitimacy for subsequent armed republicanism or as casting an undemocratic shadow over our own state is down to personal opinion. Having said that, I don't think we should rename this article IRA 1917-21 because many organisations, legal and illegal, claim descent from this IRA and its is the only undisputed holder of this title.

One final point, Peter has said that the old IRA did not target civilians. Well they did. They shot informers, suspected informers, judges, retired army officers, prominent unionists and so on. Make no mistake about it, the War of Independence was just as much a dirty war as the civil war or the troubles. Jdorney 20:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC) Have read through the debate and changed my mind about the move. People who know nothing about the topic should get a disambiguation page. Jdorney 00:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Move request

From a cursory glance, it seems that no consensus has been reached regarding the requested page move. As such, the current move request on WP:RM will be removed. Please re-add the request once consensus has been reached. Thanks! --HappyCamper 21:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist moved it anyway

Despite the above, and without any agreement or consensus, user:Lapsed Pacifist moved the article anyway. The title of the RtM has also been changed - the proposal was that "Irish Republican Army" be moved. If there is an admin available, please repair the damage. --Red King 23:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

LP is currently subject to a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Djegan 23:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

On request, I have moved the page back. Not only did he move it when an independent outsider had ruled that there was no consensus, he then turned it into a version of a disambigulation page, something which was not even been voted on. It is that sort of stunt-pulling by LP that has lead to the arbcom request. There is a limit to the amount of party political POVing that can be tolerated. Other users have been banned from WP for less than LP has been allowed to get away with for over a year now. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Re-Organisation

Reading through this discussion page, I see we have not moved on at all since Damac brought up the issue of re-organisation. I would like to propose a the following. First, the 1916 section should be cut, since the IRA proper was not yet in existance.

Second the King George's speech section should be radically cut also, for the reasons people have given above.

Third there should be a large section on the IRA as a military organisation in the War of Independence - this is what it was there for after all - including numbers, weapons, tactics nad the course of the war. The same is true of the other IRA pages. Currently, the only IRA article with a significant military section is the PIRA one.

Btw, quoting only Michael Collins point of view is rather biased, there were many different views on how the war was going within the IRA in 1921. Maybe Collins was right, maybe not. One other point, the Dail sanctioned IRA actions only in march 1921, before that there was no mandate for them. Second the IRA never took orders from the political leadership. May be we would wish that it was os, but they didn't.

Jdorney 22:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with that up to a point. The military section shouldn't be a rehash of the Anglo-Irish War article

I've added inforamtion on the IRA as a military organisation that fought the war 1919-21, but I'm still unhappy with the section on the Easter Rising. It seems to me to be largely irrelevant at present to what the article is about -i.e. the paramilitary organisation that arose out of the Irish Volunteers and became the IRish Republican Army. Subject to disagreements anyone has with this, I will be editing the Easter Rising section accordingly. Jdorney 18:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well in the absence of any disagreement here, I've gone and made those changes. I have also summarised the Treaty section and created a new article for it at IRA and the Anglo-Irish Treaty. I have removed some of the information contained here previously. I have moved the sentence about Prince Joachim to a footnote. I don't see it as important enough to include in the main text as it was minority view and did not influence future Irish history. I have removed some good info about Sinn Fein and politcal developments because I do not think that they belong in this article, but only confuse the reader. I have done the same with info about the King's speech and Home Rule. Although there was nothing wrong with it, it was basically in the wrong article. Btw, if anyone is wondering why I have been editing section by section, the reason is that my bowser can't support the whole article at one time - all the more reason for cuttin it.

Jdorney 15:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

Can anybody explain why the footnotes are appearing twice. For some reason, they are appearing in the IRA infobox, as well as in a proceeding section. I've tried messing around with it but can't seem to figure it out. --Damac 08:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah noticed that, their was a refrences tag in the infobox code, so it was dual listing the information, since the iinfbox it's self does not use any refrences i removed it, might giv a the boax a full going over anay way, clean it up a bit or something. But thats a project for later. Anyway it should display fine now. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 09:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Bloody Sunday

The article states that an event in 1920 is still known as "Bloody Sunday". This is not true. In Ireland, Bloody Sunday refers specifically to events in derry on 30th January 1972, nothing else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddyman1989 (talk • contribs)

Is that so? What history books have you been reading? I'm from Ireland and I'm fully aware that there was a Bloody Sunday (1920) and a Bloody Sunday (1972). This article is about the IRA up to 1922, so the Bloody Sunday mentioned cannot be the later one.--Damac 09:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. What I was trying (and failing) to say was that the wording could have been confusing. Apologies for any misunderstanding.

Paddyman1989 14:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The article states that an event in 1920 is still known as "Bloody Sunday". This is not true. In Ireland, Bloody Sunday refers specifically to events in derry on 30th January 1972, nothing else.... NONSENSE it means both and on this side certainly means the croke park onefairly often...Owwmykneecap 03:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I know that I'm jumping into this two years after the last comment but it can't be allowed to pass without correction. Bloody sunday 1920 is still refered to as Bloody Sunday in Ireland, for example the GAA has a page on it called 'Bloody Sunday' see http://www.gaa.ie/page/bloody_sunday.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.164.93 (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

foundation of ira

there is a belief that ira was founded by abdulhamid II of ottoman empire. does anybody know about this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Hamid_II —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.112.21.156 (talk) 05:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

WikiProject IRA?

Hi all, I'm rather new to the Wiki (just joined up a few days ago), but the whole WikiProject concept seems like an effective tool for gathering a group of people together to work on a specific subject. I'm primarily interested in contributing to areas related to Irish nationalism, and the Irish Republican Army, and I've noticed a few of you have quite a lot of involvement in the same area. So, I wonder if anyone would be interested in forming a WikiProject focusing on Irish Nationalism? Wikipeda:WikiProject Irish Republican Army seems like a good title to me! WP:WPIRA would be a great shortcut! I'm posting this up on many different pages, so I would especially appreciate it if, if you're interested, you would join me at User talk:Johnathan Swift#WikiProject IRA. Erin Go Bragh 06:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Protection

We needto getthis page protected to stop the constant vandalim and pov pushing that anonymous editors are doing here. Jdorney 12:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism...

There is no possible way that an accurate article about the IRA would not refer to it as a terrorist organisation. Not including the term invalidates the accuracy of the entry.

The only possible excuse for not using the word "terrorism" in relation to this, one of the most famous examples of a terrorist organization in history, would be the lame loophole of questioning whether anyone ever "officially designated" them as such. Is this why their being terrorist is not mentioned? Surely the British Empire officially considered them to be terrorists. Unless some such excuse can be demonstrated as airtight, this needs to be added to the description. --Kaz 00:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Calling a group terrorists is POV, who defines who is or isn't a terrorist.--padraig3uk 00:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Kaz: so far you havent given any reason why one should designate them as terrorists, apart from the fact that they share the same name as the more recent IRA. I think that you must be confusing the two organisations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.71.254 (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Also the Old IRA were NEVER regarded as a famous example of terrorism. The PIRA, RIRA, CIRA and INLA were. In terms of tactics, casualties and ethos and aims they were a military Organisation and you need to provide a good reason (other than the lame reason that they shared the same name with later organisations) in order to classify them as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.71.254 (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

So you advocate the removal of the word from the Al Qaeda, PLO, Hamas, (et cetera) articles?

Even in the unlikely event that you were consistent enough to want ALL mention of terrorism removed from ALL articles about ALL groups, you would be mistaken:

The usual standard is that some official bodies, or a large number of other sources, refer to them as terrorist...and then, this reason should be part of the description, like "was referred to as a terrorist organization by the British government". By that reasonable standard, the IRA article unquestionably needs mention of its terrorist status. Aside from that, the core definition of "terrorist" is the killing of non-specific civilian people with the motivation being a political goal. This unquestionably includes the IRA, objectively. Pretending the IRA's status in this regard has any serious question is, itself, PoV. --Kaz 00:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think its core definition is targetting civilians - which is a big difference from killing civilians.--Vintagekits 16:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism is a very loaded term, one could regard the USA and Britain as terrorist states for the illegal invasion of Iraq, its really a matter of POV, one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter, as for a group being refered to as a terrorist group by as in this case the British government, is hardly a neutral source is it.

Also this Article is about the Old-IRA that won independence for the state now known as the Irish Republic, the same Old-IRA that partly became the Free State Army, predecessor of the modern Irish Defence Forces.--padraig3uk 00:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Surely the British Empire officially considered them to be terrorists. Unless some such excuse can be demonstrated as airtight, this needs to be added to the description. - the onus would be on you to provide a source first and foremost, rather than engaging in speculation. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

So if I provide solid references regarding the IRA being officially considered a terrorist group by Britain's, you will agree that this belongs in the article, right? --Kaz 05:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If your references refer to the period the article deals with, not to today, then of course they could be included.--padraig3uk 09:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Any (serious) recognition as a terrorist organisation should be included I believe, but also adding the support IRA gets from some communities. I personally believe that all organisations attacking civilians randomly (except for invasion situations) are terroristic, but that's a POV. However, terms like "one of the most famous examples of a terrorist organization in history" are highly subjective, please avoid such. Sincerely, --SilverWiki 23:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Editors should take the time to check that this article is about the IRA of 1919-1921 and not the modern Provisional IRA. Any debate about whether this group qualifies as 'terrorist' or otherwise should be based on an assessment of its conduct in the Irish War of Independence and not on the Provisional IRA campaign 1969-1997.

A number of cases could be presented for and against the original IRA being a terrorist organisation. Against; it was a group with considerable popular backing, whose political wing Sinn Fein won an overall majority in the 1918 election. It was recognised by the First Dail as the army of the Irish Republic and could therefore could argue that it was the legitimate armed forces of the Irish people. Furthermore, its targets were predominantly military. It did not bomb civilian targets by and large or shoot civilians, with the exception of informers. For; the IRA started the 1919-21 conflict on its own initiative, without consulting either Sinn Fein or the Dail. The Dail did not in fact give its sanction to the guerrilla war until March 1921. It could therefore be argued that the IRA was a military group which paid no attention to elected representatives or to the will of the people. Furthermore, it has been claimed by Peter Hart that only about 25% of those killed by the IRA died in actual combat, the remainder being assassinated when they were unarmed and defenceless. On this basis, the IRA's tactics could be described as 'terrorist'.Jdorney 19:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually that's not really the way to go I don't think. Per words to avoid terrorism/ist can be included if someone is actually using the term, rather than editors using their individual judgement. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, especially considering the weight of that term. It should say WHO (especially officially) uses the term. However, I appreciate the strong distinctions (especially Irish Republican Army - IRA compaigns 1969-1997) and I hope that these differentiations will continue to provide a clear picture. Yours, --SilverWiki 22:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting this passage be included in the article, I was only outlining the arguments normally made on either side. Jdorney 09:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Kaz: If Terrorism involves the killing of civilians AT RANDOM then the Old IRA would not be included. They picked out targets that they knew would jeopardise the organisation, those they saw as enemies, including any armed loyalists and those whom they saw as traitors. This is a far cry from walking into a thick crowd with an explosive vest and killing 40 or so people at random

furthermore If terrorism involves the killing of prisoners and those whom are seen as traitors then you must also include any force or governent which uses the death penalty as a fear deterrent against such action; such as the British Army and Government.

Also this Kaz: If the IRA are seen as terrorists then the Black and Tans and the B Specials, British Army and the like must be seen as even more so, for they showed absolutely no compunction about burning towns to the ground and shooting up a crowd at Croke Park.

If the definition of terrorism involves killing prisoners or civilians to achieve political ends then surely it could mean the goal of political stability through fear and repression

So far the only viable reason to designate them as terrorist is the fact that they were illegal

Also this; you seem to think of the Provisional or more recent IRA as the direct decendant oraganisation of the Old IRA. They were not. The PIRA did plant bombs at random and as a result many civilians were killed. I dont even that there is much comparison between the two organisations, but that could be just my POV.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.71.254 (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Kdanc

The Old IRA did murder civilians, it is a sad fact that they did, and we have it well recorded as is revealed in the accademic works of Hart where he shows how, for example, the murders of protestants in Bandon occured. He give it a context and explains that this kind of thing happens all of the time, but it did happen and it is sad that it did. His other works also show how the IRA of the time more or less wiped out tramps in certain areas just in case they might be spies (even if they were well known and had been in the locality for many years). I don't have an axe to grind on this, although I do find it awful that they behaved like this, but I recognise that this is how armies behave at times, but we mustn't try to pretend to ourselves that they don't. Mark Jones —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.30.151 (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

True enough but remember the fact that the IRA was considered the armed wing of the Democratically elected Goverment of the time and therefore had the greater legal right to lethal force than any other organisation. Also this Mark, the credibility of Peter Harts' recording has been called into question, given that he demonstrably fabricated at least two interviews and who knows how many others, and for this reason I would not consider him a reliable historian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.71.254 (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Detonating bombs in shopping centres, killing women and babies is indeed "killing civilians at random", not military targets. That's terrorism by any definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.9.92 (talk) 08:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the Irish Republican Army 1917-1922, not the IRA that was active during the 90's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.149.2 (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me or are people having a real hard time actually reading?

This article is about the Irish Republican Army (1916–1923) that fought in the Easter Rising April 1916, Irish War of Independence 1919–21, and split to fight the Irish Civil War 1922–23. For later groups using the same name, such as the Provisional IRA, see List of IRAs. Blaggards22 (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

NEUTRALITY

1. If the IRA can be referred to as a "militarist" organisation under the Wikipedia neutrality policy (despite never ever being a government sanctioned military body, thus not fitting the term) why can they not be referred to as also terrorists, as they are seen in England? Surely "paramilitary" would be the accurate term? Why, also, is Wikipedia (which is supposed to be neutral) being moderated on pages where the moderators (see Domer48)_who are clearly biased? Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crieff405 (talk •

contribs) 18:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You're thinking of the Provisional IRA, which are described in their article as paramilitary. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Continental Army, no debate. 78.19.40.2 (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Dark Green and Tans

Really petty and pedantic of me, but I was under the impression the 'Black' of the Black and Tans was actually dark green which looked Black.(83.13.39.98 21:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC))

If you can provide a proper citation, go ahead and add it to the Black and Tans aricle, I think it is too detailed for this one. --Red King 20:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

2007 peace agreement

Last year there was a peace agreement with the leader of the IRA, i remember it on the news. why isnt it mentioned here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.246.56 (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The Irish Republican Army ceased to exist in 1921, at the end of the Irish War of Independence. You might be thinking of the Provisional IRA or modern Sinn Féin. --Red King (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it didn't cease to exist in 1921, the Military Service Pensions Act 1934 passed by the Dáil recognises military service in the Irish Republican Army which it describes as Óglaigh na hÉireann (Irish Republican Army) to differenciate it from Óglaigh na hÉireann, which was being used by the Irish Defence Forces. This would mean that the Irish State recognised the existance of the Irish Republican Army for at least two years after 1921. Most impartial observers recognise that the Irish Republican Army as an organisation, by which I mean as a body which continued on, continued to exist until the split between the Official and Provisional IRA. It may be fashionable now in Ireland to deny this but those who fought the Civil War on both sides had little doubt about the fact that the organisation which fought against the treaty did not disapear but continued on. The purpose of the Military Pensions Act was bring as many of the members of the IRA into non-violent Freestate political life as possible. Mark Jones —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.131.179 (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Óglaigh na hÉireann

Regardless of what other groups may call themselves, and regardless of any literal translations, the IRA call themselves Óglaigh na hÉireann in Irish, and have always called themselves that. So, please stop removing the Irish translation from the article. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You still can't defy the WP:3RR rule. The challenge is credible: Óglaigh na hÉirean does translate directly as Irish Volunteers. So you need to provide a citation that says that this IRA used the term (the habits of self-styled IRAs that followed are irrelevant). --Red King (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It is the case that multiple organisations claim succession to the name Óglaigh na hÉireann. The Irish Defence Minister as recently as 2005 re-affermed that the legitimate successors to the Irish Volunteers and the rightful guardian of the name Óglaigh na hÉireann were the Irish Defence Forces (IDF) and that no other organisation can rightfully claim ascendency (ref Defence Ministers speech 22/02/05, http://www.defence.ie/website.nsf/0/2d1f811a44be973a80256fb00051c1bc?OpenDocument ). Moreover, even as the legitimate successors to the volunters the IDF do not use the name Óglaigh na hÉireann as a literal translation for their own organisation and the Constitution refers to the Defence Forces as “na Fórsaí Cosanta”. Therefore, even if the IRA could legitimatly claim the name “Óglaigh na hÉireann” it should not be represented as a literal tranlation as was the case previously on this page.

Finally, this page covers the history of the IRA from the war of independence through to the civil war. From the foundation of the state and throughout the civil war the National Army/Defence Forces wore volunteer uniforms. Their FF cap badge consists of a flaming sun, representing a Fianna Battle standard, with a sword belt within engraved with the title “Óglaigh na hÉireann” and all of the Army’s insignia is notated with “IV” or Irish Volunteers. Now, if they were fighting against the IRA during the civil war and were a separate organisation then only one can legitimatly claim to be “Óglaigh na hÉireann”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conbar777 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Blacktans.jpg

The image Image:Blacktans.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

An editor has asked for a Third opinion (3O), but the specific nature of the dispute is unclear. What is the problem? 3O is only pertinent to a dispute between two parties. Who is involved? Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Kevin, they have the wrong article. They are looking for PIRA. --Domer48 (talk) 07:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Irish nationalists (of the IRA) and their support of Hellenic nationalists (of EOKA)

I think it would be a great idea if this article was expanded to include the fact that IRA militants aided Hellenic (i.e. Greek) militants in Cyprus, those of EOKA, against the English. After all, Irish and Greek nationalists were imprisoned together in English prisons and, from what I understand, the Greeks considered the Irish as "brothers-in-arms". The topic is somewhat obscure but I am sure that it is sourced pretty well by both Hellenic and Irish sources, not to mention English ones. The full extent of Greek-Irish cooperation would be a very fascinating aspect of the article. Critias (talk) 03:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not confuse English with British. I think you will find the British Army was involved in both the 'Troubles' (and earlier) in Ireland, and the problems with EOKA. There is at present no English army, English Government, or even an English Parliament. This has been the case since Britain was formed by the union of Scotland and England in 1707.Bettybutt (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Despite a vote to the contrary, it has been decided that this article end in the early 1920s. Go figure. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 06:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Critias, you are thinking of the wrong IRA. You want Irish Republican Army (1922-1969) --Red King (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

LP -you already know this but for the benefit of a wider audience, it is very simple. The Irish Republican Army drew its legitimacy from the authority of the elected representatives in Dáil Éireann. When the Dáil ratified the Anglo-Irish Treaty, the Army became the National Army of the Irish Free State. Those volunteers who declined to accept the decision of the Dáil and thus its authority ceased to be legitimate. Any organisation calling itself "Irish Republican Army" after 1921 was an entirely different organisation. Which is why it has a a separate article. --Red King (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"Those volunteers who declined to accept the decision of the Dáil and thus its authority ceased to be legitimate." Essentially, those members of an illegal army who refused to obey the direction of an assembly banned by their lawful government, in your opinion, "ceased to be legitimate". Use of the term IRA continues to the present day. This article ends in 1922 because of POV-pushers who ignore vote results (see above). Because it's a popular point of view, you get away with it. Well done.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Intro

I've changed the intro a bit as I felt it was confusing. it should be giving the basic facts as per intro guidlines - ie, the IRA was a revolutionary guerrilla army which fought the war of independence and then split in the civil war. This wasn't obvious before. Details about the precise details of the split etc should be in the relevant sections or articles, I think, not in the intro. Any objections? Jdorney (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

That seems fine to me, what would you think of removing "The Irish Republican Army (IRA) (Irish: Óglaigh na hÉireann[1]) was an Irish republican revolutionary military organisation..." highlighted text. I think Irish Republican Army, covers it without the added text? It would read "The Irish Republican Army (IRA) (Irish: Óglaigh na hÉireann[1]) was an revolutionary organisation..." --Domer48_'fenian' 20:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

IRA funding, in USA

I note no mention of the Irish population of USA and their funding through 'Noraid' of the IRA. Wonder why?Bettybutt (talk) 04:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Because you're reading the wrong article, maybe? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Also I have copied the relevant section here 'Wikipedia has a policy of not calling people or groups "terrorist". This is not an indication of condoning "terrorist" activities, but of neutrality, and avoidance of passing judgment, affirming or denying. Please debate the merit of this policy at WT:Words to avoid, not here'. This term 'Islamist terrorists' is used on 'Attack of 9 Sept on twin towers' I note on the IRA section you ask not to use the word 'terrorist' or 'terrorists'. Yet on the Twin Tower attack article it is used. Or is it when IRA killed British people that was allowed, whereas when Islamists killed Americans this is not allowed, therefore they are 'Islamist terrorists'. Please explain as this seems to be against your own rule!Bettybutt (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you not read the template you yourself copied here? "Please debate the merit of this policy at WT:Words to avoid, not here" Also as Bastun pointed out to you, this is not the PIRA article, it seems you are (a bit) confused Thefirstgolfoffer (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason Betty that it is used on that article is that you have a group of American editors who own that article and any attempt to rid it of POV is fought and all your short of being labeled is an islamic terrorist yourself, try change it I did and watch the reaction. BigDunc^Talk 14:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is not the place for such a discussion Thefirstgolfoffer (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It is POLICY to NOT use the term Terrorist, nowhere does it say it's fine if the UN uses the word. The British Government used the word about IRA, so that ought to be just as acceptable.Bettybutt (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, WP:WTA is a guideline, not a policy. Additionally, the guideline does not say that we can't use the terrorist. Also, it is the belief of the editors of this article that we must use the term terrorist based on its use in reliable sources to satisfy WP:NPOV (which is policy). Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Not calling the the 9/11 hijackers terrorists would be sugar coating the truth.--MONGO 00:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC) . Therefore The IRA (Provo, Official, or whichever name, and whenever) were terrorists. Unless you wish to 'Sugar Coat' them! 00:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.38.188 (talk • contribs) 01:05, January 7, 2009 (UTC)

Apologies up ahead 80.195.38.188, but your comments seem to be slightly inane. Did you copy other users' comments? "The IRA (Provo, Official, or whichever name, and whenever) were terrorists." Can you provide neutral sources veryfing this? Are you intent on classifying the old IRA as a terrorist organisation? Thefirstgolfoffer (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

As the IP editor who made the recent unsourced additions has a history of adding his own opinion to what sources say (see here) and there are no page numbers provided, I am removing his/her changes until supporting quotes have been provided so that it can be seen that no opinion or conjecture has been added. O Fenian (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

SUPPORTING QUOTES FROM THE PARKINSON BOOK WITH PAGE NUMBERS [NOT REQUIRED BY O FENIAN FOR ANY OTHER OPINION, CONJECTURE OR FACTS IN THE ARTICLE]

A SAMPLE OF KILLINGS BY THE IRA:

POLICE: Con Robert Crooks, Con Walter Cooper, Con John McIntosh (p. 113), Con Jim Galvin, Con Thomas Conlon, (p. 152-3), Con John Collins (p. 270).

PROTESTANTS: Alexander Allen (p. 113), Maggie Ardis, Evelyn Blair, James McMinn, Alexander Harrison, George Berry (p. 149-50), William Baxter, Ernest Park, David McMullan, William Mullan, Francis Robinson, William Brown, Samuel Ferguson, John Orr, Leopold Leonard, William Johnston, Walter Campbell, (p. 155-6), David Boyd, Ben Lundy, James Brown, William Law, Johnston Crothers, (p. 212-3), William Patterson, Thomas Maxwell, Thomas Boyd, (p. 268), William Twaddell (p. 275).

IRA CAMPAIGN NOT DEFENSIVE: “The motives behind the Republican movement’s decision to diversify their military campaign in the north varied…Therefore, any extension of the [arson] technique such as targeting commercial buildings and industries which symbolised Belfast’s ‘difference’ from the rest of the island, blended well with republican rhetoric. As the Sinn Fein newspaper urged its readers on 17 June: ‘The Orangeman will not be won until he is beaten to earth. Every factory destroyed is a blow to the enemy...we say, go on with the burnings!’…In a two month period the Belfast Telegraph estimated there had been a ‘carefully planned’ IRA campaign of arson on between 80 or 90 commercial properties.” (p. 270-1)

500 DEAD IN BELFAST AS OPPPOSED TO 450: “Estimates of fatalities in the city range from 416 to 455, with my own revised figure of 498.” (p. 12) “I considered available police records and press reports, recording every single Troubles-related incident between July 1920 and October 1922.” (n. 20 p. 326) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.29.92 (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I have amended the details to match the source, in the process removing the IPs usual spin on what the source say. In the absence of any evidence (as requested) to show that the deaths were not caused as part of the defensive campaign, I have removed that part of the addition until quotes are made available. As his figures give details of what others have said, I have included those as well as one source should not be preferred over all the others.

The presence of existing unsourced material does not give you free reign to add your own, the burden of evidence is on the editor who adds material. Given your documented history of adding your own opinion to sources, it is more than acceptable to request direct quotes as allowed by policy. O Fenian (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As has been pointed out above, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I see the quotes to support the assertion that many Protestants and policemen were killed in seperate incidents to the defensive campaign have still not been provided. Please provide them before adding disputed text. O Fenian (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Most of the free world still finds it amazing that the "IRA" are not allowed to be referred to as "terrorists" on Wiki whereas Al Q is. They both did the same thing, deliberatley targeted children and civilians in their attacks. Many more children from Northern Ireland will never grow up and have families because of the IRA than were lost in the Sept 11th attacks. Far more people in the world support AQ's point of view as opposed to the ira's, so why is the ira acceptable and AQ is not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.123.56 (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Because you are confusing two different groups. The article you are looking for is PIRA Blaggards22 (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

-- Also's, many more people will never grow up and have families because of what the Allies did in the Second World War, than because of what the IRA have done, but do we call our armies terrorists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.130.218 (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The english-speaking parts of the internet are mostly made by, looked at, and commented on by Americans so there is bound to be some degree of Americacentrism (in the case of war-related articles quite a lot) but any WikiProblem can be solved by a cool head, sources and perseverance. As for the word itself in my opinion a terrorist is an extremist whom one hates, a freedom fighter is also an extremist but the term freedom fighter indicates one supports the extremist in question and so it is best to call it what it actually is rather than what one thinks it is. Every armed group must be labeled extremist rather than terrorist or freedom fighter. Sioraf (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

"Sunshine soldiers"?

Does anybody know anything about the earliest recorded use of this term to describe those people who joined the IRA following the truce on 11 July 1921? 194.125.103.63 (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

IRA terrorists or freedom fighters?

The IRA were often considered as terrorists but only by the english inhabitants of ireland and by the irish people the IRA was known as freedom fighters. The latter is true as not many people know that the english assassinated 5 influential members of the IRA in doing so it sparked tension between the IRA and the british which resulted in killing of civilians and english police. Note that the civilians were all english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.129.183 (talk) 07:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

"Origins

the most notorious members of the IRA and the most amazing are Cassie Stone and Jessye Corcoran. they will go down in history as the most appreciated members as they were just so God damn cool. Mr.Harbon is jokeeeee."

Since this page is a highly discussed topic, and is being vandalised repeatedly, i ask that some sort of lock be placed in order to stop this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie Kelly (talk • contribs) 21:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Who ever wrote that thin above is stupid they shoul get their comments deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.188.113 (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

IRA

The IRA was formed to free the people of Ireland from British rule and make Ireland a country once again. In 1916 the IRA fought a major battle in Dublin with about 2000 soldiers(men and women)against thousands more British regulars. Even though the IRA lost the battle, after it more and more Irish men took up arm's for their country and in 1921 the Irish won their Independance after Micheal Collins went to negotiat with the British Government. The British gave 4 5ths of Ireland (Leinster Connaught and Munster) away to make the country the Republic of Ireland but the British kept the North of Ireland (Tyrone).Many member's of the IRA wanted all of Ireland and continued to fight but the Irish army protested and the Irish civil war broke out. After the Irish civil war the IRA didn't fight again till the 60's in the North of Ireland when the British soldiers started to behave brutally and unfair against the Irish Catholics ehen they were suppost to help the Catholics against the Loyalist's terrorist groups destroying Irish pup's and burning down Catholic churches.

Who ever wrote this has a few things wrong. only 800 IRB members (not I.R.A) were confirmed during the Easter Rising. Ireland was only given dominion status in 1921. Tyrone AND Fermanagh were the highly disputed counties which were included in the North, as they had nationalist majorities. And the British army was brought in to protect the Catholic communities in the 60's but that went wrong. A little bit of bias perhaps? Jamie Kelly (talk) 06:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and Ulster isn't part of the UK, only a section of it is. A third of it is free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Sheridan (talk • contribs) 16:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

opponents

The edit that includes the Irish Free State army as an opponent in the Irish Civil War is correct. There is no Wikipedia policy that covers 'unhelpful edits.'Malke2010 18:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If you had read the article, you would know you are wrong. O Fenian (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Not seeing any error. What exactly are you saying is wrong? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Open your eyes in future. O Fenian (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should too? "This article is about the historical organisation that fought in the Easter Rising of 1916 and the Irish War of Independence of 1919–21, and split to fight the Irish Civil War of 1922–23." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is about the organisation that split. Irish Republican Army (1922–1969) is one of the organisations it split into. I recommend stopping and thinking before reverting in future. O Fenian (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Then why is there a section in this article about the Civil War? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, so - hatnote changed. Though personally I've never heard of an organisation called "Irish Republican Army (1922–1969)"... organisation names are not the same as article names. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Refreshing to know you consider the anti-Treaty IRA to be the real IRA. O Fenian (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well the pro-Treaty IRA became the Irish Army... (and is that "real" with a capital 'R')? :P Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Religion

Why isn't "Christ" short for Christan and/or Christ or "Prod" short for Prodistant not found on either the Wiki page or the discussion page? Neither is "Religion" -- It isn't obvious to people that the IRA may be Catholic and excluding that may be sacrosanct. Religion obviously plays a large part in the IRA and in Irish/English relations but to have no mention ludi-christ. Alright, I did eventually search for "Catholic" and that had some hits... but religion plays a large part in the conflict and it was surprising to look for potential "key words" and fail. I thought Religion was a far more important aspect than is demonstrated. Tymes (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• we need to add a religious context to the article Tymes (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Patrick Pearse.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Patrick Pearse.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 4 July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)