Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army/draft-talk

Arrest totals

Perhaps i am reading these sentences wrong but it does not sound quite right to me.

"...of its around 10,000 member total over the thirty-year period.^[14] It is also estimated that up to the late 1980s, 8-10,000 Provisional IRA members had been, up until that point, imprisoned during the course of the conflict."

If it only had 10,000 members in total over the 30 year period how was 8000 to 10,000 imprisoned at some stage during the conflict. Is that really saying that atleast 80% of PIRA members were at some point arrested and put in prison? Sounds unrealistic. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I know. But that's what the sources say. Rd232 ^talk 17:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

If that source is accurate its pretty stunning lol BritishWatcher (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless we have other sources or reason to doubt the source, we're stuck with something that seems implausible (though not impossible). Rd232 ^talk 18:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I think I've found the flaw. Something's got mangled in editing. In one place (Numerical strength) in Provisional Irish Republican Army it says "According to The Provisional IRA (Eamon Mallie and Patrick Bishop), roughly 8,000 people passed through the ranks of the IRA in the first 20 years of its existence, many of them leaving after arrest, "retirement" or disillusionment." In another place (Casualties), it says " Journalists Eamonn Mallie and Patrick Bishop estimate in their book The Provisional IRA that between eight and ten thousand members of the organisation had been imprisoned by the mid-1980s." Both are sourced to the same page, so I think the latter is very likely a mangling of the former! In other words, the 8000-10,000 is not arrested, but left the organisation after arrest or for other reasons. Does this make sense to everyone? Has anyone got the source, to double check? (it's p12). Rd232 ^talk 15:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Let's omit the arrests stat until another sourdce is found.Throwaway85 (talk) 05:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes we should leave out that figure, would be good to find a good source on how many were imprisoned if available, not sure it would be possible to find such figures though. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I've sent an email to the PNSI requesting this information. Hopefully they'll reply with an acceptable source in a relatively convenient timeframe. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it. Chris Ryder's book on Long Kesh says "Neither the prison service nor the police can sat for sure how many ex-prisoners there are. Some people were in the Maze and other prisons, three or four times during the course of the years of conflict. However an authoritative estimate puts the figure at about 25,000 - one in 64 of the 1.6 million population." Also note that the 25,000 is all prisoners (paramilitary related ones I would assume) regardless of which organisation they belonged to. O Fenian (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Shorter lead

My opinion is that the lead should be shorter. I tried once before in the PIRA talk section but not much got done there. Thought I'd give it a second go, but happy to have it ignored if the longer more contentful lead seems like a better plan. Lot 49a^talk 20:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) is an Irish republican paramilitary organisation that considers itself a direct continuation of the Irish Republican Army (the army of the Irish Republic — 1919–1921) that fought in the Irish War of Independence. It is one of several organisations calling themselves the IRA (see List of IRAs). The Provisionals' constitution establishes them as Óglaigh na hÉireann ("The Irish Volunteers") in the Irish language. The Provisional Irish Republican Army is sometimes referred to as the PIRA, the Provos, or by some of its supporters as the Army or the 'RA.

The IRA's stated objective is to end "British rule in Ireland," and according to its constitution, it wants "to establish an Irish Socialist Republic, based on the Proclamation of 1916." Until the 1998 Belfast Agreement, it sought to end Northern Ireland's status within the United Kingdom and bring about a united Ireland by force of arms and political persuasion. Between, 1969 and 1998, the IRA conducted an armed campaign against British and loyalist forces, killing approximately 1,800 people, including approximately 620 civilians. An internal British Army document released in 2007 describes the IRA as "professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient."

On 28 July 2005, the IRA Army Council announced an end to its armed campaign, stating that it would work to achieve its aims using "purely political and democratic programmes through exclusively peaceful means". The organisation is classified as a proscribed terrorist group in the United Kingdom and as an illegal organisation in the Republic of Ireland.

Specifically, I don't think that we should need 14 references to get through the INTRODUCTION.Shortening the introduction bring the sections with the really detailed information to the reader's attention faster. Lot 49a^talk 20:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That proposed format / wording is ok with me. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

References in the lede aren't really problem. Shorter or longer is not a huge deal either, but on a topic like this 3 or 4 substantial paragraphs would be justifiable. The main thing is to do justice to the article in terms balance (covering the whole topic) - level of detail is more a matter of taste. Rd232 ^talk 20:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the direction that restructure goes in - slightly more chronological is often helpful. Also the first paragraph is often usefully a summary-within-a-summary. Rd232 ^talk 20:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Made an attempt on the page with all the references, tried tp reword the opening with a summary within the summary. Look forward to improvements by others. Lot 49a^talk 21:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I made this edit here[1] to show that the PIRA grew out of the civil rights issues in 1969, and think it's important to have that in the lede. Also I have included some stats to show the magnitude of events. Tfz 13:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That sentence is pushing a single POV, do you have sources to back up that was the reason this group was formed or it was linked? I wouldnt oppose something more neutral setting the scene of the period in which it was formed, like mentioning increased tensions or violence between Catholic and protestant communities. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You have highlighted the problems of long introductions, but I think it is important to state that they were born out of the 'civil rights' issues in 1969. Will be in library later to get the citations. I have seen figures for over 2,000 Catholic homes burned, but picked the one I know that can be referenced. If any other editor has the refs available, by all means add them. Tfz 14:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It's important to remember that the PIRA was result of a split within the IRA, who because of their perceived inaction on the burning of Catholic homes, and the killings of Catholics by loyalists, were nicknamed by some as 'I ran away'. Tfz 17:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Refs would be great, and more details for the body would be good. However the level of detail in the opening sentence ("founded in 1969 when security forces did little to stop Protestant loyalists burning 1,505 Catholic families' homes, injuring 1,000, and killing eight") is both too much and too little - in the lede it needs to be a bit more general about that historical background (why as well as what). It's a start though, and some sense of the magnitude and nature of those events is certainly needed in the lede. Possibly if we go in the direction of the first para being a summary-within-a-summary, those details might fit in the second para. Keep at it, this is going in the right direction. Rd232 ^talk 14:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a situation of "less is more". I agree with BritishWatcher to make the lede NPOV. Tfz 17:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Made an attempt to start refactoring the intro along these lines. The structure I aimed for was:

• Summary-within a summary (needs 2-4 more sentences I think)
• Origin and Identity
• What they got up to during the Troubles
• What are are up to now.

Obviously, the current actual content of the propose lede doesn't do justice to the structure, but I'm curious about whether other editors agree with the approach. Lot 49a^talk 18:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It is getting to be like an article, too long and unwieldy to be an intro. My stats are removed, but other stats that should in the body are still there. It's at least 2 times too big at present. Tfz 18:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, this is a big enough topic that it merits a relatively big lede (3 - 4 chunky paras) - though equally if tightly written it needn't be that many more words than the one in the article now. Readers shouldn't be forced to read the entire article if they just want a quick overview. Excellent work from Lot49a in my opinion, including innovative use of placeholder sentences (which we can do on this draft page). This is going in the right direction. Rd232 ^talk 18:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually on review the current article lede looks quite good, "if it's not broke don't fix it". Can't really see what the problems are. Maybe if there are, then they should be alluded to. Tfz 19:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the current lead in the locked article? That one doesn't have consensus and more importantly, doesn't address the concerns outlined at [[2]] I think that working to get the lede more in line with the article would be good. Otherwise we risk a new edit war when the article is unprotected. Lot 49a^talk 20:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely - a lede that does a really good job of summarising the article as a whole is a much better basis for finding a middle ground that satisfies everyone for NPOV on contentious points. Rd232 ^talk 20:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The lede is broke and it needs fixing. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The draft, or the locked version? What specific parts do you object to, and what would you like to see instead? Throwaway85 (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The locked one, the draft is much better. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Word Choice

The lede, as written, seems a bit Irish to me. Referring to the PIRA as an organization that operated during "the troubles" presupposes reader knowledge of the time period. I would prefer hard dates. Also, there is some jargon-like talk that I would like to see removed. The old lede, for all its flaws, seemed more "encyclopedic".Throwaway85 (talk) 05:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I put dates as 1969 - 1997 meaning the PIRA armed campaign (up to the ceasefire), though it's not entirely clear in the sentence right now whether the dates are for the campaign or the Troubles; this needs tweaking but I can't do it right now. Jargon should be avoided if possible, of course - what do you mean specifically? Rd232 ^talk 08:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Labelling the PIRA as Provisionals, for one. Although a widely used term in Ireland, it is more slang than official. I would be fine with moving it in with the other nomenclature. Some of the rest of the writing bugs me, mainly for not introducing the terms it throws around. I suppose that's my bias towards academic writing, but I would have thought that similar styles would be adopted. Also, I propose changing "The Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) is an Irish republican paramilitary organisation which over the course of much of The Troubles (1969 - 1997) conducted an armed campaign" to "The Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) is an Irish republican paramilitary organisation that waged an active and armed campaign from 1969 to 1997, during a time known as The Troubles." Call me pedantic, I just like it better. The following sentence would then become something like "Their stated aims were to end British rule in Ireland and establish an Irish Socialist Republic based on the Proclamation of 1916." I don't like the use of quotation marks here. It seems unnecessary to include them, makes the lede harder to read, and doesn't seem to add anything. Although they may in fact be a direct quote, I feel that they are short and general enough to include without the quotation marks. Also, the statements, being attributed to the IRA, are public domain, therefore no quotation is necessary. Obviously keep the citation, however. Also, the booktitle capitalization in the last part of that sentence seems odd. Is there a reason for it? -Throwaway85 (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds good and makes sense. By the capitalisation I presume you mean "ANOTHER SENTENCE OR 4 GO HERE" - that's a note to help the drafting, it's not meant for the final version. Rd232 ^talk 13:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I was referring to the booktitle capitalization of "Irish Socialist Republic based on the Proclamation". Is all of it necessary? -Throwaway85 (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK, that makes more sense (the draft thing's so obvious!). That capitalisation is currently a direct quote; we've said we might dequote it. The Proclamation refers to the 1916 Proclamation of the Irish Republic, so it's a proper name which should stay capitalised. The Irish Socialist Republic I'm less sure of. Is it a specific model referred to? Or just an Irish republic which is also socialist? Rd232 ^talk 20:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That was my question as well. Also, "Procamation of 1916" should be how you wrote it there, the "1916 Proclamation of the Irish Republic". Once again, I feel using proper names as opposed to slang, and linking where possible, would increase the clarity of the article. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all of Throwaway85's points. I say go ahead and implement them. Lot 49a^talk 22:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Belfast agreement wording

I do not like the "Until the 1998 Belfast Agreement" wording. The ceasefire was in 1997, the formal end to the armed campaign was in 2005, it seems odd to pick the date of the agreement as the date they sought to end anything? O Fenian (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

well there were ceasefires before, and the 97 one led to the key Agreement; and unless their post-98 commitment to the Agreement is in doubt, isn't the 2005 ending a mere formality? A right reserved but not exercised? Suggest an alternative. Rd232 ^talk 20:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

How about "led an active campaign until the 1997 ceasefire, with cessation of hostilities being codified by the 1998 Belfast Agreement"? Throwaway85 (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Too wordy to say "Until the 1997 ceasefire which led to the Belfast agreement..."? and then maybe for the 2005 specifically say "In 2005, the PIRA formally announced the end..." ? Lot 49a^talk 22:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I think that's all the dates we should include. Leave the RIRA split, etc for the article itself. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but a sentence like this would summarise helpfully: "Two small splinter groups split from the Provisional IRA in 1986 (Continuity IRA) and 1997 (Real IRA); both reject the Belfast Agreement and continue to engage in violence." Depends a bit on the final size of the lede whether there's space for it. Rd232 ^talk 23:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

My point is that there are three key significant events. The 1997 ceasefire, the 1998 agreement and the 2005 declaration of an end to the armed campaign. The ceasefire did not officially end the armed campaign, the agreement did not officially end the armed campaign, only the 2005 declaration officially ended it. Up until that point (certainly prior to 9/11) had the power-sharing agreement collapsed it was more than possible (and often speculated) that the IRA would return to activity. The reference does not source the first part about the Belfast Agreement either, only the second part. O Fenian (talk) 23:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The 1997 ceasefire did, however, effectively end the active portion of the Provisionals' campaign. I think it's important to note that incidents after that, such as the Omagh bombing, were attributable to other groups. Not sure if there's room in the lede to mention internescine conflict between PIRA/RIRA/CIRA, etc. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not suggesting not including the 1997 effective end to the armed campaign, I just object to the unsourced assertion that the Belfast Agreement ended it. O Fenian (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with O Fenian. 2005 needs to be mentioned. It is key. Mooretwin (talk) 09:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

PIRA or IRA for short?

Should we pick one? Is it OK to switch between them as we do currently? (This applies to the article as a whole) Lot 49a^talk 22:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I say stick with PIRA, with a mention in the nomenclature section that they went by IRA. There are simply too many organizations using that name, and an uninformed reader could easily become confused. Also, NPOV issues might arise here, as it supports the PIRA claim that they are a legitimate successor. Conversely, I would like to see British literature that disputes the claim, before deciding against it. Certainly the BBC would have called them the IRA many times, so I'm not sure its as controversial as some editors have made it out to be. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

My inclination would be to avoid using the abbreviation "PIRA", as I've never seen it before. I think we should call them the Provisional IRA or similar where there's any ambiguity as to which organisation is being referred to (eg when talking about the split), and otherwise abbreviate as IRA. I think this is what most readers would expect. Rd232 ^talk 23:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, as long as we mention fairly early on and fairly clearly that there are several disparate organizations going by that name so as to avoid any confusion. Does this mean we're accepting the use of the name IRA as uncontroversial? Throwaway85 (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I dont have any big problem with this, although id think saying Provisional IRA / PIRA throughout would be less confusing than just saying IRA. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"stick with PIRA"? Unless in a quote, the article never refers to them by that acronym, expect when introducing it once in the lead. O Fenian (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Right - the current article only mentions "PIRA" once (to note the acronym) - it's been used more often in the draft, which I think should be avoided. Rd232 ^talk 23:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

First sentence

"which over the course of much of The Troubles (1969 - 1997)". This is misleading. It gives the impression that the Troubles only lasted until 1997, and also that the IRA's campaign began in 1969. In actuality, until 1971 the IRA's campaign was virtually non-existent, with them concentrating on defence of nationalist areas (something that needs to be mentioned in addition to "policing") and building up men and equipment. It would be better not to say when the offensive campaign began in my opinion, as that may involve needing to include too much detail. O Fenian (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that that is covered by my suggestion above, reworded slightly. "Conducted an armed and aggressive(/active) campaign from 1971-XXXX, during a time known as The Troubles." Activities other than the active armed campaign, such as policing, need be given only cursory treatment, if that, in the lede. While it was an important part of their activities, the IRA was primarily known for its armed campaign. Actually, a good example here might be Hezbollah, who, in addition to their armed actions against Israel, funded schools, performed police and government duties, etc. Unfortunately their lede looks even worse than this one, in terms of cramming in too much information. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"refusing to comment on IRA actions"

Is there a source for this? O Fenian (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

As always, it's from the article. PIRA#"TUAS" – peace strategy. I'm not quite clear whether the footnote there (Moloney, p432) is backing those claims, or just the TUAS bit. Rd232 ^talk 22:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Original sentence - Thereafter, Adams increasingly tried to disassociate Sinn Féin from the IRA, claiming they were separate organisations and refusing to comment on IRA actions.

Sentence in this version - The abortive attempt at an escalation of the military part of that strategy led republican leaders to increasingly look for a political compromise to end the conflict, with an increasing dissociation of Sinn Féin from the IRA, claiming they were separate organisations and refusing to comment on IRA actions.

Even if the original sentence was sourced (and the page cited in Moloney does not source that sentence, or indeed much if any of the paragraph), the sentence added here is not the same. O Fenian (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Erm, don't compare a summary of a paragraph with half of the paragraph. The paragraph is "In the 1980s, the IRA made an attempt to escalate the conflict with the so called "Tet Offensive". When this did not prove successful, republican leaders increasingly looked for a political compromise to end the conflict. Gerry Adams entered talks with John Hume, the leader of the moderate nationalist Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) and secret talks were also conducted with British civil servants. Thereafter, Adams increasingly tried to disassociate Sinn Féin from the IRA, claiming they were separate organisations and refusing to comment on IRA actions. Within the Republican Movement (the IRA and Sinn Féin), the new strategy was described by the acronym "TUAS", meaning either "Tactical Use of Armed Struggle" or "Totally Unarmed Strategy".[51]" Anyway, you say Moloney doesn't back that up? So do we think it's a) untrue b) true, needs a source, which shouldn't be too hard c) true, needs a source, ooh don't know about finding one. Rd232 ^talk 23:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry? Actions that are solely attributed to Gerry Adams in the original text are being attributed to Sinn Féin as a whole (or "republican leaders"?) in the new text. I do not see how you are getting from A to B. O Fenian (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see, my bad. I made an elision there without thinking about it, Adams being (AFAIR) the SF leader. So how did Adams fit into the process versus SF as a whole and vs other actors? Rd232 ^talk 23:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The text in the original article seems to be a garbled version of what Ed Moloney says on page 345. Quoting in full for ease "Adams was frustrated but nevertheless later managed to put some formal distance between Sinn Féin and the IRA. Sinn Féin let it be known in January 1991 that the party would no longer act as "proxy spokepersons" for the IRA. A Sinn Féin source told the Irish Times, "The IRA can speak for itself"." It then goes on to say that meetings (with journalists it seems) with IRA members were no longer held at Sinn Féin offices, and Sinn Féin stopped sending faxes of IRA statements to the media. So rather than "refusing to comment on IRA actions" (Mitchel McLaughlin seems to have continued doing this, according to another page), it only sources that Adams and Sinn Féin refused to speak on behalf of the IRA any more. He did continue to speak about IRA activity at times, for example this, this and this confirm he commented on the dummy mortar shells fired at Heathrow in 1994. O Fenian (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool, that makes more sense; I've updated accordingly. Another thing to correct in the article - maybe we should start making a list! Rd232 ^talk 23:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Though I've left for now "led republican leaders to increasingly look for a political compromise to end the conflict" - is that supportable (source?) or does it need changing (how?)? Rd232 ^talk 00:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That is a supportable sentence. O Fenian (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No kidding about the list. All the attention the lede is getting is going to make the article seem poor in comparison. I'm hoping that we can keep the momentum going. Lot 49a^talk 02:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sinn Féin

The Good Friday Agreement did not admit them to the peace process, they had been in it for years. See here for more information. O Fenian (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Instead of criticising, can you suggest an alternative? There's also an important distinction, I think, between being involved in the "peace process" and in the official talks (I was under the impression that the distinction was what led to the temporary halt in the ceasefire). Suggestions, please, ideally with sources! Rd232 ^talk 22:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Remove the sentence. BigDunc 22:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Groan. Shall we erase all mention of Sinn Fein, or is someone going to make a constructive suggestion on what to say about them? Rd232 ^talk 22:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps when speaking of the efforts to be involved in the peace process, or when mentioning Armalite & Ballot Box, we could bring up Sinn Fein and just leave it as an internal link. I don't think we need to describe Sinn Fein in much detail in the PIRA article, and certainly not in the lede. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well it depends what you mean by detail. With the rewritten sentence in the 1st para clarifying things, I think it's fine now, with the ambiguity/imprecision that led to this discussion addressed. What would you change? Rd232 ^talk 09:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't see a problem with it. It seems to quite clearly say that it was Sinn Fein's admission into the all-party talks that led to the ceasefire. Any further distinctions should be left for [Sinn Fein] Throwaway85 (talk) 23:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed drafts

Use this space as a bit of a sandbox, to try your hand at putting together a draft that you feel comfortable with. Try and keep your drafts left-aligned, with comments under them per usual. The idea is to continually edit them until we feel comfortable with what we have, and we can vote on which we like best.

Throwaway85's Draft

The Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) is an Irish paramilitary organisation that waged an armed and active campaign in Northern Ireland from 1971-1997, during a period of time known as The Troubles. In keeping with the 1916 Proclamation of the Irish Republic, their stated goals were to end British rule in Ireland and establish a socialist republic in its stead.[1] In addition, the IRA performed policing duties in nationalist areas of Northern Ireland, where the Royal Ulster Constabulary often refused to operate due to security concerns.[2] (Further exposition?)

The Provisional IRA grew out of a 1969 split within the IRA. The Provisional IRA considers itself to be a direct continuation of the Irish Republican Army. It is one of several organisations calling themselves the IRA (see List of IRAs). The IRA's constitution establishes them as Óglaigh na hÉireann, or "The Irish Volunteers" in Irish. The IRA is sometimes referred to as the PIRA, the Provos, or by some of its supporters as the Army or the 'RA.[3] (This whole IRA/PIRA/Provisional IRA business is getting messy)

Until the 1997 ceasefire and subsequent Belfast Agreement in 1998, the IRA sought to end Northern Ireland's status within the United Kingdom and bring about a united Ireland by force of arms and political persuasion.[4] Their campaign of bombings and shootings targeted primarily police, military, and economic targets. It is estimated that between 1969 and 2004, the IRA was responsible for around 1,800 deaths, including around 630 civilians.[5][6] The IRA itself lost between 275 and 300 members,[7] of an estimated 10,000 total over the thirty-year period.[8] An internal British Army document released in 2007 describes the IRA as "professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient."[10] (Wouldn't mind seeing proper arrest totals in here)

On 28 July 2005, the IRA Army Council announced an end to its armed campaign, stating that it would work to achieve its aims using "purely political and democratic programmes through exclusively peaceful means".[11] In September 2008, the nineteenth report of the Independent Monitoring Commission stated that the IRA was "committed to the political path" and no longer represented "a threat to peace or to democratic politics". It also stated that the IRA's Army Council was no longer "operational or functional".[12][13] The organisation remains classified as a proscribed terrorist group in the United Kingdom and as an illegal organisation in the Republic of Ireland.[14][15] (should we include anything about disarmament?)

That's what I have so far. Thoughts? Throwaway85 (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think this approach (draft on talk page) is a great idea. If for some reason you don't want to edit the draft page (maybe you want people to create competing drafts? don't like the sound of that), it would be better to create a WP:Usersubpage in your userspace, same as this is one in my userspace, and link to it from here. Rd232 ^talk 18:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

My only real problem with the above version is the policing bit. That sounds like this group had some form of official status. I dont mind it mentioning what they did in nationalist areas, but without the term policing. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to avoid what happened on the PIRA page. Make edits that you want, and then we can contrast/compare as we work towards a consensus. This would allow everyone to see how two contrasting edits would fit into the lede as a whole, and see which works better. Regardless, it seems that Rd232 has preempted it, so I suggest we just work on his much more fleshed out version. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I've spent two hours using the PIRA and PIRA campaign articles to develop a much longer lede, which I think covers most of what needs to be covered. I'm sure some people will think it too long, but it's easier to reduce than to expand; and I also think it's an acceptable length - it's a big subject and merits a big lede. So what do people think? Rd232 ^talk 20:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I like it. My only problem with it is that it reads a bit like an article in and of itself. I'm wondering if things like the events surrounding the 1969 split could be left for the article itself. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Mm, yes, I can see how the second para could be cut out entirely; it adds less than I thought to the mention in the first para. Rd232 ^talk 20:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

REALLY don't want to open up this can of worms again, but is the source clear on how it defines civilian deaths? Are UDA etc included in that? Throwaway85 (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

no, paramilitaries are excluded. Check the Casualties section in the PIRA article. Rd232 ^talk 20:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Just saw that in the CAIN source. Alright, I'm happy with the lede, with perhaps some paring down here and there. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've taken out the 2nd para (about the split and 1969 events). [3]. If anyone thinks it would be better kept, please say so. Rd232 ^talk 22:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm good with leaving that information in the article, if nobody else has a problem with it. Just trying to reduce the history lecture-ish-ness of the lede. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

What is going on here?

I make a correct edit, only to have it reverted. The IRA's hope of a quick military victory receding was a result of the failure of the political talks during the ceasefire, not the initial cause of the ceasefire. O Fenian (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense (to me) and contradicts the article the lede is summarising (cf PIRA). Rd232 ^talk 21:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I was a bit confused by your edit as well. It seems as if you are saying that the IRA was relying on negotiation to achieve military victory, which seems strange. My understanding is that a successful negotiation would have been a political victory, and that defeating British forces would have been a military one. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

That would depend on exactly when "mid 1970s" is referring to, and according to the sources it is after the failure of the ceasefire. So would you like to revert your incorrect change? This is quite straightforward. The IRA did not call a ceasefire thinking they had lost, they called the ceasefire in anticipation of talks with the British about them pulling out. Nobody actually believed that British withdrawal would be a simple "ok, we're going now" process. I amend things so they are correct according to sources, and I get reverted for spurious reasons based on a misplaced sentence in the original article, just great! O Fenian (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I'm just summarising PIRA#Éire Nua and the 1975 ceasefire 2nd para. If I've done so badly, please help, but not by inverting the meaning. If the article's wrong, please explain. Rd232 ^talk 21:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, so are you going to explain your edit more fully? [4] Rd232 ^talk 21:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll try and explain. Even the IRA did not believe that a military victory would entail the British suddenly saying "ok, we're going now" and pulling out straight away. Thus, as with the Irish War of Independence and the Anglo-Irish Treaty there would need to be a truce period, while talks went on about how British disengagement would take place. The ceasefire was initially a "suspension of operations" from 22 December 1974 until 2 January 1975 to give the British Government an opportunity "to consider the proposals for a permanent ceasefire", and that if there was not a "satisfactory reply" then the "Irish Republican Army will have no option but to resume hostilities". The British Government did make contact through back channels, and protracted talks took place. It was only after the collapse of these talks that the IRA realised that chances of a quick military victory were slim and out of this evolved the Long War strategy. The previous wording made it sound as though the IRA believed they were negotiating from a position of weakness, and they called a ceasefire because they couldn't win. This is the exact opposite of the reality. That the current article has a misplaced sentence at the start of a section which is really summarising the entire section but looks to the average reader like it is in chronological order should not affect how this is written surely? O Fenian (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I see. This makes more sense. How central, though, is the 1975 ceasefire? It seems like we're giving a reader's digest history lesson with the lede, as opposed to a summary of who the IRA was, what they did, etc. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

No hang on, you may be right, but it's more than a misplaced sentence. Provisional IRA campaign 1969–1997#Ceasefires - 1972 and 1975 says the same thing. And I simply don't understand the basis for "It was only after the collapse of these talks that the IRA realised that chances of a quick military victory were slim" as you above. Why, after a year of ceasefire, would it suddenly become clear that military victory wasn't coming soon? By contrast it makes far more sense to see the high-intensity insurgency of 1972-4 not producing results. On the other hand, maybe it's partly a definitional issue - since the military acts were aimed at forcing a political decision, what does "military victory" mean here? Rd232 ^talk 22:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

British diplomacy. Unlike in 1972, they were not talking direct to the people in charge. Essentially the British negotiators dangled the carrot of British withdrawal, but the general consensus is that it was never on the table and the British were just trying to keep the ceasefire going as long as they could, while increasing intelligence gathering on the IRA to make security easier should the ceasefire break down. O Fenian (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that's part of the story, but it doesn't entirely clarify. Let's put it another way - what source backs up your version that the hopes of quick military victory receded after the ceasefire, not before? Is it indeed Peter Taylor, p184-5, as the current footnote placement suggests? And why do the two articles (PIRA and PIRA campaign) give the opposite impression? Rd232 ^talk 22:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

What source backs up your version?! An unsourced line without an exact date in a Wikipedia article, that's not credible! However Ed Moloney details it best. A report/rescue plan was produced by Gerry Adams in 1976, following the famous Cage 11 think tank deliberations over the strategy of the movement. In the words of Moloney "The conceptual foundation stone of the takeover plan was the doctrine that the war against the British was going to be a long-drawn-out affair and that the heady days of 1972, when the IRA could realistically imagine forcing a speedy military defeat on the British, were gone forever". So while you are in the right area with your points, the timing is critical. The belief (or at least, when it became documented as opposed to the views of individuals) that the IRA could not achieve a quick military victory comes after the ceasefire, it did not cause it. Both Taylor footnotes are wrong in terms of page numbers, unless they are to different editions of the books. O Fenian (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm was just summarising the article for the lede, if you want to contradict that, sources would be good! And we can amend the article eventually too. So, OK, your point based on this source is that yes, before the ceasefire they imagined quick victory of military action forcing serious political negotiation but the failure of that (which led to the end of the ceasefire) dashed those hopes and led to the Long War. OK, that makes sense. To avoid wordiness explaining that I've dropped the word "military" before "victory"; if you don't like that, then slightly more clarification is needed I think. Can you provide the correct footnote? It's probably a different edition, so give the ISBN etc as well. Rd232 ^talk 23:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not just "this source", most of them say the same thing. O Fenian (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well fine, but one good source is all we need, unless there's contention. Rd232 ^talk 20:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I made an edit also which was reverted, this sentence In 2005, following its 1997 ceasefire which enabled the admission of its political wing, Sinn Féin, to the Northern Ireland peace process... is wrong as can be seen when reading the lead of the article linked which states The peace process, when discussing the history of Northern Ireland, is often considered to cover the events leading up to the 1994 Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) ceasefire... so how can SF be admited in 2005 when they were involved in 1994 and before. BigDunc 22:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well as my edit summary said, the sentence doesn't say they were admitted in 2005, it said (initially) 1998, and now says 1997. Maybe it should be 1994, but I thought the whole reason the 94 ceasefire broke down was that they weren't involved then? Rd232 ^talk 22:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to reword it to avoid any confusion, fine, it seemed clear enough to me. Rd232 ^talk 22:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't reword it as I don't know what you are trying to say. SF have been a political party involved in numerous discussions with British and other nationalist parties for decades. It needs to come out. BigDunc 22:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that Sinn Fein entered the peace process (whenever it was, I thought it was 97) and eventually joined the NI government, as negotiation finally succeeded in replacing political struggle with armed struggle! That's my point! Rd232 ^talk 22:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well it's wrong they didn't enter the peace process then and it could probably be argued that they started it. BigDunc 22:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine, let's use this source [5] to say the peace process started 1993 and they were involved from the start. So why did the 1994 ceasefire break down? Rd232 ^talk 22:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

SF's non-inclusion in all-party talks. However all-party talks were part of the peace process, but they were not the entire peace process. O Fenian (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

So how can we explain that (concisely enough for the first paragraph)? And what sources are we relying on? Rd232 ^talk 23:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think that's sorted, though it probably needs better sourcing. Rd232 ^talk 09:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

When did SF start the peace process? Lot 49a^talk 22:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This is fun

Guys, this is the most fun I've had editing Wikipedia. Normally, I slink in make a small fix or two to an article and move on. But here I feel like a broad range of people from different perspectives are really collaborating to make a true improvement to this lede. Nice work to everyone involved. Lot 49a^talk 02:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

ah, don't jinx it... ;) Rd232 ^talk 09:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Great introduction

Well done guys, i think this is a really good and detailed introduction which really gives useful information in a neutral way and is very helpful to those who know nothing on the subject. There is just one sentence i still have a bit of a problem with, although i dont strongly object and its not enough to make me oppose the intro.

Its the police thing again, "The Provisional IRA (usually simply "the IRA") also undertook to police the nationalist areas of Northern Ireland, in competition with the British authorities." also undertook to police the nationalist areas is much better than the previous wording. Its the "competition with British authorities" bit which bothers me, could it be changed somehow BritishWatcher (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

lol woops i see it was just removed from the intro BritishWatcher (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Which means the policing is now omitted entirely - I don't think that's right. Rd232 ^talk 20:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree I think that some acknowledgement that the IRA attempted to become the defacto police force during the Troubles is worth mentioning and relevant for expanding the understanding of what they did. Lot 49a^talk 21:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Not just attempted, but were, in many nationalist areas. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well that's presuming you consider pushing drugs, pimping, extortion and drilling holes in peoples kneecaps as the normal role of a "police force" Oh Big Jock Knew (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I see Cromwellian Conquest discovered the magic of Proxies. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Deaths

I query this sentence: The campaign, waged primarily in Northern Ireland but also in England, had resulted in around 1,800 deaths, including around 1,100 members of the British security forces, and around 630 civilians.

1. "[H]ad resulted in around 1,800 deaths" does not make clear that the PIRA killed 1,800 people. The indirect language might imply that the 1,800 figure includes people not killed directly by the PIRA, but indirectly, or even by loyalists or security forces in response to the campaign. The sentence should read: During its campaign, waged primarily in Northern Ireland but also in England, the IRA killed 1,800 people, including around 1,100 members of the British security forces, and around 630 civilians.
2. How are the figures arrived at? If 1,100 security forces were killed and 630 civilians, who were the other 70? The figures literally don't add up.

Mooretwin (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

O Fenian has changed this to say "the IRA was blamed for the deaths of 1,800"! As if to imply that they may not have killed them. Does any source doubt that around 1,800 people were killed by the PIRA? Mooretwin (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, quite a few. The main point is that quite often when it came to civilian deaths, the IRA were blamed yet made no admission of responsibility, and in some cases denied involvement. I can point you to several deaths on CAIN which are attributed to the IRA where Loyalists aided by British Intelligence were responsible, which participant John Black admitted to in his book "Killing for Britain". Saying the IRA killed 1800 people is not a neutral statement under those circumstances. O Fenian (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

saying they were just "blamed" for some deaths is not neutral, that clearly attempts to discredit the figures. It is believed they were responsible for the deaths of... would be far better than "blamed for". But i thought killed was fine. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh and "several deaths" would still keep the figure around 1800 BritishWatcher (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I concede 1) may be an issue, and needs rephrasing to avoid ambiguity, even though in context (PIRA lede) the ambiguity is fairly low. 2) The 70-odd difference is paramilitaries. Check the article, Casualties section. The sentence isn't phrased to claim that the numbers add up ("including"). Can be changed, but I wouldn't. 3) O Fenian's point that a few of the total may be misattributed doesn't matter here, because the figures are rounded (unless there are lots potentially misattributed, an issue which isn't even mentioned in the Casualties section). Rd232 ^talk 19:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Paramilitaries were also civilians. Mooretwin (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The CAIN source treats them seperately, so we've done the same. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You can add Claudy, Birmingham and a host of others on top of those. Other people are blaming the IRA are they not? Saying they did kill 1800 is not a neutral statement when they deny responsiblity for a substantial number. O Fenian (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree if someone else is blaming then it is not neutral. BigDunc 20:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

What about:

• During its campaign, waged primarily in Northern Ireland but also in England, the IRA is believed to have killed around 1,800 people, including around 1,100 members of the British security forces, and around 630 civilians.

I'm fine with this one. I think blamed is probably closer to what we're trying to say, but it's a loaded word and violates NPOV. Perhaps "During...in England, the IRA admitted to or was accused of killing..." It sounds a bit awkward, but something along those lines would, I believe, represent the most accurate and neutral view. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

or

• During its campaign, waged primarily in Northern Ireland but also in England, the IRA is attributed as having killed around 1,800 people, including around 1,100 members of the British security forces, and around 630 civilians.

Mooretwin (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The only uneasiness I have with the two version you suggest is that both make me want to put a tag around them. But the objections to the current wording make sense to me as well. is implicated? Not sure Lot 49a^talk 21:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you not be dissuaded from adding the tag when you saw that the statement is referenced? Mooretwin (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really. There is still ambiguity as to whether it's the source who is doing the believing or someone referenced by the source. I would prefer non-passive voice. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"Implicated" is even worse than blamed. A simple witness to a murder could be "implicated". Im happy with the "Believed to".. or "attributed", something along those lines. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a violation of WP:WEASEL to say "is believed to". I don't like the passive voice. what's wrong with "admitted to or was accused of"? Throwaway85 (talk) 01:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Accused is not good enough either. Sorry but the introduction needs to state the numbers this group killed or deaths they were responsible. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The exact number they were responsible for is not known, I can provide you with another set of figures in addition to CAIN and Lost Lives. If there is variance in the sources and they disagree about how many deaths they were responsible for, how can anything be stated as fact? As above, the IRA deny responsibility for certain deaths that are attributed to them, if those figures are stated as fact ("The IRA killed etc") then is it not a neutral statement. O Fenian (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

We have rounded figures based on two sources with pretty similar numbers. If those rounded totals are substantially disputed, that's a different issue and can be discussed appropriately, with relevant sources. But unless the currently employed sources leave room for ambiguity (do they? no sign of that so far), it's WP:OR to introduce that when citing those sources. Rd232 ^talk 17:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, similar but not identical numbers. This is because different sources attribute different deaths to them. My point remains that these numbers include deaths that the sources attribute to the IRA which the IRA have denied responsibility for, therefore it is not neutral to state as fact "the IRA killed x people". O Fenian (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It is neutral if the sources we have don't discuss the "denial of responsibility" issue and we don't have other sources to discuss that either. It's all about the sourcing. If you want to now challenge the sources we have using other sources, or show that the current sources carry qualifiers previously not mentioned, fine. But that's a different issue than the wording. Rd232 ^talk 17:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Is the number of people killed by the IRA a fact or an opinion? If it is a fact, then why do three sources have three different totals? Because it's an opinion surely? Opinion being stated as fact is not neutral. O Fenian (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not opinion. Opinion is whether Michael Jackson's music is good or bad. These are issues of fact, and there is a certain amount of disagreement on the facts, which we haven't previously gone into in that much detail in the article. To take this in the logical direction: what sources do we have on deaths attributed to but denied by the IRA? And what sort of numbers do they talk about? Similarly, what do the current sources (in the article) say about their methodology with respect to denials? Rd232 ^talk 17:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's opinion. Unless the IRA admitted to killing every single person in the 1,800 (or say, IRA members were convicted), then it is someone's opinion that the IRA were responsible. You will note that wording avoiding attributing direct blame is used by secondary sources for the IRA, same again, same againO Fenian (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

We have two good sources which produced the figures we rounded and used in the lede. Why are you now googling, instead of talking about what those sources have to say, in particular about their methodology, and possibly the numbers denied by the IRA? I thought you had access to those sources. Rd232 ^talk 21:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing against the use of those sources. However as I keep saying, they attribute deaths to the IRA that the IRA denies responsibility for. Therefore it is not neutral to state as fact what they say, only to attribute it. I provide secondary sources to show that other sources do not attribute direct blame for all 1,800, yet you dismiss them? O Fenian (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

So lets have wording like "It is believed the IRA were responsible for the deaths of 1800 people..." Something like that is fine with me, what i have the problem with is the term "implicated" because it could mean anything at all so to use it is misleading as well as clearly not being what the source says. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no prior (obviously I am not agreeing to any unknown wording in advance) problem with "blamed", "believed", "implicated" or anything similar, providing it is not stated as fact. I do not believe that is an unreasonable position to take, especially as secondary sources take the same path. O Fenian (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

- Interesting reading what those sources say, Basically two say "The IRA has been blamed for around 1,800 deaths since the early 1970s." and one says "The Provisional IRA is thought to have been responsible for the deaths of nearly 1,800 people". I support the "Have been responsible for"... But even "blamed" is better than implicated. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be "thought to have been responsible for" in your last sentence surely. O Fenian (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I would be ok with that yes. I said i was fine with "It is believed they were responsible for the deaths of.." yesterday which is basically exactly the same thing. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Then we should use the wording suggested above "is attributed as having killed".. that does not state it as fact. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

So why have you ignored the objections and just stated it as fact? O Fenian (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That is my prefered wording, you removed the previous wording which had stated they killed with no debate here and certainly no consensus. I dont mind how its worded although we shouldnt be using a term like implicated. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not need consensus here, as the current wording is a draft without any consensus at all. But that deflectionist tactic does not alter the problems with your edit. O Fenian (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm gonna have to go with BritishWatcher here. The sources we currently have available state unequivocally that the IRA "killed" ~1800 people. I think the best thing to do is to say that 1800 deaths are attributed to them, and then say that this is a number that the IRA disputes, if a source can be found to back that up. The only real issue here is what the sources say. Everyone may know the moon is round, but if you can't find a reliable source that says so then you can't put it in a wikipedia article. This issue is far too sensitive to start introducing original research. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately not stating opinion as fact is policy. O Fenian (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The sources are stating it as fact. Do you deny the validity of the sources? Throwaway85 (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Really? So everything every source says is fact? O Fenian (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

And I refer you to what Malcolm Sutton said, which was "Often I have had to make choices based on the weight of evidence and reports available and some of my decisions may cause offence but they are not intended to do so". That would tend to put a rather substantial dent in the "fact" argument, as would Richard English's comments about his use of Lost Lives and Sutton's book (in addition to one other) where he said he used multiple sources to compile his IRA death totals to avoid the "bias" (his exact word) from any one particular source. O Fenian (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This is going in a strange direction. We have good sources that say X numbers were killed, based on, as you say, sifting multiple sources to avoid bias. Now you're introducing doubt against those totals on the basis that the IRA disputes some of those included in the numbers the good sources count... but without providing any sources as to what and how many the IRA disputes. That's original research, if you don't back it up. That's the nub of the matter. Rd232 ^talk 22:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I never said that, check carefully. The crux of the matter is this. Sources say the IRA were responsible for a total of x deaths (note that x varies from source to source, so how it can be a fact is beyond me), which include people killed in y and z. The IRA deny responsibility for y and z. How it is not a violation of NPOV to state as fact the IRA were responsible for a total of x deaths, when they deny responsibility for some of them? O Fenian (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

We have to go by what the sources say. It is beyond the purview of wikipedia to decide not to trust academic sources without some other source that gives us good reason to. I'm sympathetic, O Fenian, but if you want to include that the total is disputed by the IRA then I have no problem with that. We just need a source. Something along the lines of "Is believed to have killed x, a number which the IRA denies" or something. ANYTHING. Let's just find a sentence that works and stick with it. We're talking in circles here.Throwaway85 (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. We do not state opinion as fact. That is policy. I have said I am fine with various qualifiers prior to the total, providing it is not stated as fact. O Fenian (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but the term implicated really has to be changed or the sentence needs rewording. Implicated is an awfully weak and misleading word. The BBC was implicated in the death of Dr David Kelly, it doesnt mean they committed murder. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"The IRA deny responsibility for y and x". Source? Rd232 ^talk 22:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Source and plenty of offline ones for other incidents. If people struggle with the concept of "widely believed", compare the sentences "The Beatles are the best band of all time" and "The Beatles are widely believed to the best band of all time". O Fenian (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Your right. The IRA were implicated in the deaths of 1800, it doesnt mean they kill them. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, the introduction is meant to be saying they were responsible for the deaths of 1800 people, not simply "implicated". In truth they were probably "implicated" in 1000s more. The source provided that shows the table of deaths, talks of killings not deaths the IRA were "Implicated in". Its wrong and misleading. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

We're going to have to find some terminology that says yes, they did kill people, and no, we don't know exactly how many. Anything else will result in a continuation of the impasse. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Do people like "widely believed"? The IRA are widely believed to have killed around 1,800 people?

What about The IRA are thought to be responsible for the deaths of 1,800 people, though the IRA deny responsibility in some cases Lot 49a^talk 23:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed is the biggest sticking point right now. I can live with the weasel words, considering there doesn't seem to be any satisfactory way around it. The problem is that the IRA denies responsibility for specific attacks, not large chunks of the total as a whole. I'd prefer to not have 8 or 9 citations from individual denials, so some kind of aggregate would be awesome. Failing that, is everyone ok with just citing one or two? We all know they denied responsibility for dozens, but that's gonna be hard to reference. How about "The IRA are believed to have killed 1800 people, although they deny responsibility for some of these."? Throwaway85 (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That really drifts into WP:OR territory (OR by WP:Synthesis). The thing to do is to go back to the two sources used and examine their methodology, and in particular what, if anything, they say about denials. In addition, sources specifically about denials (in general, not individual ones) would be very helpful. Rd232 ^talk 10:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

As ive said before im fine with widely believed or believed, something along those lines. aslong as its "responsible for the deaths of" or killed. The word "implicated" is what i have a huge problem with because it could mean anything. In the interests of getting consensus and having the improved introduction "believed to be responsible for the death of.. " or something similar would address concerns raised by O Fenian so i think we should go with that. Its better than the current intro which mentions no deaths at all. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it avoid weasel words, OR, and violation of RS if we just said "Two studies have put the number of people killed by the IRA at about 1,800"? That's what it currently says in the article anyway. Scolaire (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"Two studies" sounds too weak as there could be many that say different things. The figures used are the most reliable from what i can see, which are used by many sources. The figure needs qualification, like "Is believed to of..." But i think thats enough. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The figure need qualification why? Scolaire (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

To address O Fenians concerns that it not just state they "killed 1800 people" , adding a "The IRA are believed to have killed around 1800" or "It is believed the IRA were responsible for the deaths of around 1800" Either of those solves the problem addressing O Fenians issue BritishWatcher (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, O Fenian said "it is not neutral to state as fact what they say, only to attribute it." That is precisely what I am proposing. O Fenian said he was "fine with various qualifiers" which is not the same thing as saying it's what he wants. Scolaire (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I never said he would object to the wording you proposed, i object to it because to just state in the intro "two studies say so and so" will lead to people presuming there are plenty of other studies out there saying different things. This is the most reliable estimate of deaths the IRA are responsible for, many others use it as a source. There for whilst we must point out its not an exact science / fact, we must word it so that it recognises these are widely accepted or used figures. "Two studies say this" does not, we get studies every single day coming out, one day it says coffee is good the other day it says coffee are bad. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

How about "Estimates for the number of deaths the IRA is responsible for range from x to y"? Seriously, let's just decide on something already. This is getting silly. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Its far more than just an estimate. "The IRA is believed to have been responsible for around 1800 deaths". will do me BritishWatcher (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

In what way is it more than just an estimate? How does "is believed to" make the article any more neutral? Whereas you seem to believe the simply factual "two studies have put" to be POV and weak, so too is "is believed to" POV and overly strong. That's why WP:WEASEL is in place. The article can't be written based upon what some ignorant reader's reaction will be; it has to be written in such a way that it uses neutral terminology and agrees with the sources. So what if someone reads the lede and thinks "Oh my, only two studies, there must be thousands more that disagree." The express purpose of wikipedia is to provide the information, not attempt to control how it is perceived and what conclusions the user draws from it. It's a touchy issue; people will have vastly different interpretations of the information we provide. So what? Throwaway85 (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

An estimate is a guess, these figures are from extensive research, which ofcourse can not be treated as exact but certainly should not be played down as just an "estimate". Two studies are the same problem, that could mislead people into thinking there are many alternative studies and this is just a single point of view. The figures we are using are used by many different sources.

I accept we cant just have they killed 1800 people as it originally said, but lets not water it down and make it even more pathetic. The IRA are believed to have been responsible for the deaths of around 1800 people. That is inline with the source and inline with sources which use the source. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm sorry to harp on about it, but unless new information is provided, there is no justification for using a weaselly passive voice. The best studies we have give two figures close to 1800, which have been rounded (to "around 1800") for ease of presentation - we're just giving a ballpark figure in the lead. Those studies must have considered in particular how to deal with IRA denials (admitted attacks are obviously non-contentious and relatively straight forward), and unless the methodology for dealing with those denials is criticised by a reliable source, it is simply original research for Wikipedia editors to mention denials and impugn those studies' methodology without evidence. Further, if we're going to make a big issue of the denials, we really should know what the extent of that problem is, and with a reliable source we could possibly introduce that. Rd232 ^talk 19:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Having said that, "believed to have been responsible for" would be acceptable in combination with the footnote we use in that sentence, which makes it clear who is doing the believing. Rd232 ^talk 19:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with either this or "two studies have estimated". Would prefer estimated as it does not rely on passive voice. An estimate, BTW is not a guess. It's an estimate. It entails careful thought and deliberation, while acknowledging room for error. I think that terminology fits the source perfectly. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Other alternatives are "studies have estimated" or "published studies have estimated". Two is the number of studies that have been discussed here, but it doesn't necessarily have to go into the lead. Scolaire (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Estimation actually doesn't seem like the right word, because to me it implies something to do with statistical sampling. I don't think the number or even the word "studies" needs to be in there; the footnote clarifies that sufficiently. Rd232 ^talk 22:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, we should stick with " "believed to have been responsible for" and have a footnote explaining it. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine, can we just find a weasel-free way of saying it? How about simply "Researchers believe"?Throwaway85 (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That just begs the question too (Which researchers? What kind?). I think BritishWatcher has the best compromise version. Rd232 ^talk 23:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine. I'm down for anything that ends the debate at this point. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion?

Much debate here, so arbitrary section break since may have got there. Does anyone oppose the phrasing "believed to have been responsible for", combined with the sourcing footnote? Rd232 ^talk 10:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Put in believed to be.. and it is asking for a {{who}} tag. Which I will insert if that sentence goes in the lead. BigDunc 10:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

But the sourcing footnote makes it clear who. We could add "widely" as a clarification of who, if you prefer. Rd232 ^talk 11:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you ever read WP:WEASEL? BigDunc 11:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I would also oppose "believed to have been" were it not for the footnote, which it makes it clear exactly who is being relied on. Rd232 ^talk 11:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong but since when do we use sources and footnotes in the lead, is it not supposed to be a summary of what is in the article? BigDunc 17:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It's both. See WP:LEADCITE. Rd232 ^talk 18:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

So do we have agreement to remove the term implicated and add the mentioned phrase above along with the footnote? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems like it. The footnote (well two footnotes actually, one per source) is there anyway, but I think it's important that it stays. Rd232 ^talk 19:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I've amended this again to say "believed to have killed ...". "Responsible for" is just a euphemism for killed and I see no good reason to avoid saying what we mean. We're not saying "murdered": "killed" is neutral enough. Mooretwin (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well the emergent consensus said otherwise, and with good reason. "Killed" implies a stronger intentionality than the total figures support - the numbers include accidental deaths of IRA members, for example; and in some cases deaths from bombing may have been unintended (eg where attempted warnings failed). I think the phrasing we seem to have agreed on is a good one. Rd232 ^talk 13:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If you kill someone accidentally, you still kill them. If you kill someone unintentionally, you still kill them. "Kill" is fine. Let's not use euphemisms. Mooretwin (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm with rd232 on this. Killed implies intention, or at the very least gross negligence, as in the case of a drunk driver. While this is undoubtedly true for many, if not most, of the deaths, the sources do not support the use of that terminology for all of them. rd232's example illustrates this well: deaths that were unintended, or that the IRA attempted to avert, are still their responsibility. It does not, however, warrant the accusatory "killed". Throwaway85 (talk) 06:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It absolutely doesn't imply intention. Have you never heard about someone being killed in a car accident, for example (and not necessarily by a drunk driver)? If someone died in a bomb blast, they were killed, intentionally or not. "Murder" implies intention, and we are deliberately not using the term "murder". The above argument is completely fallacious. Mooretwin (talk) 08:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, language. You say "Have you never heard about someone being killed in a car accident" - note the passive. You wouldn't say the active "the driver killed the pedestrian", would you? (Got to drop "accident" from this example, since it clarifies the issue too much, and there is no equivalent in the lede sentence under discussion.) Similarly, you wouldn't say "the doctor killed the patient" if it was merely negligent, because it implies a Harold Shipman sort of intentionality. Rd232 ^talk 09:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you would. You would say that "John killed someone in a car accident". In any case, an analogy between a doctor negligently killing a patient, and someone deliberately planting a bomb which then killed someone is hardly a good one. Why are we scared to say that the PIRA killed people?? Mooretwin (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"Yes, you would. You would say that "John killed someone in a car accident"." - seems an odd response to what I said above. And what made you suggest that anyone is "scared" of saying PIRA killed people? Rd232 ^talk 10:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think it is an odd response? And I suggest that people are scared to say killed because the word has been reverted in the draft text, and its inclusion resisted in this discussion for no valid reason (indeed fallacious reasoning - with people claiming that "killed" cannot describe an unintentional death). Mooretwin (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, "was responsible for" carries all the meaning required - there is no reason to call it a euphemism. Not entirely irrelevantly, it's also a more encyclopedic style of writing. Rd232 ^talk 09:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't carry all the meaning required. It is a euphemism for killed, which appears to serve the purpose of reducing the impact of what is being described for no valid reason of which I can think. I don't see why you think it is "more encylopedic". Mooretwin (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think this particular phrasing is so important? What information is lost to the reader with the alternative? And since everyone else seems fine with the other expression, will you respect WP:Consensus if you're unable to overturn it by discussion? Rd232 ^talk 10:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is important to say what we mean and I see no benefit in using a euphemism. "Responsible for" leaves the reader open to the possibility of something less than killing, e.g. indirect causation, whereas the deaths caused by the PIRA were all killings (e.g. shooting someone or planting a bomb) where the PIRA directly caused someone to die. (It could be argued, for example, that the Stormont regime was "responsible for" all the deaths in the Troubles, because their failure to reform in the face of civil rights demands led to the Troubles. But it could not be said that they killed all the people in the Troubles.) (Similarly, one might argue that the PIRA was responsible for deaths carried out by loyalists in retaliation, since those retaliations wouldn't have happened without the PIRA action in the first place. But it could not be said that the PIRA killed those people.) Mooretwin (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It's not a euphemism, Mooretwin. We're not talking about collateral damage, or life-ending side effects, or anything of the sort. We are, in an encyclopedic manner, stating that the IRA was responsible for around 1800 deaths. You wouldn't say Al-qaeda "killed" 3000 people in the 9/11 attacks, you would say they flew hijacked planes into the WTC and the pentagon, resulting in the deaths of 3000 people. It's simply a more neutral, encyclopedic way of speaking. Once again, "killed" implies either intent or gross negligence, and there are many cases where people died as a result of bombings where the IRA provided advance notice in an explicit attempt to eliminate casualties. You cannot include these figures with the direct shootings, car bombs, etc., where the express purpose was to "kill" people.

On a completely unrelated note, I declare Al-Qaeda, Bin Laden, and 9/11 to be this century's Nazis, Hitler, and Holocaust, and thus are subject to the same rules as the aforementioned in Godwin's Law. I hereby dub the 21st century equivalent "Throwaway's Law". Let it be known, yadda yadda. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"Killed" doesn't imply "either intent or gross negligence". And, as you say, we are NOT talking about collateral damage, which is precisely why "responsible for" should not be used, as it implies the figures include "life-ending side effects", etc. Mooretwin (talk) 10:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well you seem to be in a minority of one here, so I think we should leave this issue for now, in the interests of finishing this lede redraft, and once that's done you can do an RFC on the issue if you wish, on Talk:PIRA. Rd232 ^talk 10:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

A minotiry of 1 out of 3 is 33%: quite significant; and seeing as no-one is actually addressing the points that I make, it seems unfair simply to dismiss the point I am making. I still do not understand why we are scared to say "killed", but if that is the case, why not revert to your original suggestion which was "caused the deaths of", which is not as bad as "responsible for". Mooretwin (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I make it 1 out of 5 in this subsection, not counting the others on this page who have chosen not to comment (WP:Silence). I suggest you add it to your list of things for later discussion; propose, debate, do an WP:RFC if necessary. Rd232 ^talk 17:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Escalation/start

I had changed:

It emerged in 1969 in response to the escalation of The Troubles ...

to

It emerged in 1969 at the start of The Troubles ...

As the former implies strongly that the Troubles began significantly earlier than December 1969, yet there is no agreed start date (just as there is no agreed end date) - some sources see August 1969 as the start and the PIRA's formation is directly related to the events in Belfast of August 1969. Mooretwin (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be an agreed date, it's clear from The Troubles article that it didn't start in 1969. Rd232 ^talk 20:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There was a dispute about the Troubles article implying that they began in 1966. Sources give different dates: many say 69. Mooretwin (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Even so, the IRA split after the Troubles began. O Fenian (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

But still at the start. In what way had they "escalated" between August and December 1969? Mooretwin (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Start of the civil rights movement, etc. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

?? The civil rights movement began in 1967 with the first march in 1968, so how could the start of the civil rights movement have been an "escalation" between August and December 69? Mooretwin (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

From dispute it seems like 1968 is one common thread. Certainly the events of August 1969 didn't come out of nowhere, and it was in response to those events that the IRA split. On that basis, the original wording seems perfectly justifiable. Rd232 ^talk 20:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) at the moment, based on what people are saying and the many controversies, I feel like escalation is the better wording. Lot 49a^talk 20:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't, because it implies an acceptance of one particular view of when the Troubles started. Mooretwin (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles#Beginning_.281966.E2.80.931969.29 Et suivant. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read my comments above in relation to that. Mooretwin (talk)

I would suggest that if you dispute when they started, that that is an issue to bring up on the page for The Troubles, rather than the PIRA. I think we are better off going by what that page says than by attempting to rehash that dispute here. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not me disputing when they started. All I'm doing is acknowledging that there is no consensus as to when they started. My personal opinion on when they started is irrelevant. Mooretwin (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Policing activity

Mooretwin doesn't like the current source for the sentence about policing. I get the objction but feel like that says more about the source than the sentence. Someone have a better source discussing the IRA's policing activities?

The Provisional IRA (usually simply "the IRA") also undertook to police the nationalist areas of Northern Ireland, in competition with the British authorities.

I apersonall think that the source which describes the nature of the punishments, the breakdown of law and order and the people turning to the paramilitaries to "get something done" isn't half bad as a source. Thoughts? Lot 49a^talk 21:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

[6] - yeah, it's not bad for a start. There's surely something better in books or academic journals though. Rd232 ^talk 21:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The source mentions nothing about the PIRA "undertaking to police nationalist areas", nor "in competition with British authorities". Mooretwin (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Are punishment beatings with baseball and hurley bats and "kneecappings" considered to be "policing"? Mooretwin (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ask the RUC. I'll take that back. Let's please not get into this again. The article isn't about who was good and who was bad, but rather what everyone was up to. Anyways, even if the actions you describe are all they did, there is plenty of global precedent for calling it policing, so the point is moot.Throwaway85 (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I never said the article was about who was good and who was bad, but the article has to be verifiable. What reliable source says the PIRA "undertook" to "police" nationalist areas? The source referred to punishment beatings, etc., which would not be considered policing in any typical sense. A better crafted text is therefore required. Mooretwin (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.springerlink.com/content/h62p5w71646x428m/ Here's an article from the Journal of Critical Criminology describing the IRA's paramilitary policing. It's not controversial. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Saying the IRA were involved in policing is indeed controversial BritishWatcher (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Not according to the Journal of Critical Criminology. Dammit people, here: http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=82d3f68def31b6501bee9a6e9edd9c76e04e75f6e8ebb871 There's the full pdf. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Other articles from the same issue that I can grab if anyone wants to see them. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC):

Editor’s introduction -Kleran McEvoy and Brian Gormally

‘Seeing’ is believing: Positivist terrology, peacemaking criminology, and the northern ireland peace process -Kieran McEvoy and Brian Gormally

Human rights and the peace process in Northern Ireland -Paul Mageean

Does Dumcree ’96 tell us anything about the RUC? -Keith Bryett

Dancing in the dark: Ecstasy, the dance culture, and moral panic in post ceasefire Northern Ireland -Brian Hollywood

Violence against women and political conflict: The Northern Ireland experience -Monica McWilliams

“If you’ve come a’seeking justice, no Irish need apply:”1 Irish Republicans, political asylum, and United States foreign policy -Karen McElrath

A reponse to paramilitary policing in Northern Ireland -Pat Conway

Alternatives to punishment beatings and shootings in a Loyalist community in Belfast -Tom Winston

I think that policing can mean a lot of things. In the policing section, we go into detail about what they did. In the intro I think we need to acknowledge they were doing stuff. In parts of the world stoning people is part of the justice system, in other parts, electric chairs, in other parts there are secret police and informers. I'm not going to suggest that the IRA's actions re-maintaining order were exemplary, but I think that it's pretty clear that they were undertaking to police areas. Lot 49a^talk 23:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Reference formatting

Some of the references such as the first one seem incomplete. Lot 49a^talk 21:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The complete reference is listed in [6]. Technically, it should be the other way around. I'll change that now. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sinn Féin again

Hi, guys. I unwatched the IRA talk page for several weeks because I thought it was never going to get anywhere. I'm amazed and delighted to come back and find a really good lead is emerging from a genuine collaboration. Good going! Anyway, my query is this: a sentence at the beginning says, "In 1997, the reinstation of the IRA's 1994 ceasefire enabled the admission of its political wing, Sinn Féin, to the all-party talks of the Northern Ireland peace process, which ultimately led to the 1998 Belfast Agreement and a formal announcement in 2005 of an end to its armed campaign." In the third and fourth paragraph it says, "...the IRA ultimately called a ceasefire in 1994 on the understanding that Sinn Féin would be included in political talks for a settlement. When this did not happen, the IRA called off its ceasefire from February 1996 until July 1997...After the ceasefire was reinstated, Sinn Féin was admitted into all-party talks, which produced the Belfast Agreement of 1998. On 28 July 2005, the IRA Army Council announced an end to its armed campaign..." Is this a case of the lead summarising the lead? I can't see the point of it. Scolaire (talk) 08:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a case of the first para summarising the lede. The idea is to bring the key points up front to people unfamiliar with the topic, with a longer introduction in the rest of the lede. This is helpful because Wikipedia articles are often much longer than other encyclopedia articles - this is one of the more common criticisms of Wikipedia, that there's far too much detail and not enough overview. Rd232 ^talk 08:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough! In the "summary", then, I would have a problem with Sinn Féin being referred to as "the political wing of the IRA". Sinn Féin has never accepted that tag, although some older Republican documents referred to it as the political wing of the Republican Movement, with the IRA being the military wing. Contrast Ulster Political Research Group, a body "connected to the Ulster Defence Association", or Progressive Unionist Party, who are "linked to", or have a "special relationship" with, the Ulster Volunteer Force. Can we substitute a more neutral term, then, such as "the admission of its political counterpart, Sinn Féin"? Scolaire (talk) 08:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"counterpart" for "wing" is probably better. "Wing" implies SF perhaps being part of the IRA, which is surely wrong (isn't it?). Counterpart is probably more accurate. Rd232 ^talk 09:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is wrong :-) I've done the edit. I'm taking the liberty of changing this section heading, since the topic has changed somewhat.

Cost of Damage?

Is there a readily available source that gives a combined total of the amount of damage inflicted in dollars/pounds/etc? I think it's a pretty important figure to include, especially seeing as there were some very large attacks that resulted in no deaths or injuries (london stock exchange, etc) that still resulted in huge economic costs. This was, in fact, a pretty clear goal of the IRA, so I think it warrants inclusion. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless covered in the article it doesn't go in the lead. BigDunc 18:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It isn't in the article at the moment. But if a good source can be found, it should certainly go in the article and probably in the lead. Rd232 ^talk 19:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Deadline

I'm thinking, to try and move things along, we should set a deadline for an acceptable draft. I think 1 September should be doable. If we can reach agreement by then, I can unprotect the article and introduce the new lede, and we can go from there (including not forgetting some necessary article changes that have been mentioned). How does that sound? Rd232 ^talk 23:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Good. This is quickly devolving into what we had on the PIRA talk page, with less trollage. Let's just get something agreed upon and run with it. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Consequent corrections to the article

Here is a place to list all of the changes tot he article that need to happen because of things that we learned asnd improved while writing the lede. Lot 49a^talk 13:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

A civil rights conflict

I don't like this new sentence: "It emerged in 1969 in response to the escalation of the Troubles (a civil rights conflict involving discrimination against Roman Catholics) following a split in the Irish Republican Army over its response to the conflict." Firstly, the Civil Rights movement was non-violent, even if it met with violence from its opponents, and even if young people on the nationalist side were themselves violent. To refer to a "civil rights conflict" is seriously misleading. Secondly, the issue of civil rights was discrimination against the nationalist community, not against Roman Catholics. It was common at the time to use "Catholic" as shorthand for the nationalist community, and "Protestant" for the unionist community, but the discrimination was not on religious grounds. Most importantly, the term "The Troubles" was coined for the shooting-war that began after the IRA split. It was never used for the Civil Rights campaign, or for the riots in Derry and elsewhere in 1969. The author, Peter Rose, is correct in saying the The Troubles originated in the Civil Rights campaign, but to refer to August 1969 as an "escalation of The Troubles" is wrong. Scolaire (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, what would you suggest instead? Rd232 ^talk 16:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course, what I forgot to mention was that it didn't split over the violence at all! The IRA - like Sinn Féin - split over idealogy: traditional republicans versus Marxists; abstentionists versus those who wanted to enter the Dáil. The violence of August 1969 brought those differences to a head, but the split would have happened anyway. So what would I suggest? Let's see. Scolaire (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

In an earlier draft there was a paragraph specifically on that background: [7]. It was removed as it was felt the lede was quite long and the background didn't need going into in such detail. ... But obviously what the lede does say needs to be right and not misleading, and maybe that sentence oversimplifies. Rd232 ^talk 18:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's see.

• It emerged in 1969 following a split in the Irish Republican Army over idealogical issues, specifically the taking of seats in Dáil Éireann, compounded by differences over how to respond to the escalation of violence against the nationalist community in August 1969, which marked the start of the Troubles.

Maybe a bit long, but I don't know how I would shorten it. Scolaire (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The PIRA article seems to give more equal weight to the two issues. And logically, with the split emerging after the August 1969 violence, it seems more like the differences over how to respond would be compounded by prior ideological differences. What sources are we relying on here? The source in the PIRA article for that paragraph is Bishop and Maillie, but it seems like the reference may be specific to the August 1969 violence, rather than the cause of the split. Rd232 ^talk 18:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow that sentence has to go "(a civil rights conflict involving discrimination against Roman Catholics[2])" It sounds like thats what "the troubles were" which is grossly inaccurate and clearly stating one sides POV. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Bishop and Mallie, pp. 131-2: "In fact, the division of the republican movement had been ordained long before 1969...The events of August 1969 merely accelerated a process that had begun with the attempts by Goulding and his supporters to modernise the movement." It takes them a long time to say it, and the reader would be forgiven for thinking that August 1969 was the cause of the split, but in the end they say what I've just said. The article is poor on many levels, and that is one of the things I would like to see addressed in the article, as well as in the lead. Scolaire (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This is in line with the Umkhonto we Sizwe article mentioning the reason for that conflict in that SA was an apartheid state. The PIRA didn't manifest from nothing, or draw its support from nothing either. There reasons for all these events. It is important that the substantive reason be mentioned in the lede, as NI was de facto an apartheid statelet under the auspices of the Westminister. Tfz 20:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If I understand you, you're saying that the real cause for the "emergence" of the Provisionals was the nature of the NI state, and the fact that both the state's own forces and unionist mobs reacted to the demand for civil rights with violence against the nationalist community. The split only created the structure, as it were. I would agree with that 100%. If we're going to say that, though, the sentence needs to be split in two and completely rewritten, so as not to throw the "apartheid statelet", civil rights, August 1969 and the split together in a way that suggests they were all the one thing. Not to mention that two sections of the article will have to be completely rewritten (and not before time either). Scolaire (talk) 07:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

So how about:

• It emerged in response to violence against the nationalist community following its demands for civil rights in 1968 and 1969, culminating in the 1969 Northern Ireland riots which saw loyalists force 1,500 Catholics from their homes in Belfast. Coincidentally, a split in the Irish Republican Army over idealogical issues following the Army Convention of 1969 gave rise to two organisations, which became known as the "Official IRA" and the "Provisional IRA".

Feel free to polish this. Scolaire (talk) 07:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Polishing for clarity:

• It emerged out of the December 1969 split of the Irish Republican Army from a combination of ideological differences and differences over how to respond to violence against the nationalist community. This violence had followed the community's demands for civil rights in 1968 and 1969, culminating in the 1969 Northern Ireland riots which saw loyalists force 1,500 Catholics from their homes in Belfast.

Rd232 ^talk 09:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the offending sentence from the article in the meantime as it gives undue weight to civil rights as a raison d'etre of the Troubles. Mooretwin (talk) 11:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I have put in, "It emerged in 1969 during the civil rights conflict involving discrimination against Roman Catholics following a split in the Irish Republican Army over its response to the conflict. " is more to the point. Takes out "raison d'etre". Wikipedia maybe should have an article on the Civil Rights campaign, and not have it mixed up with the 'Troubles' article. Tfz 12:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

There is an article on the civil rights campaign. Mooretwin (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to say "during the civil rights conflict", which is a dubious way of putting things anyway. It shoulds simply say "at the beginning of the Troubles", which encompasses the civil rights agitation and opposition. Mooretwin (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

But as pointed out earlier, 'Troubles' came later on in time, although the "break" would have marked a beginning of change into the 'Troubles' period. Tfz 16:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Not true. While there is no consensus as to when the Troubles began, the latest possible date is AFAIK considered to be August 1969. Some consider them to have begun in 1966: others in 1968. Mooretwin (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This mention of human rights and violence against nationalists is sounding very one sided and biased, to make it balanced would take several sentences in more detail. It should just mention an increase in violence between the two communities. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It was one sided, that's why. This 'piece' would be referring to the time of the 'break' in 1969. Tfz 18:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

There was also violence perpetrated by nationalists. The August '69 riots began with a nationalist attack on an Apprentice Boys parade in Derry, for example; and the "Battle of the Bogside" was a "battle" between nationalists and the police. The violence in Belfast, in which nationalists ended up coming under attack from loyalists, was begun by nationalists in support of nationalists in Derry. So, while it is true that nationalists suffered more than loyalists as a result of the violence, it would be misleading to imply that only loyalists were responsible for the violence. Like most things, the picture is much more complex. Mooretwin (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, we are talking about the origins of the Provos here, and I don't remember ever hearing that they emerged as a result of a desire to protect the police or the loyalists from the nationalists! A more general discussion of the violence of '68 and '69 is not relevant to this particular discussion, but I would point out that there was no attack on the Apprentice Boys parade. The parade passed William St. long before the first stone was thrown. Scolaire (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the "Battle of the Bogside" was initiated by nationalists (which was the point), whether or not the actual Apprentice Boys parade was attacked or not. Mooretwin (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The current version says the PIRA emerged in response to violence against the nationalist community. It doesn't say (and I think doesn't imply) that the violence was one-sided. It may or may not in fact have been one-sided, but that doesn't really need to be addressed here, because its one or two-sidedness isn't relevant for the emergence of PIRA. Rd232 ^talk 15:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Giving readers a complete and accurate context is important. I don't see the advantage in giving the impression to readers that only nationalists were on the receiving end of violence. We can surely craft a sentence that gives a fuller picture of the context, while still saying that the Provos' emergence was in response to violence against nationalists. Mooretwin (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well by all means propose something, but in the lede (especially the opening para) brevity matters too. Rd232 ^talk 18:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• "This violence had followed the community's demands for civil rights in 1968 and 1969, and consequent clashes between nationalists and police, and between the nationalist and unionist communities, which culminated in the 1969 Northern Ireland riots."

(a) It's accurate, (b) it ought to satisfy the desire for "balance", and (c) it takes out the suggestion, which was creeping back in, that the August riots were the direct product of civil rights demands. That said, I would prefer to see "which saw loyalists force 1,500 Catholics from their homes in Belfast" go back in. It was that specific incident that convinced the IRA of the need to rearm and reorganise. Scolaire (talk) 12:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"It was that specific incident that convinced the IRA of the need to rearm and reorganise". If that's the case (...sources...) it needs to be clarified in the article, even if it doesn't make it into the lede. Rd232 ^talk 13:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

In the 1969 split in the IRA section, the paragraph beginning "The IRA split into two groups...", that's what it says, the source being the same few pages in Bishop and Mallie. Scolaire (talk) 09:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm content with that. How about ending with "... which culminated in the 1969 Northern Ireland riots, during which 1,500 Catholics were forced from their homes in Belfast" (although I think Protestants were also forced from their homes, although obviously in much smaller numbers)? Mooretwin (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Im ok with that proposed wording, although i think to add on the bit about the 1500 catholics forced from their homes would create more problems as that would need balancing out aswell which will take alot more space in the intro. If clear sources can be found directly linking that incident then id accept it being added, with the additional sentence / wording to balance it. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with Mooretwin's proposal. I don't agree with BW that it would need "balancing", for reasons already given by Rd232 and myself. Scolaire (talk) 09:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

How come you're happy to accept "Catholics" (and not "nationalists") were forced from their homes here, yet resist use of the term elsewhere? Mooretwin (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You've got me there! I didn't even notice I was doing it. I guess we'll just have to call it the spirit of compromise :-) Scolaire (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Im ok with most of the changes although i really do think ", during which 1,500 Catholics were forced from their homes in Belfast" should be left out because that additional statement does tip the balance if theres not further explanation about what the other side did, i also dont think we need to go into that much detail about specifics in an already extensive intro. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - the sentence should end at "which culminated in the 1969 Northern Ireland riots". The "1,500" detail makes the sentence too long and crowds the more general point. Rd232 ^talk 13:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess that's fair enough. The detail can come out in the main article. Mooretwin (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Nationalist or Catholic

Why we are referring to the nationalist and unionist communities? Is this political correctness, so as to avoid saying Catholic and Protestant? At the time, it would very much have been seen as the latter. Mooretwin (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Read African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968) for an exact parallel. African Americans are never referred to as "negroes" in that article, except within quotes. At the time, they were called "negroes" by the media, by the segregationists, by the integrationists and by themselves. The term "African American" had not yet been coined, just as the terms "nationalist community" and "unionist community" had not been coined in Ireland. "Nationalist" or "Unionist" would have been capitalised and used to describe a member or supporter of a specific political party. Members of the Protestant Unionist Party, for instance, would not have been called "unionist"; they would have been called "Paisleyite" (or "Protestant"). We do not use 1960s terms in articles about the 1960s if they are outdated now. "Civil rights for Catholics" would have meant things like the right to worship, the right to a Catholic education or the right to wear clerical garb in public, none of which were ever denied in Northern Ireland. Similarly, "violence against Catholics" would have meant disruption of services, attacks on priests and nuns or the smashing of statues; this is not the kind of violence that we are talking about here. As I said at the beginning of the previous section, "Catholic" and "Protestant" were used as shorthand for members of one or other community. Any and all violence was motivated by politics, not religion. Scolaire (talk) 09:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It is your view that any and all violence was motivated by politics. Others may argue that it was motivated, at least in part, by ethnic hatred/rivalry (aka sectarianism). That ethnic (and political) division was determined by religious affiliation, even though religion was not a significant cause of violence or subject of dispute. We know that those living on one side of a peace-line are Catholics and on the other that they are Protestants (Census evidence). We do not know their political views. Many of those on the receiving end of violence may not have been nationalists (they may have been socialists or had no political leanings). They were, however, all Catholics (or at least part of the Catholic community). Your analogy with African-Americans and negroes doesn't work, because "negro" is considered derogatory, but "Catholic" is not. Mooretwin (talk) 10:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"Negro" was not considered derogatory at the time. Times change. What has changed in NI in forty years? Has there been an influx of Catholics into the UUP? of Protestants into the SDLP? of Jews into the DUP? of Sikhs into Sinn Féin? No, the "religious affiliation" is exactly the same today. We don't refer to the communities as "Catholic" and "Protestant" now, so we shouldn't when talking about the 1960s. Whether individual residents of an area were socialist or politically neutral is no more relevant than whether they went to mass on Sunday or dressed in saffron robes and chanted "Hare Krishna". The people who burned down Bombay Street didn't have access to the census returns (we still don't today) but there were tallymen at the 1969 elections who knew what way each area voted. Those on the receiving end of violence were part of the nationalist community, regardless whether they were Catholic or agnostic or whether they voted Sinn Féin or Labour. Scolaire (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I never said "negro" was considered derogatory at the time. The point is "Catholic" is not considered derogatory now, so your analogy doesn't work.

What has changed in NI in forty years? Has there been an influx of Catholics into the UUP? of Protestants into the SDLP? of Jews into the DUP? of Sikhs into Sinn Féin? No, the "religious affiliation" is exactly the same today. They were Catholics then and they are Catholics now.

You say that we don't refer to the communities as "Catholic" and "Protestant" now, but that is your view. They are still referred to as such.

The people who burned down Bombay Street knew that the residents were Catholic, and that fact was almost certainly part of the reason why they burned it down.

Those on the receiving end of violence were part of the Catholic community, regardless of whether they attended Mass or not.

(And they wouldn't have been voting SF in 1969, as SF didn't stand. Falls was held by Labour at the time, and the only other candidate was Republican Labour). Mooretwin (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

What do the sources say when they refer to the 1969 riots, Bombay Street, etc.? Mooretwin (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we should go by modern convention, regardless of the reasons behind it. Personally, I'm fine with either, but if there's a consensus in the polisci field, then we should abide by that. Simply going by the articles I posted earlier, the consensus seems to be to use "Unionist or Loyalist" and "Nationalist or Republican" over Catholic and Protestant. Granted, the journal's from 1997, but I doubt anything's changed, and certainly not towards a clumsy religious label. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll modify that slightly. In a case where people were targetted based solely on religion rather than political affiliation, as this seems to be, then it is appropriate to use "Catholic" and "Protestant" Throwaway85 (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Are we nearly there yet?

We may not have everyone 100% happy, but we seem to be approaching a consensus version. Can we now call it good enough, adopt for PIRA and unprotect that, and then go from there? Rd232 ^talk 22:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like a little time to go over what is there already as I see certain unhelpful changes have been made, sorry I have been otherwise engaged for several days. O Fenian (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. But I suggest any remaining issues be rebooted in this section (summarising any previous discussion), since the page is getting a bit hard to follow. Rd232 ^talk 23:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

First point, probably of many. I do not like the first paragraph of the lead trying to summarise the rest of the lead. It seems very wrong to jump from the 1969 riots at the end of one sentence to events in 1997 at the start of the next sentence. Cannot it be restructured into some sort of vague chronological order? O Fenian (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It does seem strange it jumps from 1969 to 1997 in that way. I like the general overview in the first paragraph considering we are having a very long introduction. Perhaps it would be possible to snip a couple of sentences somewhere in that first paragraph (or move them to another paragraph) so we can put something for between 1969 to 1997 to bridge the gap. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the gap that needs bridging is perhaps just a linguistic one. A linking phrase going from the beginning of the IRA campaign (1969) to its end (1994-2005) would clarify why those two sentences are put together. Rd232 ^talk 08:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm it actually looks pretty good with the infobox there. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I like it too. My only concern is the "opponents" section. It leaves out loyalists. How about "United Kingdom and its supporters" or something similar? Throwaway85 (talk) 06:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Id be ok with something like that or listing British military, Royal Ulster Constabulary, Loyalists etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think an explicit listing is probably better than "UK and its supporters". British Army, RUC, loyalists. Incidentally this prompts me to look for a page summarising the loyalist paramilitaries (to link to), but the closest seems to be Ulster loyalism? Rd232 ^talk 08:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes thats probably the only general article covering all the different loyalist groups. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well we can do a section link to Ulster loyalism#Paramilitary groups, but maybe the topic deserves its own article or at least a summary (that section is just a listing at the moment). Rd232 ^talk 10:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, to revise my earlier remark, an explicit listing may open too big a can of worms. Would saying "British Army, RUC, Loyalists" really be enough, given attacks on UK politicians, for example? Perhaps it's better to just leave "UK". Rd232 ^talk 13:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur. "British Army, RUC, Loyalists" seems best. I'd consider adding "rival nationalists", but I think that might be too much. They were by no means their main opponents. Kinda like saying "irish military and police". Throwaway85 (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Should Republic of Ireland not also be added, given that the PIRA was founded (partly) out of ideological opposition/non-recognition of said state; given that PIRA was outlawed by said state and subject to anti-terrorist legislation there; given that some ROI forces and police were attacked by PIRA, etc.? Also, "British armed forces" might be better than "British Army", given that PIRA also attacked Royal Navy and RAF targets. Mooretwin (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Nah, they never really fought them all that much. It was more an IRA mk.I thing. Also, let's just stick to the main ones. Throwaway85 (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Did they ever fight anyone? Actual combat was surely extremely rare? Mooretwin (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's not go trying to define combat here. You good with its current form? Throwaway85 (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I still think it should include ROI, but content to go with consensus. Mooretwin (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I think all of the secondary groups (ROI military & police, rival factions, etc) should be left for the body of the article, just for clarity's sake. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Most deaths

Collapse discussion. This issue is currently not appropriately referenced in the article, and it should be left for a later date
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
An Irish-republican editor has removed the referenced text stating that the PIRA was responsible for more deaths than any other group during the Troubles. Surely this is very relevant and notable, as it informs the reader that the PIRA was the most lethal/successful (depending on one's POV) agent in the Troubles. The editor has even said that he would object to this referenced fact going into the main article! Mooretwin (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC) In context your remark "an Irish-republican editor has" is a violation of WP:AGF. Comment on the content, not the editor. Rd232 talk 10:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Not sure how it violates AGF. O Fenian is openly an Irish republican, which is a relevant consideration when seeking to achieve NPOV. Mooretwin (talk) 10:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC) It violates WP:AGF because you're implying he removed it not because he thought it shouldn't be there (for whatever valid reason - neutrality, sourcing, whatever), but because he was trying to unbalance the article towards his point of view. That's how it violates AGF. Rd232 talk 10:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Incidentally, I'm not sure if "The IRA was responsible for more deaths than any other group" should be included, but if so, it should be part of the previous sentence - it could just be a bracketed "(more than any other group)" after 1800 deaths. Rd232 talk 10:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Yes, I like the brackets. Reads better. Mooretwin (talk) 10:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Agreed very notable and helps puts things into context. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Disagree wholeheartedly. I think it feels clumsy. It also feels unnecessary and unencyclopedic. There's no need for the qualifier. Also, Mooretwin, it's a bit presumptuous of you to start accusations of POV pushing when you yourself added the sentence without discussion, and without it being in the article itself. It's clear to me that it is you, not O Fenian, who are POV pushing. If you want the sentence in the lede, then you need to justify it. "imortant [sic] fact that will go into article once its unlocked" is not good enough. We're summarizing the current article, not one you may envision us having at some date in the future. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC) With what do you disagree wholeheartedly? I don't see how the brackets make it clumsy: I actually think it is quite neat. I also find it strange that you think inserting a relevant and notable fact is "unencyclopedic". (And let me assure you that I am not "POV pushing": far from it, my only interest is in ensuring a good article which provides relevant facts while conforming with NPOV.) Mooretwin (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Clumsy. Use commas instead. Also, the sentences it refers to from the article, "The IRA have reportedly killed more people than any other organisation since the Troubles began. In addition, they have killed more Roman Catholics, more Protestants, more civilians and more foreigners (those not from Northern Ireland) than any other organisation", have some serious issues from an NPOV stance and are unlikely to remain in their current form. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC) It doesn't refer to any sentence from the article. It refers to Richard English's book. Mooretwin (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Also, for shit's sake, look at the referencing for that claim. No. No no no no NO. I can't even begin to describe how bad that is. This article has a b rating for quality? Seriously? Throwaway85 (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC) To be fair Mooretwin's ref is to a book: diff; a ref not currently in the article. If this is going to be another big controversy, and it's not currently in the article in well-sourced form, perhaps we could add it to the list for future followup, rather than tackling it now? Rd232 talk 12:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Fine. For your reference, here's where the initial claim came from. A guy who was banned for edit warring and POV pushing. Seriously, google setanta747 and see what comes up. I'm very much in favour of this not being in the lede. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Would it not be better to sort it now, rather than risk another edit war and another locking of the article? Mooretwin (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC) No, we'll deal with the article when we get to it. The article, as it stands, cannot support the claim. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC) No, because (a) appropriate discussion before making changes will avoid that; (b) any edit warring following unprotection will be dealt with appropriately. Rd232 talk 12:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC) BigDunc, I've just admonished Mooretwin (above) for not assuming good faith, edit summaries like this really don't help. People can honestly and sincerely disagree as to whether this should be included, and WP:AGF means believing the disagreement is honest and sincere unless or until proven otherwise. Rd232 talk 11:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC) It's edit summaries like that which make it difficult to assume good faith. Mooretwin (talk) 11:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC) When you stop with the bullshit claims that you have made on numerous pages that everyone who disagrees with you is a republican POV pusher then I will stop. BigDunc 12:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC) I haven't made any claims that everyone who disagrees with me is a republican POV pusher, therefore it's not possible for me to stop doing so. Mooretwin (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC) You've made one insinuation (above). In any case, instead of only saying you haven't generally made those claims, you could also say you won't be doing it in future. That way possibly getting back to the content lies. Rd232 talk 12:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC) And how does making "one insinuation" about one editor, based on lengthy experience of his editing (and his user name is a bit of a giveaway!), mean that I claim that "everyone who disagrees with me is a republican POV pusher". I should ask YOU to assume good faith, please! Mooretwin (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC) @Mooretwin: Actually the edit summary doesn't really demonstrate bad faith on the part of the person making it, it rather illustrates not assuming good faith of another. Which is not helpful, but it's certainly no justification for you not to assume good faith. @BigDunc: strong words, not entirely calming the situation... @both: OK, deep breath, let's focus on the content, and if there are longer term issues that can't be addressed by letting bygones be bygones and a family pack of WP:AGF, then there are dispute resolution procedures for that. Talk pages are not the place to have this sort of discussion. Thanks. Rd232 talk 12:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC) I never said that BigDunc's edit summary demonstrates bad faith on his part. I said it made it difficult for others to assume good faith in him, given that it indicates that he considers it to be "loyalist" POV to include a reference that PIRA killed more than any other actor in the Troubles. Mooretwin (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC) You implied it, above. And no, he didn't indicate that. If he'd said "loyalist POV", that would be the case. But he said "loyalist POV pusher", questioning your motivation, not the edit. (Presumably he has a problem with the edit too, but the exact nature of that he hasn't clarified yet.) Rd232 talk 12:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Regardless, my point remains. The fact that he considers a person is a "loyalist POV pusher" because he has sought the removal of republican POV (in pursuit of NPOV), makes it difficult to assume good faith: given the absence of logic in such a position and the apparent implication that it is not possible to oppose republican POV without being a "loyalist". My view is that articles should be written without EITHER republican POV or loyalist POV. Mooretwin (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Don't make me laugh the bastion of neutrality get a grip. BigDunc 13:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC) I would ask you to be civil and to withdraw the above accusation, which is without foundation, and contravenes no personal attacks. (This is another example of why it is difficult to assume good faith with this (and other) editor(s).) Mooretwin (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Now, as to content, can we focus first on whether there is any disagreement on the fact, or with the sourcing? If the point is accurate and well sourced, then reasons for not including need to be explained in more detail. Rd232 talk 11:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Executive decision: discussion has got far too unconstructive to justify trying to resolve this now. This can be handled at a later date. Rd232 ^talk 13:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

collapse unconstructive bickering
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Very disappointing. 1-0 to O Fenian and BigDunc. Mooretwin (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Wasn't aware we were keeping score. Throwaway85 (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC) We aren't but it tells you something about the editor who makes the claims, they are point scoring with the edits they are making and when it doesn't go their way they see it as a defeat for their POV. BigDunc 13:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC) It was a joke. Please withdraw your accusations. Mooretwin (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC) What the accusation that you are the bastion of neutrality? BigDunc 14:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC) No, the accusation that I am not seeking NPOV, as in (1) "don't make me laugh baston of neutrality get a grip", and (2) I see edits not going my way as "a defeat for my POV". Please withdraw these in line with NPA and civility. Mooretwin (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC) It was a joke. Please withdraw your accusations that I don't AGF. BigDunc 14:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Play nice, kids. Throwaway85 (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Nonsense. Seeing as there is no deadline, there is no end result. By analogy, you may consider it "match postponed". But really, opposing football teams is far too confrontational an analogy: rather you, you're all on the same team - the Wikipedia team, and if you can't play well together, you lose together. Winning is not getting what you want; winning is getting consensus, even if you don't agree with every syllable and comma. Rd232 talk 13:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC) I agree, but I fear that outside this more "controlled" environment, it will be difficult to achieve consensus, and hence why I am very disappointed that you have arbitrarily decided to drop this. Experience tells me that "consensus" is often achieved by weight of numbers, or by attrition (when POV editors are the only ones still standing after the NPOV editors get bored and give up). Mooretwin (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC) That that is your approach to wikipedia editing is both obvious and frightening. Throwaway85 (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC) ??? I haven't described any approach, so the above comment makes no sense to me. Mooretwin (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Collapsing that too. Really, WTF does this do to advance what we're trying to achieve here? Either use appropriate dispute resolution, or shut up and let the odd comment you see as inappropriate go. !Ya basta! Rd232 ^talk 15:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Threats

I see Rd232 that you state above ...(b) any edit warring following unprotection will be dealt with appropriately. Hope that doesn't mean that you are going to start blocking editors as you are now a very involved admin and not just a moderator on this issue. BigDunc 12:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I may sound crazy, but let's just skirt the issue by not edit warring. Throwaway85 (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually hadn't thought about whether I'd block people or refer them elsewhere. I still consider myself uninvolved, but if others don't, I have to respect that, and therefore "appropriately" will mean the latter. Rd232 ^talk 13:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

In fact I don't see what I've done to make people consider me "involved". I remain neutral; where I've commented on content I've tried very hard to help move discussions along, focussing on sourcing and fact, and left more subjective decisions (eg whether something should be included or not) to the editors. The Domer48 mess (if that's a factor) is due to his failings as an editor, which he's refused to acknowledge, thereby forcing me to do an WP:RFC/U in attempt to get him to see reason, acknowledge his failings, and agree to work on them. Frankly, before people declare that I am now "involved" (meaning what exactly? Wikipedia has yet to define it), please look at WP:UNINVOLVED. I say this because I have no interest in editing this topic. And if my ability to act as moderator is to be restricted by having to ask other admins to carry out things like page protection and edit warring blocks, well, part of me is tempted to piss off somewhere I'm actually wanted. Rd232 ^talk 14:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You wrote the draft we're all working from. How are you not involved? I also don't think that anyone seeks to impose such a restriction on you. We've actually got stuff done since you showed up.Throwaway85 (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well if you think you are not involved with this article then what would you be like if you were, how many edits and additions have you made to this proposed lead that has very little input from 3 editors who regularly edit the article, or as Mooretwin calls us republicans. BigDunc 14:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The initial draft I made (to kick things off) was purely a summary of the existing article. Processing that revealed several things that need addressing in the article, including at least one outright error. Since then edits have been copyedits or to implement apparent consensus here. I have to ask: how could I have remained more "uninvolved" than that whilst still having any impact on this situation, doing my best to avoid discussion getting stuck as it did before?? As for very little input, I don't think that's objectively true, and in any case, no-one's stopping you or anyone else from addressing things that you think need changing. WP:Silence. Rd232 ^talk 14:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Outstanding issues

Are there any pressing issues that need to be resolved before we can put this lede live? It doesn't need to be perfect, and there is no final version - amendments and additions can be proposed afterwards in the usual way. As the saying goes, "the perfect is the enemy of the good". I think we're about there in terms of what needs addressing before we go live - anyone disagree? Rd232 ^talk 13:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Changed "This policy involved intensive recruitment of volunteers (which increased after the 1972 events of Bloody Sunday) and carrying out as many attacks on British forces as possible, as well as mounting a bombing campaign against economic targets." to read "This policy involved intensive recruitment of volunteers, increasing after Bloody Sunday, and launching frequent attacks against British military and economic targets." to try and reduce the run-on-iness. Still not liking the sentence 100%.Throwaway85 (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Also this and this. Also this, which is so major I'd be amazed if I got away with it. Throwaway85 (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

finally, edited the opponents section of the infobox for specificity as per consensus (or as close as we'll ever get to it). Throwaway85 (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Content with all those, except for the incorrect usage of a semi-colon, which I have corrected. Mooretwin (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Dammit, I was kidding when I said I wouldn't get away with that. My usage was correct: The joining of two disparate yet related sentences. Re-revert. Throwaway85 (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

See the Wikipedia:MOS#Colons manual of style - "A colon informs the reader that what comes after it proves, explains, or modifies what has come before ..."; or here - a colon is "to show a link between the units of meaning, the second explain or summarising the first. For example: The results of the referendum were very clear: there was a need for a change in policy"; or here - use a colon before a list or an explanation that is preceded by a clause that can stand by itself. Think of the colon as a gate, inviting one to go on: There is only one thing left to do now: confess while you still have time.

What do you think? It seems to me that the statement that both splinter groups reject the Agreement explains why they split from the Provos, and hence the colon is appropriate. Mooretwin (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It does not explain why they split from PIRA, since the Continuity split predates the peace process. Rd232 ^talk 15:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Nonetheless, it still directly follows and modifies/(partly) explains) the first part of the sentence - it shows the CIRA's differences with PIRA, which is one of the reasons why they are (still) a separate organisation. No need to be so literal. A colon is still more appropriate than a semi-colon. There is a very direct and logical follow-on from the first statement to the second. I think the sentence merits the colon, which is more emphatic (two splinter groups: both opposed to Agreement and still use violence). It reads well. Mooretwin (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The semi-colon is just proper grammar here. I can see where you're coming from, but it's a stretch to say that "both reject the Belfast Agreement and continue to engage in violence" explains "Two small splinter groups split from the Provisional IRA, first in 1986 (Continuity IRA) and then in 1997 (Real IRA)". The former is, rather, further exposition on the latter. Semi-colon time. If you were to say "Two small splinter groups split from the Provisional IRA: first the Continuity IRA in 1986, then the Real IRA in 1997" then that would be proper use of a colon. Also note that it is a sentence fragment, not a sentence, that follows the colon.Throwaway85 (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

To return to the first-paragraph summary: Despite re-phrasing, it still jumps from the emergence of the Provisionals to the end of the campaign. Even I find that disorienting. A casual reader will be asking, "what?" Is there a reason we cannot say, "From 1970 the IRA conducted an armed campaign against the British Army and the RUC. It formally ended the campaign in 2005, after the 1997 reinstatement..."? Scolaire (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. How about moving that entire sentence to be later in the paragraph? Rd232 ^talk 17:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Moving it would make sense to me. That would promote the sentence beginning "During its campaign...", which again would need to be changed to "The IRA conducted an armed campaign during which..." Scolaire (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. I reworded it a bit to avoid some ugly un-ons, but it still feels a bit awkward to me. Any suggestions? Throwaway85 (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

How about this? --Scolaire (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I like the ordering better, but "The IRA conducted an armed campaign, primarily in Northern Ireland but also in England, during which it is believed to have been responsible for the deaths of around 1,800 people, including around 1,100 members of the British security forces, and around 630 civilians." runs on like Usain Bolt, as does "It formally ended its campaign in 2005, after the 1997 reinstatement of its 1994 ceasefire enabled the admission of its political counterpart, Sinn Féin, to the all-party talks of the Northern Ireland peace process, which ultimately led to the 1998 Belfast Agreement." Can anyone think of a slick way of breaking that up? Throwaway85 (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for breaking up the first sentence: "...for the deaths of around 1,800 people. The dead included around 1,100 members of the British security forces, and around 630 civilians." IRA dead are already in a separate sentence. As for the second sentence, does it really need that much detail? The details are already spelled out in the third and fourth paragraph and the first paragraph is supposed to be a summary. Scolaire (talk) 07:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

First one sounds good. As for the second sentence, I'd be okay with "...formally ended its campaign in 2005, following the 1998 Belfast Agreement and subsequent disarmament." I agree that the current level of detail is unneeded. Agreed? Throwaway85 (talk) 09:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Scolaire (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Now that we've got a fairly neutral lede, let's go through it and reevaluate what really needs to be there, and what can be left for the article. It's still reading a bit long, to me. I think this: "This violence had followed the community's demands for civil rights in 1968 and 1969, and consequent clashes between nationalists and police, and between the nationalist and unionist communities, which culminated in the 1969 Northern Ireland riots.[3]" from the first paragraph is unnecessary exposition, especially in the lede. It's enough to explain why the PIRA split, without explaining in detail the sociopolitical landscape of the day. The first half of the second paragraph seems similarly extraneous. I propose replacing "The IRA agreed to a ceasefire in February 1975, which lasted nearly a year[13] before the IRA concluded that the British were trying to draw them into politics without offering any guarantees in relation to the IRA's goals, and hopes of a quick victory receded.[14] As a result, the IRA launched a new strategy..." with "Following the breakdown of the 1975 ceasefire (mit proper linking), the IRA launched a new strategy...". I think that, in a laudable effort to make the lede neutral, we have unfortunately erred on the side of unnecessary exposition, and the lede has slowly grown portlier. Let's Jenny Craig this bitch. On further thought, I think the entire 3rd paragraph could be pared down to 1-3 sentences and merged with the final paragraph. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Consequent corrections to the article

Here is a place to list all of the changes tot he article that need to happen because of things that we learned asnd improved while writing the lede. Lot 49a^talk 13:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Cost of damage. Currently we have estimates for the cost of two bombings together. Estimates covering the whole period would be a useful addition to the article, and possibly the lede.
  • If we are to have (economic) cost of damage in the lede, then surely human cost should also be there in terms of injuries as well as deaths? I know this started a big argument, but did we ever get it resolved (we now have the actual text)? Mooretwin (talk) 11:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Inclusion in article or lede can be discussed in future, but please, not now! The current lede draft is much better than the public version, and I'd like to get it out there sooner rather than later. Rd232 ^talk 12:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• Consistency of terminology: the article has just one use of PIRA outside direct quotation. Try and standardise.
• Sinn Fein "refusing to comment on IRA actions". See section above "refusing to comment on IRA actions"
• 1975 ceasefire (also Provisional IRA campaign 1969–1997#Ceasefires - 1972 and 1975) - see section above "What is going on here?"
• PIRA denials of responsibility in some cases seems to have been an issue, but isn't mentioned in the article
• Policing activity can probably be expanded - see "Policing activity" above, which has some sources
• "between eight and ten thousand members of the organisation had been imprisoned by the mid-1980s" - not correct. See "Arrest totals".
• There's some serious issues with sourcing in the article, here and here (addressed in part by Mooretwin's "Armed Struggle"), for starters. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Tfz/BritishWatcher revert

Let's discuss this first, shall we? After reviewing the article, it supports Tfz's edit over the revert. Heading off BritishWatcher's objection, that it's POV/it happened some other way, we're summarizing the current article right now. Tfz's edit is a good summary of what is currently in the article. If you don't like it, then put it on your to-do list for when the article is unlocked. And Tfz, you knew that wouldn't go over well. Why not discuss it first? That's what the talk page is here for. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

For clarification, Tfz's edit is this. Rd232 ^talk 23:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the challenges of a long lede is to stay faithful to npov. Mooretwin and BritishWatcher wanted to put more content into the intro, but when they don't like it, it soon comes out. That sentence was broadly incorrect, and that's why I made the change. Tfz 11:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

" attacks by unionists on nationalist communities," is one sided, the more neutral sentence about clashes between the two communities should remain. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the sentence is broadly correct. It says the violence (against the nationalist community) followed demands for civil rights etc. Tfz's edit would make it say that the violence against the nationalist community followed violence against the nationalist community. There were clashes between the two communities, for example when Ronald Bunting's car was overturned in Derry. But this is only by way of establishing the context for the concerted attacks on the nationalist community, especially in Belfast in August, which is the main point of the paragraph. Scolaire (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: we're summarising the current PIRA article, which primarily references the Battle of the Bogside and 1500 Catholics being forced from their homes, as key events. If that's not good enough NPOV-wise, it needs to be fixed later: first in the article, then in the lede. Rd232 ^talk 11:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

@Scolaire, 'broadly' is open to interpretation, it's not meant to include 'a' car being overturned. I'm trying to allude to the necessity of a complete npov intro. Tfz 12:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Your change made the intro less neutral. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The intro is supposed to summarise the article. If the article has neutrality problems, that needs to be dealt with first. To get to that, we need to finish this lede redraft. How about adding this issue to the To Do list above? Rd232 ^talk 13:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Saying violence between the two communities does summarise the article, there was just no need for the change to say "attacks by unionists", thats one sided.. there waas violence by both sides. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

How about reducing the level of detail for now (and also shortening): Instead of

"This violence had followed the community's demands for civil rights in 1968 and 1969, and consequent clashes between nationalists and police, and between the nationalist and unionist communities, which culminated in the 1969 Northern Ireland riots." Have

"This violence had followed the community's demands for civil rights in 1968 and 1969, which met with resistance from the unionist community and from the authorities, and culminated in the 1969 Northern Ireland riots."

Rd232 ^talk 13:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It's better, more in keeping with progression of events at the time. Tfz 14:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. Scolaire (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Bueno Throwaway85 (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Implemented

For the avoidance of doubt/confusion, the lede redraft has been adopted at PIRA (now unprotected), so discussion here is archived. See Talk:PIRA. Rd232 ^talk 22:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)