Talk:Irish Republican Army (1919–1922)/Archive 2

message: DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between 1 January 2004 and 25 July 2004, excluding debate on page revamp ongoing at time of archiving.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are
replying to if necessary.  (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)
Please add new archivals to Talk:Irish Republican Army/Archive03. Thank you. Palmiro 14:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

message: The use of nested bullet points in this article is untidy - anyone want to clean it up? More headings might (also) help. Ben Finn 18:39, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting

message: I have just replaced this new text:
:The IRA was also involved in the destruction of many stately homes in Munster. These belonged to prominent Loyalists who were aiding the Crown forces, and were burnt to discourage the British policy of destroying the homes of Republicans, suspected and actual. As the mansions were worth a lot more than the cottages of the ordinary people, the British policy was discontinued. Both Dáil Éireann (the Irish Parliament) and Sinn Féin were proscribed by the British government.
With the original:
:The IRA was also accused of excesses; in particular against the property of Loyalists in the Munster area. Both Dáil Éireann (the Irish Parliament) and Sinn Féin were proscribed by the British government.
Please provide a source for the new text before restoring it. Philip Baird Shearer 21:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You obviously don't know much about the topic if you see a problem with the paragraph. Among other places you'll find it in  
# David Fitzpatrick, Politics and Irish Life 1913-1921: Provincial Experiences of War and Revolution
# Peter Hart, The IRA at War 1916-1923
# F.S.L. Lyons, Ireland Since the Famine
# John Rieder et al, Joseph Keene Chadwick: Interventions and Continuities in Irish and Gay Studies 
It is not an issue of dispute among historians. The only problem was perhaps the way the paragraph was written but its basic facts are universally accepted as correct. FearÉIREANN(talk) 22:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Munster

message: It would be very hypocritical and double standard writing to call IRA a terror organization, but not to the PLO, which is responsible to the death of so many Israelies and wants to abolish the existance of all of the state of Israel. Let's continue the no_double-standards policy as a part of NPOV.
Neither should be called "terroris" organisations by Wikipedia unless it is referencing someone elses opinion with the source from which the opinion comes. Philip Baird Shearer 18:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The PLO is clearly labelled a terrorist organisation which has carried out terrorist acts against civillians in the PLO article. 211.31.9.5 21:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No double standards

message: A source should be provided for the claim than some international jurists consider attacks on the United Kingdom legitimate armed resistance. or the sentence should be revised Philip Baird Shearer 18:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue has been raised in many other organisations discussion pages and has been the common method of expressing a more NPOV friendly address to organisations that the majority of people would label 'terrorist'. Jachin 19:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: It appears Jachin has paraphrased and utilised the specifically NPOV structured address of 'terrorist acts' from the PLO article, which has recently gone through arbitration.  I believe that as his modifications to this article stand it is valid, relevant and acceptably NPOV for the Wiki project without question.  Since posting it two certain users have avidly cropped it to as minimal as possible, which are begining to illustrate a POV lean.  I would recommend accepting the additional information, considering internationally the IRA -are- seen as a terrorist group and previously the 't-word' has been kept out of this article for NPOV purposes.  The integration of the arbritrated plo method of touching on the 't-word' applies across the board, if this drags out further, it would be my recommendation that Jachin start a dispute resolution process and get the matter nipped in the bud. 211.31.9.5 21:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: international jurists

message: Protocol I does not apply to NI if either did, neither the UK or Irish Goverments would agree that either are relevent, it would be Protocol II which would apply. Philip Baird Shearer 18:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is argued that under the International Law and Protocol 1 to the First Geneva Convention (which applies in "armed conflicts against alien occupation" and gives lawful combatant status to non-uniformed guerrillas who display their arms openly during military operations), the manner in which the IRA have often gone about their operations put them in breach of this protocol.
Above is the whole text which I have removed. I did not go throught it point by point, the first time I removed it,  but as it has been restored, I will now.
#It is argued weasel words. Who argues?
#Protocol 1 to the First Geneva Convention Protocol I is not to the first GG it is to all 1949 GCs
# GC1 does not cover belligerent military occupation, it covers "Condition[s] of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field".
# What is the international legal source (or souce from a disinterested party) that NI is under belligerent military occupation?
# As no source has bee provided that it is an international Belligerent military occupation ,if any protocol applied then it would be Protocol II not Protocol I, but as it is not an armed conflict the Geneva conventions do not apply.
#The UK put provisions on Article 44 of Protocol I
#:It is the understanding of the United Kingdom that:
#::- the situation in the second sentence of paragraph 3 can only exist in occupied territory or in armed conflicts covered by paragraph 4 of Article 1;
#::- 'deployment' in paragraph 3(b) means any movement towards a place from which an attack is to be launched.
#::As no souce had been provide that the conditions in Paragraph 4 Article 1 were met (armed conflict[s] and Alian occupation and right of self-determination), Article 44 is not applicable.
# During the recent troubles the British had not ratified Protocol I and neither had the IRA so, even if anyone thought it was an international armed conflict, Protcol I did not apply.
All in all it is difficult to think of a paragraph in Wikipedia which could be more incorrect. Philip Baird Shearer 08:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Protocols additional to the GCs

message: This secton was added by user:Jachin 17:35, 15 July 2005. It invites POV wars and is not realy constructive and not one word is sourced. For example in answere to the first paragraph one can paraphrase Mandy Rice Davies "They would say that wouldn't they" many of the parties mentioned have been attacked by the IRA and so they are hardly a disinterested group. That the IRA think they were fighting a legitimate war goes without saying. 
I think that the whole section should be removed because it is full of non-NPOV and balancing the POV makes the article bloated without bringing clarity to the issue.  Philip Baird Shearer 08:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations of Terrorism