Talk:Border campaign (Irish Republican Army)

message: I don't think the "northern campaign 1942-1944" existed. I have checked 4 books on the time period for comfirmation of its existance and it doesn't appear in any of them.
The Secret Army: The Ira 1916-1979 - J. Bowyer Bell (1971) 
Irish Secrets - German Espionage in wartime Ireland 1939-1945 - Mark M. Hall (2003) 
The Shamrock and the Swastika - German Espionage in Ireland in WW2 - Carolle J. Carter (1977) 
Spies in Ireland - Enno Stephan (1963) 
Fluffy999 16:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: We should move this article from "Border Campaign (IRA)" to "Border Campaign". There is no other article of the name, so the "(IRA)" is redundant. The standard policy is never to use redundant disambiguation words in a title. The current title will of course exist as a redirect. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs)  17:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One small objection, what if there are other episodes in history known as the "Border Campaign"? What do you think about IRA Border Campaign?
Jdorney 18:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment, there aren't any other Border Campaigns in Wikipedia. I wasn't aware of any other Border Campaigns but I've found out that the name is often used in Mexico . So I suppose the names should stay as it is. I've put the Border Campaign redirect in place which is the important thing. I might put a stub for the Mexican thing now and make Border Campaign a disambiguation. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs)  19:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  move from "Border Campaign (IRA)" to "Border Campaign" 

message: Is this acceptable as a source for the claims? Obviously the text will need amending slightly to reflect the source if it is. One Night In Hackney303 08:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: South & O'Hanlon

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: You have not cited the constitution of the IRA, and the sources are directly cited.  I'm not sure what else can be posted, based on the rules of Wikipedia.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Border Campaign

message: The article on the “Border Campaign,” states, “In theory, the IRA wished to overthrow both "partitionist" states in Ireland, which it deemed to be illegitimate entities, imposed by Britain at the time of the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1922. However, in 1948 a General Army 
Convention issued General Order No. 8 prohibiting "aggressive military action" in the Republic of Ireland.[5][6][7]”
You have repeatedly ignored my edits of these sentences.  
I will again attempt to explain the issues.
1.	You state on the discussion page, “Changes to the IRA's constitution can only be made by a two-thirds majority of a General Army Convention, neither the Chief of Staff, Army Council or Army Executive can do that, only the Convention. General Order No. 8 of the IRA's constitution (which prohibits action against 26 County forces) was therefore introduced following a Convention. That much is obvious, and also made clear in the sources. Therefore when Bells later says ‘the IRA Army Council discussed the situation and "Out of the discussions came General Army Order No. 8" he's talking utter bollocks. A GOOD editor recognises this, a BAD one doesn't.’”   
You provide no evidence that only an Army Convention can change the General Orders.  Published sources contradict your statements.  Bell states that in 1927 the Army Council rescinded a General Army Order (p. 92).  Brendan O’Brien’s presents the General Orders, in The Long War (p. 355), as, “IRA General Army Orders (As amended by the Army Council) October 1973.” 
2.	You ignore contrary evidence.
Coogan writes, "But it was not until after the Omagh raid of October, 1954 that the Army Council formally told the units that this was now official policy and incorporated it into the 'General Army Orders'. From that month, Standing Order Number Eight read as follows….”  (p. 328).
3.	There are alternative interpretations of your proof that Bell is mistaken.
The 1948 IRA Convention may have adopted a policy of no action against 26-county forces, but not a general order (policies are not necessarily general orders).  This would be consistent with Bell, Coogan, and Richard English, who states a general order was “drafted” (p. 71).   The 1948 policy may have been codified by the Army Council as General Order No. 8, after Omagh, in 1954.
Also, the IRA General Army Orders may be separate from the “constitution” and under the purview of the Army Council and GHQ.   This would allow flexibility, especially during a campaign when it’s hard for a GAC to meet.  The Army Council is the supreme authority when the Convention is not in session (according to the constitution).  Moloney’s presentation of the “post-1996” IRA constitution (in A Secret History of the IRA), ends with article 10, which notes the two-thirds majority requirement for a change.  The “General Army Orders” are not there.  The “constitution” presented in Martin Dillon’s The Enemy Within has articles 1-10, followed by the General Army Orders.  But note that the General Army Orders are titled separately, “Oglaigh Na hEireann (Irish Republican Army) General Headquarters General Army Orders (Revised 1987).”   Brendan O’Brien’s presentation (noted above) lists the General Army Order separately as “Appendix 2.”
You may claim this is only speculation based on sources, but it’s the same thing you have done.  Original research is not allowed because it leads to multiple interpretations.  No source that you have offered presents your interpretation of Bell.
4.	You state, “Sources get things wrong and make mistakes. GOOD editors are capable of noticing when sources have made a mistake and compensate accordingly, BAD editors are not and make a mess of articles by blindingly adding incorrect information” and “I even proved Bell contradicted himself, you ignored that.”
On the discussion pages of the Continuity IRA article your statements defending your reversions there include the following (see that discussion page, I’m not trying to take these out of context):
“Please see no original research, and please limit your contributions to what the sources actually say, not unsourced opinion or your own interpretations of sources. One Night In Hackney303 00:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet again, I ask you to refrain from making any generic claim of original research. Please state exactly what text in the article is original research and why. I also ask you to repeatedly stop removing the "in theory" text that clarifies the entire paragraph. There's a difference between "in theory" and "in practice", and the paragraph needs the former. One Night In Hackney303 20:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately Bell, Moloney, Coogan and English disagree. Also I don't see the provenance that attributes the claim to the person who you claim said it either. "In theory" is a perfectly valid construct, accepted and understood worldwide by anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the English language. "In theory" simply means that while the IRA wished to do something, "in practice" they did not do it. As the paragraph then goes on to explain exactly why they didn't, it needs the qualifier. One Night In Hackney303 00:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues for One Night In Hackney to consider: 

message: So you admit that the sources disagree, and then you continue the article with YOUR interpretation as the correct one.  That is not original research?  Or POV?   At best, the article should indicate that the sources disagree and then state a reasonable accommodation.  To not have this in the article is to engage in POV, OR, or both.  
I did not claim that O Bradaigh authored the article.  My comment is that he was at the meeting described in the newspaper of the organization of which he is President. You can make the connection, or not.  You may also take the view that Bell, Coogan, Moloney, and English know more about these things than the authors of Saoirse, whose leader was an O/C in 1954 and was later C/S.  Either way, the reality is that General Order No. 8 was an Army Council decision in 1954.
My recommendation is that you stick to your guns -- it just exposes to all involved that you're a "good" editor.  
Again, please see the definitions of "theory," "practice," and "principle."  The leadership accepted the principle.  They could not implement it.  Theory =/ principle.
Please also continue to not make the corrections I noted -- "good" editors like you ignore clear errors so they can cling that much more firmly to their incorrect interpretation.  I'm pleased that all can see it.
If any other editors want to comment here, they are welcome to join in. I'm trying to reach a reasonable accommodation, difficult though it may be. WH --WilliamHanrahan (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, try reading the "source" you provided, in particular where it gets its information from. Look right at the end, all they are doing is repeating Bell's mistake which is contradicted by practically every other source and Bell himself. One Night In Hackney303 01:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Please say where in the article it says O Bradaigh or any other person who was a member of the Republican Movement at the time makes the claim? This is getting tedious. All the sources agree the policy of non-aggression against 26 county forces was introduced in 1948, including Bell. Your dogged insistence on pursuing this while openly admitting you've no intention of fixing other problems with the article is a clear case of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. One Night In Hackney303 01:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I've not "stated repeatedly", I've repeatedly provided peer reviewed sources, not biased partisan sources from the publication of a movement that only began in 1986 and therefore have zero credibility when it comes to events from 1948. Please read Bell more carefully, if you have you'd realise I don't even need to answer the question. If you really want me to answer it to prove you wrong once and for all, just give the word. One Night In Hackney303 01:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

text: It very much is the point, as they are a questionable source per policy. As they only formed a movement in 1986, they have no input on matters relating to this article. O Bradaigh's involvement is irrelevant, there's nothing that says he had any input into the article, especially as the sources are all cited and he's not among them. That's why you're wrong, because you haven't got a reliable source. One Night In Hackney303 02:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More for One Night In Hackney 

message: Corrected that Sean McBride didn't resign from the 1954-57 government. He had voted with it on occasion and went on as a barrister to represent internees. In the 1957 election his CnP was squeezed between Fianna fail and Sinn Fein and was wound up in the 1960s.Red Hurley (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 1957 election

message: "In principle, the IRA wished to overthrow both "partitionist" states in Ireland, which it deemed to be illegitimate entities, imposed by Britain at the time of the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1922. " 
:Partition started in 1921 following the Fourth Home Rule Act of 1920, according to most sources. It was confirmed by the Northern Irish parliament when they voted not to exercise their option to join the Irish Free State in December 1922. "Imposed by Britain" is POV, as British policy then (and ever since) was to let that parliament decide for itself.86.42.192.72 (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence is fair as it is clear that it is an explanation of the IRA understanding of events (i.e. it is IRA POV and stated as such). Mooretwin (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Patrition in 1922?