Talk:List of members of the Irish Republican Army

message: Mrlol12324. Redlink for The real Irish republican army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Irish_Republican_Army  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrlol12324 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

message: I ask that these be sourced, otherwise I'm removing them. One Night In Hackney303 15:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Red links

message: There are a myriad of links on this page that lead to the wrong people.  Editors cannot assume that the link they are adding will just happen to lead to an article on an IRA member of that name.  Just a few examples I removed earlier: Tony Campbell, various Michael Clarkes (dab page), Edward Grant, Tony Jordan, David Kennedy.  This is a breach of WP:BLP in many cases. At some stage when its not so late I'll go through the list and remove any not leading to the correct person. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 00:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you'll pipe then to include (Irish republican) after their name, as after your previous actions you are clearly being disruptive and not acting in good faith. One Night In Hackney303 00:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What previous actions? I am complying with WP:BLP.  And I am not going to create a myriad of additional redlinks! BastunBaStun not BaTsun 01:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's too much effort for you, I suggest you unlink the articles. One Night In Hackney303 01:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not the one who created them in a very lzay manner.  And why should I unlink them when you've already stated you'll be removing them.  And I ask again - what previous actions? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 01:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These previous actions. One Night In Hackney303 01:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect links 

message: An admin has said "If the individuals do not have an article, and it's unlikely that they ever would, then they should not be on the article. Wikipedia lists are navigational aids, not directories. A few redlinks are OK as long as the individuals are genuinely important (e.g. a chapter in a reputably-published book on the republican movement) and we just don't have an article yet." - which seems fine to me.  However, Vintagekits has now added approx. 150 redlinks back in.  Most now at least have "(Irish republican)" appended to the name, but some at least are still incorrect - e.g., Frederick Leonard and a couple are deemed worthy of two redlinks.  
A single reference has been added to all of the restored entries: "Tírghrá, National Commemoration Centre, 2002. PB) "  The referenced book does not appear to exist, at least with that ISBN.    Googling further demonstrates that a privately-published, restricted-circulation book does indeed appear to exist   - but at 368 pages you're talking what, a page and a bit per person?
Note also that the Guardian article states "The book, meant to be seen only by the relatives of the IRA dead, claims..." (my emphasis added).  This, if true, means it cannot be used as a reputable, neutral, reliable reference. (Sidenote - is there not some way of pointing multiple instances of the same reference to a single footnote rather than repeating the same footnote 150+ times?)
I have outlined to Vintagekits the way articles should be created (which, coincidentally, appears close enough to the method suggested, and the consensus view, in WP:IRA, but apparently he does not feel the need to do that.  
Wikipedia is not a memorial and notability of subjects must be established.  WP:N is worth quoting:
"The primary criterion for notability, and one shared by many of the subject-specific notability guidelines and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is that:
"    A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the sources should be considered in determining the number of sources needed. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view and is credible. Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic is more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic."
So - we have a page containing 150+ redlinks to people, many of whom will never be notable enough for their own article, either because of WP:NOT or WP:ATT.  "Was in the IRA - had a notable Republican uncle/grandfather" or "Was in the IRA - got killed in a car crash/blew himself up." doesn't really cut it.
I do not want to get into an edit war, but at the same time I am not prepared to see policy and guidelines ignored when it suits a particular POV.  Suggestions - either:
* Remove the redlinked names entirely;
* Remove them to WP:IRA's sandbox until the articles have been created;
* Remove them, and create an article on this Thirgrá book in which they can be included.
I'm not deleting/removing anything for a few days, and someone else may have better suggestions in the meantime. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 15:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Where do you start when you come up against those with limited knowledge in a specific area but they think that they have vast knowledge. I have already said that I could easily write an article on each of the entrants however I have already stated that that is not the best route ot go down at the moment for the reasons I have already outlined - I will continue to add the bio summaries over the weekend and will also remove some of the red linking until I create an article for each of these people. I could have used multiple sources for each person however, the reason I used the Tirghra references (a book which was on general sale by the way) is because that book have detailed information on all of those people in question. Both of you are being unreasonable with your requests at this moment - there are only 24 hours in a day!--Vintagekits 16:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could easily write an article on each of the entrants - I don't doubt you could.  However, would it meet Wikipedia's standards for notability and attribution is the question.  On the book - could you check the ISBN to make sure its correct?  Note that I have said I am not doing anything for several days.  I am not being unreasonable.  I am merely requesting that policy and guidelines be adhered to - and my suggestions above are perfectly reasonable compromise.  What would be unreasonable would be expecting that policy shouldn't apply. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 17:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You can't do that due to GFDL, so thanks for wasting everyone's time especially when VK hasn't been editing for the last couple of days. One Night In Hackney303 11:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree, the redlinks should be included - they are referenced and I am currently adding further details on each of them.--Vintagekits 17:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, you'd be owning a cat, then? :-P  I'm reverting again, please see my concerns above about the reference in question, shared by at least one admin. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 17:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is absolutely no consensus to remove the redlinks - usually disruptive editing from yourself!--Vintagekits 17:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see above. My views are clear. Guy said "This list should contain only linked names, and where those names are linked they must to be the correct, fully disambiguated name. If the individuals do not have an article, and it's unlikely that they ever would, then they should not be on the article."  ONiH said: "I ask that these be sourced, otherwise I'm removing them." (And he has subsequently removed them from a sub-page of my user page (after moving them from a preparation page I created on WP:IRA, quoting WP:BIO.  That's three people who want them removed(including an admin), versus one who wants them.  What, exactly, is wrong with creating an article first? (In userspace or WP:IRA's preparation subpages, if necessary - that's what they're for?). BastunBaStun not BaTsun 17:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the sources that ONiH requested - done deal - I'll wait for the revert.--Vintagekits 18:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you added one source (which is hardly neutral, and in fact comes under WP:SPS) and again, notability has not been established - mere membership of the IRA does not confer notability. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 21:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignorance, if you are going to quote wiki guidance and policy please ensure that you what you are talking about. For example if you were writing a book about say Mike Tyson and during the research for the compliation of that said book you interviewed Mike Tyson, Cus D'Amato, Michael Spinks and Teddy Atlas and then you used that information along with your other research to write that book would that come under WP:SPS? No - you have a clue what you are talking about - stick to article and policies that you actually know about!--Vintagekits 23:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redlinks 2

message: User:Vintagekits - please see the discussion above for the reasons why the redlinks have been removed.  In addition, your new link to James Saunders goes to an English playwright, not to an IRA member. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 17:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, the redlinks should be included - they are referenced and I am currently adding further details on each of them.--Vintagekits 17:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, you'd be owning a cat, then? :-P  I'm reverting again, please see my concerns above about the reference in question, shared by at least one admin. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 17:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is absolutely no consensus to remove the redlinks - usually disruptive editing from yourself!--Vintagekits 17:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see above. My views are clear. Guy said "This list should contain only linked names, and where those names are linked they must to be the correct, fully disambiguated name. If the individuals do not have an article, and it's unlikely that they ever would, then they should not be on the article."  ONiH said: "I ask that these be sourced, otherwise I'm removing them." (And he has subsequently removed them from a sub-page of my user page (after moving them from a preparation page I created on WP:IRA, quoting WP:BIO.  That's three people who want them removed(including an admin), versus one who wants them.  What, exactly, is wrong with creating an article first? (In userspace or WP:IRA's preparation subpages, if necessary - that's what they're for?). BastunBaStun not BaTsun 17:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the sources that ONiH requested - done deal - I'll wait for the revert.--Vintagekits 18:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you added one source (which is hardly neutral, and in fact comes under WP:SPS) and again, notability has not been established - mere membership of the IRA does not confer notability. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 21:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignorance, if you are going to quote wiki guidance and policy please ensure that you what you are talking about. For example if you were writing a book about say Mike Tyson and during the research for the compliation of that said book you interviewed Mike Tyson, Cus D'Amato, Michael Spinks and Teddy Atlas and then you used that information along with your other research to write that book would that come under WP:SPS? No - you have a clue what you are talking about - stick to article and policies that you actually know about!--Vintagekits 23:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: April 23

message: " Since when were the IRA and INLA the same organisation?!)" Good question.  I did say the (post69) the list was in a terrible state, didn't I?  But seeing as I was accused of being disruptive for removing links to the likes of East Enders scriptwriters, I was hardly going to remove one to an actual Irish Republican when I was working on it this morning.  Actually, the remainder of the valid links should probably be checked - I did catch a couple this morning that went to disambig pages; there are probably a few more bad links still there. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 13:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to blame the person who created the list, who for the record is not a member of the WikiProject. One Night In Hackney303 13:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  INLA 

message: User:Vintagekits, in your last but one edit summary, you said: "Stop edit waring and discuss - there is an ongoing discussion please get involved in that, ta".  Yes, I'm aware of the discussion, I started it, have tried to be reasonable, have offered various alternatives, and have done quite a lot of work on this page.  I fail to see exactly what was wrong with moving all the redlinks off mainspace to a preparation page of WP:IRA, as I did previously, then moving names from there onto this list as and when articles have been created. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 14:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. You're relying on proof by assertion that the source is unreliable, yet I have produced indisputable evidence that the one example being used to claim the source is unreliable is in fact incorrect. One Night In Hackney303 14:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is response to what I've said about Tirghrá?  WP:SPS and the section immediately above it apply.  The publisher is partisan.  BastunBaStun not BaTsun 14:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you'll find partisan sources can be used. One Night In Hackney303 14:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Please remind me how WP:SPS applies?--Vintagekits 23:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  @ Vintagekits 

message: Managed to find how to multilink to one reference, and did so last night.  The following still need addressing:
* Easter Rising & Irish War of Independence: 1916-1922
:::Unreferenced (and redlinked): Sean Harling, Patrick Moylett, Michael O'Sullivan, Liam Tobin
:::Sandy Lynch: Unreferenced, and surely in the wrong section?
* The Official Irish Republican Army & Post-Independence: 1922-present
:::Unreferenced (and redlinked): Patrick Fleming, Seán Harrington, Pearse Kelly/Paul Kelso (same person?), Tomás MacCurtain, Seán McCool, Willie McGuinness
* Provisional Irish Republican Army: 1969-present
:::Unreferenced (and redlinked): Joseph Campbell, Patrick Carty1, Seamus Cassidy, John McErlean, Henry McIlhone, Jackie McIlhone, Desmond Morgan, Patrick "Maguire" Pendleton, Michael Joseph Quigley, Denis Quinn.
1Supplied reference does not implicate him with membership of the IRA.
BastunBaStun not BaTsun 00:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated above. Nice work, MadMax. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 11:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup still needed 

message: This article seems incorrect to me, as the Officials are in the same section as all post-1922 members. This is not correct, it gives undue prominence to the Officials. After the GAC and Ard Fheis in September and October 1970 respectively, the Provisional Army Council ceased to be Provisional and became the legitimate Army Council of Óglaigh na hÉireann following the recognition by Tom Maguire. Official IRA members should be in a different section because of this. Brixton Busters 17:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with article

message: Is the list for those who participated in the 1916 Rising and War of Independence complete?--jeanne (talk) 09:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 1916 list complete?

message: Please change name Daniel Head to Daniel Heade
Please see action report - http://www.bureauofmilitaryhistory.ie/reels/bmh/BMH.WS0774.pdf
Penguincub (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Stickee (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2015 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on List of members of the Irish Republican Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060928181954/http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jouhs/michaelmas2004/maguire02.pdf to http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jouhs/michaelmas2004/maguire02.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on List of members of the Irish Republican Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070225102320/http://burnsmoley.com:80/volunteers/roll.php to http://www.burnsmoley.com/volunteers/roll.php
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071008143302/http://www.noraid.org/roll_of_honor.html to http://www.noraid.org/roll_of_honor.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Please amend the flawed tabloid phrase "convicted p_________" to "convicted child sex offender". Paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder, not a criminal act of which one can be convicted. Thanks. 151.229.26.18 (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate that you're probably flicking through these requests with a broad strokes approach, but consensus is absolutely irrelevant here: we're dealing with phrasing that is utterly, unequivocally incorrect. Have you been jailed for having depression? I haven't. One cannot be "convicted" of a psychiatric disorder, of which paedophilia is one (child sex abuse, on the other hand, is very much a crime). This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Thanks. 151.229.26.18 (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done – Thjarkur (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2020 

message: Per WP:LISTPEOPLE, people are supposed to have articles. I intend to remove people without articles, unless there are reasons why the guideline doesn't apply? FDW777 (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there were no objections, I have removed people without articles. FDW777 (talk) 10:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed removal of lots of entries 

message: Stephen Fuller, and younger brother Sean (John) Fuller seem to get mixed up in many accounts.  Please check. 88.97.108.45 (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fuller brothers. 

message: Paul Murphy soldier of the IRA 2A02:C7E:2C98:3D00:5D41:6311:D447:3849 (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Not done: This list is for people who already have articles. You can create the article yourself (see Wikipedia:Your first article for important information) or request that someone else create it at Wikipedia:Requested articles. QuietCicada  chirp 13:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2022