Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign

message: "official IRA policy" to not attack other "celtic" countries (scotland,wales) we need a citation
dont see how to edit references #27, the source for my change is:
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/chron/ch97.htm
CAIN has 1 British Army fatality, the last in current round of conflict, on 12/2/1997, 1 RUC fulltime, and 1 RUC reserve shot dead by PIRA on 13/6/1997.
No civilian death from PIRA, RIRA, OIRA, INLA, IPLO etc., (excluding Billy Wright shot 27/12, Glen Greer dead in premature explosion at loyalist weapons dump 25/10, and the attack on Desmond Christopher Moonan 14/8 unattributed in court).
http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/FE7EE0D2-3D1E-4016-B386-8396FD271C55/0/j_j_NICE3182.htm
the civilian death attributed to loyalists;
# 14/03/1997 - John Slane
# 24/03/1997 - David Templeton
# 08/05/1997 - Robert Hamill
# 12/05/1997 - Sean Brown
# 01/06/1997 - Gregory Taylor (RUC)
# 11/06/1997 - Robert 'Basher' Bates (loyalist)
# 07/07/1997 - Brian Morton (loyalist)
# 15/07/1997 - Bernadette Martin
# 24/07/1997 - James Morgan
# 01/08/1997 - Stewart Hunter
# 08/11/1997 - Robert Kerr (loyalist)
# 09/11/1997 - Raymond McCord
# 05/12/1997 - Gerry Devlin
# 27/12/1997 - Seamus Dillon (republican)
# 31/12/1997 - Eddie Traynor
Fluffy999 22:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. It was 19 month period and not a year. Jan 96 -July 97.
Jdorney 14:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.
Jdorney 12:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: April 2006 discussion

message: An anonymous editor seems to have restored an earlier version of the article without explanation. In so doing, s/he has restored numerous typographical errors and eliminated numerous changes that had been made to bring the article into line with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If the editor has a problem with particular content changes, s/he should raise those issues here. A block-revert is not acceptable. Ground Zero | t 11:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 10 August 2006 reversion

message: I think the section about Moloney's claims about a supposed Tet Offensive are disputed by other sources like Gherarty, Taylor, and Toby Harnden. They point to the generally accepted idea of the PIRA waging an Attrition war since their failure to bring UK Government to the bargain table by 1972. The Libyan supplies certainly had the value, as describe in this article, to hone the Republican war machine in order to sustain a significant level of activity for the forseeable future, but assuming that further reinforcements may have allowed the Provos to launch a wide military escalation is a matter of discussion. The claim that the uncovering of the Libya connection disrupted a large change in the Republican strategy seems also to contradict some UK intelligence reports. Indeed, there was a PIRA document retrieved by the British Security in 1982, where the Army Council acknowledged outright, based in the Falklands war experience, that there were no chances of defeating or even facing the BA in open battle (SoF Magazine article, February 1997: From who the Belfat polls, by Dr. Tom Marks, p. 67). I believe that the section must be revised.
DagosNavy 15:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradictions between the claim of a ''Tet Offensive'', the ''Long War'' and the ''Armalite and Ballot box'' Strategies

message: i don't think this inciedent is worthy of inclusion here. What appears to have happend is that the South Armagh IRA took over the village, ie put up checkpoints for about two hours, then left. In the context of a short article about a 30 year conflict, I do not feel this is worth mentioning.
Moreover, the parliamentary debates, in the context of a debate on the continued use of the Special Powers Act cetrainly do not reflect that this meant the rgion was "close to breaking point", on the contrary,
"The hon. Member for Mossley Hill was rather too gloomy when he said that life is livable in Northern Ireland. It is a great deal more than that. A great deal of life in Northern Ireland is very good and for many people life is normal. Their spirit is remarkable, but their life, jobs and prosperity are better than some would have us believe. I do not want the message to go out that all is gloom there because as far as I am concerned it is certainly not". 
I also have to question why so many small details are put in about the 1990s, when this decade was far less bloody than, for example, the early 1970s.
Jdorney 07:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coolaville etc 

message: The assertion in question pre-supposes a shoot-to-kill policy and that this was used in that particular instanceWeggie 18:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious Tag

message: unsuccessful campaigns along with campaigns by IRA. Fluffy999 12:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Added to Guerilla warfare

message: I re-wrote it (again) after seeing how much partisan bumpf had been inserted and how description of their activities had been skewed to serve political points. Remark here if theres an issue. Fluffy999 15:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cornise, the use of the word terrorist is POV, who decides who is or isn't a terrorist, guerilla war lets the reader decide on wether the IRA were terrorists or not.  Articles on wikipedia are supposed to represent verifible fact, not the opinion of the editors that edit the article.--padraig 11:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry Padraig, I have to disagree.  Common sense should dictate that the IRA campaign in NI and the UK mainland was a terrorist campaign.  Reading a lot of the articles on Wikipedia regarding NI I have come to realise that Wikipedia isn't neutral at all.  Very disappointing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.52 (talk) 10:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By "neutral" I assume you mean "British point of view". Reuters aren't particularly neutral by your standards either, so perhaps it's you that's not neutral? One Night In Hackney303 10:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  "Guerilla war" is completly wrong by the way.  And it is extremely POV.  I know I'll never win this argument so I'll quit now.  It's sad though.  Wikipedia really is a bad source of reference for so many subjects that get hijacked by those wishing to rewrite history. Cornisle 13:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Activities

message: I do not feel that the poster at the top of the page is at all appropriate. It has an overtly POV message. I believe that its usage can be justified within the body of the article but to lead the whole article with it gives the impression that the article is supportive of the message that the poster contains, before reading a single word of the article. Jooler 23:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [post deleted 07:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [post edited following deletion of previous post 11:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Jooler, can you suggest an appropriate alternative image to go at the top, if the poster was moved to the body of the article? Scolaire 12:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia_talk:Irish_Wikipedians' notice board#Provisional IRA campaign 1969–1997 Jooler 12:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but do you know of such an image in Wikipedia/Wikimedia? Scolaire 13:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A suitable image has now been uploaded, so it's all good. Scolaire 09:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poster at the top 

message: For the IRA, such attacks may have been counter-productive, as incidents such as these facilitated the British Government's aims to "criminalise" the IRA and portray the conflict as one between sectarian gangs, and itself as a neutral arbiter.
Unsourced since February, so time for it to go. One Night In Hackney303 07:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentence removed

message: I'm thinking this section has problems. For example near the end it reads "The proceeds of the Provisional IRA's past criminal enterprises are largely thought to have been invested in property and business ventures", which is true but only to an extent and not the way it reads now. The section seems to be combining two slightly related subjects:
*Armed robberies, kidnappings and other activities (such as the running of black taxis etc) that were used to raise funds for the IRA.
*Smuggling (except for materiel) and the like was generally done by IRA members (naming no names, but particularly based around the border region) but wasn't done to raise funds for the IRA, but for people's personal profit and it's them that are generally being investigated for their investments.
Any thoughts on the best way to sort this out? One Night In Hackney303 21:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Stop lying. PIRA made huge sums of money from the smuggling of fuel, livestock and drugs and it was "officially" sanctioned at "Army Council" level.--FergusM1970 (talk) 03:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Robberies and criminal enterprise section

message: :Image:Undefeated.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rationale added on February 13.DagosNavy 16:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Undefeated.jpg

message: :Image:Manchesterbomb-devestation.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Manchesterbomb-devestation.jpg

message: :Image:Manchesterbomb-truck.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Manchesterbomb-truck.jpg

message: :Image:MortarTest-1994.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:MortarTest-1994.jpg

message: How can any reasonable person deny that the PIRA "conducted an armed campaign including terrorist activities"? Mooretwin (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:TERRORIST. Rockpocket 00:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

text: That doesn't explain "guerilla war". It seems incredible that the adjective "terrorist" is banned when describing such activities as happened in Northern Ireland.  I'll insert "paramilitary" instead. Mooretwin (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh sure. Because professional military forces regularly blow off teenagers' kneecaps and detonate IEDs in crowded shopping centres while claiming unemployment benefit from the state they claim to be fighting.--FergusM1970 (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship re. terrorism 

message: According to this which states Although a claim of responsibility was made by the ‘‘Kilburn Battalion of the IRA,’’ this incident is not usually considered to be part of a coordinated IRA campaign. The bomber (or bombers) was never formally identified. BigDuncTalk 20:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Removal 

message: Having had a look at the article, I feel we need a new section. At the moment we have a relatively short piece on 1970-1980. In reality this glosses over at least two distinct phases in the provos campaign. You have the early 1970s, by far the most intense period, the ceasefire of the mid 70s and then teh beginnings of the 'long war' in the late 70s.
I would suggest that we need considerably detail on the early more period. Thoughts anyone?Jdorney (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  News Section 

message: Hello All, in the sectarian Violence section, the passage "... a campaign of sectarian assassination. Vincent McKenna, (later convicted of a paedophile offense)..." should be edited.  
While it is disgusting what Vincent McKenna did, the pedophile offense has no bearing on the topic being discussed and is in fact a fallacy known as a red herring.  Rollo Bay 1758 (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the Sectarian violence section... 

message: Assessed as start class for Mil History.  Some sections need more citations.  Also, throughout the article PIRA and IRA interchangeably.  This should, IMO, be PIRA throughout.--dashiellx (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: I see that there is disagreement on the precise number of civilians killed by the P.IRA, but it's crazy that the infobox doesn't mention this at all. Would it not be better to give a range of figures, rather than none?
Should civilians killed by the British Army also be included? I would consider this fair, given that this page is a history of conflict, or an aspect of it, not only of the IRA.
Jdorney (talk) 12:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  civilians killed 

message: Though the article ends in 1997 I've added a one-liner at the end of the "Libyan arms" section, on the $2 billion deal under way. It must pass notability and is a kind of full stop. Let's see how it develops.Red Hurley (talk) 08:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Libyan compo deal 2010

message: I have started a discussion on images of pictures at Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army#Images of pictures.  --Scolaire (talk) 07:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images of pictures 

message: I've removed, ideally temporarily, the sentence mentioning him as I can't figure out the best way to phrase it currently. It read:
Members of the Provisional IRA have often been linked to killings and crimes which the Provisional IRA denies it authorised, the murder of Robert McCartney, being the last known example
This doesn't make sense at all. Nobody disagrees that the murder of Robert McCartney was an argument that got out of hand in a pub and was carried out by IRA volunteers (and further volunteers involved in the clean-up to destroy forensic evidence). So I don't see how it fits into the whole "Members of the Provisional IRA have often been linked to killings and crimes which the Provisional IRA denies it authorised", since nobody is claiming the IRA authorised it in advance. Obviously it needs to be in the article but I'm having a brain spasm and can't figure out if we need two totally separate sentences that make different points or something, but that sentence was a no-go. 2 lines of K303 13:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe PIRA didn't authorise it, but by sending more terrorists to clean up the evidence, and thereby perverting the course of justice, they clearly condoned it. If they disapproved of McCartney's murder they would have handed the murderers over to the RUC instead of covering up for them.--FergusM1970 (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: McCartney

message: I don't think it is necessary to note, for example, that the victims in Birmingham were "unarmed"; firearms are a rarity in the mainland UK. In the one example where it might have added something, it is already noted that the soldiers were part of a ceremonial occasion in which they would not expect to be armed. Does anyone disagree? --John (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, but I'm trying to maintain consistency here. If it's relevant to add "unarmed" to victims of the British security forces it seems equally relevant to add it to victims of PIRA, agreed?--FergusM1970 (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

text: No. It's part of a disruptive point making crusade following this, where the editor concerned argues that the presence of a car bomb 80km away from the place where three IRA volunteers were shot dead means they were not unarmed. He does this by making up a definition of "unarmed" that suits his purpose", then concluding that the presence of a car bomb 80km away from the place where three IRA volunteers were shot dead means they were actually "in control of a weapon" despite the dozens, if not hundreds, of reliable sources saying they were indeed unarmed. 2 lines of K303 21:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, no need to add for victims of bombings in England. Support retaining for people shot by the British Army/RUC as they would often claim that they had shot people who were presenting a threat - it is notable if the Security Forces shot an unarmed person. GiollaUidir (talk) 11:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unarmed" 

message: PIRA is not an agency of the Irish state - indeed it's a banned terrorist organisation there - so I don't believe the Irish flag should be used as their emblem. Is there a specific PIRA emblem we could use instead? Perhaps the fist and Armalite logo, or a black taxi stuffed with drugs and protection money?--FergusM1970 (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Already discussed here, moral and legal concerns against the sourced use of the tricolour by the IRA are irrelevant for Wikipedia per WP:CENSOR.--Darius (talk) 02:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, the file used for the IRA and other republican organizations () is not the same file used for the Republic of Ireland () per 2009 consensus.--Darius (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, what? The use of the Irish tricolour by an organisation which is BANNED IN IRELAND is irrelevant how, exactly?--FergusM1970 (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, take time to read the links above. Thank you.--Darius (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks as if the use of the Irish flag by terrorist groups was discussed, but no concensus was reached. I see your point, but as PIRA is an illegal terrorist organisation in Ireland the use of the Irish flag as a PIRA symbol seems to be stupid, deliberately offensive and wrong.--FergusM1970 (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CENSOR is an official Wikipedia policy, thus it doesn't matter if you find the use of the tricolour "stupid, deliberately offensive and wrong". The nazi flag is also BANNED IN GERMANY and we make use of it here per that policy.--Darius (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Nazi flag was the emblem of Nazi Germany. The Irish tricolour is the emblem of Ireland, NOT the emblem of PIRA. Do I really need to explain the difference?--FergusM1970 (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Do I really need to explain the difference between Wikipedia policies and moral or legal concerns again??--Darius (talk) 04:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all. You just have to explain why the use of the Irish flag as a symbol for an organisation that's illegal in Ireland is appropriate. That will do fine.--FergusM1970 (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, this is Wikipedia, not an online forum. The flag is appropiate here in WP because an overwhelming number of sources mention its use by the PIRA (WP:V) and because we can't supress this fact per WP:CENSOR.--Darius (talk) 04:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Irish flag for PIRA 

message: The Irish police and military operated against PIRA and were, in turn, attacked by PIRA. On what grounds are they not classed as belligerents?--FergusM1970 (talk) 03:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If anybody can explain why a military force and a police force who fought against PIRA shouldn't be described as belligerents, please do explain here. Otherwise I am going to reinstate those facts as soon as 1RR allows. Please do not ignore this discussion then start a revert war and/or frivolous AE action. Thank you.--FergusM1970 (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an article about the PIRA campaign, not about The Troubles. The PIRA systematically targeted British security forces, occasionally got involved in sectarian violence (against protestant militants and civilians) and rarely attacked Gardaí and Irish Army personnel (only 7 deaths in almost 30 years). Including agencies of the RoI as "belligerents" is given undue weight to a minority point of view.--Darius (talk) 03:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And the PIRA campaign involved attacks against Irish forces and Irish forces operations against PIRA. What's WP:UNDUE about mentioning that?--FergusM1970 (talk) 03:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That those attacks on the RoI were far from being systematic, an overwhelming majority of the PIRA actions were directed against British forces, and the Republic was not involved in NI (at least from a military point of view).--Darius (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Did PIRA kill Irish security forces? Yes or no?--FergusM1970 (talk) 04:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And if your answer is "Yes," as it must be, why should those men be denied even the acknowledgement of their deaths by WP? I have worked with, like and respect members of both the Garda and the Irish Army, and I am disgusted at the idea of hiding their deaths to whitewash a political POV.--FergusM1970 (talk) 04:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Yes, just like the Germans killed Irish citizens in WWII (even volunteers on the battlefield) or bombed Dublin and this doesn't make Ireland a belligerent country.--Darius (talk) 04:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: But the Garda Special Branch and Army Ranger Wing took part in operations against PIRA, including British-led operations. We're not talking about accidents here: the Irish authorities were actively involved in the effort to defeat PIRA, and suffered for it.--FergusM1970 (talk) 04:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Why not? They were working alongside British security forces. Garda had a Special Branch liaison with Met SB since 1973. Army Ranger Wing regularly train with 22SAS and exchange soldiers all the time. Irish security forces worked alongside British ones to defeat a common terrorist enemy, so why shouldn't they be honoured as having fallen in the line of duty instead of being relegated to "collateral damage"? They deserve better than that.--FergusM1970 (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Because we have only seven RoI casualties. To include these seven along the British, we need reliable sources showing that they were killed in the course of combined operations, and that is not the case.--Darius (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do only combined operations count, then? The friendly forces casualty box is about those killed by PIRA. Were those Guards and that soldier killed by PIRA or not? If so, what exactly is your problem about acknowledging what they died for? I am fairly disgusted at your apparent disrespect for the Guard and Irish Army at this point, but I hope you can redeem yourself somehow.--FergusM1970 (talk) 04:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Wikipedia is not a memorial website (see WP:MEMORIAL), I am not compelled to pay my respects to anybody, just to show to the readers what reliable sources say about a subject. And I never denied that the IRA killed them.--Darius (talk) 05:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, fair point. Anyway, on reflection, listing the Irish casualties as they are now seems like a reasonable solution.--FergusM1970 (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Best regards.--Darius (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belligerents 

message: Civilians killed by British forces are a little off-topic on this page, which deals exclusively with the PIRA campaign. I think it should be removed as soon as possible.--Darius (talk) 04:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about that, as those deaths were a consequence of the PIRA campaign even if they weren't PIRA's fault. Obviously I don't think anyone's going to argue that they would have happened if the campaign hadn't. Are you suggesting that we only list the people killed by PIRA? We can discuss that of course, but it seems kind of limited.--FergusM1970 (talk) 04:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We should include only those killed by the PIRA. If not, someone could list people killed by the loyalist on the basis that this was a consequence of the PIRA actions, or even the nine British soldiers arrested by the Gardaí/Irish Army on the border in 1976 and 1986.--Darius (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion of civilians killed by British forces

message: What a 2009 poll that doesn't even mention the IRA has to do with this article, and how its inclusion is even remotely justified per WP:NOR? 2 lines of K303 12:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, possibly because it states the percentage of the NI population who want a united Ireland, and therefore places PIRA's campaign to achieve that in context?--FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 20:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't answer the question. For starters look at the date of the poll, then read the no original research policy I linked to. 2 lines of K303 20:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of that poll is obvious original research, as the J. Bowyer Bell source cited doesn't support the inclusion of "specifically". Please don't edit war to push your preferred version through after being reverted, use this talk page.--Domer48'fenian' 18:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the links that have been provided a number of times to you, such as WP:OR, WP:SYN and WP:RS. I have the book! Please don't misrepresent sources its really unhelpful. --Domer48'fenian' 20:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement should be removed immediately from the lede per WP:SYN, not only because the source doesn't make any mention of the Provisionals, but also because the campaign of the PIRA to obtain unity was aimed at the British government, not at the public opinion, let alone public opinion in NI; this is well documented. Other issue is WP:UNDUE, since the editor cited just a single poll, and anybody could use other surveys, like the one carried out by the Belfast Telegraph in 2010, when more than 40% of Protestants expressed their belief that there will be a United Ireland in 20 years. Not to mention references to cross-border institutions, or the political influence of the Republic since the 1985 and 1998 treaties in some reserved matters concerning the North. All of this could be seen by some people as a measure of PIRA's success, rather than "placing PIRA campaign to achieve a United Ireland in context".--Darius (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

text: That's correct; 39% support the current arrangement, with devolved rule (NOT power sharing. Northern Ireland is part of the UK and power is not shared.) However you forgot the additional 8% who want direct rule from London reimposed, making 47% in favour of staying in the UK and only 40% wanting unification. PIRA's aim is a minority view even within the community they claim to represent.--FergusM1970The moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on. 19:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, that's original research (no direct mention of the 47% in the cited source). And the power is shared in NI not only at local government level between the two communities, but also (in some degree, of course) between the UK (still the sovereign country) and the Republic (per GFA).--Darius (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

text: I suggest that you stop with your personal attacks on editors and remain civil. Comment on content not editors. If you can not support your edits with reliable sources don't add it. Don't misrepresent sources to support your edits, and don't use synthesis or original research as this is unhelpful. --Domer48'fenian' 19:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Could someone explain?

message: Any reason why the loyalist groups aren't listed among the belligerents? Gob Lofa (talk) 12:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone?  Gob Lofa (talk) 12:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loyalist groups 

message: PIRA activities in ROI
I notice that under the heading in this article only the Gardi and Irish soldier killed by PIRA are referred to after the caveat that they were not regarded as targets by the PIRA. No other PIRA activities are referred to.  This provides the misleading impression that these were the only activities PIRA carried out in the republic.  Kidnappings, arms importing, killing targets in ROI, border attacks, training, robberies, planning are not included under this heading. Nor are high profile operations like PIRA assassinating the British ambassador in Dublin mentionedDavid5122 (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree on this point. The killings of Lord Mountbatten (1979) and "The General" (1994) and the 1973 helicopter escape should also be listed there.--Darius (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

text: OK.--Darius (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  PIRA activities in ROI 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign. 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/20070202034106/http://www.independentmonitoringcommission.org:80/ to http://www.independentmonitoringcommission.org
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 03:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign. 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/20070928081540/http://www.irishecho.com/search/searchstory.cfm?id=2897&issueid=69 to http://www.irishecho.com/search/searchstory.cfm?id=2897&issueid=69#prof
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050312003253/http://www.birw.org:80/Deaths%20since%20ceasefire/deaths%2000.html to http://www.birw.org/Deaths%20since%20ceasefire/deaths%2000.html
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 22:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110928055538/http://www.intelligenceonline.com/threat-assessment/1992/06/10/military-solution,63070-EVENorthern to http://www.intelligenceonline.com/threat-assessment/1992/06/10/military-solution,63070-EVENorthern
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151222144754/http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=O1ZaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=u0wNAAAAIBAJ&pg=6780,6577778&dq=checkpoint+northern-ireland&hl=en to http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=O1ZaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=u0wNAAAAIBAJ&pg=6780,6577778&dq=checkpoint+northern-ireland&hl=en
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 22:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign. 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303195508/http://news.ulster.ac.uk/releases/2006/2223.html to http://news.ulster.ac.uk/releases/2006/2223.html
*Added  tag to http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/ulster/article270724.ece
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.independentmonitoringcommission.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The section Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign#Casualties starts off by saying "According to the Conflict Archive on the Internet (CAIN), a research project at the University of Ulster,[6] the Provisional IRA was responsible for the deaths of 1,823 people during the Troubles up to 2001". However this isn't technically correct. While the information is certainly hosted on CAIN, the reference provided show it's actually Malcolm Sutton's figures from 2002. The actual CAIN figures can be seen here. CAIN give a total of 1,707 for the IRA, plus various others that could or could not be counted as IRA depending on who is doing the counting (Direct Action Against Drugs 5, Republican Action Force 24, and non-specific Republican group 91, which is increased from 89 from Sutton's original figure).
Since CAIN are seemingly continually updating the figures (there seems to be a discrepancy quite often when I check CAIN references), is there any particular reason why we are using Sutton's original 2002 figures not the current ones? FDW777 (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Figures updated. FDW777 (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  CAIN figures 

message: I can get the 125 total from here, not sure where the breakdown comes from. 125 is the total killed in England by everyone, not just the IRA. If we take 125 as the starting point, we need to subtract 7 killed by the Sticks at Aldershot, 2 killed by the INLA (Airey Neave plus a soldier killed in 1992), Diarmuid O'Neill killed by police, Patricia Black, Frankie Ryan and Ed O'Brien killed by premature bomb explosions. That'd take us to 112. Since that's less than the figure in the previous sentence () hopefully nobody minds too much if Sutton is removed? FDW777 (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You can get the right statistics from Sutton at CAIN by generating a cross-table involving three parameters: by area (Britain), by organisation (IRA) and by status (civilians, soldiers, political activists).  The resulting numbers are the following: 1) Civilians: 56; 2) British military: 42; 4) British police: 6, 3) Politicians: 4 and 4) IRA members; 4 (most of them killed by own bombs; there was a 1974 case of premature explosion to add to Black, O´Brien and Ryan) making a total of 112 fatalities. The inclusion of this computer-generated figures, however, could be questioning as original research, thus I for keeping only Richard English's statement (which also takes account of the wounded) according to the consensus recently reached at this discussion on giving priority to bibliographical sources over news outlets and websites.--Darius (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I had no idea that page on Sutton existed. I knew how to do the standard cross table with two variables, not one with another variable. Per a similar discussion at Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army#Civilians killed in England I said , I feel that's a sensible enough approach. The original discussion you refer to was not intended to deprecate Sutton's database as a reference, it definitely has a place in the "Casualties" section of this and the parent article but I don't think any analysis of figures should be added to other sections generally speaking. I don't want to say it should be completely prohibited in case there are some instances where it might be appropriate. Obviously the instance I removed here was an inappropriate use of Sutton's figures, as his total actually matches Richard English's. I have checked Sutton and for all the IRA volunteers killed by premature explosions in England they are listed as being killed by the IRA, therefore his total would be 125-7-2-1=115, which is exactly the same as Richard English. FDW777 (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

text: I will add a little more regarding CAIN. Their chronology pages are useful for basic research, but anything there should be easily referenced to books. See also my comments at Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army#US categorisation, where their brief synopsis of events in 1997 was slightly misleading and resulted in an incorrect sentence being in the article due to their ambiguous entry. Equally the Sutton chronology of deaths is useful for basic research, but it gives very little information on each death and I'm inclined to think any person or people killed that are significant enough to be mentioned in this article or the main article will have been covered in books. I'm probably of the same opinion on the large amount of background information they host on their site, given the amount of literature on the conflict we don't generally need to cite the CAIN website for much. I'm not on favour of a blanket prohibition as already stated, as there may be occasions when it's the only reference available. The Sutton figures are good though, since they are based on the book Malcolm Sutton published and as Details of the Updates and Revisions to the Information on Deaths shows there's been ongoing updates to the figures ever since. It would be unreasonable to insist on using only the 1993 book figures, or indeed the 2002 figures as discussed at #CAIN figures above. FDW777 (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence referenced to Sutton removed 

message: Gary McGladdery's book contains a chronology, detailing eight attacks on different days in 1981. Removed the sentence. FDW777 (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Between 1977 and 1989 there was no year in which IRA attacks in England occurred on more than four days"