Talk:Real Irish Republican Army/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

What?

The bombers could not find a parking space near the intended target of the courthouse, and the car was left 400 metres away

This is just one person's opinion (okay, two people, but the point is still the same). Some RUC officers and some of the victims families believe that the IRA deliberately targeted the crowd of innocent people at Market Street. The 'Omagh bombing' article itself does a better job of representing all points of view. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 02:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not just the opinion of one person, or even two people, it's a fact. Do you know where that information came from? That's from Michael McKevitt's court case - used by the prosecution to convict him. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it's a moot point since the two views are not mutually exclusive. The bombers could have missed their target, the courthouse, and then deliberately led people to where the bomb ended up. Or they could have given false warnings by accident. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to prefer sources that have actually gone over what happened in detail, as the book has analysing all the events and sources. Random quotes to the media are just that, they aren't necessarily informed opinions or based on anything but speculation or bias, so I'm never keen on them. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand. I don't disagree with you; it's just that I think the wording The bombers could not find a parking space near the intended target of the courthouse, and the car was left 400 metres away.[20][21] As a result three inaccurate telephone warnings were issued, and the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) believed the bomb was actually located outside the courthouse. is a little bit problematic. Why not delete the words "As a result", which might imply that the false warnings were accidental, and just have it say: The bombers could not find a parking space near the intended target, the courthouse, and the car was left 400 metres away from it.[20][21] Three inaccurate telephone warnings were issued, and the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) believed the bomb was actually located outside the courthouse.? 24.32.208.58 (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I made the change. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I changed it back. The inaccurate warnings were as a result of the parking problems - sourced fact from reliable sources. Leaving out "As a result" panders to the rent-a-quote mob, such as Ronnie Flanagan. Let's not forget he made that comment the same day as the bombing, without even the benefit of a single piece of evidence to support it (a bit like the Hoey case!!). One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The inaccurate warnings were as a result of the parking problems - sourced fact from reliable sources. I'm not disputing that some RS say that the bad warnings were accidental. But Flanagan's point of view shouldn't be ignored. When he made his early statement, he was relying on the fact that the warnings 1) mentioned 'Main Street' when no 'Main Street' existed at the time and 2) were hundreds of yards off from the actual bomb. He also knew that militant Republicans had deliberately targeted civilians before-- see Harrods bombing. I may be wrong at this, but I don't think-- after all that's happened-- Flanagan has ever changed his mind on the subject. Anyways, Flanagan is not alone his views. During the Hoey case, the prosecution argued along the same lines. "He said three telephoned warnings received before the bomb went off were "not only wrong but were meaningless. It would be argued, he said, that the warnings given made it inevitable that any evacuation would be to "the very area of the parked car bomb". If the bombers had genuinely wished to avoid deaths and injury, they could easily have given a description of the vehicle and an accurate description of its location, as they had done in previous bombings, he said." -- [1]

If RS disagree, than either both views should be represented-- which is what 'Omagh bombing' does-- or neither should be mentioned-- which would mean taking out as a result. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The Telegraph has also stated that the inaccurate warnings were not accidental, stating that "An Irish newspaper received a coded warning prior to the explosion in Omagh, but it was deliberately misleading. It said the bomb was "near the courthouse". It was at the other end of the street, more than 400 yards away, and bomb disposal teams were sent off-track." 24.32.208.58 (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Flanagan's point of view should be expressly ignored. What is it based on? A whole lot of nothing. It's a quote he gave to the media without any evidence to back up hid claim and before the investigation had even started properly.

Harrods bombing "deliberately targeted civilians"?! Hilarious.

I've looked at all those sources, and they all pre-date McKevitt's trial. And none of them contradict the events of the day. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at all those sources, and they all pre-date McKevitt's trial. The prosecution argument in the Hoey case was made Tuesday, 26 September 2006.

Yes, Flanagan's point of view should be expressly ignored. What is it based on? A whole lot of nothing. How do you know that? Yes, he did make the statement right after the bombing and before the investigation ran its course. But he's never gone back on it. And he's not alone in his opinion, as the 2006 The Independent story reports. The day after the Kennedy assassination, Hoover told Johnson that Oswald was the lone assassin. He never changed his views, and- today- most serious academic scholars agree with Hoover. Flanagan based his opinion on the fact that the bombers could have given the correct street address, but they gave a false one, they could have given a description of the car like they did in other attack warnings, but they didn't, and so on.

Harrods bombing "deliberately targeted civilians"?! Hilarious. That's a bad example since the PIRA didn't authorize it, but one could easily find other incidents where the PIRA deliberately targeted innocent people such as Bloody Friday (1972) for one-- which they eventually apologised for. There's also the incident where the PIRA put a bomb in a toliet in the London Stock Exchange. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Bloody Friday didn't target civilians, so it's a very bad example. Neither did the Stock Exchange bomb. If you're going to target civilians, why give a warning? Even the chairman of the Exchange said "If the purpose of this callous act was to bring the City to a halt, they have failed singularly; our systems and services have functioned perfectly, and trading has continued as normal", so it's obvious he doesn't think it was intended to kill civilians. Yet someone you seem to think otherwise?! The Omagh bombers didn't give a false warning as such, as the people who planted the bomb didn't issue the warning. That's why it all went wrong, again that was part of the evidence at McKevitt's trial and not from the defence, it was from the prosection. Flanagan based his opinion on nothing. Does anyone seriously believe that the RIRA deliberately caused the deaths of 29 people, which they knew would prompt a massive crackdown from both British and Irish law enforcement, and turn public opinion against them in a big way? Omagh killed the RIRA pretty much dead. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Bloody Friday didn't target civilians, so it's a very bad example. No. The PIRA explicitly targeted innocent civilians. On Agnes Street in Belfast, the Provos parked a car bomb in front of a group of Protestant homes in a residental area. They gave no warning whatsoever. No one, fortunately, ended up being killed or maimed in that incident. The same is not true for the innocent shoppers visiting the stores alongside Cavehill Road, in north Belfast. Again, the Provos gave no warning. Margaret O'Hare, a Catholic mother of seven children, died along with Brigid Murray, a sixty-five-year-old Catholic, and Stephen Parker-- a fourteen-year-old Protestant kid. This was sheer, unadultered murder. See CAIN. If an Isreali or American soldier did something like that, they would be court-martialed.

Flanagan based his opinion on nothing. The belief that the warnings were deliberately misleading is the belief recently put forth by the Queens Counsel, as evidenced by a reliable source. In previous attack warnings, the RIRA gave accurate locations, accurate times, and accurate descriptions of the vehicles carrying the bombs. They did not do so in Omagh. Assuming, just for the sake of arguement, that the fact that every single part of the warnings were false was purely accidental, why didn't the RIRA tell the RUC what the car looked like or what plates it had? If they did it in warnings for other bombings, why on earth didn't they do it in Omagh?

Does anyone seriously believe that the RIRA deliberately caused the deaths of 29 people, which they knew would prompt a massive crackdown from both British and Irish law enforcement, and turn public opinion against them in a big way? You could say the exact same thing about the Provos during Bloody Friday-- the deaths of Irish Catholic civilians at their hands caused a serious backlash, as the BBC has noted. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) "No. The PIRA explicitly targeted innocent civilians." - please, stop with your unsourced propaganda. There's nothing in the source provided that says the IRA didn't send a warning, only that the people didn't receive one. Different thing entirely. How do you know what the target was? You don't! Operations were frequently abandoned due to the presence of security forces, simply because the car was left in one place doesn't mean it was the target. Try reading the sources - Richard English says "Warnings had been given, but because of the number of bombs and the scale of the operation, these were simply insufficient to avoid awful casualties". Mallie & Bishop say - "The Provisionals immediately accepted responsibility for the explosions and indignantly insisted that they had telephoned warnings about each bomb's position an hour or half an hour beforehand to three separate organisations [in addition to some hoax warnings]". Or how about what Martin Dillon says in respect to Bloody Friday - "A general warning is phoned to a newspaper officer with a code-word and then has to pass through several channels before it is acted upon. During that process, even a precise IRA message can result in a garbled version given to police on the streets". Robert White says "The IRA telephoned warnings, but there were too many of them in Belfast and not enough police, soldiers, and firefighters to cover them" etc etc etc. Yes - proper academic respects sources not some rent-a-quote gobshite on a website. Americans and Israeli soldiers do it all the time, and they get medals! How many pilots have ever been prosecuted for carpet bombing? Look at it all - Dresden, Coventry, Iraq etc etc.

And I really hate to break the news to you, but your reliable source (the QC) is talking a load of tosh. It's his job to make the person in the dock look bad. See Mooney and O' Toole - the RIRA had deliberately stopped giving overly specific warnings, as the RUC and British Army were getting to the bombs in time and defusing them, giving them valuable forensic evidence. "RUC Chief Constable Ronnie Flanagan said the warning had been totally inadequate" and "Although a warning was given, the information was inadequate" demonstrate that quite clearly, and they were before Omagh. Why didn't they do it in Omagh. Mooney and O'Toole (who are pretty anti-RIRA if you read the book) say various things...."Despite all he planning that went into the attack, the ASU did not know it was a festival weekend. The market town was filled with hundreds of shoppers and visitors. When the car drove into the town, the driver of the bomb car could not find a parking space near the court. In a moment of panic, he continued driving and pulling up outside SD Kells draper shop at 35-37 Barket Street. It was nowhere near Omagh Court" and "There was a flurry of calls from the bomb car whose occupants were trying to give the prices details of where the bomb car had been parked" (note that they didn't telephone any of the warnings, that was done by other people). As for your last point, that adequately demonstrates my point. The RIRA were well aware that every time an IRA bomb accidentally killed a large number of people, there was a backlash against it. So the RIRA, a fledgling organisation that had nowhere near the level of public support as the IRA did in 1972, why would they do it? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

How do you know what the target was? You don't! Try reading the sources I know what the sources say. The fundamental thing is that the Provos didn't attack legitimate military targets on Bloody Friday. They bombed commerical shops, they bombed peoples' homes, they bombed a bus depot, they bombed a railway station, and so on and so on. Are you saying that almost every single place that was attacked on Bloody Friday was not originally planned to be a target? Also, what about the hoax warnings that were issued? Like the BBC reported, "Ultimately Bloody Friday revealed a side to the organisation that many who had joined in the wake of Bloody Sunday had not wished to acknowledge."

And I really hate to break the news to you, but your reliable source (the QC) is talking a load of tosh. So, he contradicts other sources. In that case, both views should be fairly represented.

So the RIRA, a fledgling organisation that had nowhere near the level of public support as the IRA did in 1972, why would they do it? Look, that's the same question you could ask at many points of Irish history. Why would the Paras shoot a peaceful, unarmed civil rights activist waving white on Bloody Sunday when they knew that it would motivate dozens and dozens of people to join the IRA? Why would the Tans open fire on a crowd of sporting participants on the earlier Bloody Sunday when they knew that it would generate a wave of outrage against the British in the Anglo-Irish war? It goes on. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Try reading the Green Book or any of the sources I've just quoted, perhaps then you'll understand what I'm talking about, instead of relying on news reports or your own imagination. And no, your "reliable source" doesn't contradict other sources, he's demonstrably lying. Try reading WP:V, the spoken words of one person do not a reliable source make. As for your examples, you've missed the point in such a spectacular way there's nothing more needs to be said. Now unless you've got some proper sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy as opposed to random quotes, this discussion should come to an end. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

So you consider the Provo's propaganda manual to be a better factual source than the BBC? Look, I'm not going to argue with you further about whether or not the PIRA acted like a legitimate army. We can agree that it's not at all relevant to this article or to the Omagh bombing article.

When it comes to this article, I'm not going to start an edit war over just three simple words-- it's those kinds of violations of WP:Point that plague Northern Ireland articles (Note: I am not accusing you of doing that. I'm just saying that I've seen other registered users doing that). I'm fine with the three words staying in this article. I still strongly disagree about the 'Omagh bombing' article, but that's a discussion for that talk page and not for this one. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What propaganda manual? It's the IRA constitution, and it says exactly what their targets and objectives are. What have the BBC got to do with it? Don't you understand - the sources I've quoted you are people that have spent 20-30 years reporting on the conflict in Northern Ireland. They aren't some staff in a newsroom that don't even put their name to a report. The sources I quote are the bottom line for sourcing with regards to the Troubles (amongst others), there's none better. If you really want to work on these articles books are the way to go, not the crap you get online. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead

I added the fact that, today, they've said that they're resuming violence (not that they ever really stopped). I'm not sure whether or not this information should be in the lead or in a later section though. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD says it doesn't. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Right. The info is now in the 'activities' section. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I altered the rest of the article so that the dates are in the 8 February 2008 format. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (Pass)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. I have made a few minor grammatical edits to the article myself and there are two small notes below for regular contributors to consider, but the article is easily GA quality.

• The lead could do with expansion, as it is it only just covers the topic of the article.
• "the organisation became increasingly weaker" - why? Needs further explanation.

Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You know me and leads....I'll take a look at it later. The organisation getting weaker is further explained, in the sentences after it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case, the sentance should explain it better i.e. "a series of events during 2001 steadily weakened the organisation, a situation made worse by further infliltration by informers". As I said above though, the article is a good quality one.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Gun battle?

The so called "gun battle" between the RIRA and Gardai never took place. The RIRA never fired any shots. Ronan McLoughlin was killed as he tried to escape in a hijacked car. I'm editing the article accordingly.

Also check this RTE prouction on the icident (2008): http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=69udNoiPqoc —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkyMarkDCU (talk • contribs) 18:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

IMC Report

what is the right place for this text?

"In the Eighteenth Independent Monitoring Commission report the RIRA and its two factions were said to be active and dangerous. It tried to expand its capacity, and thus also remained a threat that was "capable of extreme violence." Despite this the IMC said there is reason to believe some members realise the futility of violent action"

it's not a subsequent activity b/c it talks about the future and the potential. Apparently it's none of these Return to activity, Renewed campaign in Northern Ireland, and Structure and status. So where else should it go? Into a new section? Lihaas (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

'Subsequent activity' works for me, but feel free to create a new subsection - there will undoubtedly be more IMC reports, after all. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It does not belong anywhere in its present format, please do not blindly add back information without reading it properly first and ensuring it is appropriate in the current context of the article. Domer48_'fenian' 18:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough. But where would it go and in what format? Surely reccomendation of the newest IMC report have some indication of where the group is heading? Give some alternate solution so we progress beyond reverting edits. Lihaas (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Rather than blanking referenced content with edit summaries like "Please read what you are adding before blindly reverting", would you care to explain exactly what is wrong with the content, Domer? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 20:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting you haven't read the article or the addition before reverting, please don't revert without doing so in future. Could you explain what is right with it? Domer48_'fenian' 20:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop playing games. What's your point, do you want it to go in chronologically, or what? Or just censor it? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 20:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read the article properly, then see if the addition made sense. You will see it did not. Domer48_'fenian' 20:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I had already read the articlle properly. I have just re-read it. The addition seems absolutely fine to me. As you have refused to explain why this referenced material should not be included, I am restoring it. Do not delete it again or you will be reported. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Bastun: I think your idea about a new section for future reports was better. perhaps one of these days someone can mention the first 16 reports, and also the next howsoevermany that may come. Lihaas (talk) 00:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I also posted this question of RepublicanJacobite talk page, and he has not responded to the query either on his page, my page, or on the discussion page. Honestly, if ya'll think it's inappropriate then DISCUSS it. Why is there a lack of discussion and simple reverts. Lihaas (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Domer48 and RepublicanJacobite - you are removing relevant and referenced material. The onus is on you to spell out why it should not be included, not on anyone else to work out why you think it shouldn't. Please engage properly in this discussion. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 07:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

"the RIRA and its two factions" makes no sense, as would have been clear if you had read and understood the article. If you need to be spoon-fed through editing articles that are too complex for you to understand, please recuse yourself from editing them in future. Thanks. Domer48_'fenian' 08:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks aside - two days ago, BigDunc removed this material because he says it was in the wrong section: "rv that's not structure or status". RepublicanJacobite says the same: "that information does not belong there". So do you: "stop adding things in completely the wrong place". It is only after I move it to the right place that we then get reverts from you and RJ saying it doesn't make sense, with no explanation of what doesn't make sense. This is a collaborative project - would it not have been simpler to move the information to the correct section, state your objections to the wording, and amend accordingly? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 08:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You said you have "no idea what the objections to the inclusion of the IMC report are" and you still reverted. You were asked a number of times by three editors to read it properly and see what the problem was and you still reverted. If you had read as suggested and understood the article you would have known stright away what the problem was, so the only possible reason you reverted was a) you did not read it or b)you read it and did not understand it. Either way you reverted. Having ignored your suggestion that I was out to censor material as simply your reaction to finding the article too complex for you to understand, I resorted to having to spoon-feed the reasons to you. Now your Ad hominem attacks aside, when three editors, with a real interest and understanding of a subject indicate a problem, don't just revert. This is a collaborative project, so if you have not got a clue about a subject, ask, don't just revert. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

So I can be told "read the article"? Both Lihaas and I did directly ask and the problem originally appeared to be and got nothing more than 'its in the wrong place' and 'read'. I have not made any ad hominem attacks - but your own incivility has been noted by an admin. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Re your recent edit, please, it's a poorly written and gramatically incorrect quotefarm. I would invite discussion on the talk page about what information from the report should be included and how on the talk page, instead of further edit warring by Bastun.--Domer48_'fenian' 13:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to the above queries about complexity. If it is too complex then in any regard it would need a revamp b/c the layman reading wikipedia is not versed in the intricacies of Irish politics. And secondly, as per Domer's latest response, discussion is what we wanted in the first place. So let's begin: how should it be rephrased and what should go? Lihaas (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

And while writing the above, including "instead of further edit warring by Bastun", Domer goes and reverts again. Consider this your 3rr warning. So - we've progressed from "it's in the wrong place" to "it doesn't make sense" to "a gramatically incorrect quotefarm". The two sections you've removed (both referenced) stated:

• Subsequent activities:

In the Eighteenth IMC report the RIRA were said to be active and dangerous. It tried to expand its capacity, and thus also remained a threat that was "capable of extreme violence." Despite this the IMC said there is reason to believe some members realise the futility of violent action.

• Structure and status:

The Eighteenth IMC report stated that there are at least two factions within the RIRA. Nothing wrong with quotes. In fact I recall you're quite fond of them. If grammar is a problem, then I'd suggest: In its Eighteenth IMC report, the RIRA were said to be active and dangerous. It had tried to expand its capacity, and thus also remained a threat that was "capable of extreme violence." Despite this, the IMC report stated that there is reason to believe some members realise the futility of violent action. No changes needed for second section. I await your response. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Lihaas, an editor willing to be constructive. "Eighteenth" is gramatically incorrect unless being used as part of the full title of the document. In addition you will notice that earlier references to IMC documents in the article itself use the publication date, rather than a meaningless number which does not tell the reader when events took place or things were said. Also you may with to review the rules of grammar regarding singular and plural entities, and not used incorrect mixed grammar within the same sentence, let alone the same article. But as you've been asked several times to read and understand the article, I'd have hoped you would have picked up on these problems. The combination of two seperate quotes from the report using the words "thus also" is synthesis and therefore not properly sourced. Many things from the report have been left out, yet others have been mentioned. What is the purpose of this selective quoting? Why should some things be included and not others? Why, in an article where all citations are properly formatted, is the quality of the article being degraded by the lazy, sloppy use of unformatted references? If you cannot edit an article and maintain the standard of quality already there, it is best if you do not degrade it with poor quality additions. I invite further discussion here on these issues raised. Domer48_'fenian' 17:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Then edit the quoted paragraph and make it better. All articles (all over wikipedia, not just wiki project ireland) start somewhere and go through a process of editing to make them better. Just as this one has. What other parts should be added in? Parts about the CIRA and INLA (and the 'new' IRLA) have been discussed elsewhere. Adding on to the quote would make it better. Bastun edited on a bit from the original. maybe an IMC section would be better then. Lihaas (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue is over the entire content of the quoted paragraph, so it is difficult to make better without discussion. I find your advice of "make it better" to be somewhat patronising, when it is your editing that "makes it worse". Domer48_'fenian' 18:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to 'making it better' in the original, when the 'edit war' was on. Originally I was adding what wasn't there. The latest in regards to what the governments (both dublin and london) regard as where the RIRA/CIRA stand. Likewise for the 'loyalists' (which I was going to do too).

So other than the grammar, which was editable, what more, content wise, should be added? Lihaas (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) :"It's in the wrong place" to "it doesn't make sense" to "a gramatically incorrect quotefarm" to content and synthesis problems. Oh dear. The relevant section of the IMC report states: "The factions of RIRA were thus active and dangerous during the six months under review. It was also determined to enhance its capacity, as the elaborate plans to secure weapons overseas indicated. It remains a threat and is capable of extreme violence. However there is reason to believe that some members are starting to realise the political futility of what they are doing." There is no synthesis in the first section you removed. You've been wrong about the interpretation of that policy before, though. In any case, any question of it is solved by replcing "thus also" with "and". Your points on singular/plural, the way report is termed, and the reference format are valid - but of course, you could have just fixed them rather than removing them. You have not addressed the removal of the second part, unless that's where you're talking about what should and shouldn't be included. I would have thought that a terrorist organisation of 150 members approx, splitting into two or more factions, would absolutely be worthy of inclusion. I therefore suggest including this text:

• Subsequent activities:

In its report of May 2008, the IMC stated that the RIRA continued to be active and dangerous. It had tried to expand its capacity, and also remained a threat that was "capable of extreme violence." Despite this, the IMC report stated that there is reason to believe that some members realise the futility of violent action.''

• Structure and status:

The IMC's report of May 2008 stated that there are at least two factions within the RIRA. If there is further material you deem worthy of inclusion, please let us know what it is. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 18:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

As this similar discussion shows, combining two different points together with language making a link not present in the original source is synthesis, so it looks as though I am right as I usually am. You have not answered the questions, the most important one being why is much of the information from the report excluded, while other information is included? The burden of evidence lies with the editors wishing to include material, so why is this information worthy of inclusion yet all the other information is not worth of inclusion? Domer48_'fenian' 18:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the point of the discussion for addition. So tell us what other info you think ought to be added? Trying to suppress certain info by asking why other stuff is not added doesn't quite help out. We gave you credit where do, but that doesn't mean it all has to be removed. Lihaas (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to suppress anything. I'm in favour of an accurate, balanced and properly sourced summary being added. Domer48_'fenian' 18:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Me too! Now, Lihaas and I have indicated what we want included, and you've been invited to do the same. (And, obviously, on the synthesis point, while I still disagree with you, we can simply remove the "and", making two sentences and avoiding the whole argument entirely). As an aside, given your opposition to editors with poor grammar, I presume you choose not to watchlist a certain pugilistic series of articles? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 19:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are you interested in including some information at the expense of other information? I am not convinced at the inclusion of the faction information, especially when more pertinent information is left out. The IMC report gives little information about the factions, for example why are there two factions, do they have different goals and so on. Perhaps more information will be available in the next report, but right now it seems like a small fact that asks more questions than it gives answers. I note the addition has been made yet again without taking into account the points raised so far, and I have restored the status quo while discussion takes place. Domer48_'fenian' 17:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

We have asked time and time again what more should be added? What can be edited at this point? Removing everything verges on censorship b/c it is cited. It is a section dealing with what the IMC says, not what is NOT said. This is not an article about the various factions to deal with why they exist and what their goals. The IMC report simply said there are at least 2 factions. it is a mere citation on what the IMC said about the RIRA. If you want to add anything else the IMC said, of if you want to coutner the IMC with claims from another reputable source, then by all means do so. Lihaas (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Just again reverted the removal of refernced material. There is no wiki policy that justifies its removal. You have also removed referenced material from the Chronology of Continuity IRA actions article, with an edit summary of "rv unsourced". What is your agenda here? The IMC is a reliable source. The information is relevant to the articles in question. If you wish to add additional information, from the IMC or elsewhere, that is reliable sourced, by all means do so - but do not remove relevant, referenced material. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly "In the IMC report of May 2008 there are of at least two factions" is not even English, this is the English language Wikipedia so please write in the English language. Yet again you have failed to answer why you selectively quoting from the IMC report yet leaving out other pertinent facts. You are making the edits in question, it is your responsibility to explain why you are not presenting an accurate, balanced summary from the report. The edit still fails basic grammar, is contrary to the manual of style and is poorly formatted. Why are you intent on degrading the quality of the article with this slipshod editing? Until my questions have been answered, this disputed addition should remain out. Domer48_'fenian' 23:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again you can EDIT instead of removing the text if it is poor english. We don't think it's selective that's why we have asked you to explain what you want added in. What from the report is missing. What is selective? It is a statement of what was in the IMC report, not anyone's idea of what should be in the report. You are not here to manage the content of wikipedia, if you don't like it edit it for style. We have time and time again repeated what you want in. This is bordering on censorship! Lihaas (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Do I have to post the text of the report verbatim to show which parts you have left out? If you would like me to, just ask. I notice in your edit you even added back the "thus also" which was wholly disputed, can you explain why you did this please? Domer48_'fenian' 07:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you don't, just what you want to include - as has been said above. And no, check again, I didn't reinsert "thus also". Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 08:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

external links

what is jane's intelligence review doing as an external link? It can be cited if a reliable source, but it has no official affiliation or representation with RIRA as far as I can see. External links is not for reference to any and all sites affiliated with the subject on hand. What is the justification for putting this in? Lihaas (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Domer48/BigDunc tag-team reverting

Why are ye removing a US Government source for the FTO status of the RIRA, replacing it with a BBC news report? BigDunc's edit summary says: "Rv unformatted reference that doesn't source the sentence in the article". The source does indeed source the sentence in the article. If its unformatted nature offends you - ignore it, or format it. I've readded this reference, and added some more info to it. Please stop the tag-team reverting. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The ref you use does in fact state what the sentence says and I will have a go at the format of it when I get the chance. BigDunc^Talk 15:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! At least you've acknowledged your mistake - we all make them. A certain other editor just sees an edit by me, reverting you, and goes on autopilot... Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to put in the second one but edit conflict with Batun so it is in now. BigDunc^Talk 15:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That source does not source that the Real IRA were originally designated in 2001. So why was a perfectly reliable source that was properly formatted and that did source the sentence in the article replaced by a source that wasn't properly formatted and did not source the sentence in the article? The only answer I can think of is a desire to be wilfully disruptive and to ruin the article. Why was the original source changed in the first place? Domer48_'fenian' 15:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The sentence immediately preceding the source quotation was changed for an official source. Getting the dictate from the horse's mouth itself was better than a media source that didn't have the authority itself to designate. At any rate now both sources are there, yet you have added the citation needed tag. Wouldn't that have been necessary in the first place too then? Anyhoo, my bad. We worked through this. Lihaas (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Why was a perfectly reliable source that was properly formatted and that did source the sentence in the article be replaced by a source that wasn't properly formatted and did not source the sentence in the article? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Read the source and then come back and ask this question. Either or the responses further up this thread will answer your question. Lihaas (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Where in the source does it say the Real IRA were designated in 2001? Just answer that one question please Domer48_'fenian' 19:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You're really claiming the most important thing in that sentence is the date?! Whatever - fixed. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 21:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't refering to the date when I made my comment above. Surely this proves that no tag team action was taking place as myself and Domer were in fact reverting seperate things. Please stop this silly play acting now. I have semi retired on wiki at the moment as I don't need this BS about tag teams and edit warring it is frankly beneath me. And TU sending emails left right and center to anyone he feels is of loyalist sympathies as can be seen with the verbatim responses by the Thunderer and now Setanta. When challenged on anything. BigDunc^Talk 11:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously in hindsight you weren't tag-teaming here, BigDunc, and apologies. But Domer's revert with the edit summary "Per BigDunc" says plenty about his motivation. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I see you are now adding factually incorrect information to this article, please stop. The designation of the Real IRA was not "extended" in 2003, that only applies to various groups that were initially designated in 1997 or 1999. The source makes that perfectly clear, the ones in the first list had their designation "extended", the others remained so but clearly their designation was not due to lapse so no "extension" was required. Domer48_'fenian' 21:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Quote from article: "makes it illegal for Americans to provide material support to the RIRA, requires US financial institutions to freeze the group's assets and denies suspected RIRA members visas into America.[105]" Quote from the state.gov: "act makes it illegal for persons in the United States or subject to U.S. jurisdiction to provide material support to these terrorist groups. It requires U.S. financial institutions to block assets held by them; and it enables us to deny visas to representatives of these groups"

at any rate, it also shows the RIRA as being designated previously. Lihaas (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Did the BBC article not provide all that information already? Are the BBC not reliable enough for you? Domer48_'fenian' 21:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

true ira?

the source doesn't confirm the 'true ira' as the same RIRA (proper noun) merely saying it was a 'real' ira. Lihaas (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)