Talk:Real Irish Republican Army

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleReal Irish Republican Army has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 23, 2007Good article nomineeListed
February 21, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

Infobox edits[edit]

Please (a) point-out the incorrect information added in this edit and (b) explain why Template:Infobox organization is more suited to this article than Template:Infobox militant organization ~Asarlaí 14:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point out (a) the correct information you added, bearing in mind I know full well about what you consider correct (informers are "members of the security forces", yeah right....) and (b) why you think the newer version is more suited, excepting the name of the infobox. 2 lines of K303 11:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What a childish attempt at a counter-argument.
I added the following information (which you insist is "incorrect"):
  • That the RIRA has been active in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and England (i.e. that it has carried-out attacks in those jurisdictions). Such information is obviously important and is given in the infoboxes of all the other paramilitaries. It's also in this very article, supported by numerous sources. However, as you insist that's "incorrect" then perhaps you should start a discussion. Better yet, you could just remove all that information willy nilly.
  • That the RIRA's ideology is Irish republicanism (hint: the clue's in the name). Again, such information is obviously important and is given in the infoboxes of all the other paramilitaries. It's also so obvious that it hardly needs a source, but you'll find them in the article anyway. However, if you insist that's "incorrect" then perhaps you should do something about it.
  • That the RIRA carried-out the 1998 Omagh bombing, 2001 BBC bombing, 2001 Ealing bombing and 2009 Massereene attack. Yet again, that fact is noted in all of those articles and is supported by sources.
The infobox I added is more suited to this article because:
  • It has a field for "area of operations"
  • It has a field for "ideology" and a field for "motives"
  • It has a field for "notable attacks"
  • It has a field for "financing"
  • It doesn't have a pointless map with a tiny Northern Ireland highlighted in orange
~Asarlaí 12:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've somehow failed to mention the two other changes you made, perhaps you'd like to mention those so we can carry on? As those might just be the problem here eh? 2 lines of K303 13:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've somehow failed to address any of the points I made and failed to show how anything I added was "incorrect". But anyway, please enlighten us. What were the other two changes I made that introduced "incorrect information"? ~Asarlaí 15:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The meaning of "perhaps you'd like to mention those so we can carry on" was quite clear, but since you're not prepared to I'll do it for you. There is your edit. You added a field with a display title of "Leader" and an entry of "Army Council". The Army Council has seven people on it, it isn't a leader (singular). It does appear you have difficulty with plurals, since you claimed a single revert was reverts (plural). Obviously you can dispute you added it if you want, but you completely removed the old infobox and *added* a different one, therefore anything in it you added. Similarly you added "Dates of operation" with an entry of "November 1997 – present", this isn't correct. Now we've got some of your errors out of the way, on to the rest:
  • A field for area of operations you added misleading information to, since they aren't active in the Republic of Ireland in a similar way to Northern Ireland and England
  • A field for ideloogy you aded "Irish republicanism" to, which is redundant to the opening line of the article
  • Two of the "notable attacks" are already covered in the lead, and the other two aren't really that notable at all. The articles are little more than Wikinews fodder
  • A field for financing that isn't even used....
  • Are you suggesting the map is compulsory in the other infobox? 2 lines of K303 11:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At last we get an explanation, and it only took five days! Now let me deal with your points:
  • A council is plural in that it consists of more than one person, so it doesn't matter whether the title is "leader" or "leaders". However, if you're afraid readers will think the RIRA is led by "Mr/Ms Army Council" you can always change it to "Army Council (consisting of seven members)" or likewise.
  • The dates of operation are correct. The RIRA has been operating (which includes more than just launching attacks) since it formed in November 1997. The fact that it was briefly on ceasefire makes no difference – see the infoboxes for the other paramilitaries and for the Provisional IRA campaign.
  • The area of operations is correct. The RIRA has been active in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and England. The fact that it has been less active in the Republic of Ireland and England doesn't matter here. Again, see the infoboxes for the other paramilitaries.
  • As for the infobox repeating things that are already in the lede: that's what infoboxes are meant to do. Both the lede and the infobox are meant to contain key information about the subject. Thus, it's inevitable that both will contain much of the same information.
~Asarlaí 12:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you don't even know the difference between four and five (or one and five to be truly accurate), you really do struggle with numbers don't you?
  • Erm, no because we're not changing to that infobox at the moment. You go butcher the English language somewhere else, not a GA.
  • The dates of operation are not correct. The date of formation is not the same as the start date of the date of operations. It is completely misleading to say so, especially when a book disagrees with your fantasy. Did I even mention ceasefires? You don't have the intellect to know what I'm thinking, so I wouldn't waste your time assuming you do.
  • The Real IRA is not "less active" in the Republic of Ireland, try reading about the history of it and every other modern variant of the IRA.
  • Says who? You act like you're adding new useful information, you're not. If your only argument is that you're adding a new field that duplicates the lead, that's less than nothing.
I see you've quietly conceded on three points already, only four more to go then I can do something constructive again. 2 lines of K303 10:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Take your head out of your arse. Nothing has been conceded and your points have been rebutted. Your latest bullet-pointed dregs don't even merit being called 'arguments'.
I never expected this discussion to go anywhere and nor did I care. I knew from the beginning you'd find a silly excuse to remove the new infobox and then make a fool of yourself on the talkpage (again). You've delivered spectacularly. As myself and others know all too well, one cannot edit the articles of which you seemingly claim ownership unless those edits have your consent. This is just another of the articles that you'll undoutedly continue to smother.
By the way, you should probably learn to count first before accusing others of struggling with numbers: ~11AM on 20 January (when you made the revert) until ~11AM on 25 January (when you finally explained yourself) is roughly five days. Hint: it's the same number of digits on your hand (that means fingers and thumbs). ~Asarlaí 17:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm here, you may want to look up the definition of "refute" before using it again. It doesn't mean "ignore points completely". 2 lines of K303 13:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended the heading for this section per WP:TPG (don't refer to other editors in headings). I also want to point out that one revert is not the same as "reverts". ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 16:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SOLID PROOF WIKIPEDIA NEEDS AN INBUILT CALCULATOR FOLKS. Hurrr hurrr. I want to point out some separate issues I have with the info-box. Firstly, the image, of Northern Ireland shown within the UK seems rather strange and unnecessary. The description below too. This is probably down to the lack of free images to do with the RIRA, mind. Secondly, "membership - Unknown" (hurrr, I'm not volunteering, I think being bought up in England, Female and Jewish would weigh against me ;D) - just inquiring as to what membership exactly entails in this place and why it's "unknown" - this seems to be an info-box parameter issue to do with ambiguity and something that frequently comes up with Info-boxes. Thanks. --Nutthida (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since when has being English and female been a bar on membership? Remove it if you want, improvements from constructive good faith editors are always welcome. Photos are like you say, free images are a bit thin on the ground and the infobox looks a bit feeble without some sort of image. Still, at least it's correct and free from grammatical disasters :) 2 lines of K303 13:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh great[edit]

See this. So where are we going to put the new article, assuming we're creating one (which might not be the case yet, there's no immediate rush). 2 lines of K303 19:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources[edit]

This is just a throwaway line claiming the [Provisional] IRA have disbanded. It gives no indication as to the source of this claim, or when it happened, and there hasn't been any announcement of it happening either. In my opinion, it clearly doesn't meet the requirement for an exceptional source for what is an exceptional claim. 2 lines of K303 21:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strength[edit]

I've seen numerous articles in the guardian that say their numbers are around 700 after their recent merger. I can't find those articles right now but I did find one that says about 600 people are members. So I think 700-600 is a decent number.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-19014981 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onthehook (talk • contribs) 02:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has someone exact dates about the real strenght of the RIRA? Dissident Group rises in strenght, now more then 600 - The Five Demands english-italian irish Article says have 600 man.--Nicholas Urquhart (talk) 06:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC article says "600 people involved in dissident republican activity"; it doesn't specify Real IRA. The Italian article links to this Irish Times article of October 2010, which says "membership of the different groupings is now over 600", again without saying how many of those are Real IRA. Best to wait until there is something specific. Scolaire (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cease to exist?[edit]

The "Merge with other groups" section—which has been copied verbatim into the lead—says that "the Real IRA would subsequently cease to exist as a separate entity." However, newspaper and television reports of the death and funeral of Alan Ryan in September 2012 all refer to the Real IRA, not to the "new group". I think that that bit should come out, or at least out of the lead, since there is no evidence that it reflects the reality on the ground. Scolaire (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article title[edit]

I want to float this idea before going to an RM. It seems to me that there is no such organisation as the "Real Irish Republican Army". It is referred to by the media and in books as the "Real IRA", and of course it refers to itself simply as the "Irish Republican Army". Here is Google News for "Real Irish Republican Army" versus Google News for "Real IRA". And here is the Google Ngram for "Real Irish Republican Army" v "Real IRA". Per COMMONNAME this should be moved to Real IRA, and the abbreviation expanded/explained in the lead. Scolaire (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand terrorist list[edit]

How significant is it that the RIRA is on the New Zealand list of terrorists? Have they carried out attacks there? Have they carried out fundraising there on any scale? Is New Zealand a major world power? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Scolaire (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NZ is a member of the British Commonwealth. It is also a very strategically important part of the West's Pacific defense, due to its location. 98.67.185.241 (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
West Pacific defense doesn't seem incredibly big when talking about internal Irish conflict. Torisien (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Real Irish Republican Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a new article?[edit]

Clearly, the New IRA is a new group formed through the mergers. Several journalists have said that the Real IRA is now inactive, which isn't a surprise considering we've got the New IRA since 2012. Is it time to create a new New IRA article and call the Real IRA defunct? --Gateshead001 (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am of the opinion that the New IRA should be part of a new article. If we can build enough evidence to state that the Real IRA is inactive (which should be easy enough, in my opinion) then we can start working on an article for the new group. st170etalk 18:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New IRA and RIRA[edit]

There is no consensus to split New IRA and RIRA into different articles, nor is there a consensus to refer to them as different organizations. DarjeelingTea (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should New IRA have its own article? Should we refer to the New IRA and the RIRA as different organizations? Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment added RfC tags to this for further input. st170etalk 14:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the minute, I'm of the view that the New IRA is a part of the RIRA; the merger simply incorporated more into RIRA. To suggest that the RIRA has 'gone away' by changing everything to past tense is ridiculous. st170etalkThey're the c3:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose split. Per this Irish Times article: "The New IRA is an amalgamation of the Real IRA, Republican Action Against Drugs and a loose collection of “blooded” dissident republicans. The different groupings came together in 2012 under the banner of 'the IRA'." That definitely sounds like the Real IRA formed the core of the New IRA, since Republican Action Against Drugs doesn't seem as major an organization, and the "loose collection of 'blooded' dissident republicans" definitely isn't at the level of the IRA. This article isn't that long, so unless there's a length reason to split, it seems like it would make sense to keep the articles together. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Theyre the core of the New IRA, not the New IRA. That Irish Times article proves what I'm saying. They're different organizations. Apollo The Logician (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding myself aligned with Patar knight. It seems like a spin off and the RIRA forms the core of it. At the minute, New IRA redirects to Real Irish Republican Army, but I'll change it to the correct section of the article. It seems like it makes sense to keep them together. On the other hand though, I can see the merits for having a new article and a hat note redirecting to the new article from the RIRA, but then it implies that the RIRA has gone away which isn't the case. I'm pinging Hohenloh who has edited this section before on multiple occasions for their views. st170etalk 16:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the very least the article should be changed so that it is clear the RIRA is a part of the New IRA and not the New IRA. Apollo The Logician (talk) 11:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From The Guardian article. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jul/26/ira-northern-ireland-dissident-republican-groups
"Three of the four main dissident republican terror groups in Northern Ireland are to merge and reclaim the banner of the IRA, in an escalation of attempts to de-stabilise power sharing.
The Real IRA has been joined by Republican Action Against Drugs, which has been running a violent vigilante campaign in Derry, and a coalition of independent armed republican groups – leaving only the Continuity IRA outside the new group."
and "Republican Action Against Drugs and the Real IRA will cease to exist, one source close to the dissidents said.
The new organisation is planning to intensify terror attacks on the security forces and other targets related to what it regards as symbols of the British presence, according to the source."
and lastly "Until this week there were four separate violent groups opposed to Sinn Féin's peace strategy. As a result of this merger three republican terror groups have become one, reclaiming the banner of the IRA:" Apollo The Logician (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback is appreciated. Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'The Real IRA has been joined by (RAAD)...' this just implies that they've joined the RIRA and are operating under the New IRA name. Same organisation, different name. st170etalk 16:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you ignore everything said in The Guardian article and this Belfast Telegraph article. Notice the emphasis on new .http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/new-ira-publicity-stunt-or-real-cause-for-concern-28775752.html
"The Real IRA, Republican Action Against Drugs (RAAD), and a group of independent republicans — responsible for the Massereene soldier killings and murdering police officer Ronan Kerr — have merged to form a single organisation calling itself the IRA."
"But a source within the new group told this newspaper"
"The Real IRA had a sizeable membership across Northern Ireland and in parts of the Republic — with a high proportion of young activists. It was the best armed of the three organisations."Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.thejournal.ie/republican-groups-form-new-ira-535041-Jul2012/ Anotherr article from the journal.ie
"THREE MAJOR dissident republican groups in Northern Ireland have merged to form a new group under the name of the Irish Republican Army"
From the articles from The Guardian, The Belfast Telegraph and The Journal we get a clear impression that the RIRA etc are no longer in existence and have merged to form a new organization.Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We can't definitively say that the RIRA is no longer in existence. I'd be open to the idea of having a short piece about the New IRA on the RIRA page and then a link to another article, but I'm still uncertain. Let's wait for others to contribute. st170etalk 03:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose split because this is a social media gimmick to attract attention, and not "new" in any sense. Comments above like - "The Real IRA had a sizeable membership across Northern Ireland and in parts of the Republic — with a high proportion of young activists. - don't tell us anything. Sizeable could be 30 or 3,000, and no names are mentioned.78.18.254.101 (talk) 12:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose split implies that RIRA does not exist. It's just the contemporary form and should not be split from the main article. st170e 18:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to the sources, that is the case Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why not place it under a new section on the RIRA article? st170e 18:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why not delete the workers party of ireland page and put it under a new section in the Sinn Fein page? Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, I dunno - possibly WP:POINTY, I guess? Why are you talking about the Worker's Party of Ireland and Sinn Féin on the RIRA page? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bastun: Why are you following me around like a lost puppy? Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been on my watchlist since I first contributed to it nearly 10 years ago. Get over yourself. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Up until two days ago I had member come across you. Now I see you everywhere. Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RIRA and New IRA[edit]

The media refers to them as different organizations, the media is a reliable source. The New IRA is a merger of RIRA and other groups not the real IRA itself. Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See above RfC. Edits on controversial topics such as this should only take place with consensus. st170etalk 14:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Care to comment then? Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

bumped to generate discussion Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Discussion[edit]

Since a separate article has been created for the New Irish Republican Army, should we declare RIRA defunct on this page or should we merge the two articles? Charles Essie (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the RIRA is defunct. All sources above say so. Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Charles Essie: The above RfC concluded that consensus doesn't exist to split the articles or consensus to refer to them as different organisations. st170e 10:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Should we merge the two articles then? Charles Essie (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is from my understanding that the author of the New IRA page copied the information from the RIRA in a cut+paste move. We could just revert that. st170e 01:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merging New Irish Republican Army into this article[edit]

New Irish Republican Army should be merged into this article as they are the same organization, the only thing that happened is some groups joined the RIRA. The articles are also very similar and have no really different information. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 22:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - the New Irish Republican Army is a copy-and-paste creation against the consensus of the RfC and discussions above. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It is clear they are different orgsnisations. Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it? According to both articles "New IRA" is just what they're being referred as in the press. F.Y.I. I'm neutral for now. Charles Essie (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Charles Essie:It is a new organisation. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jul/26/ira-northern-ireland-dissident-republican-groups "Three of the four main dissident republican terror groups in Northern Ireland are to merge and reclaim the banner of the IRA, in an escalation of attempts to de-stabilise power sharing.
The Real IRA has been joined by Republican Action Against Drugs, which has been running a violent vigilante campaign in Derry, and a coalition of independent armed republican groups – leaving only the Continuity IRA outside the new group."
and "Republican Action Against Drugs and the Real IRA will cease to exist, one source close to the dissidents said.
The new organisation is planning to intensify terror attacks on the security forces and other targets related to what it regards as symbols of the British presence, according to the source."
and lastly "Until this week there were four separate violent groups opposed to Sinn Féin's peace strategy. As a result of this merger three republican terror groups have become one, reclaiming the banner of the IRA:" Apollo The Logician (talk)
You just copied and pasted that from the debate above, which was closed on 30th January with a finding of "There is no consensus to split New IRA and RIRA into different articles, nor is there a consensus to refer to them as different organizations." - but you went ahead and did it anyway. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That may be, but it doesn't refute that source. Charles Essie (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As Charles says that is irrelevant. Also I created the article before that discussion and actually forgot about it.Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. There shouldn't be two articles. Maybe this should be re-named to match the new name, but the per the sources, the core of the new organization is the former Real IRA, so there shouldn't be two articles, since they're largely the same. Maybe in the future if New IRA does a lot more stuff and size becomes an issue, we can split. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The source states that the Real IRA will cease to operate. That would make no sense. Also that is wild speculation, do you have any sources to back that up?Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Real IRA will cease to operate, as will Republican Action Against Drugs and "the coalition of independent armed republican groups". Of these three, the Real IRA would seem to be the core of this new group. It's essentially a continuation of the Real IRA with the other smaller groups folded into it. If the number of reliable sources calling it the New IRA is sufficient, this page can be moved, but until then, or until the page size becomes unwieldy, there should only be one article to avoid duplication. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The source states..." ~ the "source" is hardly authoritative. It's a single source speculating about what will happen at some future point. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restating that the Real IRA or what was the Real IRA is the core of the group does not answer my question. Would you at least agree that the article should stop refering to the Real IRA and the 'New IRA' as the same group. Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any references should use "Real IRA" in content about events before and during the merge and "New IRA" (which is apparently the new name) after that merge has been explained in the text for events where it is clear that it is the new merged group being referenced. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would at least agree that the consensus previously arrived at should be respected and that therefore New Irish Republican Army should be merged into this article. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the RfC above showed there was no consensus for a page split. The information was copied from here anyway. The 'New IRA' has its roots, origins and structure in the RIRA; they're just a bunch of dissidents that came under the banner of the RIRA. st170e 22:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per reasons stated above. With enough support I will now proceed with a merge. --Gateshead001 (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Real 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Real 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Real 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 May 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below; a split, etc., is outside the scope of this close. Dekimasuよ! 16:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Real Irish Republican Army → New Irish Republican Army – I am proposing moving this to New IRA, since that is (partly) the new name of the group. Alternatively, a separate New IRA article could be created to cover events since 2012 (if it's widely agreed that NIRA is a merger of Real IRA and other groups). The RIRA seems defunct - it has literally had no mention in the media since 2012, all replaced by NIRA. Gateshead001 (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose move, Support new NIRA article: This source, this one, and this seem to make it clear that the NIRA is not merely the renamed RIRA. The first source contains a detailed table of arrests which include NIRA members and their former affiliations. There are 31 NIRA members listed. 16 have no known prior affiliation, 7 were affiliated with the PIRA, 1 with the ONH, 1 with the IRA, 1 with the RAAD, and only 5 with the RIRA. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

March 2019: Should the article be split/renamed?[edit]

There is a consensus for the NIRA portion of this page to be spun off into a standalone article. Noting that Charles Essie has a draft article which is of sufficient quality to pass AfC: I shall do that as part of this process, and edit this page accordingly. SN54129 17:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Recently this group has gotten much attention again on the media, particularly the mainland, because of the Derry car bomb and the letter bombs sent to London & Glasgow. In all the media they are referred to as "New IRA" and not "Real IRA". Under WP:COMMONNAME policy it would make more sense for this article to be named after the New name which has been the case since 2012.

I support a splitting of the page because New IRA is an umbrella group. The same way, Republican Action Against Drugs is a separate page, and so should Real IRA be. The New IRA page would cover all events since it formed in 2012. --Mistyrama (talk) 12:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having checked Le Monde, I've hardly seen any coverage of the "New IRA" on the mainland. Le Monde, El Nuevo Dia and Corriere have nothing; Der Spiegel has one brief mention, an interview last year with Gerry Adams where he dismisses them as criminals. Maybe you could point out the mainland coverage? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the international newspapers but here are mainland sources from Sky News, The Mirror, The Sun, The Guardian, and Reuters: https://news.sky.com/story/ira-says-it-is-responsible-for-parcel-bombs-police-11662974, https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/new-ira-has-recruited-dozens-14093143, https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8570652/new-ira-terror-bombs-london-waterloo-heathrow-city-airport/, https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jan/20/northern-ireland-police-condemn-reckless-derry-bomb-attack, https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-nireland-blast/ira-claims-responsibility-for-londonderry-car-bomb-idUKKCN1PN1L0.
The point here is that the term "Real IRA" is no longer used, and that is because the "New IRA" has been the new umbrella group ever since 2012. --Mistyrama (talk) 13:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, the point here is you're saying "mainland sources" but none of the sources you're using are from the mainland (which, for reference, is continental Europe). They're just from Britain, which, like Ireland, is an island in the North Atlantic, off the coast of Europe. I mean, if you're going to argue about terminology, please be consistent. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No you're mistaken, I mean the British mainland, i.e. Great Britain, not anything to do with Europe. --Mistyrama (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but no. Another case of "Fog in Channel; Continent Cut Off"? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland is the mainland. North of Ireland is an artificial island. 47.137.181.252 (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and thanks for all your contributions! :-) Recent media coverage should not be the grounds for a move or retitle. Remember, wp:commonname applies to new articles. Although obviously it has weight when you talk about an existing topic that is now called something else. But moving a stable namespace based merely on a contemporary and perhaps not lasting reference to a different name is not a good plan. Do you have any reliable sources stating that the group itself now goes by the name the New IRA? Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to an interview[1] with the former commander of the Real IRA, John Connolly, he "said he regarded the breakaway group to be the true IRA." That being said, it seems like the media can't make up its mind: the NYT calls them the Real IRA but other publications refer to the "New" IRA as dissidents. Realizar (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to update and add that the EU calls them the "new IRA" per UK naming of the group, according to the [2]. Realizar (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, "dissidents" here is shorthand for dissident republican, i.e. Irish republicans who reject the the peace process. Most dissident paramilitary organisations call themselves "the Irish Republican Army", but are dubbed "Real IRA", "New IRA", "Continuity IRA", etc. by the media in order to distinguish them. Zcbeaton (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for splitting The Irish Examiner has published an interview with Dr Dieter Reinisch, "a leading historian and republican researcher", who says that the Real IRA has remained separate from the New IRA in parts of Ireland, particularly in Cork and to some extent in Dublin. This strengthens the case for separating the Real IRA and New IRA into separate pages. Zcbeaton (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, I would argue a split is essential. Charles Essie (talk) 05:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I support a split, I think. A merger of different groups should imply a new group. I don't think it's the case that RIRA simply absorbed other groups. They call themselves the 'IRA', but nearly all of the "new" iterations of the IRA have done the same. So I don't know if it should matter what they call themselves. Realizar (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that have consensus to split. Charles Essie (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It appears to me that the NIRA was a merger between the RIRA and other groups that only some RIRA members actually participated in. At this point they appear to be separate entities, so I believe a split would be ideal. Flalf (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun, InformationvsInjustice, Mistyrama, and Realizar: Any objections? Charles Essie (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose pending specific details. I'd like to see concrete proposals about what will be going in each split article, preferably as draft versions so it can easily be seen what is actually being proposed. FDW777 (talk) 08:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good question. I would recommend we remove much of the content about the "New IRA" from this page, restore the old "New IRA" article and update it using information from this page. Charles Essie (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, we should split the two pages, as they are two different organisations, one extinct, and one still operational in which its creation was a merger of the RIRA and RAAD. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This has been discussed before, and it has been found that it is not worthy to split. RIRA appears to be by far the dominant group in merger, and the group appears follow their structure. The organization is still the same, and the only difference between the two is that the media gave them a new name. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 23:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.thejournal.ie/real-ira-brexit-border-john-connolly-4495704-Feb2019/
  2. ^ https://www.europol.europa.eu/print/activities-services/main-reports/european-union-terrorism-situation-and-trend-report-2018-tesat-2018 Terrorism and Trend Situation Report (2017 and 2018)
  • Support The Real Irish Republican Army merged with Republican Action Against Drugs in 2012 to form an organization called the "New Irish Republican Army". The RIRA and the NIRA are two different groups, the former being absorbed into the latter after merging with RAAD. RIRA lasted 1997-2012, with NIRA taking its place. This should be reflected. They are two different organizations, one ceased existing in 2012, with the other taking over after. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support When I found some articles about it, new IRA is different group. Of course it is derived from RIRA, but its history has been spilted from 2012. We can compare this group with ISIL, which was originated from al-Qaeda but became independent group in 2010s. -- Wendylove (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support here is yet another new article specifically mentioning the New IRA: New IRA responsible for bomb attempt Copper1993 (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've just created a draft article. Feel free to contribute. Charles Essie (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Origins section[edit]

I will be amending this to make it conform to references. On occasion the references are not clear whether a town/city or county is being referred to, on others the inclusion of certain areas is completely contradicted by the references.

Black Operations says The bulk of the resignations too place in republican strongholds in Counties Louth, Monaghan, Dublin, Tyrone and Armagh. Janes says One area of Munster where the RIRA failed to make headway is Co Kerry, where senior SF figure Martin Ferris, convicted of PIRA arms smuggling in the 1980s, has remained loyal to the Adams/McGuinness leadership of SF and There are some members in Belfast, but the RIRA has apparently made little attempt to recruit in that city or in Derry; Republicans in both centres have mostly remained loyal to the PIRA leadership and the Adams/McGuinness peace process strategy

There can be no justification for the inclusion of Derry or County Kerry, based on what the references actually say. FDW777 (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ira is not good if it comes back coded bulks.

"In Popular culture" section[edit]

"A fictionalised version of the Real IRA, named the True IRA" is unreferenced. "One of its main characters Chibs Telford, is an excommunicated member" is unreferenced. "Some parts of the third season is even filmed and set in Northern Ireland" is unreferenced. Please stop disrupting this article. FDW777 (talk) 07:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Real_Irish_Republican_Army&oldid=1211876770"