Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeProvisional Irish Republican Army was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
June 1, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
March 9, 2021Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 28, 2008, July 28, 2009, July 28, 2010, July 28, 2013, July 28, 2015, July 28, 2018, and July 28, 2020.
Current status: Former good article nominee

IRA still possess weaponry[edit]

My edit was reverted. I had stated, as per the cited report, that the IRA retained some of its weaponry. The preceding paragraphs deal extensively with the amount of guns and explosives held by the organisation. There is also significant information on the decommissioning. The page at the minute, reads as if the IRA has completely decommissioned its weaponry. The already cited Assessment_on_Paramilitary_Groups_in_Northern_Ireland states that they have retained some weapons. I’m unsure of how best to seek consensus on this when I have quoted the latest report and it does not seem to be enough.

It is my opinion, looking at the edits of fdw777, that there is significant bias in his editing. While I understand that this is is a highly emotive subject, I think it may be useful if some others maybe took an interest in the subject to enhance the impartiality of the page. Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The assessment is not cited. A secondary reference is cited, that deals with the key points of the assessment. That the IRA may (as Armstrong et al are at pains to point out) still possess some weapons is already adequately covered by the final sentence of the paragraph before. FDW777 (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, if I cite the following document which states that the IRA retained some weaponry would that be sufficient? Armstrong use the word “may”, the report does not contain that ambiguity, it states clearly they do have weaponry. There’s a world Of difference between someone maybe having something and actually having something. Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article relies on secondary references for the overwhelming majority of the time. I see no reason why this standard should be discarded on this occasion. FDW777 (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So you believe that someone’s interpretation of the report is actually more factual that the actual report itself, even when the interpretation draws a conclusion that is contrary to the primary source? You’ve lost me, how does that make sense? The primary references states they have retained arms, the secondary states they may have. The secondary has introduced ambiguity where there was previously none. Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I do. WP:PSTS backs this up completely. FDW777 (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand that in some cases primary sources may be by people who are close to an event and therefore are bias. In this case we are dealing with a government report. It is a legitimate source of greater worth that an individuals interpretation. Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it's as good as you say, why do Armstrong et al refuse to accept its contents at face value? FDW777 (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no idea why Armstrong refuses to accept he entirety of a government report, one which has been referenced in the media by both the UK and the Irish governments. Armstrong does seem to accept those parts of the report which could be deemed as favourable to republicanism so maybe there is a deliberate bias there. Regardless of his interpretation and reasons behind it, the report is clear, arms have been retained. A government report which is held up as the truth by both the UK and Irish governments and incidentally both the UK and the Irish police forces (who can be relied on to know more of the actual situation on the ground than Armstrong) has to be more reliable than an interpretation by a third party with unknown bias. Not sure why you are supporting Armstrong unsubstantiated beliefs and ignoring the stated legal position of two governments? Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The report can say the moon is made of green cheese, it does not make it a fact. That applies to any intelligence report produced by any government, they are not necessarily facts. FDW777 (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Surely if that was the case, then neither is someone’s interpretation of the report. You can’t ignore the findings of the most recent report and insist on using the findings of a historical report, as if they are current, by the same government just because you don’t like the findings. Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We're not ignoring any findings. It's already been included in the article that some IRA weaponry may be outstanding. We don't need a new sentence every time someone makes a similar redundant claim or some rusty bullets get dug up. FDW777 (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fletcherchristian101 when can I come train and work for my money I own Ireland co Fermanagh and EU bit I can call this all euro (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the basis of your argument FDW777 then this entire article and all sources are not factual. What do you consider factual?
An intelligence report is certainly a stronger material source than most journalists (who are either actively biased or, as we all do, suffer from unconscious bias). To argue that an intelligence report published by a Western country cannot be factual (or is at least of more quality than someone penning an article referring to it - without any investigative journalism) is quite frankly absurd. If that logic is followed through to conclusion, as I said originally, then every single source referred to in this article cannot be factual. If Armstrong said the moon was made of green cheese would that be considered a fact by you? Just trying to understand the logic here as there appears to be a very strong case of POV here rather than the impartiality required.
"The report can say the moon is made of green cheese, it does not make it a fact. That applies to any intelligence report produced by any government, they are not necessarily facts. FDW777 (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)" TheSquareMile (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


When you say things like "since they didnt have an oficial socialist ideology , such as OIRA , which was openly socialist . So provisionals , in an effort to convince irish americans to help with funds , did not assume a socialist ideology ( wich caused the 1969 anti-treaty partition" it only demonstrates you don't actually know what you're talking about. What on earth is the 1969 anti-treaty partition? The IRA very much did have an official socialist ideology, as evidenced not only by the section at Provisional Irish Republican Army#Political ideology but by the IRA's own constitution which says their second objective is "To support the establishment of an Irish Socialist Republic based on the 1916 Proclamation. Also edits such as this not only misrepresent the existing reference but cause a broken reference later in the article. Please stop disrupting the article based on an erroneous understanding of the subject matter. FDW777 (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The claim that "the reason of the 1969 partition in anti treaty was that OIRA wanted to be openly socialist , and PIRA to recieve american money" is not one that appears in any of the vast amount of books that cover the 1969 split in the IRA. Please stop disrupting the article based on a faulty understanding of the subject matter. FDW777 (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with FDW777 and idk why this IP user keeps insisting on restoring edits otherwise. It seems they might be confusing communism with socialism (a careless but common mistake); as the OIRA's communist sympathies were at least a contributing factor to the 1969 split. With regards to the other claims, though it is very likely American support for the PIRA would've been drastically reduced had the organization been ideologically communist, I have never heard of this being a stated or implied reason / in any way a proximate cause of the 1969 split. In fact, it runs redundant to the reasons I long understood to have caused the schism that led to the PIRA's founding. OgamD218 (talk) 07:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's true, it would appear the IP editor is unaware the Provisionals were socialist while the Officials were Marxist. With regards to American funding there is some information in the references about some people in American not wanting money and/or arms to go to the Goulding faction (that's the soon-to-be Officials, most people probably know but just to be clear) around the time of the split, whether this was due to their failure to defend nationalist areas in 1969 or because of a dislike of their Marxist thinking isn't something I can remember off the top of my head and it isn't essential for the purposes of this discussion anyway. There is some other information about people from Ireland visiting the USA for fundraising purposes playing down the Provisionals socialist ideology and talking about more military than political subjects, again not essential for the purposes of this discussion but like the former point it's possible the IP editor has heard a rather garbled version of either. Or possibly they have failed to comprehend something written in English, since they refer to things like the 1969 anti-treaty partition I don't believe I'm too far out a limb by suggesting their understanding of English might not be at a professional level... FDW777 (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The argument The article mentions how many British soldiers the PIRA killed. So mentioning the civilians they killed makes sense and is referenced makes no sense, since the lead already says The IRA's armed campaign, primarily in Northern Ireland but also in England and mainland Europe, killed over 1,700 people, including roughly 1,000 members of the British security forces, and 500–644 civilians (my emphasis). Also as my edit summary when reverting the first attempt at adding this factoid said, rv. WP:LEAD. Unclear why we'd need to point out one category, when they were the deadliest in many categories. See WP:ONUS. FDW777 (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. The number of deaths between respective belligerents should be included, but it is POV to state that one party killed more civilians than another unless we state for proportion how many civilians all parties killed, which is, in my view, WO:UNDUE for the lead. SN54129 15:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Disagree. The data is correct and is referenced. It's POV to exclude referenced relevant facts. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, especially when it's a violation of WP:LEAD and a highly selective presentation of statistics. FDW777 (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just as a point of information, I own 40 of the books listed at Provisional Irish Republican Army#Bibliography (yes, I did just count them). I am sure I could come up with many "relevant facts" from them, would they all belong in the article simply because they can be referenced? FDW777 (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reverts to description of PIRA being an illegal organisation in Ireland[edit]

Hi there, I edited the intro to help improve the article to provide additional context the its designation as an unlawful organisation in Ireland.

(i) it is technically an unlawful organisation (rather than "illegal");

(ii) it is still a proscribed organisation in the UK and an unlawful organisation in ROI (rather than "was");

(iii) the UK and ROI both have outlawed the IRA (in all its manifestations) - included for background here;

(iv) reference to the 1939 Act is factual and sourced (the IRA in all its manifestations was outlawed under this Act by a Suppression Order) - included for background here;

(v) as it was/is a direct descendant from the 'IRA' the technicality that the 'PIRA' did not exist in 1969 is a moot point and one of semantics but agree if this is an issue the drafting can be clarified if needed. There is no constitutional document or formal organisation incorporation - the group just splintered and formed two competing factions (Wikipedia source on the 'IRA' for context); and

(vi) the 1939 Act is counter-terrorist legislation (according to the Irish Government Department of Justice 'Terrorism' web-page:

TheSquareMile (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This discussion has already taken place previously and been resolved. I direct you to please refer and review the page's discussion archive as well as the other topics still present on the page itself. In addition the main article has been reviewed and critiqued as part of GAN at least 2X and the issue you claim to be addressing did not come up-because the idea that the PIRA was designated by law a terrorist group in The Republic is incorrect. You did not improve the lead, you change longstanding content multiple editors worked on to not only reflect a personal position but not even make sense. It is not semantics that the PIRA, in existence since 1969, could not be designated a terrorist group "since 1939" under a law that never even uses the word terrorism. What is semantics is is your: (i)-those words are literally synonyms of one another. To be clear the PIRA is a proscribed *terrorist group in the UK and an unlawful group in the ROI. Whether or not the PIRA is a direct descendent of the IRA is a claim I'm not prepared to affirm or contest but is irrelevant to the fact you've once again shown that you do not appear to have a strong enough grasp of this subject area to so boldly keep making serious changes. To clarify-following the split, the PIRA founders held a convention where they debate and agreed upon formal policies and structure of the new organization and elected a "Provisional" 7 man Army Council. I ask that you AGAIN, please re-read the link you provided, upon doing so you will note specific mention is made of the CIRA and RIRA but NOT PIRA. On the same website reference is made both to Northern Ireland and the Good Friday Agreement. In these areas they refer to groups engaged in the conflict from 1969-2005 as paramilitaries-not terrorists. OgamD218 (talk) 02:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi there, the link is to the official Irish Government's terrorist page which includes reference to the IRA (in all its manifestations). If you are so keen to be factually correct then reference shouldn't be to an 'illegal' organisation but to an 'unlawful' organisation. The Irish Government and United Nations Security Council made it clear that the 1939 Act is counter-terrorist legislation under which the IRA (in all its manifestations) are covered by - this includes the PIRA, CIRA and RIRA. You appear to ignore the fact that the United Nations Security Council and European Union do not give any entity the legal term 'terrorist organisation' but are rather groups, organisations or entities which have sanctions applied to them. The exact same interpretation and synonyms is that this means 'terrorist organisation' in the exact same way as the Irish counter-terrorist legislation applies to terrorist organisations.
I never asked you to affirm or contest anything but am referencing the Wikipedia page in respect of the IRA. Please stop making personal attacks and assuming you are the fountain of all knowledge in respect of the IRA with unsourced arguments and pushing your own agenda.
I am trying to be factual and reflecting the position in academic articles, textbooks, journals, newspapers, government papers etc etc.
Please provide the source and links to which you say this issue has been well settled.
Sorry, what is the relevance the provisional 7 man council - where you there? TheSquareMile (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not exactly sure if "the official Irish Government's terrorist page" is the title they were going for. At your insistence, I have changed "illegal" to "unlawful" in the lead. Upon acceding to the UNSC anti-terrorism program, the body asked the ROI how they would address the matter of Clandestine Terrorist Orgs (the IRA would be a domestic org in the ROI) and the Irish DOJ responded that longstanding anti-sedition legislation including the 1939-1998/2005 Offenses Against the State Act (amendments)-the 2005 alone even contained the word terrorism. The irish govt affirming that their justice system is equipped to handle the issue of terrorism within the rule of law is not the equivalent re-legislating the 1939 OSA as anti-terrorism legislation and modern statements by politicians re that act cannot change the fact no contemporary source so described it as such and the law itself makes no mention of terrorism. I will give you that the irish govt calls the modern body of law in question as serving an anti-terrorism purpose. The modern statement by the ROI DOJ is that these laws "were introduced and have been primarily used to counter the threat posed by the IRA in all its manifestations, including, latterly, the dissident republican terrorist organisations of the so-called Real IRA and Continuity IRA". This is not a legal designation that the PIRA is a terrorist group. I'm not really sure how to address you final points bc both the EU and UNSC do have list of designated terrorist orgs-the PIRA is not on either btws. Please note a very clear pattern: the EU, USA, UK, UNSC, NATO, NZ, Canada, Israel etc all maintain actual lists that name specific groups as terrorist orgs-with regards to these other countries these same debates are not taking place because no one is trying to claim their interpretation of broad language referencing no particular means one org or another is a terrorist group. OgamD218 (talk) 03:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Ogam, I am very sorry but you are again stating that EU, USA, UK, UNSC, NATO, NZ, Canada, Israel all maintain lists that name specific groups as "terrorist organisations" this is just untrue and unsourced. As I (and other contributors) have pointed out to you with sources etc virtually none of these countries have a definition of a terrorist organisation (despite you claiming Ireland is unique in the world for not having specific anti-terrorist legislation).
You are using POVism to state that "no contemporary source so described it as such and the law itself makes no mention of terrorism." As I (and other contributors) have pointed out to you, the vast majority of countries do not have "terrorism" in the title of their anti-terrorism legislation, nor, even more significantly, do most countries (and international bodies such as the EU/UN/NATO etc, classify groups as terrorist organisations - they are merely entities that have sanctions applied against them due to their activities (I'll let you figure out what activities those might be). The law in Ireland is currently used for anti-terrorism purposes and that is the aim of the legislation - you can't possibly deny that fact. Are you actually seriously arguing that Ireland does not have anti-terrorism laws (nor terrorist organisations) just because it doesn't include the word "terrorism" in the title?
The USA has 2 lists and one just refers to 'designated groups'. The other is a list of 'foreign designated terrorist organisations' if you want to be peadantic around the true meaning and definition of words (rather than the academic, political and journalistic approach - all well sourced (unlike your unsourced arguments)) the USA does not have a list of 'designated terrorist organisations' but it has a list of 'designated foreign terrorist organisations' and 'designated groups'. I don't know if you are being serious in your attempt to jump through legalistic hoops in order to arrive at the final destination of 'Ireland does not consider any organisation to be a terrorist organisation'.
Secondly, the UK does not have a list of 'designated terrorist organisations'. However, it has a list of 'proscribed organisations or groups' (no mention of designated terrorist organisation).
The UN does not have a list of 'designated terrorist organisations' it has a consolidated list of groups or entities that sanctions apply (no mention of designated terrorist organisation).
The table from another editor in the list of terrorist organisation talk, sets out that virtually all countries (except Australia) does not have a legal definition of 'designated terrorist organisation' but it is universally accepted, acknowledged, sourced, referenced that they are considered to be 'designated terrorist organisations' if they are illegal or unlawful organisations.
Can you find me a law (or source referencing law that you say) that says:
- UK proscribed organisations are 'designated terrorist organisations'
- UN sanctioned organisations are 'designated terrorist organisations'
- EU sanctions organisations are 'designated terrorist organisations'
- New Zealand proscribed organisations are 'designated terrorist organisations'
In respect of the 1939 Irish Offenses Against the State Act, it is still valid law in Ireland The law in Ireland - indeed a precursor to this 1939 Act was embedded in the Irish Constitution before it was declared a Republic with a new Constitution. The Irish government (not me) says it was intended to suppress the IRA (in all its manifestations) - this includes the PIRA and the newer dissident groups. The Irish government (not me) says it is counter-terrorist legislation.
From the Irish Government website here (if you haven't looked at it):
"These Acts were introduced and have been primarily used to counter the threat posed by the IRA in all its manifestations, including, latterly, the dissident republican terrorist organisations of the so-called Real IRA and Continuity IRA. The Offences against the State Acts provide for a range of terrorist-related offences, with maximum court-imposed sentences varying according to the specific offence."
"The Offences against the State Acts provide for a range of terrorist-related offences, with maximum court-imposed sentences varying according to the specific offence."
"While the Offences Against the State Act 1939 and its subsequent amendments was primarily introduced to deal with terrorism from a domestic perspective its provisions can be applied in an international context." [The Irish Government literally couldn't be any clearer that the 1939 Act was to deal with domestic terrorism and the only organisation then declared unlawful was.....drumroll....the IRA in all its manifestations.]
You state that the original 1939 Act was not meant to suppress terrorism - can you please provide a source for your assertion? The Irish Government above is clear as to the purpose of such legislation. You ignore the fact that the suppression of terrorism (domestic) and the IRA was of vital importance around the time Ireland declared a Republic.
The 1939 Act applies equally to the PIRA and the newer dissident IRA organisations, if you are not aware unless a law is repealed it still remains in force - in any event the Irish Government (and court cases) are clear that it covers dissident IRA groups and the PIRA .
The wording "as has been the case since 1939" provides the context i.e. the IRA in all its manifestations is an unlawful organisation because it is a terrorist organisation. This provides clarity and a wider context to the organisation.
There have not been that many edits throughout the years to this act (indeed only 3!):
According to the Irish Republican Army Wikipedia page that entity existed until it split into the Provisional IRA and the Official IRA therefore the 1939 Act was specifically relevant to the PIRA as a successor to the IRA (1922 - 1969). Again - this is not my views, thoughts or original research but what Wikipedia says on the matter.
Further, the Special Criminal Court was set up to deal with terrorist related crime (Wikipedia page on the topic) therefore, the only organisation which it applied to (at the time) was the IRA (in all its manifestations). It was later extended to organised crime offences as well (Wikipedia page). The Special Criminal Court is a construction under the original 1939 Act.
Can you please provide me with any source, and not your opinion, which states the IRA (in all its guises) is not a terrorist organisation in Ireland.
There is not a single Irish case that prevented (or even considered the argument of the technicality of the description of the organisation) on the basis the PIRA was described as an unlawful organisation rather than a terrorist organisation. If I am wrong on this please can you provide your source(s) that you are relying upon.
There is absolutely no arguable legal basis, nor sources provided, to state or claim that there is a (real world 'incredible importance') technical legal difference between an entity being described as "illegal", "unlawful" or being described as a "designated terrorist organisation" in Ireland. With respect, this is an attempt to play on words (at best semantics) coupled with your alleged expertise, with no sources provided, on (1) extradition law, (2) international law, (3) Irish law, (4) the provisional IRA and (5) the definition of "designated terrorist organisation" in Ireland and globally
By way of example, and as mentioned before, in the UK there is no such thing as a "designated terrorist organisation", there is a list of "proscribed groups or organisations" - however, there is no definition of "terrorist organisation" (there is a definition of "terrorism"), significantly the UK legislative framework sets out the process by which an individual or a terrorist group can be proscribed. Do you see the semantics here and how it applies equally to Ireland? i.e. the Irish legislative framework sets out the process by which an individual or a terrorist group can be proscribed as an unlawful organisation (under counter-terrorism laws)...and which Wikipedia would accept as a "designated terrorist organisation" in every single country (other than Ireland!!!!).
I am genuinely at a loss to understand your arguments and would appreciate a respectful discussion - can you please provide any source at all to support your assertions that an unlawful organisation in Ireland under the 1939 Act is not a terrorist organisation? (in the exact same way a proscribed organisation in the UK under its legislation is considered as a 'designated terrorist organisation' by Wikipedia standards?).
In the real world and in the Wikipedia world it is abundantly clear that illegal organisations in countries (whether they are defined legally as terrorist organisations, proscribed organisations, designated organisations, listed organisations, unlawful organisations etc) are universally considered to be designated terrorist organisations.
Indeed the United Nations Security Council Consolidated List is simply that - a list, but it is universally accepted to mean 'designated terrorist organisations'
Ireland replies upon the 1939 Act in terms of counter-terrorism in a response to the UN on the matter. Ireland states, in summary, (Ireland's words not my opinion), that the 1939 Act (and Criminal Law Act 1976) makes the recruitment to a terrorist group (namely an unlawful organisation under the 1939 Act) a criminal offence. Ireland is relying upon the unlawful organisation designation (under its domestic law) to mean that such groups are designated terrorist groups under the (undefined) well-used generic term 'designated terrorist organisation'. (A term the UNSC doesn't even use!!).
From Letter dated 21 December 2001 from the Chairman of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1373 (2001) concerning counter-terrorism addressed to the President of the Security Council attaching a report from Ireland.
"UN Question: Subparagraph (a) What legislation or other measures are in place to give effect to this subparagraph? In particular, what offences in your country prohibit (i) recruitment to terrorist groups and (ii) the supply of weapons to terrorists? What other measures help prevent such activities?
Ireland's response: Provisions of the criminal law generally as well as those specific elements directed to offences against the State have application to paragraph 2 (a).
The Offences Against the State Acts 1939-1998 make it an offence to be a member of an unlawful organization. Those Acts also make special provision in relation to evidentiary matters connected with the question of membership of such organizations"."
"The Offences Against the State Acts 1939-1998 make provision in relation to actions and conduct calculated to undermine public order and the authority of the State and to regulate and control in the public interest the formation of associations. The Irish Republican Army (IRA) and the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) have been declared unlawful organizations in accordance with, and for the purposes of, the provisions of those Acts. The Criminal Law Act 1976 makes it an offence for a person to incite or invite another person to support or assist the activities of such organizations."
The explanatory memorandum that relates to the CRIMINAL JUSTICE (TERRORIST OFFENCES) BILL, 2002 (and CRIMINAL JUSTICE (TERRORIST OFFENCES) ACT 2005) does not mention nor refer to the CIRA.
Despite your unsourced arguments that the 2005 Act effectively was the first counter-terrorist legislation in Ireland its purpose was to honour its international obligations it has undertaken as part of the EU and the broader international community. Its purpose is to combat international terrorism and financing and it did/does not substantially amend the 1939 Act, but rather uses it as a bedrock of the 2005 Act and enhances it with additional power relevant to international terrorism and combating the international financing of terrorism after 9/11.
Similar to the EU (which has 2 lists of sanctioned organisations) Ireland has 2 lists - one incorporates the EU sanctioned entities meaning those organisations are unlawful organisations under the 1939 Act (if the EU Regulations are implemented by way of Statutory Instrument in Ireland) and one that is autonomous to Ireland which includes the IRA (in all its manifestations) and the INLA. You appear to be hanging your hat on the argument that Ireland does not have a webpage with a consolidated list of all organisations that are unlawful (because they are terrorist organisations) but the official 'Terrorist' webpage of the Irish Department of Justice is clear that the IRA (in all its manifestations) including (BUT NOT LIMITED TO) the RIRA and CIRA are unlawful terrorist organisations under Ireland's counter-terrorism laws (being primarily the 1939 Act) and the legislation is perfectly clear (and the sources have been provided here). You appear to be discounting these sources entirely (despite them being equivalent to UK/USA/UNSC/EU/NZ/AUZ etc etc).
With the greatest amount of respect, the UK does not have a list designating groups as terrorist organisations. It has a list of groups that it has proscribed as illegal and outlawed (meaning it is illegal to be a member or supporter of). The fact the UK publishes a consolidated list on its Government website does not mean there is any special or legal meaning to the term "designated terrorist organisation" - the UK does not use that term (this is factual and sourced).
Ireland has published 2 pieces of legislation (i.e. 2 Suppression Orders - under its counter-terrorism legislation) designating 2 groups as outlawed and illegal in its jurisdiction (the IRA (in all its manifestations) and the INLA). The Irish Government states these groups are outlawed because they are terrorist organisations (this is sourced and factual - there is countless news, journalistic, academic sources verifying this description). Further the UN, and in reports submitted to the UN by Ireland, it classes the 1939 Act as the relevant counter-terrorist legislation that combats terrorist activities and organisations. The reports are to the UN in respect of its obligations in fulfilling counter-terrorist obligations.
If the list of designated terrorist organisations page is a factual list of organisations that are outlawed, made illegal, proscribed, suppressed, listed or designated as an unlawful organisation under counter-terrorism legislation, then it is a fact and well sourced that the IRA (in all its forms) is a designated terrorist organisation (as that term is commonly used in articles, journals and most importantly Wikipedia).
Are you stating that Ireland is the only country in the world that does not have counter-terrorism legislation and that the groups it outlaws under counter-terrorism legislation would not be a 'designated terrorist organisation' because it is your opinion that the IRA is not a terrorist organisation in Ireland?
Further, the Special Criminal Court was set up to deal with terrorist related crime (Wikipedia page on the topic, Irish sources on the topic and the United Nations reports on counter-terrorism laws on Ireland) therefore, the only organisation which it applied to (at the time) was the IRA (in all its manifestations). It was later extended to organised crime offences as well (Wikipedia page). The Special Criminal Court is a construction under the original 1939 Act.
In Ireland no criminal organised gang has been suppressed - but the IRA (in all its manifestations) and the INLA are subject to the relevant 1939 counter-terrorist law because Ireland says this (on its Government website and to the UN in its numerous reports). TheSquareMile (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Follow me to join the secret cabal!


I'm sorry, TheSquareMile - did you really just revive a six-month old thread with a 46Kb wall-of-text response?! Consider yourself trouted! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should the category " casualties " not be titled " victims ".[edit]

category description (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since the section also includes the IRA's casualties, no. Kathleen's bike (talk) 10:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2023[edit]

When talking about IRA targets it must be pointed out that they targeted civilians not connected with the military. For instance the Warrington Town centre bombing and the Arndale Shopping centre amongst others. They also targeted children and young people. 2A00:23C8:2455:4301:EA:900A:F8C6:2E00 (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evidence? The Banner talk 15:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you genuinely believe that then you are either insane (in the legal definition under the M'Naghten Rules in which an individual is deemed to be insane if they cannot distinguish right from wrong), a propagandist, or know absolutely nothing. In any of these cases I suggest you stop editing articles connected with this topic. The IP editor literally listed examples but you do not appear to care. (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, they didn't examples. They detailed two incidents, then drew their own conclusions about the targets of those incidents. I recommend reading what Martin Dillon and Andy Oppenheimer (both cited in the article) have said about Warrington, you might learn that your own beliefs are very mistaken. FDW777 (talk) 10:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This is not an uncontroversial edit which can be applied via an edit request. (It's also not in a "change x to y" format) PianoDan (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The IRA's attacks on civilians are already mentioned = approximately 25 times in the article, including twice in the lead. Would you perhaps also like a banner saying "These guys were bad!"? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]