Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army

There is a clear guideline on Wikipedia about the use of the word Terrorism. Please read it before editing.

• Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Extremist, terrorist and freedom fighter

European Union

"The European Union has removed the IRA from their list of terrorist organisations". I have removed this incorrect information, as according to my research the IRA were never on it. The EU list was first adopted in December 2001. All lists up to March 2005;

• http://www.statewatch.org/news/2004/jun/2001-931-terr-lists.pdf
• http://www.statewatch.org/news/2002/jun/terB180602.pdf
• http://www.statewatch.org/news/2002/oct/terlist1.pdf
• http://www.statewatch.org/news/2002/dec/terr213dec02.pdf
• http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/jul/terrlist2jun03.pdf
• http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/sep/terrlistEUSept03.pdf
• http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/dec/terrlist2.pdf
• http://www.statewatch.org/news/2004/apr/eu-terr-list2.pdf
• http://www.statewatch.org/news/2005/mar/terr-list1.pdf

If anyone has evidence that the IRA were on the EU's list this may go back, but according to my research they were not. O Fenian (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Which IRA would that be, IRA, CIRA, RIRA, INLA ? --De Unionist (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

O Fenian, the EU's website at [1] says "The list includes ETA (Basque Fatherland and Liberty), the IRA (Irish Republican Army), GRAPO (the First of October Anti-Fascist Resistance Group), the terrorist wing of HAMAS, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other revolutionary activist groups, as well as the names of individuals belonging to such groups." --Flexdream (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Not clear which IRA is being talked about, please provide an actual list that has them on. O Fenian (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Catholic and nationalist

Replacing the term 'Catholic' with 'Catholic and nationalist' throughout the article seems to me to be factually incorrect. The loyalists didn't just go after hardline political types, they engaged in explicit sectarian violence against Catholics- regardless of what their victims politics happened to be. The Squicks (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the talk page rather than simply reverting. I'm fully aware that loyalists targeted civilians purely because they were Catholic. If you re-read the sentences I changed, you'll see that I only added "and nationalist" in instances where it was necessary. I think it's important to note that not all nationalists were Catholic/not all Catholics were nationalists. ~Asarlaí 01:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's look at each change specially. You described the Northern Ireland riots of August 1969 as against 'Catholic and nationalist' people and not just against 'Catholics'. That to me seems factually inaccurate. The Squicks (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

A better wording would be that they were against Catholic homes as well as nationalist homes or something like that. The hooligans attacked both nationalist Catholics and non-nationalist Catholics alike. The Squicks (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I'd be happy with that wording. Are there any other changes you disagree with? ~Asarlaí 02:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I have some other thoughts. (I know this sounds like nitpicking but bear with me as I think we both have the best intentions in mind)

IRA had not been armed or organised to defend the nationalist and Catholic communit[ies] Plural, since the terms are not the same

The Provisionals, by contrast, advocated a robust armed defence of nationalists and [of] Catholics in the north is clearer

in protest at their failure to defend nationalist and[/or] Catholic areas is clearer since even though areas are/were often the same thing with 'nationalist = catholic' there are/were individual blocks and neighboorhoods that were Catholic but not politically active. The Squicks (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

£100,000 was donated by the Irish government to "Defense Committees" in nationalist and [in] Catholic areas is clearer

as being defenders of Irish nationalist and [of] Catholic people against aggression is clearer

Governmental apparatus in Northern Ireland were biased against the nationalist [members] and [the] Catholic members of the community is clearer The Squicks (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll start editing this into the article, if that's alright. ~Asarlaí 02:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I think that there's some other things that should probably be looked at later. The Squicks (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The constant addition of "nationalist and Catholic" is appalling, please stop. O Fenian (talk) 08:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do you see it as "appalling"? Also, please do not revert changes without discussion. The Squicks (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? It is bold, revert, discuss. Superfopp was bold, he was correctly reverted, and he chose to keep making the same disputed edit. Kindly address your ire at the person repeatedly making the disputed changes. I consider people putting their own interpretation on what sources say appalling, capeesh? O Fenian (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

When I made the changes, I did so without using the talk page first, that was a mistake on my part. The Squicks reverted my edit, and rightly so. We discussed the changes here and came to an agreement. So what's the problem? ~Asarlaí 21:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware you two had any right to come to a binding agreement when other editors have not commented, especially when you have made similar tendentious edits on this and similar articles and already been reverted by editors not involved in your little twosome. Could you tell us what the already cited sources say in the sentences you changed? O Fenian (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Please have another look at the sentences that were changed. None of them are directly sourced. ~Asarlaí 21:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

None of them? Are you sure? I do believe you're telling porkies there! Also first edit and first revert, or had you forgotten that too? O Fenian (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

That edit was made before the discussion between myself and The Squick (directly above). We don't intend to use that wording, we intend to use this wording. ~Asarlaí 21:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

And knowing your previous edit you made this edit without discussion. Please do not attempt to transfer the blame for your tendentious edit warring onto others. Would you like to answer my other questions? O Fenian (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

O Fenian, you continue referring to edits made before my agreement with The Squick. I acknowledge they weren't completely accurate, but they're irrelevant now. We intend to use this wording. What are your objections to this wording? ~Asarlaí 21:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Am I to take the lack of reply to mean you haven't got any objections? ~Asarlaí 16:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Any edits, such as that one, that are counter to Wikipedia policy will be reveted. O Fenian (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What Wikipedia policy does it go against? ~Asarlaí 17:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Since you still haven't provided any arguments, I've changed the wording again. ~Asarlaí 01:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have, and so have others. Mine are Wikipedia policies, please read them before editing. O Fenian (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No you have not. Explain your reasons here rather than simply stating "original research" or "unsourced claims". ~Asarlaí 02:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It will be Protestant and Loyalist next, where does it end? --De Unionist (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC) To be totally correct, it should be Roman Catholic and Nationalist. --De Unionist (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Catholic and Nationalist are not the same thing it implies that they are one and the same this is not the fact no more than every Protestant is a Loyalist. BigDunc^Talk 20:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. We should make it clear that not all nationalists are Catholic, and not all unionists ate Protestant. Some of them are non-practising or simply don't follow a religion. ~Asarlaí 20:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, quite a few Unionists are Roman Catholics as are a few Nationalists Protestants or other faith. --De Unionist (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, not all nationalists are Catholic and not all unionists are Protestant. ~Asarlaí 21:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

IMO, "Catholic" and "Protestant" is always wrong. The strife between the two communities had nothing to do with justification by faith alone or veneration of the Blessed Virgin; it was about adherence to the United Kingdom (unionism) or to a United Ireland (nationalism). The fact that the two communities were referred to at the time as "Catholic" and "Protestant" is not a reason to use those terms today. I believe they should be removed from the article altogether. Scolaire (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Not correct because you can be a protestant without being a Unionist or a Loyalist. You can also be a Roman Catholic without being a Nationalist or a Republican. You can also be a Nationalist or a Loyalist whilst being an agnostic or an atheist. The strife in Ireland is between Republicans and non Republicans. --De Unionist (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Scolaire, while I'd tend to agree with you there, I don't think the terms should be removed altogether. They could be used less though. During the conflict there was a number of attacks on people purely because they were believed to be Catholics / Protestants. ~Asarlaí 17:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

That may be relevant to other articles; I've checked this one and there is no instance where "Catholic" or "Protestant" is appropriate. Scolaire (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? It's a matter of fact that many loyalists targeted people just for being Catholic, regardless of their politics. As for your statement "strife between the two communities had nothing to do with", I agree somewhat but that is a hasty generalization and an oversimplification. The spirituality does matter. After all, Ian Paisley called my spiritual leader "the anti-Christ". I could come up similar statements by lower-level loyalists about their fight against the 'enemies of the real Christians' and so on. The Squicks (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, I am talking about this article, and not Ian Paisley. Obviously, "[the Officials] favoured building up a political base among the working class, both Catholic and Protestant" or "Father Alec Reid, a Roman Catholic priest" is appropriate. Otherwise all I can see is phrases such as "to defend the Catholic community". That community was under threat, not because its members went to mass, but because they opposed the Unionist régime and aspired to a United Ireland. Or am I wrong? Scolaire (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No, many of them were under threat just for being Catholic. For example, see Ulster_Volunteer_Force#History. The Squicks (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. I read: "In its announcement on 21 May 1966, the UVF declared war on the Irish Republican Army" and "This circle of attack by the IRA...would be followed by counter-attack on the people the UVF saw as 'hosting' the IRA: Roman Catholic civilians" (my italics). I don't see any mention of spirituality, or of doctrinal differences. Nor have I ever read that victims were selected on the basis of frequency of church attendance or other evidence of devotion. AFAIK they were chosen simply because they lived in a "Catholic" (which actually means nationalist) area. To repeat myself, the fact that the UVF, the politicians and the media referred to those people as "Catholics" is not a reason for us to do so. The UVF article needs tidying up in that respect as much as this article does. Scolaire (talk) 08:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me put it another way: how many instances were there of loyalist attacks on Catholics who were known unionist supporters, or who were outspoken against republicans or civil rights activists? In such instances—and I don't know of any—it would be reasonable to assume that they were attacked for their religion; otherwise there must be the presumption that any attacks were on the basis of the equation "Catholics" = "IRA supporters" i.e. not religious but political. Scolaire (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Categorisation

Hi,

under 'Categorisation' it says "the IRA are referred to as terrorists by the Ulster Unionist Party, the Democratic Unionist Party, and the Progressive Unionist Party".

To me that implies that that Alliance Party and the SDLP did not.

I changed this to "the IRA are referred to as terrorists by the Ulster Unionist Party, the Democratic Unionist Party, the Progressive Unionist Party, the non-sectarian Alliance Party of Northern Ireland, and the nationalist Social Democratic and Labour Party, which parties all condemned all paramilitary violence" which I think is correct. However, this has been undone by people who disagree.

So I'd like to ask, did the Alliance Party and the SDLP refer to the IRA as terrorists?

[2] seems clear to me for the Alliance Party. [3] seems to put the SDLP view.

Whatever their position was, I think it should be stated, not implied. I think this is important for context. I couldn't have named all 3 Unionist parties, but someone thinks it necessary to name each one and say they referred to the IRA as terrorists, but not to say anything at all about the other main parties.

If I've got my facts wrong on the positions of the parties, then that just shows even more that the present article is deficient.

thanks

--Flexdream (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Those are primary sources for the views of political parties, or in fact for the views of the person writing. There is no evidence that as a party those views are held, and independent secondary sources would be needed to draw such a conclusion. O Fenian (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You are saying that there is no evidence the Alliance Party considered the IRA a terrorist organisation, and that even if they said so (such as the news release I've quoted from their own website) you'd need someone else saying it before you'd be convinced? That's perverse.--Flexdream (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The sources do not source the parties as a whole holding that view, only the people who wrote the articles. O Fenian (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

New discussion

"It is estimated that between 1969 and 1997, the IRA were responsible for the death or injury of over 20,000 men, woman and children. Over 14,000 of these being civilians." - text added. "It has also been estimated that the IRA injured 6,000 British Army, UDR and RUC and up to 14,000 civilians, during the Troubles." - original text. Anyone can see the emotive attempt at bias with "men, women and children", and the misleading combination of death and injury. Its addition currently violates Wikipedia:Lead also. O Fenian (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really. The IRA killed and injured men, women and children. It's a fact. What's the problem ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.101.139 (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, it doesn't violate Wikipedia:Lead is any way. The death and injury of over 20,000 men, women and children is an important part of the IRA story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.101.139 (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a biased and misleading presentation of an estimation. I welcome discussion here about how, if at all, and where this information should be added. O Fenian (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a biased addition and combining the figures is misleading, and it's also a violation of WP:LEAD. BigDunc 22:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

How can a fact be biased? The IRA murdered or maimed over 20,000 people. This included men, women and children. It may be unpalatable to people with a republican viewpoint, however it is still a fact. So.... what is the problem ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.101.139 (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's worth getting an editor who isn't sympathetic towards the IRA's aims and methods to look at this. I can't see how placing an important fact about the IRA on the IRA Wiki page is such a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.101.139 (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, its a misleading presentation of an estimation.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I substituted "people" for the allegedly "emotive" "men, woman[sic] and children" in light of the concern expressed above. It may be useful also to include specific reference to those actually killed by PIRA as well as those injured. Mooretwin (talk) 09:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC) {{editprotected}}

 Not done Please formulate the exact change. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks DJ. Consensus is being developed below for replacement wording that settles the content dispute. There won't be any edits until that is accomplished. Nja²⁴⁷ 13:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That's what you think, but Wikipedia is not a dictatorship! O Fenian (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please remove the disputed addition made in this edit. The reasons for this are as follows:

• The addition is a violation of Wikipedia:Lead, as it introduces information that is not in this article.
• The addition contains weasel words leading to unattributed point of view. "It is estimated", estimated by who?
• The addition does not accurately reflect what the source says. The original text in another article read "Lost Lives therefore concludes that the Provisional IRA was responsible for a total of 1,781 deaths to date. It has also been estimated that the IRA injured 6,000 British Army, UDR and RUC and up to 14,000 civilians, during the Troubles". Note "up to 14,000 civilians", while this article says "over 14,000". Deaths + injuries may mean "over 14,000", but it may not.
• It is misleading to combine deaths and injuries in this way.

This IP editor has already been blocked twice for disruption on this article, and as their edits and the discussion above show they are not interested in adhering to policy, consensus building or resolving any dispute, and leaving this article protected will achieve nothing. O Fenian (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm content for the edit to be made so as it reflects what the source says as noted above. Content also for the estimation to be attributed to Lost Lives. Not content for it to be removed from the lead. If the info isn't in the article, then it ought to go in, rather than be censored altogether. It is important, relevant and useful information. Mooretwin (talk) 09:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Good, so we can remove the disputed and incorrect addition until we have discussed how it goes into the article, which is what I said originally. But that never happened. O Fenian (talk) 09:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Just edit the addition so that it corresponds to what the source says, and attribute it. As I said it above, it should not be removed as it is important, relevant and useful. Mooretwin (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Exact quote from the source needed. O Fenian (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No there isn't. I see nothing wrong with the text you noted above: just attribute it. Mooretwin (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You cannot attribute it until you know what the source says. So provide an exact quote from the source. O Fenian (talk) 10:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you not trust how the source has been represented in the article which you quoted? Mooretwin (talk) 10:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The estimate is not directly attributed to anyone in the other article. You cannot directly attribute the estimate unless you know its provenance, therefore a quote from the source is needed to determine it. O Fenian (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I'll be able to look up the source later, but I suggest that in the meantime we work on a text on the assumption that Lost Lives will ultimately provide the source. If not, we can look at it again. Mooretwin (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see what you mean. The estimates are directly attributable: the deaths to McKittrick et al and the injuries to Brendan O'Brien. Mooretwin (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was was it their estimate, or the estimate of someone else they were quoting. But that is largely academic now, since the figures are from 1986. O Fenian (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Please collaboratively draft a proposal for the text you wish to replace. Once the replacement text is agreed then this request can be honoured. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 09:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Then why not remove the unacceptable text for now? I said I was happy to discuss a proposed version at 22:14 last night. O Fenian (talk) 09:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The sooner we agree to the edited text, the sooner the "unacceptable" text will be removed. Mooretwin (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No. We should not leave incorrect information in the article, it should be removed. O Fenian (talk) 10:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It only needs to be rephrased. The only possible incorrect bit is where it says "over" - that can be changed to "up to" to reflect the source as you have suggested. Mooretwin (talk) 10:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There are various issues to be resolved, none of which are resolved. Therefore it should be removed until they are, as it is incorrect and misleading. O Fenian (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

See my response above. Let's work on something and hopefully I'll have the source later today. Mooretwin (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I had not realised the second part was sourced to O'Brien, as I could have told you what that said. The figures are from 1986, therefore partial figures are no use for the lead. O Fenian (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• No, the article is protected as there's a dispute and reverting to your version would defeat the entire purpose of page protection. Please stop moaning about the text currently there and show me how it can be fixed so that this issue is resolved. One editor seems willing, so get stuck in with them and sort it please, as there won't be any edits until consensus is reached. Nja²⁴⁷ 11:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggested new text

• McKittrick et al estimated in 1999 that the Provisional IRA was responsible for a total of 1,781 deaths to date and O'Brien has estimated that the IRA injured 6,000 British Army, UDR and RUC and up to 14,000 civilians, during the Troubles.

Mooretwin (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No, O'Brien's figures are from 1986 O Fenian (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

In that case the "over 14,000" reference was almost certainly correct. Anyway - easily fixed:

• • McKittrick et al estimated in 1999 that the Provisional IRA was responsible for a total of 1,781 deaths to date and O'Brien has estimated that by 1986 the IRA had injured 6,000 British Army, UDR and RUC and up to 14,000 civilians, during the Troubles.

Mooretwin (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Find complete figures, anything else is pointless. O Fenian (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That isn't how things work. If something is sourced and is presented correctly and given appropriate weight it can be included in the article. Nja²⁴⁷ 15:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice of you to involve yourself in the dispute with that post, I assume you are familiar with WP:INVOLVED. I feel like I'm speaking a different language here. What I said is that complete figures are needed, not partial figures. You know, as we're dealing about their campaign as a whole, not just part of it. So partial figures are no use, get it? O Fenian (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Not pointless at all. On the contrary, the figures tell the reader that mid-way through the Troubles, the PIRA had injured up to 14,000 people. Just because we don't know how many people they went on to injure during the rest of the Troubles doesn't seem like a good reason to censor the information. WP is here to provide information, not withhold it. Mooretwin (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Which means it would belong in the part that deals with action up to that point. And as the lead is dealing with the article and campaign as a whole, it makes sense for a whole figure to be included not a partial one. So why don't you run along and find the complete figures? O Fenian (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This is just to reiterate that my proposal above remains. Mooretwin (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

This edit request is disputed

• (disputed by the "admin" who protected the page on an inaccurate version, so much for impartiality! O Fenian (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC))

{{editprotected}} See below for reason for dispute

 Not done due to request being a mess. Outside administrators can't handle this, solve the dispute first. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Since the last one was ignored without looking at who actually made the request and what it was. Please remove the disputed addition made in this edit. The reasons for this are as follows:

• The addition is a violation of Wikipedia:Lead, as it introduces information that is not in this article.
• The addition contains weasel words leading to unattributed point of view. "It is estimated", estimated by who?
• The addition does not accurately reflect what the source says. The original text in another article read "Lost Lives therefore concludes that the Provisional IRA was responsible for a total of 1,781 deaths to date. It has also been estimated that the IRA injured 6,000 British Army, UDR and RUC and up to 14,000 civilians, during the Troubles". Note "up to 14,000 civilians", while this article says "over 14,000". Deaths + injuries may mean "over 14,000", but it may not.
• It is misleading to combine deaths and injuries in this way.
• Last but not least, in fact the most important reason - The figures in the article which this addition was taken from are wrong. The figures referred to in O'Brien (the source for the original second sentence) are from 1986, while The Troubles were still ongoing. Therefore the statement is totally and utterly wrong. The reader is being done a disservice if incorrect information is being presented in this way, and it makes no sense to talk about "total" figures in the lead when they are nothing of the sort.

Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Not done Your request is declined for the same reasons it was by another admin earlier, and further you are completely ignoring my attempts to resolve this dispute. Simply saying 'no, from 1986' isn't really being active in reaching a consensus. Again, this article is protected due to the content dispute and reversion to your preferred edit defeats the purpose. You need to start actively trying to come to a result. A solution may be to state the date of those figures in the sentence, or find better figures, etc. Nja²⁴⁷ 15:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Get a fucking grip. If you had read my replies (all of them), you would have seen my replies were more substantial than just that brief reply to that point. If you had read the request in full, in particular the NEW point (conveniently with bold next to it), you would actually understand what has changed since earlier and why this edit will be made. O Fenian (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't edit war on a talk page. That is beyond pointless. You were edit warring on the article, and now you are here. Nja²⁴⁷ 15:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What the fuck? The earlier request was declined because he thought Mooretwin's comments were the edit request. How else can you explain "Please formulate the exact change" when my request made the exact change clear, it said which edit to revert. Not only that, but his reply is under Mooretwin's post not mine! Now you are saying it was declined for the same reason, which also ignores that the request is different in one substantial yet very important point. Did you read the request in full? Yes/No. Assuming you did, what do you actually think of the last point? O Fenian (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Nja247, you are a joke. O Fenian is not edit warring and has made a reasonable request.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks mate, I enjoy a good tag team of insults. Essentially there's no consensus for his request, and the box clearly says only those requests with consensus will be considered. So how's that reasonable? Shall I send in another admin to decline, or will you both start being part of the solution rather than the problem? Nja²⁴⁷ 15:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It is perfectly reasonable to reinstate the request if the admin has not even bothered to read it. Unless this factual accuracy is dealt with soon this will be dealt with elsewhere, there is no reason for this article to remain inaccurate. O Fenian (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I read the entire bloody page mate. Do you really think I've just stumbled upon this article today and decided to protect it so as to lock you out? Or that I purposefully declined your request again just because I felt like it? Well, no. I cannot understand why you're even arguing with me as all I've been saying to you is that you need to work with others to come to a compromise so that the article can be unprotected and the dispute resolved. For hopefully the last time, I want to note that your request is not going to get anywhere. It doesn't have consensus. Read the box, it says specifically only requests that have consensus will be considered. So let's stop this back and forth repetition and actually work to seek that consensus that is required for your request to be considered, and for this page to be unprotected.

Thus you can start to help, or you can continue not to and end up being referred elsewhere for disruption. I hope you decide to choose the former by giving some actual feedback and suggesting compromises/rewording for the draft given above. Nja²⁴⁷ 15:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

So, to sum up. You cannot answer most of my questions, because you have realised that you are totally wrong. The only disruption round here is being caused by your incompetence, it is you who will come out of this worse mark my words. Now will someone please remove the inaccurate information from the lead, or will some jobsworth now say consensus is needed to remove inaccurate information? O Fenian (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No, essentially you have no consensus (as you haven't tried to resolve the dispute) thus I cannot understand why you're seeking an protected edit request which requires consensus. You can't just ask for the article to edited to your liking and bypass the whole working with others thing. I haven't any time for this repetition, so for the last time please start to help resolve the dispute with constructive input and/or compromised wording, etc. Also it's sourced, and just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it's inaccurate. Your points above have some validity, thus figure out how to get your points in whilst reconciling them with what's already there. Finally, don't insult me as I'm doing the best I can and you're the one who's being completely un-cooperative. Nja²⁴⁷ 16:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

So rather than revert to the pre-edit war version (which has consensus) you're prepared to maintain an inaccurate version, despite it being pointed out that it's inaccurate, are you even familiar with the protection policy? O Fenian (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Get consensus for any change. Period. If you want to revert to a pre-edit war version, post the diff to this page and ask the various parties in the edit war if they will agree to revert to that version while discussion is ongoing. Have them sign off on the revert. Then post the edit request template. Thatcher 16:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You don’t get consensus from a POV edit warrior! Period!! The inaccuracies in the Lead have been made clear to all concerned, so what is the problem? Which is worse, the IP edit warrior, the Admin who has not got a clue on policy, or the Admin having the fact that they have not got a clue pointed on policy out to them? Round one to the IP edit warrior, and who is that down too. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for the removal of incorrect information while the page is protected

Revert to this version to be precise (note, people proposing the article should willingly contain inaccurate information for the next two weeks should be ignored, as their argument holds no weight)

For

1. O Fenian (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Moronic use of admin tools - ney shock der den!--Vintagekits (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Lets not rewards edit warring. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
4. IMO pointless putting my name here admin has made up their mind that the proposer is out to disrupt. BigDunc 18:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Against not that it matters it seems

1. locked pages stay locked at whatever they ended up on else the admin would have had to take a side before they locked a page and then locked it at a particular version and that would certainly be showing bias. Sometimes you are lucky, sometimes not so you live with it and identify the correct wording that the admins feel would have a broad support. Given that the article claims that this group have been classified as a proscribed terrorist group in the United Kingdom and as an illegal organisation in the Republic of Ireland then it is very relevant to the LEDE to show what this means in human terms. It would be an emotional bias if they mentioned animals killed but I think we can live with just listing a round figure of humans injured and killed with further detail on exact body-counts in the main text. Ttiotsw (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"locked pages stay locked at whatever they ended up" - not true, read the protection policy. It says "Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists." Therefore there is no reason to maintain an incorrect version is there? O Fenian (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I also said "identify the correct wording that the admins feel would have a broad support". I think the current version supports the lede. It makes little sense having a group that has been classified as terrorist/illegal by all the authorities involved without us referring to a summary of the reason why they have been proscribed, which for terrorism etc, is usually either a list of bombings or if it is easier summary of kills and injuries. Given the complaint just seems to be a subtle difference in some numbers it seems fine for the next two weeks. If the reference is unreliable then show how it is wrong. Ttiotsw (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

So you are in favour of the article underestimating the number of people injured by using 1986 figures that exclude certain areas? O Fenian (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Mate, what I've been saying is we can edit the article promptly to include that the figures are only up to 1986 and exclude certain areas if you can come up with wording that is agreeable to the other party in dispute. We want the article to be clear, and the sooner we have agreed wording the sooner that can happen. Nja²⁴⁷ 17:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Then put it where it belongs, ie at the start of this section maybe, and remove it from this incorrect section. Nobody is saying the information shouldn't be in the article somewhere, but why should the reader be misled while we are discussing where? O Fenian (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Come up with actual wording and where you'd put it and ask the other editor on their talk page to look at it. If it's agreed then we're done here and can move on. Nja²⁴⁷ 17:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Mooretwin will disagree with anything I propose, he always does. So we will just be stuck here, and the reader suffers. Hurray for Wikipedia! O Fenian (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It's worth a go. I'd really like to see what you come up with. I can't comment on any other issues this article may have, but on this one I'll do my best to get it sorted. Do take a stab at it. Nja²⁴⁷ 17:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The two issues are separate anyway. The first issue is whether a factually inaccurate statement should be removed from the lead, the second issue is the wording of a new statement and where it should go in the article. One can be solved without solving the other, so how about improving the encyclopedia for our readers someone? O Fenian (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I may not entirely agree with your assessment of the issues, however if you come up with new wording and it's agreed it's not to be in the lead then it will be removed. Thus the quicker it's sorted the quicker both issues can be resolved. Please do provide your draft as soon as practicable, as I'd like to see it. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll come up with a new wording once the reader is no longer misled, and not before. O Fenian (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Then you truly do not care about having this 'misleading' info removed, as if you did you would work to sorting the dispute so that the article could be unprotected to the new agreed version promptly. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. I know that as long as incorrect information remains in the article and will not be removed until there is agreement, then Mooretwin will not agree. Until you take away his power to stall by refusing to agree, nothing will happen. So we can sit here and twiddle our thumbs for the next ten years, or the issue can be forced by removing the incorrect information? And to think, doing so would benefit the encyclopedia by not misleading the reader too! O Fenian (talk)

Well then we wait, as from what I've witnessed today he's made two efforts and you none. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have warned you before about distorting facts, I suggest you stop with the untrue comments. O Fenian (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

One, two. Or are you suggesting, hilariously, that I should propose a wording when I am unaware of what the as-yet-unseen source says? O Fenian (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

As noted at ANI, go by the figures that are available. Don't make this into more than it really is please. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Your the one doing that! Now there is a proposal above! See no reason to waste time with the likes of you. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

As noted at ANI, and in every reliable source going, the IRA's campaign varied in intensity. The 1970s, early 1970s in particular, were far more violent and far more deaths and injuries were caused. Therefore to include an incomplete figure in the lead suggests to the reader that the number of injuries would be similar for the years not listed. There is no possible argument to counter that, it is misleading period. Unless that is, the figure is included at the relevant point in the article and not in the lead. Which is what's been said for hours now, but it is irrelevant to the information being removed from the lead. It is now beyond a joke that having been presented with evidence that the article is incorrect, that nobody is actually prepared to remove the offending information, hiding behind a "get consensus for it" argument. So I ask you, where was the consensus for the information to be added in the first place?! O Fenian (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

So in conclusion are the estimates we have for death or injury at 20,000 people of which "over" 14,000 of these being civilians, is that under or overestimated ? If OBrien is a poor source then why not use Sinn fein [4] who says "3,000 people have been killed, and 30,000 injured". Now it could be that they are talking these figures up or down, either way we are close enough for the time being and I think we're in the right ball park. Obviously some think that I "should be ignored, as their argument holds no weight". I don't care. Ttiotsw (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless you are implying O'Brien is a poor source due to his figures being from 1986, I do not see where anyone has said he is a poor source. The rest of your post is pointless. The SF figures are the total figures killed or injured by everyone (and can be better sourced elswhere), what are required are the total figure injured by the IRA. So yes your argument, or the one you have just presented, holds no weight. The current question is not whether complete accurate or estimated figures should be included in the lead, but whether the current incorrect and misleading figures should be removed. O Fenian (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I said "If OBrien is a poor source" (it was a question not a claim) and you seem to imply he is an OK source thus, does O'Brien say those or similar figures ? If Yes and as we do not state the actual year in the lead that the figures apply for (only a more encompassing range of 1969 and 1997) then no Wikipedia reader will ever do the maths in their head to extrapolate whatever trend could be construed. If No then do we over or under estimate the figures OBrien claims ?. If we overestimate then that is wrong, but if we underestimate then we can keep the word "over" in place. Ttiotsw (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No, he is reporting the figures up to 1986 only. There seems to be some confusion here. The question is not "Should details about the total injured by the IRA be included in the lead?". The question is "Should the current incorrect and misleading information be removed?". Answering "yes" to the second does not mean answering "no" to the first. It should not be this difficult to get incorrect information that has only just been added to the article removed! O Fenian (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Then we underestimate, which is really all that we need to care about. There are millions of articles in Wikipedia all at various stages of development and at various levels of protection. Why the rush ? The admins for this edit war have correctly locked the article and another admin has supported this and suggested how to change the text (e.g. getting sign-off on revert). I would have thought that the next step would have been to do that rather than attacking the admins and the other editors pre-emptively. I suspect that the option of agreeing to an amicable revert has expired simply through sheer poor judgement by some so therefore the alternative is to track down the actual 1969 and 1997 figures. If the actual figures are at odds with the current edits then the lead should change. In other words though, as an unattached and new editor to this article I'm going to support some death and injury figures in the lead as I think they are germane to the classification, and the effectiveness, of the subject (FWIW my route to this article was I created the stub article of List of encyclicals of Pope Pius VI and so wandered to other Papal Bulls to see how to fill the few English language examples out then I noticed Laudabiliter as the Papal bull of the only English Pope and from looking at how the editors handled editing I noticed this fine article. As an aside I too think it would be the misleading to combine death and injury though technically "casualties" include both dead and injured though I would prefer if we broke the figures out. Ttiotsw (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll go over to the Holocaust article and say an estimated 20 people died then ok? After all, underestimates don't matter? O Fenian (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hyperbole never is a very good argument because though it is never meant to be taken seriously, it does show you are too emotionally attached to the subject to be objective. If you can find a reliable source that says that then you could try though I would doubt you could find one that said 20 persons for those events. Even the Holocaust deniers place the numbers in the many thousands. Here though we have a reliable source that says the numbers that we use so I don't think you are arguing the numbers are wrong but you are arguing that the time frame we quote is imprecise. That's not really that much of a problem I think.

As I mentioned the opportunity to remove all mention of casualties in the lead was lost for whatever reason and the consensus that is developing is to include the figures for the casualties (ideally broken out into deaths and injuries) in the lead. I do agree that we do not needs to say "man, women and children" unless we had a clear breakdown by sex and age. I think find the casualty lists that cover the timeframes first. Ttiotsw (talk) 09:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop with the dramatics. I'd hate to make the protection indefinite, but that is a possibility if you will not work with others. It's seems to have been agreed that the text should be inline with the source, ie it should state that the figures are up to 1986, excluded certain areas, and aren't complete. It's time to get a draft agreed, along with where to stick it in the article and move on. There's nothing more I can do, it's your choice. Message me or another admin when you actually have something that is a product of consensus so we can edit the article or unprotect it so you lot can do it yourselves. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop with the dramatics! Your the one that had your spurious report rejected! You were asked "to retract your claim that the information is sourced," and you refused! Nobody is saying the information shouldn't be in the article but why should the reader be misled while we are discussing it. You are just being pig headed its as simple as that! In your spurious report you pointed to a post by O Fenian and said "This edit implies this dispute could go on forever without some intervention" claiming that this was disruptive? You come along above and say you'll make the "protection indefinite" and will leave misleading information in the Lead, untill your happy with the wording! Would you ever cop onto yourself! Stop with the dramatics, and stop disrupting this discussion to make a point! --Domer48_'fenian' 08:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. It is now clear exactly who is preventing this dispute being resolved, the editor who threatens the page will remain incorrect indefinitely because he says so! O Fenian (talk) 09:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I expect WP:CIVIL apples here. The ANI failed because the closing admin says it is a content dispute, which it is. WP:DR clearly shows the route you would need to take. I question that the average reader would be mislead by the lead other than the numbers we quote are perhaps an underestimate. If the reader was using these numbers for a purpose then they should verify them through checking sources before using them. Wikipedia works well where it provides the sources for the claims even if the nuance of the text used has an non-neutral POV - the text can still be useful to our readers. Ttiotsw (talk) 09:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Getting down to business

A few friendly words, a gesture of good faith, and serious stuff.

• Belfast, 1890s
• 
  Before restoration
• 
  After restoration

Been asked to weigh in as somebody with experience in DR and a totally clean slate on Irish nationalism disputes. So started off by spending several hours restoring a historic street scene of Belfast, chewing on this discussion at this page while getting it ready for featured picture candidacy. Found a possible copyright violation on the article during review; tagged it as a possibly unfree file.

Down to business. The wrong version usually gets protected during an edit war; see The Wrong Version. Here's the disputed text:

It is estimated that between 1969 and 1997, the IRA was responsible for the death or injury of over 20,000 people: over 14,000 of these being civilians.

Suggesting the editors here seek formal mediation to resolve the matter. A few points to consider:

• Should the casualties section be summarized in the lead? If so, what would a brief and neutral casualties statement include?
• Should this material (or something along these lines) move down into the body of the article and be covered in more depth? Possibly with a greater range of sources?
• In terms of casualties for this conflict, how widely to reputable sources vary?

As a reminder, this article is under general sanctions. Although the issue is a content dispute, recent conduct at this page looks problematic. Please refrain from name calling, vulgar terms, and Godwin's Law violations. Best wishes working this out. Durova²⁹⁸ 03:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not word it as:

It is estimated that between 1969 and 1997, the IRA was responsible for the death of SOME NUMBER and injury of SOME OTHER NUMBER: with around SOME THIRD NUMBER of these being civilians.

Another option would be to include ranges, if ranges are available from different sources.

It is estimated that between 1969 and 1997, the IRA was responsible for the injury of XX,XXX-XX,XXX people (with XX,XXX-XX,XXX of those being civilians) as well as XXX deaths.

A third option would be to remove the disputed sentence entirely. There is a Casualties section in the article. Honestly as far as the lead is concerned, the most important information is that there was a military campaign from 1969-1997.

Lot 49a^talk 16:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, one formula that's worked in other articles for disputed figures is for the editors to agree upon which sources are suitable enough to cite, and then state "Estimates range from (low figure with citation) to (high figure with citation)." Or if citing only one source, "According to (So-and-So), the casualties were (numbers) as of (date range of So-and-So's study)." Although cited estimates across different Wikipedia articles vary by greater than an order of magnitude. So for a brief and neutral lead it might be more effective to note in a general sense to note that casualties were substantial. Then within the section discuss the differing figures, methodologies, and related controversies in greater depth. Not certain whether this path would be feasible or acceptable, just a few suggestions from a very distant perspective. It's the sort of issue that could mediate well. Durova²⁹⁸ 00:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite apart from the POV aspect, "death or injury of over 20,000 people" is unencyclopaedic. Does it mean one death plus 19,999 injuries, 10,000 plus 10,000 or 19,999 plus one? I would query whether the information is needed in the lead at all - the version without it looks fine to me. There is one option, however, that doesn't seem to have been considered: include the figure for deaths and not the one for injuries. Since they come from different sources covering different timescales they are certainly not interdependent, and I personally don't think that they are equally of interest from the point of view of inclusion in the lead. Scolaire (talk) 06:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello? There is a proposal to replace the existing text with:

• • McKittrick et al estimated in 1999 that the Provisional IRA was responsible for a total of 1,781 deaths to date and O'Brien has estimated that by 1986 the IRA had injured 6,000 British Army, UDR and RUC and up to 14,000 civilians, during the Troubles.

The number of people injured (as well as killed) by a paramilitary organisation is certainly of interest and relevance, as it gives an interesting and useful understanding of the organisation's impact on society. Mooretwin (talk) 08:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Leaving aside that the lead for the article is getting pretty long and I'd support cutting it down more in general, that sentence seems fine to me. I gather that there isn't consensus about the sentence? Lot 49a^talk 15:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Unsupported by the source in every possible way. O'Brien does not support the assertion that "up to 14,000" were injured by the IRA. Neither is the 14,000 (or the 6,000) inclusive of all areas in which the IRA operated, and neither is it inclusive of all types of IRA attack. O Fenian (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there any version of the sentence that you can imagine being acceptable for the opening lead section of the article? Or is your position firmly that the lead section shouldn't discuss casualties at all? Lot 49a^talk 17:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not see how the removal of information that is incorrect now prevents the matter from being discussed further, or correct information being added at a future point in time. O Fenian (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello? There is also a proposal to replace the existing text with:

• • McKittrick et al estimated in 1999 that the Provisional IRA was responsible for a total of 1,781 deaths to date and O'Brien has estimated that by 1986 the IRA had injured 6,000 British Army, UDR and RUC and up to 14,000 civilians, during the Troubles.

I don't like it, it's unnecessary, but it's better than the misleading statement that's there. The proposal above is worthy of discussion for inclusion in the "Casualties" section, but it's totally inappropriate for the lead. For one thing it's way to long, for another it's only there to hammer home a point. Mooretwin says, "it gives an interesting and useful understanding of the organisation's impact on society." What he means is, "it is necessary to show what evil men these were." I don't agree that it is necessary. Scolaire (talk) 06:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I would think that anyone visiting this page would be interested is knowing how many people the IRA killed or injured. After all they didn't achive much else of note between 1969 and 2001 - cetainly not a united Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.101.139 (talk) 06:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I would question whether the above post should even be left. It is obviously intended to be disruptive. Scolaire (talk) 06:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

We're not here to censor people, so long as it's about the article and doesn't personally attack a named editor. Anyhow, is it agreed that the material isn't best suited for the lead then? If so can we see some agreement on a suitable draft to be included elsewhere? Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 07:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It's agreed that the information is misleading and should be removed. Removing misleading information which had no consensus in the first place will not prevent discussion. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The goal is to get an agreed draft along with its placement done as soon as possible. Note the issue also affects the fully protected Provisional_IRA_campaign_1969–1997 article. I will not be commenting again on the request to make an protected edit. If this cannot be done here the suggested next step is Mediation. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Per Domer, I'd like to see agreement on changing or removing the wording in the lead while the article is protected. Then we can get down to discussing long-term changes. BTW the information is already included in the article. That's not primarily what's in dispute here. Scolaire (talk) 08:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

See my countless points raised on this, along with Durova's first post. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've seen them, thank you. What I'm not clear about is why it's wrong for me to suggest to Mooretwin and O Fenian that they agree on a compromise edit to be made to the protected version while the discussion continues. Scolaire (talk) 08:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If that was what the original request would have been, then it would have been fine. There's nothing preventing both sides from coming to a compromise and say 'we agree to remove the disputed text in the lead whilst discussion on its wording and placement takes place'. If that were to happen I'd delete the disputed bit immediately. Or, whilst in discussion about that to agree to the new wording and placement at the same time so that all issues could be sorted in one go. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Then my suggestion stands. Scolaire (talk) 09:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The sentence should be replaced with the proposed wording mentioned above which splits injuries / deaths so it can not be considered misleading. The number of people this group killed and wounded is vital information which clearly belongs in the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

BritishWatcher, I'm afraid the proposed wording can be and is considered misleading. Reading the casualties section, estimated civilian deaths account for 600-650 out of 1800 total deaths, or 35%; estimated civilian injuries before 1986 account for 14000 out of 20000, or 70%. Guess which statistic appears in the lead? Is that NPOV? No, it's not. Also, per my comments above, you haven't shown how the information is "vital" or why it "clearly" belongs in the intro. Scolaire (talk) 09:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Im not defending the figures used, all im saying is it is vital that information on the numbers killed / wounded by this group appears in the introduction. I wouldnt have a problem with it saying killed between "*** and ***" and wounded between "***** and *****" but that is rather important information which should be available in the introduction. So just removing the current sentence, wont solve the problem, it should be replaced with agreed new wording presented in a balanced way but stating the clear facts. The introduction is meant to sum up the article, to not include any information on numbers killed / wounded would clearly be biased. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

1. And I'm not disputing the figures, I'm talking about how they are presented in the wording that you support. 2. There's that word "clearly" again. Not to include casualty figures doesn't bias the intro in any way, although you might think it makes it deficient. I would agree with you that working on an agreed wording for the lead is what we should be doing, but it needs to based on something better than what's currently proposed. Scolaire (talk) 09:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

So how would you want the sentence explaining how many this terrorist group has killed/wounded worded? I think to leave out such information is biased and its certainly doesnt help the reader who may find such information rather useful. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, where is the bias? Which point of view does it bias the reader towards and how? I will ofer a proposal for the wording in the lead, but not off the top of my head. The issue won't be resolved in the next few minutes anyway. Scolaire (talk) 09:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You say you the proposed wording can be and is considered misleading, yet fail to explain how, other than by fallacious reasoning that argues the proportion of civilians injured by PIRA must be the same as the proportion killed by PIRA. What have you to back up this strange claim? The reliable source provides figures for injuries up to 1986 and there is no good reason to doubt them. To claim that the source is POV is also without foundation. PIRA-inflicted injuries, as well as PIRA-inflicted deaths should be recorded in the lead. PIRA was, after all, a paramilitary organisation whose raison d'etre was to use force to achieve its aims. How can deaths and injuries not be relevant enough for the lead? Mooretwin (talk) 09:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

My "fallacious" reasoning argues that the wording as proposed suggests that the IRA was responbsible for 70% of all casualties, deaths as well as injuries. It is calculated to paint the IRA in the poorest possible light, which is POV by definition. I never claimed that any source was POV; what I said was that the way the figures were presented in your proposal was POV. That the IRA was "a paramilitary organisation whose raison d'etre was to use force to achieve its aims" seems to me the weakest possible argument for including casualty figures in the lead. Scolaire (talk) 10:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

And how does the proposed wording suggest that PIRA was responbsible for 70% of all casualties, deaths as well as injuries? And what is the basis for your claim that O'Brien calculated the figure "to paint the IRA in the poorest possible light"? And why do you think that relating injury figures to the violent methods of the subject of the article is "the weakest possible argument for including casualty figures in the lead"? It seems like a rather obvious reason to me. Mooretwin (talk) 10:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing to say about O'Brien and his figures. The way you use them is calculated to paint the IRA in the poorest possible light, which is POV by definition. Scolaire (talk) 10:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

And what is the basis for this allegation? Unless you can provide reasoning for the allegation, I suggest that you withdraw it. Please assume good faith. I have no interest in paiting anyone "in the poorest possible light", and every interest in presenting relevant facts objectively. That is why I have proposed the wording which (a) makes clear that the estimate is attributed, and (b) makes clear that the estimate relates only up to 1986. If more up-to-date information is available, kindly post it. Unfortunately, however, the only information we have is O'Brien. I'll also ask again: how does the proposed wording suggest that PIRA was responbsible for 70% of all casualties, deaths as well as injuries? And why do you think that relating injury figures to the violent methods of the subject of the article is "the weakest possible argument for including casualty figures in the lead"? Mooretwin (talk) 10:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Scolaire, please have the courtesy to respond to other editors. You have made an allegation against me and I have asked you to substantiate it. You also made claims about the proposed text which you have been asked to explain. Please respond to these points. Mooretwin (talk) 11:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no proposed text. O Fenian (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is. And you know there is as you engaged in discussion with me about it.

• McKittrick et al estimated in 1999 that the Provisional IRA was responsible for a total of 1,781 deaths to date and O'Brien has estimated that by 1986 the IRA had injured 6,000 British Army, UDR and RUC and up to 14,000 civilians, during the Troubles.[7] [8]

Mooretwin (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no proposed text. O Fenian (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is. I have proposed: McKittrick et al estimated in 1999 that the Provisional IRA was responsible for a total of 1,781 deaths to date and O'Brien has estimated that by 1986 the IRA had injured 6,000 British Army, UDR and RUC and up to 14,000 civilians, during the Troubles. Mooretwin (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Ignoring discussion Mooretwin especially when when the exact diff has been pointed out isn't very helpful. BigDunc 20:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid the above comment makes little sense to me. Who is ignoring discussion? The "exact diff" is O Fenian's opinion. It doesn't alter the fact that a proposal is on the table. Maybe you don't like it, and you are at liberty to say why, but it is still there. Mooretwin (talk) 23:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Could use the BBC for a source on the number of deaths caused by PIRA. [5] BritishWatcher (talk) 23:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

We've got a reliable source for the deaths (Lost Lives). It's the injuries we only have a source up to 1986. Mooretwin (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahh ok, nm anyway figures on there are not limited to PIRA. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

To try and hide the fact this group killed and wounded large numbers of civilians by completly avoiding mentioning it in the introduction seems like clear bias to me. Im not strongly supporting any wording, i dont like sentences which put injured / deaths into a single figure like it currently does because it doesnt provide clear information. Aslong as somewhere in the intro it states in a fair and neutral way that this organisation was responsible for a certain amount of deaths and injuries including of civilians then im ok it with. Without stating information on the deaths/wounded the introduction is very very weak, it tells the reader almost nothing at all and is biased.

Basically without that last sentence all the introduction says is.. What the paramilitary group is called, what it wanted, that its considered a terrorist organisation/ illegal in UK/ROI, it gave up its weapons and the British Army considered it "professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient". Apart from "bring about a united Ireland by force of arms and political persuasion" , it doesnt actually say anything about what this group DID. So "force of arms" is the only mention of violence in the whole introduction. Do we all honestly think without a sentence mentioning deaths / wounded the intro is balanced and neutral? BritishWatcher (talk) 10:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Now you're talking! It's the "Strategy 1969–1998" section that needs summarising in the lead. The fact that that the IRA carried on an "armed struggle" for those thirty years is the thing that's missing. It's far longer than the "Casualties" subsection. Without it, figures for death and injury tell the reader nothing. Why don't we work at improving that aspect of the lead? Scolaire (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but the outcome of that strategy which is death / injuries clearly needs to be mentioned too. If we could have a balanced paragraph in the intro covering strategy / deaths including how many of their own they lost in the 30 years i think it would be useful to the reader. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you both and I've made an attempt to rewrite the section lead entirely below. I'd love to hear comments/see an improved version. Lot 49a^talk 06:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the figures tell the reader how many lives were destroyed by the PIRA's "armed stuggle" (bit POV, some would consider it a "murder campaign"). The numbers of dead and wounded are the PIRA's major contribution to Ireland over the past 40 years (remember, they failed in their primary aim of a united Ireland), and therefore should appear in the lead for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.101.139 (talk) 10:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This is now officially a joke

Here at 17:13, 10 August 2009 I reject Mooretwin's proposed text as unsupported by the source in every way. Despite this, he continues to debate his proposed text for the next 24 hours. At 15:05, 11 August 2009 I say there is no proposed text, since it has been rejected. He then claims at 17:30, 11 August 2009 there is still proposed text, I reply at 17:34, 11 August 2009 with an exact diff to where I have rejected the text, which is ignored at 18:48, 11 August 2009 and 23:08, 11 August 2009, the latter of which on the grounds that it is my opinion.

Well what is the problem here? The problem is that my opinion counts for more than Mooretwin's about whether it is supported by the source, because MOORETWIN HAS NOT SEEN THE SOURCE. How do I know this? There is no way the proposed text would be worded that way if he had. So there are two options for this to be resolved;

1. Mooretwin can immediately produce the exact text from O'Brien and also say where O'Brien got the information from, both of which are in the source. Note that if he can do this he will also need to explain why his proposed text differs from the source in significant ways
2. Mooretwin can admit he has not seen the source

This is totally unacceptable to me. O Fenian (talk) 09:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Although he hasn't explained how the proposed text is not supported by the source, the above seems to imply that O Fenian has the source but is withholding the text. Is this so? If so, why? I do not have the source and have never claimed to have had it. I am, however, assuming good faith that the use of the source in the other article is accurate. Mooretwin (talk) 09:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

How many times have I already said the current text was inaccurate?! O Fenian (talk) 09:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

lets focus on the new proposed intro below. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No, let's focus on whether Mooretwin has deliberately attempted to sidetrack discussion and stall based on a source he has never seen. This is more important. O Fenian (talk) 09:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If we are to have the current sentence removed from the intro we need agreement on what will be replacing it. We cant just remove the sentence, without any indication of deaths/injuries the introduction doesnt tell us anything at all about what they did. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Mooretwin trying to cause disruption for disruptions sake. Along with his recent efforts at cavassing combined with this and its becoming worrying. Please answer O Fenians direct questions.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

He has just admitted he does not have the source. So what gives him the right to carry on maintaining the proposed text is acceptable by dismissing the objections of the editor who does have the source who says it is unsupported? O Fenian (talk) 09:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

What exactly does the source say which makes Mooretwins proposed text wrong? Also surely there must be some other sources on how many people this terrorist group has wounded, not just this one? BritishWatcher (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

We still await O Fenian's explanation of how the proposed text does not match the source. As already noted, the source has been used elsewhere and, unless O Fenian can explain why we should not accept it, we must assume good faith that the source has been properly used elsewhere. Does O Fenian have the source? If so, why won't he share it with us? If not, how does he know that it doesn't support the proposed text? Mooretwin (talk) 10:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This type of stonewalling by Mooretwin is typical and can be seen on a range of different articles with his loayalist pal BW now endorsing his disruption. To be frank you have been caught by the balls now answer the question have you got the source you claim to be using? BigDunc 11:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Strange comments:

• (1) I'm not stonewalling.
• (2) It's not typical of me to stonewall. Indeed, I'm not aware ever of having stonewalled.
• (3) I'm not sure whether the claim that BW is my "pal" and also a "loyalist" means that you are insinuating that I, too, am a "loyalist", but I can assure you that I am not.
• (3) I am not disrupting: on the contrary, I am the only editor so far to have proposed an alternative text. O Fenian's and others' refusal to engage would appear to me to be more disruptive than my attempts to engage.
• (4) It is bizarre to say that I have been "caught by the balls", when (a) I have never claimed to have the source, (b) that should have been clear from the start of my contributions when I said that we should assume that the source was being used accurately in the other article, and (c) I explicitly said that I do not have the source above.
• (5) We still await O Fenian's explanation of how the proposed text does not match the source, and how he knows the proposed text does not match the source if he does not have the source. Until we get clarity from O Fenian, it is difficult to see how we can progress. If he has the source, then great: let's work on it. Mooretwin (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a different story when you have not got the numbers to push your pov. This is Article space, not the POV pushers collaboration, you've been caught out on sources, or your lack of them. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yet another strange comment. It's been clear all along that I don't have the source. Read WP:AGF. We still await O Fenian's response that explains his basis for saying the text doesn't match the source. Mooretwin (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

---

If it helps to add a positive note, the photochrom of Belfast has been promoted to featured picture. Durova³⁰⁵ 16:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Put in a request for Dispute Resolution

Following Durova's advice, I've opened a topic here in the hopes of getting consensus moving. Lot 49a^talk 16:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually my advice was to open a formal mediation request (either WP:MEDCOM or WP:MEDCAB). The administrators' noticeboard does not provide dispute resolution. Durova²⁹⁸ 17:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh! I'm sorry, thanks for the correction. (Still new to DR) Lot 49a^talk 17:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

How will the removal of information that is incorrect prevent the matter from being discussed. Why is incorrect information being left in place? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The page was protected to stop the edit warring. Which could have led to blocks or other actions, since this page is under arbitration general sanctions. Page protection is the least intrusive way of dealing with that problem. And I'm not an administrator so I couldn't unprotect it if I wanted. Durova²⁹⁸ 15:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Now would you like to answer the questions? --Domer48_'fenian' 16:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure who that question is directed toward. The Wrong Version is already linked above. Repeating the suggestion to seek formal mediation. Durova²⁹⁹ 00:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I can take a stab at answering the question. I get that having the wrong version protected is frustrating. The issue is that there isn't consensus for the version WITHOUT the sentence either. There's a dispute happening, so there is no consensus by definition.

Due to WP:BOLD we can frequently expect that additions will be made without immediate consensus. Most of the time this is fine. Sometimes, disputes like the one we are resolving now will crop up. The way forward is for everyone involved to come to agreement about a suitable sentence ASAP. Lot 49a^talk 03:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The question is very simple, how will the removal of information that is incorrect prevent the matter from being discussed? This is not about the wrong version being protected, it's about misleading information being removed pending didcussion. So stop stonewalling! --Domer48_'fenian' 07:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right that, had the article been protected with the offending sentence out of it, we could still be discussing the dispute. I'm perfectly willing to support reverting to a version without the sentence or any other random version. In 6 months, it won't matter which article was the live version during the brief protection period, because it will have been replaced with whatever ends this dispute. Two admins have already rejected requests to revert to the version without the sentence, so in my opinion the best way out of this mess is for all of us to work on an acceptable version as quickly as we can and get that live. I've made a version of the intro below which omits the disputed injuries figure (or replaces it with the broad "thousands"). I'd appreciate if you could give that a look and comment. Lot 49a^talk 14:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

There are very few scenarios in which a full protected article gets edited without consensus. Here's one. Note that a principal reason the outcome was decisive was because one side had repeatedly offered to use normal site venues, while the other was stonewalling. Durova²⁹⁹ 20:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

An attempt at rewriting the lead entirely

((Given that the discussion of the single sentence doesn't seem to be moving towards consensus, I thought I'd try a different tactic and propose a re-writing of the whole opening that shortens it. All of the information that was in the lead is still available int he body of the article itself. We don't need to cover everything before the section heads. For the injuries/deaths thing I just covered deaths and not injuries as a kind of compromise.))

((We'd need to put all the formatting back in))

The Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) is an Irish republican paramilitary organisation that considers itself a direct continuation of the Irish Republican Army (the army of the Irish Republic — 1919–1921) that fought in the Irish War of Independence. It is one of several organisations calling themselves the IRA (see List of IRAs). The Provisionals' constitution establishes them as Óglaigh na hÉireann ("The Irish Volunteers") in the Irish language. The Provisional Irish Republican Army is sometimes referred to as the PIRA, the Provos, or by some of its supporters as the Army or the 'RA.

The IRA's stated objective is to end "British rule in Ireland," and according to its constitution, it wants "to establish an Irish Socialist Republic, based on the Proclamation of 1916." Until the 1998 Belfast Agreement, it sought to end Northern Ireland's status within the United Kingdom and bring about a united Ireland by force of arms and political persuasion. Between, 1969 and 1998, the IRA conducted an armed campaign against British and loyalist forces, killing approximately 1,800 people, including approximately 620 civilians. An internal British Army document released in 2007 describes the IRA as "professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient."

On 28 July 2005, the IRA Army Council announced an end to its armed campaign, stating that it would work to achieve its aims using "purely political and democratic programmes through exclusively peaceful means". The organisation is classified as a proscribed terrorist group in the United Kingdom and as an illegal organisation in the Republic of Ireland.

((Is there support for this attempt or should we stick to the one controversial sentence? Lot 49a^talk 04:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't mention injuries. Also, the PIRA armed campaign was not only against British and loyalist forces, but targeted "civilians", as well, particularly during the early years. Mooretwin (talk) 08:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That seems ok to me although i think injuries should be mentioned as Mooretwin said. something like "and wounding over...." should be added on to the end of the sentence on the deaths. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I can understand why you'd also want injuries in the article intro. I'm leaving them out as they seem to be the sticking point re: accuracy and the biggest roadblock to consensus if I am understanding the objections being raised by O Fenian and Domer48 correctly. (Looking forward to hearing their views on this proposal)

If we can find an injuries number that everyone's happy with, maybe we can put them in? Another alternative that might be acceptable to everyone might be just saying something like "and injuring thousands" leaving the disputed details for the casualties section. Lot 49a^talk 13:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"and injuring thousands" is fine with me. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I dopn't care what anybody says, the whole article is very biased towards the IRA and anti-British. The whole tone of the article talks in a revered voice towards the IRA and I'm not sure of the use of IRA propaganda pictures in the article. The facts of the matter are that the IRA did murder (yes, murder) thousands of people. Just because the IRA regarded those it killed as acceptable targets it doesn't mean they were.

Talking of POV, look at this quote "The bombing campaign principally targeted political, economic and military targets, and approximately 60 civilians were killed by the IRA in England during the conflict.[54] It has been argued that this bombing campaign helped convince the British government (who had hoped to contain the conflict to Northern Ireland with its Ulsterisation policy) to negotiate with Sinn Féin after the IRA ceasefires of August 1994 and July 1997." What about mention of the other "argument" that says the bombing campaign in England led to a hardening of the governments attitude to the IRA and its operations and led to an almost total loss of support for the IRA and its cause in the eyes of the British people? Oh sorry, that can't be acknowledged as it doesn't legitimise the IRA campaign in the same way as the weasel words in the article do. There is virtually no mention of the campaign of terror carried out by the IRA in the 1970s and 1980s against civilian populations throughout Northern Ireland and the UK. Honestly, this is bad. This is rewriting history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.52 (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed the article bias is clear, the fact people do not even seem to want the figures for deaths/injuries in the intro highlights the problems faced here. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The proposed version is biased, selective and unacceptable. Equally unacceptable are the proposed additions of vague figures or unsourced point-of-view that certain editors have mentioned. O Fenian (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Please propose an alternative. Lot 49a^talk 15:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit Request - POV tag.

Please put the {{POV}} template in the heading.

There is an ongoing dispute about the accuracy of the lead section of the article. While this means there is no consensus about the right version, it also means that the neutrality of the article is in dispute. This might also take some steps towards addressing O Fenian and Domer48's concerns while the article remains locked.

I am making this request without discussion as I believe that it will be uncontroversial. In the event that I'm wrong, apologies in advance. Lot 49a^talk 14:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the dispute tag from hidden to full view. This explains the situation to would-be readers. If you still wish to add a specific maintenance tag then propose it here, get consensus, and then make an protected edit request. Those type of requests are to be made once consensus is reached. Nja²⁴⁷ 15:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that your decision serves well to highlight the situation and seems like a step in the right direction. Thank you. If everyone working on this problem agrees that we should add the {{POV}} I'll draft a request.Lot 49a^talk 15:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well no 'draft' is needed, essentially just show some type of consensus here by involved parties that {{POV}} is wanted, then feel free to ask me on my talk page or use the protected edit tag and another admin will do it. Same goes for any other proposals you lot come up with to end the dispute. Cheers. Nja²⁴⁷ 16:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If the incorrect and misleading sentence is removed there is no need for a {{POV}} tag. Removing that one sentence will not prevent discussion! Leaving it there knowing that the information is misleading, and despite the fact that there is discussion on replacing the incorrect and misleading sentence Admin's insist that it must stay there is in my opinion stubborn pig headedness. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

IF the sentence is removed before agreement reached on what is to replace it then the POV tag would have to remain anyway because the intro would in no way be neutral.. Without information on deaths / injuries the intro doesnt explain what this group actually did. They could of been going around Dognapping loyalists pets for all we know. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you catch yourself on BW before the introduction of incorrect content the lead was in no way POV, the lead was an overview of the article, I am not saying it couldn't be changed, more added or taken away, but to add a POV tag because a list of casualties wasn't on it is wrong. BigDunc 22:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Given that so far administrators have been unwilling to edit the article until the involved parties reach consensus, would you be willing to accept the NPOV tag as a compromise? Lot 49a^talk 22:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If your asking me no I wouldn't, an admin has made a mistake on this issue and his pals in the admin core will not go against one of their own even when wrong, the current tag is enough IMO. BigDunc 22:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the current status is OK for now too. As you are someone who is opposed to the offending sentence and Mooretwin's proposed revision, I'm wondering if you would be willing to comment on my attempt to rewrite the introduction in a way that will please everyone? Ideally, if there are any problems, you could even offer a re-write. Lot 49a^talk 22:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well it depends what was there before that sentence on injuries / deaths was added. If there was nothing then i do consider that biased and also very unhelpful. If it had just deaths then sure that is not too bad. But reading through the whole introduction, with the exception of the last sentence there really is nothing that explains to the reader what this group engaged in and got up to. I think thats missing vital information, especially when it mentions them being described as "professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient" theres no balance at all explaining this group killed and injured 1000s. It really is important to have that in the info considering the infobox sadly does not mention it either, how far down the article am i supposed to go before getting to the gory bits? :| BritishWatcher (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The gory bits as you call them are well covered in another article about the activities of the IRA Provisional IRA campaign 1969-1997#Casualties, this article is basically a history of the organisation it covers casualties but not in great detail as it is in another article. BigDunc 22:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thats very true, although im not so sure that is a good thing and it may put into question the whole balance of the article. I had to go very far down this article before i came across their dark deeds and even then it wasnt in much detail. Obviously its right there is another article for full details / actions but it certainly requires a mention in the intro and perhaps more detail in the article itself here. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a simple fact that Nja247 is sitting on this sentence, despite it being incorrect and misleading. That removing this sentence would in no way prevent discussion is obvious. So the question remains, why are they leaving this sentence in. It was an edit warring IP who made this edit, and Nja247 is rewarding their disruption. Nja247 have you ever heard of WP:OR, WP:V or WP:NPOV? --Domer48_'fenian' 07:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You need to stop blaming me for the issue and look at how it can be rectified. You lot need to sort it yourselves. I suppose I'll say it again, if you all decide to edit something then it will happen, thus start compromising or take it on to mediation as suggested by Durova above. Not only have I said you need consensus to make edits, but so have two other admins (TheDJ and Thatcher). Further, Durova has much experience in helping with disputes and she said the same thing. Get over it mate and move on, or take it up at WP:ADMINABUSE as I'm tired of being blamed for the issues you don't try to resolve yourself after you've been told numerous times by various impartial admins and seasoned editors. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

If I take this to mediation, will you guys be willing to participate? Or is going to mediation a waste of their time? Lot 49a^talk 05:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course. Mooretwin (talk) 10:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Mediation sounds like a good idea to me aslong as its not too restricted in its scope, it cant just be should the sentence stay or go, there must be the ability to reach agreement on rewording of a sentence or paragraph in the introduction to make it more balanced. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I would not for one be interested in mediation, I went through it before and when faced with intransigent loyalists it is a waste of time. I also am of the opinion that the continued refusal to remove incorrect content shows the serious flaws inherent in wikipedia that preclude it as a reliable source so leave it protected with false information, the only people who are losing are the readers who are looking for correct information. BigDunc 13:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

A factual accuracy warning tag should be added to the article so its clear there may be problem. If that is added though i want the POV tag added aswell because the bias on this article is alarming. Some articles on childrens TV shows are more critical than this one about a terrorist organisation. As i mentioned before, we dont actually learn what this group did in the introduction (if that final sentence is removed). BritishWatcher (talk) 13:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect statements must be removed from the article, especially a sensitive article like this one, as with any troubles related NI article. Tfz 14:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed incorrect statements should be removed, but that can only happen when agreement is reached on what replaces it. We can not just take out that sentence, that resolves nothing. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That does not make sense, sentences are being removed from articles on Wikipedia all of the time. There is no logical rule to cover such a notion. Tfz 14:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

When the page is locked its not so simple. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I’ve no problem with the article being left locked with the incorrect and misleading sentence in it. It can be used as an example of Admin arrogance, and loyalist POV pushing BS. Since when do you need consensus to remove misleading information which nobody supports? So also we now need mediation because of one sentence? I for one am not interested in another round on nonsensical discussions with the same POV pushers. We had one already BSing about having a source until they were caught out above, nah not interested. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

How do you propose that we proceed? Lot 49a^talk 18:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't! We leave that POV pushing loyalist crap in and use it as an exemplar of Admin incompetents and arrogance! It also illustrates how this POV pushing crap is welcomed and accepted by some editors who in the absence of sources, make them up. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you plan to follow the procedures outlined in WP:ADMINABUSE ? Lot 49a^talk| —Preceding undated comment added 20:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC).

If we get agreement on what to replace that sentence with then it will be changed quickly, but i cant support simply removing that sentence and not adding something back in. The introduction is clearly biased and in my opinion its pretty unhelpful and it tells us nothing about what this group has actually done if that one sentence is removed. As i mentioned before they could have been doggynapping loyalists pets for all we know from that intro. It is people who are refusing to engage to bring about change that are to blame for the sentence remaining in the article. Ive still not seen the evidence that what is said is false or inaccurate, although i accept id rather deaths/injuries were split rather than a single total. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Pig headedness is not WP:ADMINABUSE it’s a prerogative! BW read the discussion! You've "not seen the evidence" is that supposed to surprise anyone? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

So if I understand you correctly, your position is that you are unwilling to discuss changes to the article unless we remove the sentence first, you are unwilling to do mediation and though you think that this is an example of Admin incompetence, you are unwilling to take any steps to see to it that the admin is disciplined. You'd rather that this article remain locked as a kind of example of how bad Wikipedia is. Does that about cover it? Lot 49a^talk 21:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ive looked at the discussion. I see Mooretwin clearly asking BigDunc what exactly the problem is with the sentence, none of you have explained the problem. Mooretwin had the final word in that section above, no one demanding the sentence be removed has answered his question, he just gets attacked and his intentions questioned.

Simply question: Please explain how exactly the sentence is wrong

And if it is wrong then lets get agreement to reword it with what you all think is right, but we cant simply removing something and add nothing back. Im not defending the statement there, i dont know if its true or false, but ive yet to hear why it is false and those pushing for its removal have not suggested a compromise wording. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"(5) We still await O Fenian's explanation of how the proposed text does not match the source, and how he knows the proposed text does not match the source if he does not have the source. Until we get clarity from O Fenian, it is difficult to see how we can progress. If he has the source, then great: let's work on it." - thats what Mooretwin said 5 days ago, so far ive seen no one respond to this, everyone is simply attacking the admin or other editors. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Per above! --Domer48_'fenian' 22:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Where abouts above should i be looking for the answers to the questions i said earlier? BritishWatcher (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If mediation is becoming less of an option, I think taking this on to request for comment may be the next step in the dispute resolution process. This way community feedback can be obtained on the conduct of users in resolving the content dispute. It could also serve as the basis for a renewed ArbCom case should that process fail to resolve the issue. Nja²⁴⁷ 06:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

What kind of vieled threats are you issuing now? Arbcom do not deal with content disputes which is what you claim this is and a request for comment would be nice on the IP hopping vandal who added incorrect unsourced content that you seen fit to protect and then tell editors that they must discuss what replaces the incorrect content before we move on, BS. Since when do you have to discuss what is going to replace content before you make an edit? We have Mooretwin composing a line using a source that he never even seen and this is an option to discuss, come on. If you are going to continue to throw threats around I will extricate myself from the process. BigDunc 10:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I don't threaten anyone, ever. All I did was go by WP:DR, ie if mediation isn't going to happen then the next logical step is RFC. There's a content dispute, but there are also certain patterns of behaviour that may end up causing issue even for RFC, and if that were the case I'm simply stating the obvious. This article and some editors in the subject aren't virgins to Arb. Please don't get upset from me stating the natural progression of the dispute resolution policy. It'd be helpful for all involved to stop pointing fingers at each other and sorting it, but mediation seems less and less likely from these comments. Nja²⁴⁷ 12:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has said how the sentence is incorrect yet. Mooretwin has asked very clearly for someone to explain how the source is wrong or what it says. NOBODY has answered and hes prepared to work on rewording it. Theres just one bunch of editors moaning and moaning here about admins or the process but refusing to address the actual problem. Im against a RFC at the moment, if no evidence is produced showing how the sentence is wrong, it should remain in the article (ive no idea either way). BritishWatcher (talk) 11:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree BigDunc, pure idiocy. An example of how to deal with POV IP editors who try to use misleading sources can be seen on this article here. We have like on this article, an edit warring IP, trying to add misleading unreferenced WP:OR. An Admin attempted to help resolve the issue, [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] but to no avail, my view being you can’t reason with a POV warrior. The IP continued to edit war, refusing to listen to reason and the Admin placed a warning on their talk page and not having the desired effect made a 3RR report on the IP here. As a result, they were blocked. This IP's actions did not result in Article locks, Tags, reams of discussion, mediation, suggested RfC or ArbCom. Probably because the Admin involved in the other Article addressed the issue with common sense, in a rational and logical way? However on this article, it was made a balls of from the very start, and just kept getting worse the more the Admin of Locks and Blocks kept getting involved. A reasonable editor will notice the different approaches by Admin’s to the exact same situation, and will be able to work out why one Article has not got an issue with misleading WP:OR and is open for editing, while on this one, the article is locked, has misleading WP:OR in it, and has an Admin sitting on it to keep it that why. Maybe if the blocking Admin on the other Article had learned how to do things right in the first place, they would not be messing this article up now. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The problems appears to be that the (for want of a better term - and this is not meant as an insult) "Republican" editors only seem interested in throwing around insults and abuse, rather than coming to an agreement on this dispute. A fact that we can be clear on, is that the PIRA killed and injured many thousands of people, both military and civilian. If a exact figure on the numbers injured cannot be found, then we need to use the most up to date, verifiable source available. It would be better to have "Republican" approval of the figures used (especially as it was mainly their countrymen that suffered at the hands of the PIRA), however as it seems they seem more concerned with having a collective temper tantrum, I suggest we go with the figures already posted.Cromwellian Conquest (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Strange how loyalist editor Mooretwin assumes good faith that the original source was cited correctly, and assumes good faith that the figures are from 1986 on my word, yet despite him not seeing the original source he fails to assume good faith when I say his proposed sentence is not supported by the source. If you would like to know what the source says you can buy a copy of the book, you can assume good faith when I tell you that the proposed sentence is not supported by the source and also that no sentence that could possibly go in the lead can be constructed using the source. Therefore it is time to stop this fishing for herrings, as they are all red. Equally strange is that despite editors asserting that the lead of this article should contain details of casualties, that the UDA, UVF and a number of related articles do not contain such information, perhaps their agenda does not include the addition of comparable information to those articles, after all they have had ample opportunity to achieve parity yet have failed to attempt it. Just as strange is the Operation Banner article only including details of deaths and injuries inflicted on the British Army, and not ones they caused. Bloody Sunday doesn't even get a mention!

I see no point in mediation when editors pursuing a non-neutral agenda insist on retaining incorrect, unsourced and/or misleading information while this is ongoing. Wikipedia is written for the benefit of readers not editors, so why should readers be misled because of a dispute between editors? I have asked this many times, yet never received a straight answer. O Fenian (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine speech, i notice you didnt address the actual problem of whats wrong with the source. Do not just tell us to go out and buy it, if you want it removed you need to clearly explain why its wrong. Just because you dont like it is no excuse for removing. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I already have told you it does not source the sentence, and why. You can either assume good faith when I say that, or you can buy a copy of the book. I could not give a flying fuck which you do. O Fenian (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If you have the source and think it is not inline with the sentence then please state the problem, we need more details. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

My point exactly , having outlined above the problems with the sentence, without challenge, this is no longer a content dispute. The sentence is un-sourced and misleading but remains left in. This prompts the question, why? While some can’t be bothered to read the discussion to understand the problems with the sentence, and are therefore best ignored, others are content to have the sentence left in. While I’m content to leave it there with the article locked to illustrate a problem with some Admin’s/Editors, as an Editor I’m also mindful of deliberately misleading readers. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No details have been given about why the sentence is incorrect or what the source actually says. Instead of getting helpful information on he source we get told to go and buy the book. Well if people refuse to explain what the problem is i see no reason for the sentence to be removed. What ever the source actually says im happy for us to create a new sentence that covers injuries / deaths using a different source. But we need agreement on that text before the current sentence is removed. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The sentence is quite badly worded for an encyclopedia, and the data included should be down further in the body, and in contextual form. That is my take on the sentence, other editors would have differing views of course. Tfz 18:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on the wording, i dont like it either and think deaths/injuries should be split not a single combined figure which isnt as useful. However i think its vital we do mention the number of people this terrorist group killed and wounded in the introduction. Without this one sentence people have a problem with we have no clue what this group actually did. We need to try and get agreement on rewording, but those who want it removed simply refuse to engage in constructing a new sentence / paragraph which basically means the sentence they hate stays in the article for longer :| BritishWatcher (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm for its total removal if it is simply in there for pov reasons alone, which appears to be the case. Struggles for civil rights and freedom have been common in history, from George Washington to Nelson Mandela and before, and one person's freedom fighter is another persons terrorist. It could be argued that Unionist denial of civil rights and intransigence is even more responsible for the deaths and injuries in Northern Ireland. Edward Carson warned Unionists not to discriminate against nationalists and RCs, and that was his biggest fear about NI, and it came to pass. I suggest that we do not lead the reader, and a NPOV introduction should be the norm here at Wikipedia. Tfz 19:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The rights or wrongs of the PIRA's case is not what we are discussing here. Personally, I view them as terrorist mass murderers, and no doubt others in this discussion view them as heroic freedom fighters. Whatever your viewpoint happens to be, the one fact that you can't deny is that the PIRA killed and injured thousands of people, many of whom happened to be innocent civilians. It is essential that this information is included in the lead of this article so readers are left in no doubt as to what the PIRA "achieved" during their campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.101.139 (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC) 86.133.101.139 (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Cromwellian Conquest (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello LondonIP, it was British Watcher who opened the door when he talked about editors in context, 'they hate'. That's an an ad hominem attach, and looking back I should have removed it. Tfz 20:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

lmao @ comparing this terrorist organisation which is outlawed in both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland to "George Washington or Nelson Mandela". The fact is the introduction is clearly biased in favour of this terrorist group and the attempt to hide how many people it killed / wounded is very alarming. Without that one sentence which some of you seem so desperate to remove despite providing no evidence as to why its incorrectly sourced, the intro would provide readers with no information at all. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

British Army mass murdered civilians on a peaceful march, which started the whole affair in motion. If that didn't happen, the whole history might have been different. That's why I say it should be mentioned in its context, and in the body of the article. Tfz 21:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The PIRA campaign that we are talking about started in 1969, a few years before "Bloody Sunday", so you can hardly say it "started the whole affair in motion" - actually I think the "whole affair" was started "in motion" hundreds of years ago... Anyway, this article is not about the British Army, it's about the PIRA, so we need to stick to their "contribution" to the death / injury count. And as I've said elsewhere, the PIRA have achieved very little else in the past 40 odd years, other than kill and maim a lot of people. In every repects (by their own published aims), they have failed. So although we do need to agree upon accurate figures, along with the sources to back them up - the information must appear in the lead for this article.Cromwellian Conquest (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This is an intractable discussion. There has been no movement whatsoever. I believe the disagreement stems from the notion that the lead should include "vital" information. As the two sides cannot agree on what is vital, so too is agreement on content impossible. I propose the following solution: Instead of the lead containing "vital" information, make it contain only the following: Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How. Thus the lead would read as a mildly expanded version of: "The PIRA was a [WHAT] that operated in [PLACE] from [DATE] to [DATE]. It sought to achieve [GOAL] through the use of [MEANS]." While the lead will not be this compact, I believe that any information not covered by these criteria will inevitably lead to intractable conflict, and thus should not be included. That means no casualty estimates, no "professional, disciplined, yadda yadda". Remember, the focus of the article is the organization, not the campaign. There is plenty of room within the article itself to discuss any and all contentious issues raised in this discussion. Once again, the lead of the article should not be a place where either side attempts to espouse its ideology. Any properly sourced facts and figures should be included in the appropriate sections of the body. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Up until now, the lead for this article has read like a press release for the PIRA, which I guess is the reason that we have such vociferous objections to including a documented fact about this organsition within the lead. It is not pushing an ideology to state how many the PIRA killed and injured, it's simply presenting a major fact about this organisations achievements. The only real issue, is ensuring we have the correct verifiable figures - which is easily done for those killed, not so easily done for those injured. Numerous suggestions have been put forward with regards to re-wording the "contentious" sentance, but these suggestions have been met with tantrums and abuse, so what do we do ? Until such time as those objecting to the statement can behave themselves and work towards an agreement on wording, we are stuck with what we have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.101.139 (talk) 07:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly stuck with it, rather it's time to progress to WP:RFC as discussion here has not done anything, and mediation seems completely unlikely as it's been stated by a few that they wouldn't participate. RFC would open this up to the entire community. Someone draft the RFC as it won't be difficult to have it endorsed. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I fail to see how bringing more voices into this mess will solve anything. The problem is not a lack of ideas, but rather an overabundance of opinions. Neither the vitriolic attacks, the petty edit wars, nor the pushing of extreme biases will cease with the introduction of more voices. Republicans tend to view the PIRA as a legitimate resistance force, Unioinists as a murderous terrorist organization. There can be no compromise between these two strongly held beliefs. Having followed the discussion, it is clear that there are editors on both sides of the debate who are more interested in "winning" than in the integrity of the article.

With all of Jimbo's army of admins, you would think someone would have the power to simply make an executive decision. It's not hard to see the reasonable course of action here: To maintain WP:NPOV, simply remove or alter the statements which have an evident bias. If a source cannot be confirmed, then it is not reliable, and thus any statement referring to that source should be excised until such time as the reliability of the source is ascertained. The current decision, to leave the page protected while there are clear flaws with it while insisting that people come to a laughably impossible consensus is either shortsighted or deliberately obstinate. The solution is simple: Unlock the page, delete the offending statements, then relock it. Wait for everyone to cool down or go away. Done. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well new 'throwaway' account with edits only to this talk page with an peculiar sense of wikilawyering of policy straight away; that's not how WP:DR reads. Community consensus is how it works here, not your interpretation of what's biased and what's not. More neutral and uninvolved eyes is exactly what is needed here. Nja²⁴⁷ 11:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I got accused of sockpuppetry and wikilawyering on my first post. Sweet. "Remember the Golden Rule: Treat others as you would have them treat you – even if they are new. We were all new once."Throwaway85 (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand how the introduction can leave out vital information about how many people this terrorist group killed, the article and especially the intro without that one sentence is clearly biased. If we could just agree on rewording a new sentence for the intro on how many it killed / wounded then the current sentence will be gone which some have a problem with. Although again, i am still waiting for someone to explain how the sentence does not match the source.

I agreed with Throwaway85 "The PIRA was a [WHAT] that operated in [PLACE] from [DATE] to [DATE]. It sought to achieve [GOAL] through the use of [MEANS]", the trouble is it obviously missed out one point [RESULT]. How can we leave out the result, which is the death toll. To attempt to hide this information is unacceptable. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that there's any attempt to hide. The problem is that there are many, many items which fit under [RESULT]. Some of them portray the PIRA positively, some negatively, some neutrally. Rather than attempt to reach a consensus on which to include in the introduction, My suggestion is to simply leave that for the body of the article itself. I can clearly see where you are coming from, and acknowledge the validity of your point. I simply think that, unless we can agree on what constitutes an unbiased introduction that includes these facts, which I think unlikely, it should be as emotionally neutral as possible.

I'll state my bias clearly: My family is Irish Catholic, and I have strong Republican leanings. That doesn't mean that I think the sun shone out of the PIRA's ***. Regardless, our personal views are of less importance than fixing the article. As it stands, the current statement of casualties is deeply flawed. There seems to be no possibility of achieving consensus on that issue at the moment. My suggestion: take it out until we have a suitable replacement. Similarly, I think the "professional, dedicated, etc" line is not a vital part of an introductory paragraph to the PIRA. Does it belong in the article? Yes. In the intro? NO. I agree that it reeks of bias, and lowers the credibility of the article as a whole.Throwaway85 (talk) 12:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Im all for the sentence to be neutral but we need the figures. I wouldnt object to it listing the total number of wounded like. "Of the ..... killed in the troubles, it is estimated the PIRA were responsible for... " to give it a bit of balance and put it in context. But i consider the death toll / injuries vital and should be included in the intro. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is the retention of incorrect content in the article when it is removed then talk can begin on if it is necessary to include injured and dead numbers in the lead. BigDunc 13:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to whip out the 21st century equivalent of Godwin's Law here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_qaeda If the page on Al-Qaida, which most English speakers (and hence en.wikipedia.org editors) consider to be a terrorist organization, does not have statistics for victim casualties at all, let alone in the lead, then I have a hard time seeing why the article for the PIRA, whose status is disputed, to say the least, need include said statistic in the lead. Combined with the lack of consensus on what stats to use, I think the best bet is to leave it out.Throwaway85 (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

RFC: PIRA Lead - Sentence Dispute

The PIRA article is locked owing to a dispute about the addition of a controversial sentence in the lead about the number of people killed or injured by the PIRA. The accuracy of the information is disputed as well as whether the sentence should be there at all. The article is locked because of an edit war around the sentence.

Administrators have told us that the article will remain locked until consensus is reached on the lead. Some editors are unwilling to discuss the contents of the lead until the disputed sentence is removed. Some editors are unwilling to allow the sentence to be removed until the contents of the lead have reached consensus. Mediation has been rejected as an option and tempers are running high.

Should the lead include the kind of information included in the sentence? If so, how should it be worded and what is a good source for the information? Lot 49a^talk 15:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments and responses: involved parties

I find the summary above to be incorrect, and request that it be amended before anyone replies to this. There is no dispute as to whether the current sentence is accurate or not. For there to be a dispute, there would have to be editors saying the current sentence is accurate. This is not the case. There are other errors in the summary above, but this is the most important error that must be corrected as it completely misrepresents the current situation. O Fenian (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments and responses: outside views

Hi, returning from a weeklong wikibreak. Sorry to see that mediation didn't pan out; thanks for setting this up. May I make a suggestion? Content RfCs tend to run well when the involved parties each state their position and reasoning clearly in separate subsections, and newcomers comment in a separate section. The best results happen when everyone is brief, calm, and topical. Best wishes! Durova³⁰⁵ 16:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)