Template talk:IRAs

too big?

Has this template not grown out of control? I believe the template should only contain the following information: - the various IRAs and other important but general information such as - List of IRA Chiefs of Staff - A link to the Category:Irish Republican Army

There is no need to list out a range of IRA members, former and current. As it stands, the selection is pretty random. If we were to include all the chiefs of staff, all the hunger strikes and all the other major historial figures who were associated with the IRA as well as the political parties associated with the IRA, the box would just become too unwieldly.

How about trimming it down?--Damac 20:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely, and meant to suggest this some time ago. When the template was originally invented (and we were all a bit ratty at the time) it contained a fairly arbitrary list of "extras" which didn;t correspond to the articles in the category IRA. To get around the arbitrariness, I added all the articles in that category. Of course it would have been better simply to delete everything unnecessary, but I was a bit afraid that that might start a bigger row than the one we were already having. Palmiro | Talk 21:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at this. I don't see any problem with the Sinn Feins etc going as well. Also, I would suggest a more obvious name: Template:IRA or Template:Irish Republican Army. This one is hard to find.

Also, and I suppose this is more a personal peeve than anything else: do we realy hae to have the Irish flag on this template? I know that nobody could seriously dispute the association of that flag with the original IRA, but its enthusiastic hijacking by the Provos makes its appearance here a bit grating to me and I suspect to other people as well. Palmiro | Talk 21:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, Palmiro. This is what I had in mind. I'd agree with a change in the name of template to Template:Irish Republican Army. I'd also support the dropping of the Irish flag.--Damac 21:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's still too big. I don't see any case for the list in the See Also box. It grew stupidly big because it existed in the first place, because who should say what should be in and what should be out. So I've squared the circle by making it a simple link to the category Category:Irish Republican Army. If anyone wants to see a list of self-proclaimed Heroes of the Revolution, this says where to look. Neat, tidy, no debate about qualifications for entry. --Red King 22:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well - eh, it wasn't a random list anymore. It included articles that were generally relevant to an understanding of the IRA/IRAs. The article "List of IRAs" is clearly relevant. If you want to just link to the category, there's no need to have the third section at all, as any articles the template goes on should be in the category anyway. Palmiro

Well I'd certainly support removing the "See Also", because it is an open invitation to all and sundry to add their favourite hobby horse and have it appear on every page. But at least recording the [[:category:<category>]] explicitly draws attention to the existence of the major category in a way that the list at the bottom doesn't (especially if it is deeply nested category). It also makes it more unwlecoming to the addition of hobby horses. --Red King 14:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Óglaigh na hÉireann (new group)

I added Óglaigh na hÉireann (Continuity IRA splinter group) to this template, thinking that it should be included in the list. Since it seems that the CIRA no longer considers members of ONH members of CIRA (apparently the IMC thinks that CIRA has tried to exile ONH members), and has undertaken several of it's own actions, I think it should be listed distinctly.

The group was removed, for the reasoning: "group does not use name "Irish Republican Army" . That's true. But I think that the template should include this group, and probably the INLA as well. The IMC has included both as threats in its reports, both are descended from IRA organizations, do basically the same thing with quite similar purpose, and it just seems to fit. The other option seems to be creating an entirely new template, which lists the new groups as well as the old, creating a hell of a lot of overlap. What do y'all think? Erin Go Bragh 21:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I suppose while we're at it, I'd suggest adding the Irish Volunteers, being the predecessor to the IRA. Erin Go Bragh 22:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This reaffirms the point I made a few months ago about favourite hobby-horses being added. Óglaigh na hÉireann is formally the Irish Defence Forces, not some lunatic fringe of a lunatic fringe. The Irish Volunteers did not engage in armed sturggle. Many (the majority?) jointed up in the Irish Regiments of the British Army in 1914. Let's be careful of historical revisionism! I oppose both these proposals. --Red King 20:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of arguing over the merit of the various organizations referring to themselves as the Óglaigh na hÉireann, the fact remains that these various armed Irish nationalist paramilitary organizations exist, and are interrelated. We have articles on them, and I think that templates like this serve to better facilitate a reader's journey through multiple interrelated articles.

Why, I must ask, does the CIRA or RIRA have any more claim to being represented here than the INLA, or the ONH? Simply because they use the letters IRA? The Irish Volunteers did not use the name IRA for the first few years, yet they were an armed republican paramilitary, who participated in, and made up the vast majority of soliders participating in, the Easter Rising. Yes, some did go and join the British army, but not the majority. Erin Go Bragh^talk 00:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded Template

I've created an expanded template, that's more up to date with Template customs (uses the standard navbox template) an is a more complete navigational box for Armed Irish Republican groups. It can be found for now at {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Republican Army/Preparation/Template:IRAs}}. I'd like to replace the current {{Template:IRAs}} with it, or with a template with similar comprehensiveness. Erin Go Bragh^talk 09:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irish People's Liberation Organisation are missing, and ideally I'd put the Provos before the INLA to maintain the chronology. Once that's taken care of, I'm in favour. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done both of those now, and added the Society of United Irishmen to boot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Erin Go Bragh (talk • contribs) 20:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm looking at the United Irish Uprising in Newfoundland, ad thinking it's too insignificant? I dunno how we'd put it in there. Unless the whole thing is redone. Erin Go Bragh^talk 20:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that needs to go on there. I re-organised the template slightly, as organisations split over two lines looked messy and the template is the same size if they are on one line each anyway. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any objections to the new template? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couple more older organisation need to be added. Too much focus on relatively meaningless modern incarnations.--Vintagekits 10:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is stopping you from adding them, or list them here and I will? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this going anywhere? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Irish Citizens Army really still in existence? There can't be any old comrades still alive, can there? --Red King (talk) 14:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion

Hello,
So as to prevent an edit war, I thought it best to discuss this. Both articles on the Official and Provisional IRAs describe their organizations as having ceased operations, so I feel it fit to edit the template to reflect this. Your thoughts?
GrahamNoyes (talk) 18:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other groups in the template do not use any active dates, they all go by dates of existence. If you try and chance the 1922-1969 IRA to say 1962 (when they effectively ceased to be active) it will probably confuse the reader no end, and make them think that IRA ceased to exist in 1962, and two others sprang up in 19y69. O Fenian (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who are terrorists IRA are the British?

The IRA are known to the British as terrorists, but that is a lie. The IRA fought for freedom, for their country, freedom against British rule and the safety of their family. The British ruled Ireland for 800 years till 1921 when the IRA won their Independance os 4 5ths of Ireland but still own the North of Ireland. The British moved Prodesnt preists over to convert the Irish and English land owners stole land off the Irish and would not let any Irish person be rich. The British techers in Ireland beat Irish children for speeking a word of Gaelic(the Irish language) to force the Irish to speek English and the British have also killed Irish citizen's even women and children. The British army killed 11 Irish citizens (men and women) in a peace march in Derry on the 30th January 1972. Even the Police in Ireland were anti Irish Catholics.

                    So who are the real terrorists?

--Robert donaldson (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you still believe that, you need to read a lot more wikipedia articles. History is never that simple. --Red King (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, and brush up n his English language skills 51.37.25.175 (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All the militants/armed-police IRA/IVF, IRP, IRB-87 PIRA, OIRA, RIRA, IPLO, INLA, ICA, UVF, UDA/UFF,RHC, RHD, OVF, RUC, RIC, TANS, Auxies, RUC SPG, RUC E4A, UDR, British Army, Glenanne Gang, SAS, Territorial Army, FRU, 14-IC, MRF, SRU all committed terrorist style offences. I hate to use the word terrorist and only use it when replying to someone who has used it, because the word became a propaganda phrase for the Nazi's to smear the gallant French, Italian, Yugoslav, Polish, Balkan and Czech resistance groups, after WW2 imperial powers mainly said the same about national liberation groups trying to win their independence with armed resistance calling them terrorists. In one case it came full circle, the British called the Zionist resistance in Palestine terrorists, they killed over 90 civilians in the King David hotel bombing, now the Zionists call the Palestine resistance terrorist whether its armed or peaceful.

And it was 14 civilians the British killed in Free Derry in 1972 with a 14th dying later and 14 others injured. It was 11 civilians they killed and between 10 - 20 injured during the Ballymurphy in 1971 and 5 killed in Springhill in July 72, and 6 killed, 9 injured in the New Lodge with UDA help. 51.37.25.175 (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Years

The years after each organisation are completely inconsistent, and even incorrect. For example after Official IRA there is (1969–1971), but their ceasefire didn't start until 1972 and that didn't result in activity stopping, their post-ceasefire violence is well documented. In contrast Provisional IRA's years are listed as 1969–2005 which isn't that unreasonable, if other organisations are going to be held to the same standard. But then you have Continuity IRA (1986–present), but while they might have come into existence in 1986 they weren't active for years afterwards. Then there's Óglaigh na hÉireann (Real IRA splinter group) (2009–2018), but they were formed in 2005/6 and became active in 2009. And so on...

It seems to be the dates are problematic. The first date for each organisation is generally (but not always) the date they were formed. But the second date isn't the date they ceased to exist (if applicable), it's the date they ceased to be active (generally speaking). It doesn't make sense to mix dates in this way. I believe the simplest way to resolve all these problems is to remove the dates completely, any objections? If objecting, please provide some kind of solution as to how the problems can be revolved. FDW777 (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the dates from all organisations. I was tempted to leave them in for earlier organisations, but that would only invite people to try and "fix" the inconsistency by adding them for the later organisations. FDW777 (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]