Talk:Saoradh

Notability of Canal Court Hotel

In what way is it not notable? Apollo The Logician (talk) 10:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

It really doesn't need to be included, it's too specific. It's fine to say the meeting was held in Newry. st170e^talk 10:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a wikipedia policy you can point to? If not it should be included. Apollo The Logician (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Unless it adds anything to the article, then leave it out, purely for promotional reasons. st170e^talk 11:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

It does add to the article, it gives the location in Newry, Newry by itself is too vague. Promotional? Apollo The Logician (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

You can say 'at a hotel in Newry' to avoid it. I don't think adding the hotel adds anything to the article. The last thing you want on an article is giving information that could be perceived to be promotional because it's otherwise not adding anything. st170e^talk 11:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

How could it be percieved to be promotional? I doubt many hotels would want people to know that a group that could have terrorist links held its first ard fheis there. Apollo The Logician (talk) 11:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

That's a fair point. If you really, really feel that the addition of the hotel is vital to the article, I'm not going to stop you. But I think you should think about it. It's minor, but it's more trivia if anything. st170e^talk 11:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with trivia, it just improves the article a little bit more. Apollo The Logician (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

It really doesn't add anything to the article though. It's fair to say it took place in Newry, but anything beyond that is redundant. As a complete side note, the references in the article need to be changed. At the minute, references 2 thru 7 are at the end of the paragraph. Instead, you should try showing what each reference backs up by putting the relevant reference at the end of each sentence, rather than the paragraph, because it's very unclear which claims are backed up and which aren't. Also the same applies to the political quotes, there aren't any references other than for SF. st170e^talk 15:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. The ref for SF is meant to be for all the quotes. Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah okay, that's fine. I'll add in a ref name and duplicate it, just so it's clear that the SF quote is for all. --st170e^talk 00:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, the press release on the main article - I think it should be cut down and paraphrased and take the main points from it. It's a rather long quote for an article such as this. --st170e^talk 01:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Ref improve tag

Why do you think the refs need to be improved? It seems well referenced to meApollo The Logician (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Real IRA/New IRA

1. At present, New IRA is simply a redirect to a section within Real IRA, which states that 'Republican Action Against Drugs (RAAD) and other small republican militant groups were merging with the Real IRA ... some media began to refer to the group as a "new IRA" '.

2. When I edited this article to reflect this by stating "Paramilitary wing Real Irish Republican Army (also known as New IRA)(alleged)", User:FDW777 reverted me, saying 'besides the point, there's a discussion about splitting (which needs to be done, but nobody can be bothered)'.

3. I suggest that (a) this article should not link to a redirect (b) unless and until Real Irish Republican Army is split, this article should link there (c) as and when the split is carried out and a separate article is created for New IRA, this article should link there.

4. I note that Real Irish Republican Army states "Small pockets of the Real IRA that did not merge with the New IRA continue to have a presence in Republic of Ireland, particularly in Cork and to a lesser extent in Dublin."

5. Is it the case that there are two paramilitary organisations in existence at present (a) the New IRA, formed in 2012 by the merger of the majority of the Real IRA with RAAD etc (b) the 'rump' or 'continuity' Real IRA, consisting of those elements of the RIRA, mainly in Cork, which did not participate in the 2012 merger?

6. If the answer to (5) is yes, then is the 'rump' or 'continuity' Real IRA linked to any political organisation? If so, which one? (Feel free to rephrase the word 'linked' if it is suggested that it does not correctly describe the relationship in question).

6. To which paramilitary organisations (if any) are Saoradh (based in Derry) and the 32 County Sovereignty Movement (whose website does not appear to have a postal address) respectively linked? (See above re 'linked').

Alekksandr (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:Real Irish Republican Army#March 2019: Should the article be split/renamed? Text you added to the article such as The party are close to the Real Irish Republican Army (also known as New IRA) is inaccurate, The party are close to the New IRA is accurate. FDW777 (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments noted - it's like trying to make sense of the distinction between the Judaean People's Liberation Front and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Judaea! Alekksandr (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Just be thankful organisations are using prefixes such as "Real" or "New", as John Horgan notes in his book Divided We Stand: The Strategy and Psychology of Ireland's Dissident Terrorists the tendency of every splinter group to refer to itself as Óglaigh na hÉireann, the Irish Republican Army, or just the IRA, has caused confusion for academics, media and security analysts, especially when both the Real IRA and Óglaigh na hÉireann (Real IRA splinter group) were claiming responsibility for the same incidents, and similar problems with the Real IRA and Continuity IRA both claiming responsibility. He says this has led to media simply using "dissident activity" when they have no idea who's actually responsible. He also quotes Richard O'Rawe as saying the Real Continuity IRA, which recently broke away from the main Continuity IRA, has split into three different factions. That's four CIRA Army Councils. Then there's the Army Councils of the Real IRA, Óglaigh na hÉireann, the Provisional IRA, and the Official IRA. That makles eight IRA Army Councils at the last count. FDW777 (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

1. Twice as bad as the situation in the early 19thC when there were two men, each claiming to be King of the Two Sicilies. As noted in C S Forester's 'Hornblower and the Atropos', "That makes four Sicilies.”

2. He does not mention that the Irish Army is descended from the pro-Treaty section of the IRA from the War of Independence.

3. Has anyone ever used the title "Continuity Real IRA?

Alekksandr (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I recently created a article draft for the New IRA. Feel free to contribute to it. Charles Essie (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Clashes with the authorities section

The "Clashes with the authorities" section is poor: it violates WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE, focusing on listing Saoradh's grievances with no context or other perspectives. Consider the first subsection, "Alleged mistreatment of children by the police": this only gives Saoradh's position. The citation given is titled "PSNI defend stop and search op in which child snapped with officer", but the text here makes no mention of the PSNI response. The subheading given for this section is editorialising and doesn't use language from the article cited. Moreover, the entire event is minor and has not received significant media attention. It shouldn't be receiving as much space in the article as material about the recent arrests around Lyra McKee's killing, or Saoradh's links with the New IRA. Bondegezou (talk) 08:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC) I suggest removing the first section ("Alleged mistreatment of children by the police") entirely: it's a single event that received minimal RS coverage and comes down to a he-said-she-said. Alternately, it can be folded into the next section as an example of police/Saoradh member interaction, but it cannot lead on alleged mistreatment of children. It needs to be balanced: that means starting with there was a stop and search, things happened, sides differ on what. Bondegezou (talk) 11:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC) In the absence of any discussion, I will make this change. Bondegezou (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose and revert: If you feel this would be a major change enough that would warrant a discussion on the topic, then a day and a half is by no means enough time to establish consensus, especially when taking into account that your replies are one sided.

If you have the view that WP:BALANCE applies here, then so does WP:PRESERVE. Instead of removing the content, why not try and improve it?

Regarding your mentions of the killing of Lyra MacKee and alleged links to the New IRA, seriously? If your issue here is with lack of content in a specific subject, then add content on that specific subject, don't remove content from other places. This is just lazy editing...

I agree that coverage from the perspective of the PSNI/NCA/MI5 would be great, and if you know where to find a steady flow of this, please add it. The whole section can be improved, but removing it because you can't be bothered to look for references is a just lazy. I didn't write that paragraph, but I did write the majority of the section, and as I have stated in the past in an edit summary, it is a work in progress that will be expanded upon in the near future.

Coverage of Saoradh usually cover one of four things: The killing of Lyra MacKee; Their alleged links to the New IRA; Their parades/events; Their interactions with authorities. The first two are already well covered in the article, although could do with expansion. The third has no coverage at all and the fourth has some, which you consider biased. If the entire article was about the killing and alleged links then that would show bias and undue weight in itself. Much of the claims that Saoradh is the political wing on the New IRA are based on "he-said-she-said" reporting. Correlation is not causation. If they are such, and it can be proven, then why is the organisation not proscribed as a terrorist organisation?

In the space of five minutes, I found an extra four sources for the paragraph in question. If I spent longer, I am sure I could find more. In that five minutes I found other articles on different instances and ones unrelated but relevant. Did you try looking at all?

Lastly, as no consensus has been reached and this is therefore still in discussion, I have reverted the removal. If you feel it needs to be discussed, it should therefore be discussed. As always, I stand by WP:PRESERVE! UaMaol (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Uamaol, thanks for your input. I saw a problem, raised an issue in Talk and on a relevant WikiProject, and then -- 33 hours later -- made a bold edit. I believe that is an appropriate approach to editing. Perhaps you could tone done your lengthy critique of what I did and we can focus on discussing how to improve the article, as per WP:FOC? Feel free to retract some of your comments above.

You stress WP:PRESERVE. I quote: as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability, and No original research. In other words, we should not PRESERVE material that violates NPOV. You appear to concur that the paragraph I removed does violate NPOV. So whether we fix it or remove it, I don't think we should leave it in as is.

You mention that you have found an extra four sources for the paragraph in question. You do not appear to have added them to the article, unless I missed that? Perhaps you would be kind enough to share those sources here so other editors can use them to improve the content. Bondegezou (talk) 10:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I have re-written the paragraph to reflect what the source given says. The prior text was not only in violation of NPOV, it got some basic information wrong, misidentifying who the child was. Now the text reflects the source, it's hard to see how the event warrants inclusion here. I still support removing it entirely. Bondegezou (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Given the absence of any further discussion and given I can see little relevance to the paragraph (now it's been corrected), I'll remove it. Bondegezou (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Political poster, Ireland.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)