Talk:Timeline of Continuity IRA actions

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Organized crime / Terrorism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Organized crime task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance).

International relations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: British / European / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Northern Ireland Low‑importance

	Northern Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom: Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This page is under the stewardship of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom.

Irish republicanism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Irish republicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish republicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish republicanismIrish republicanism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Neutrality: All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Deletions

OFenian, why are you ruthlessly deleting so much material? E.g., the last item in 2009. The source says a suspected CIRA member is awaiting sentence. The article said he was "arrested and charged". Rather than change the ection to match the source, you just deleted it? That might be interpreted as censorship. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was bringing the article in line with policy, unlike your disguting revert. Why are you restoring large amounts of unsourced information?

"22 March 2008 During a Republican Sinn Fein Easter Commemoration at Edendork cemetery two masked and armed members of the CIRA read a statement on behalf of the East Tyrone Brigade CIRA and fired a number of shots into the air" is sourced by link and link. Where is the date sourced?
"26 May 2008 The IMC blamed the CIRA for "a particularly serious incident" in which a man was shot in Armagh in a paramilitary style attack." is sourced by link (which says "Armagh CIRA members were responsible for a particularly serious incident in May") and link (which is a post on a forum that you need to register to view!). So how is the date sourced, and how is a man being shot sourced?
"23 July 2008 The CIRA threatened to shoot civil servants from Northern Ireland's Driver & Vehicle Agency for co-operating with the PSNI." is sourced by link which says the threat was made on the Saturday (the 19th) so why change it back to the 23rd and remove the link?
"25 August 2008 The Independent Monitoring Commission blamed the CIRA for orchestrating civil disturbances, hijackings and rioting in Craigavon. It also stated that it believed the CIRA tried to lure police officers into positions where they could be attacked. A number of shots were fired during the disturbances." is sourced by link which makes it clear not all of those events happened on 25 August, some were on 26 August. So why amend it back to just 25 August?
"15 November 2008 Armed members of the Continuity IRA raided an illegal drugs factory in west Belfast. A large number of cannabis plants were destroyed. A number of days later the police arrived at the factory and recovered over £100,000 worth of cannabis." is sourced by link which has no date.
"1 December 2008 The Sunday World newspaper claims to have uncovered a CIRA plot to kidnap a serving PSNI officer and hold him hostage." is sourced by link, an image file hosted on a RSF site which is 404 anyway!
"9 January 2009 The CIRA issued a statement threatening to shoot drug dealers who were using their groups name as a cover for criminal activity. In the statement they said "Following investigations into drug dealing and allegations of CIRA involvement into activities in Belfast it has come to our attention that some individuals are using the name CIRA to engage in drug dealing activities". Five days later a man was shot in a paramilitary style attack in west Belfast." is sourced by link and link. The BBC article says nothing about the CIRA, so who says it is connected to their statement? The second link has no date.
"23 January 2009 The CIRA claimed responsibility for a shotgun attack on a premises in Selby Court, Belfast." is sourced by link which has no date.

Do not ever revert any of my good edits again. O Fenian (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Disgusting" revert?! I don't revert good edits. Calm down. Please explain why you have deleted so much information again. If its the specific dates that are bothering you, then they can obviously be either a) removed or b) have a 'needs source' tag added. I don't have time right now to go through all your deletions, but please explain what exactly is wrong with :- "*24 January 2009 The Irish Times newspaper reported that a suspected member of the Continuity IRA in Limerick was awaiting sentence on firearms offences.", which was referenced here http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0124/1232474679616.html. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 12:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well what? If you are waiting for something, you could use the time to justify your disgusting revert. "I don't revert good edits"..the evidence proves you did, and when asked to justify your disgusting revert you claimed you don't have time. Well if you do not have time to check the accuracy of the material you are reverting and ensure it is compliant with policy, do not bother to revert or cast aspersions on the people who are complying with policy.

To answer your question, an alleged CIRA member awaiting sentence is not a CIRA action. Are we to have entry for when someone is arrested, one for when they are charged, another for when they appear in court, another for if they are found guilty, another for when they are awaiting sentence and another for when they are sentenced? The similar IRA article does not include such things, so why should this?

Now how about you answer my questions about your disgusting revert. Each point is numbered so it should not be too difficult to explain each in turn. I will not hold my breath though.. O Fenian (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So of all of those, bar #6, the dates seem to be your problem? Then you add a 'cn' tag for the dates. Or you remove the date. As stated above. For #6, you add a 'cn' tag for the whole entry. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer the questions, or stop editing the article. Undated items in a chronology? Say no more... O Fenian (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered the questions. The policy in question is WP:BURDEN, and you're acting outside of it. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have not. Your answer makes it clear you have not even read the questions. If the policy is that, prove the incidents happened on those date (and as described in the article) before adding them back. O Fenian (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the questions and answered them. Meanwhile it's clear you haven't read the policy. You are in danger of breaching 3rr. Let the 'refimprove' tags sit, and better references will be added within a week. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 01:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Unindent) Actually I've just been reminded that this article comes under an Arbcom remedy restricting it to 1RR, which we've both breached. Probably best at this stage to get outside opinion. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 01:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try answering 2, 3, 4 and 7, after you have bothered to read them. I have read the policy, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material (which would be you) not the editor removing it (which would be me). As you've yet to provide sources showing the dates and other additional text are correct (including the deliberate errors you keep adding back), the information stays out until you do. O Fenian (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'm butting in being vaguely uninvolved (although not uninvolved in NI articles as a whole), after adding the arbcom tag. Lord knows had that pushed in my face before heavy handedly so lets just assume you're both now aware that there's a 1 revert rule; and you know how it works.

So a couple of things, undated/rougly dated /monthly dated items in a chronology seem fair enough to me, if you can tie them to a month. Some things can't be exact by their nature, or may spill over multiple months or even multiple days - removing something simply because it doesn't have a complete day / month / year seems nitpicking. A refimprove might have been a better option.

Now as for sources, I'm not sure rira could be an unbiased source here, after all they tried to distance and separate themselves from the CIRA. Forums are not reliable sources, and neither is YouTube - even if it is a news report there's copyright problems to consider. The lack of dates on belfastmedia would make their use in a reference suspect I'm afraid.

The 9th of January removal seems fair, the BBC link mentions nothing about the CIRA, nor a link to the CIRA undated statement. --Blowdart | ^talk 12:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, a voice of reason thank you. I take your point about roughly dated, however the only item I can see this applying to is the "Armagh CIRA members were responsible for a particularly serious incident in May" which is the only part of the original addition which is sourced by the IMC, neither the actual date or there being a shooting are sourced. That is vague to the point of being uninformative, no date, no location, not even a general description of the incident. It does not really inform the reader much does it? If you think it should be included I have no real objections other than that. O Fenian (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in case you have not checked, not all the items listed above were actually deleted. 3 and 4 were amended by me to include the correct date(s) according to the source, however these changes were constantly reverted. O Fenian (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A voice of reason? I feel dirty. I admit I didn't check, I was just butting in before Arbcom gets involved. Rather than assigning blame, I thought I'd look at each point one by one

1 22 March 2008 - no reliable sources I'm afraid. However I freely admit I'm biased when it comes to Saoirse, which to me is as much a propaganda sheet as it is a newspaper. You may want a "proper" ruling on its status as a reliable source.

2 26 May 2008 - The commission is, to me, a reliable source. I'd say you could mention the 6 month active period mentioned in the report and the activities the report, err, reported. Perhaps at the end of the last month have a line or two "Start Date - End Date: Increased activity, blah blah, details, etc".

3 23 July 2008 - The source is dated the 23th, but the threat is referred to as the preceding Saturday. So use the Saturday date in the time line, but obviously the reporting date in the citation tag.

4 25/26 August 2008 - List it as 25-26 as per supporting reference.

5 Has no dated reference. Shouldn't be added without a dated ref from a reliable source.

6 No source.

7 Only dated source has no mention of the CIRA. Shouldn't be added.

8 No dated source, shouldn't be added.

Neither of you are doing yourselves any favours with heated language (I am such a hypocrite, I know I get heated on NI articles, however). "Disgusting" is a loaded term and both of you are starting to wiki-lawyer, which you both know will do no good in the end. Yes the burden relies on the person adding claims; however look at it like an AFD for notability - the nominator should do his own checks rather than just looking at the lack of references in an article. Don't make me slap both your legs :)

--Blowdart | ^talk 13:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, Blowdart, much appreciated. Will proceed to edit/reinclude based on what you've outlined above, over the next while. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're both very welcome. I only did it because I don't like the heavy handed approach to 1RR that arbcom takes when you've never seen it before, so heading this off at the pass seemed like a fun idea.

I'm more than happy to be a third party of things like this for either of you, just remember my own inherent biases as I've tried to make clear above! --Blowdart | ^talk 09:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

I recently moved the article to Timeline of Continuity Irish Republican Army actions. As I explained, the reason I did this was so that the title matched the titles of similar articles – for example Timeline of the Irish Republican Army, Timeline of the Northern Ireland Troubles, Timeline of the Irish Civil War, Timeline of the Irish War of Independence, Timeline of the Irish revolution, Timeline of Real IRA actions, Timeline of INLA actions etc. This was reverted for being "disruptive and undiscussed", so I've brought it to the talk page. If there aren't any objections by this time next week I'll move it back. ~Asarlaí 13:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're a funny little man. You moved it to be inline with two articles that didn't even exist at the time and another article you moved at the exact same time?! There's a subtle diference between a timeline and a chronlogy, this is a chronology not a timeline. 2 lines of K₃₀₃

DELETIONS OF TEXT AND 1RR

@User:Asarlaí, @User:BrownHairedGirl: I am not gonna violate 1RR but these unexplained IP deletions ([1], [2]) seem dicey. Any opinions? Thanks. Quis separabit? 22:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chronology of Continuity Irish Republican Army actions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070505211142/http://www.ulsternation.org.uk:80/continuity_ira.htm to http://www.ulsternation.org.uk/continuity_ira.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Timeline of Continuity IRA actions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Timeline of Continuity IRA actions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Timeline of Continuity IRA actions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest a merger with other still active IRA split offs.

I think it would be more neutral to merge all the articles listing timelines of active republican and unionist paramilitaries's attacks rather than separating them. I think this will best be done by creating a long table including deaths and injuries and colour coding them by perpetrator, like is done on some other terrorist or crime chronologies. Under the be bold policy I shall do this later today or tommorow. 131.227.70.222 (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest a merger with other still active IRA split offs.

I think it would be more neutral to merge all the articles listing timelines of active republican and unionist paramilitaries's attacks rather than separating them. It is hard to objectively compare the actions of each group without a direct comparison.

I think this will best be done by creating a long table including deaths and injuries and colour coding them by perpetrator, like is done on some other terrorist or crime chronologies, with a copy of the full chronology in seperate sub articles below. Under the be bold policy I shall do this later today or tommorow. 131.227.70.222 (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Brexit Day bomb plot into Timeline of Continuity IRA actions#2020

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: outcome was: consensus to merge text and redirect title

No indication of lasting significance, WP:NOTNEWS applies. Suggest selectively merging Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Brief news story, no lasting significance, nothing that can't be covered here. FDW777 (talk) 11:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom. --LukeSurl^t c 07:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect (from Brexit Day bomb plot to Timeline of Continuity IRA actions#2020). Per nom, WP:NOTNEWS and the "short text/unlikely to be expanded", "context", and "overlap" WP:MERGEREASONs. In short, the limited text at Brexit Day bomb plot could easily be covered under the (existing) bullet at Timeline of Continuity IRA actions#2020. We do not need a separate title/article for every news story or event. Guliolopez (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. OK. It's been more than six months since this thread was opened. And there have been no other thoughts (other than the above support for the merge/redirect proposal). So I've gone ahead and merged the text and redirected the title. Guliolopez (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]