This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I believe the flags in the box out are being used incorrectly, and certainly contentiously.
The Union Jack and the Irish Tricolour on the left hand side are fine, as they represent those two countries. However, the repeated use of the tricolour and the use of the flag of Northern Ireland is wrong.
The tricolour is the adopted flag of the country and, although it is often used by both Republicans and Nationalists alike, the ownership 1) does not solely belong to the paramilitary organisations and 2) represents many more people than just paramilitary extremists.
Likewise, the flag of Northern Ireland is the de facto flag of the country and 1) does not solely belong to paramilitary organisations, even though they may use it at times and 2) represents more than just paramilitary extremists.
Better alternatives would perhaps be:
No flags at all for the paramilitaries
A selected flag for each of the main paramilitaries (maybe a 'Starry Plough' and the UVF flag?)
A collection of stacked flags representing various of the main paramilitary organisations
Certainly, the use of the flag of Northern Ireland to represent terrorists is offensive. I assume it may be the same for many people with regard to the tricolour. --75.177.79.101 (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I have a question; would you be ok if the tricolor were removed from the Republican side, but the accepted flags of the individual groups & participants remained? Either way, Chancellor Richard English, formerly of Queen's College Belfast, specified in his History of the IRA that Republican groups trace their lineage from the original Dáil Éireann of 1919-1922. Thus, they see the other groups as "misrepresenting" the flag. Nevertheless, I'd like to hear what you think of keeping certain flags in the info box.
Sorry; not immediately relevant to this page.
But several Troubles and related pages have had their flag icons removed. The user who did so sees them as in violation of WP:FLAGCRUFT, though has thus far failed to specify how. Any opinions on this matter?
Simon Levchenko (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Image
Ernio48, if you disagree with an edit you should start a discussion on the talk page rather than edit-war and tell somebody else to start it. And Sirlanz, if you want to restore an edit you should discuss it on the talk page and not just say it's "blindingly obvious". So, what do editors think of replacing the map of Ireland with this image in the infobox? Scolaire (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Agree. An image of a bombing is much more illustrative of a conflict than a bare map. Scolaire (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Editors who do not deign to provide edit summaries (as a matter of their general practice and custom) and ask supercilious questions in lieu do not garner the most patient of responses, particularly when the edit is an unexplained Undo which in itself is extremely disruptive editing behaviour. Hence, I do not think this was an appropriate case to dither in the Talk universe; action in the real world was both appropriate and necessary to support a well-intentioned, well-conceived contribution. But I do support the principle entirely, as a general rule. Thanks. sirlanz 15:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
That map had been there for a long time and it was changed only recently. And frankly, someone seeking to replace something that had been there for a long time has to turn to the talk page. The map was replaced without consensus. Placing pictures of bombings, etc. perpetrated by one party of the conflict violates the neutrality of this article.Ernio48 (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
That bombing doesn't obviously show who did it so I see no neutrality issue there. But exactly why would showing only the damage caused by one side or the other fail neutrality? Do you think there should be a balance or pictures or none at all? Dmcq (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Precisely. The perpetrator is not identified. No threat to POV whatsoever. If an editor thinks it would contribute to balance, he/she can put forward an image of something committed by the other side but, frankly, given this one does not provide such identity, little would be achieved. sirlanz 23:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
It is however not anywhere near specific enough to the Troubles. Bombed houses occur in all sorts of conflicts. Dmcq (talk) 08:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
To reiterate, neither of you had the right to edit-war without starting a discussion on the talk page. Now let's discuss. Scolaire (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Just reiterating is not adequate. If anything is said on WP it ought to be said with reasoning. If you insist a Talk shop was required in the circumstances, then you must insist with a response to the substantive points made by me, particularly that the so-called "war" began with the editor undoing a contribution with no substantive reason at all and with the absurd suggestion that editors require permission before editing. Those are pertinent circumstances to be taken into account when considering the appropriateness of reversion. If every disruptive, rude and belligerent edit requires a discussion before reversion, time for WP to close up shop - and I mean that genuinely, because it would simple grind to a halt. sirlanz 23:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Agree. Bold edits are fine. A reversion is fine but it should say why one prefers the old version rather than just that it has been there for a long time. Edit warring is bad. As to the edit I think the bomb picture is better than the map but it isn't all that specific. I think possibly a mural showing a paramilitary would be better. Dmcq (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Terrorist incidents map of the United Kingdom 1970-2015 The previous map is not a great infobox image - if you want a map this one (which could be cropped) gives a very telling overview (though it's a pity the date range is too long) as well as showing north & south for those who don't know. The bombing image is low res but better than the plain map. Johnbod (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it would have to be more specific. That shows terrorism in the UK unrelated to the Troubles and it gives the impression that there was no terrorist activity in the Republic. Never mind some stuff elsewhere. Plus the causes of it all mattered as well as all the killing. That's why I thought a mural would be more informative showing how it was a general conflict and not just terrorist organizations. Dmcq (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
An image of the peace walls might be an alternative, but the current edit warring needs to stop -----SnowdedTALK 06:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I'd be happy with a peace wall picture. Dmcq (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Couldn't see any in commons that looked like anything but walls. How about something dreary or there's also a map specific to the troubles. . Dmcq (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Support Dmcq's map. Snowded's would be a dismal climb down by WP. It's vital that any illustration is not just an outright avoidance of the significance of the period of intense conflict, i.e. violence. That's what made it newsworthy and the source of enormous concern worldwide throughout all those decades. If it were not for all the bombings, it simply would never have been anything like it was on the world stage. So, yes, I support a map such as the one now suggested. If we shy away from depicting the dismal horror of the subject, we utterly betray Wikipedia's commitment to truth. sirlanz 10:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I think you are trying to make a point here rather than satisfy our obligations as a encyclopaedia. The article more than adequately covers the violence and we are now in the post Good Friday period so something a little more neutral is order. You still haven't self-reverted your latest edit which breaks Arbcom sanctions on Troubles articles by the way. The fact you haven't indicates the point making again -----SnowdedTALK 10:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
A few observations:
Slagging those who disagree with you, or questioning their motivation, is not conducive to a productive discussion.
Unfortunately, I have had to nominate this image for deletion, as it turns out it was not a free image.
The Troubles were a terrible period in Irish history. Images of a wall containing paintings of happy people, or generic graffiti, does not illustrate them very well. This image of a peace line might work better. On the other hand, it or the watch tower image might look strange to the first time reader. We have to bear in mind that the purpose of the image is to to give an immediate impression of the article topic.
The "Deaths in the Troubles" map is extremely ugly. It's okay where it is, down in the Casualties section, but I wouldn't like to see it at the top. Sorry to be so negative.
At least we have a consensus that the blank map of Ireland should be replaced. Let's keep thinking about the best thing to replace it with.
I'm OK with that image - the one I picked up was from the article on Peace Lines but comfortable with any -----SnowdedTALK 11:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Any updates yet? There still isn't an image on the article.--Gateshead001 (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Off-topic but we need more discussions in one of the sections above, "Ignoble flag usage in infobox". --Gateshead001 (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Lead section sources
The lead paragraphs are very populated by sources - 18 in the first one alone. Per WP:LEAD and WP:LEADCITE we should not have any references in the leads (or at least, keep it to a minimum). I might try move the citations to sections below if I can. --Gateshead001 (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Contradictions in lead, infobox and article body
Lead - The conflict began in the late 1960s and is usually deemed to have ended with the Good Friday Agreement of 1998
Infobox - 1968–1998
Body part 1 - "The Troubles" refers to the three-decade (1969–1997)
Body part 2 - There is little agreement on the exact date of the start of the Troubles. Different writers have suggested different dates. These include the formation of the modern Ulster Volunteer Force in 1966, the civil rights march in Derry on 5 October 1968, the beginning of the 'Battle of the Bogside' on 12 August 1969 or the deployment of British troops on 14 August 1969
My preference would be to remove "(1969–1997)" from "Body part 1", and amend the infobox from 1968 to late 1960s to match the lead and the CAIN source. Any objections? 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:34D6:349F:F6D0:68A3 (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Adding additional supporters of the Paramilitaries
As sourced on the groups' pages - their support is broader than was previousuly construed by the infobox.
Simon Levchenko (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Not a valid source - please read WP:RS -----SnowdedTALK 21:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
The source does not back up what you claim. Nor the Winter Hill Gang, nor NORAID/Irish Northern Aid Committee, nor the Norwegian Criminal Gang are mentioned in the source. The Bannertalk 21:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Which sources did you check?
-Iran paid millions to fund IRA Adrian Levy and Anna Pukas. The Times , 21 Aug 1994
-Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, The Mitrokhin Archive pp492 - 503
-Mitrokhin, Vasili (2000). The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB. Basic Books. p. 384. ISBN 0-465-00312-5. [KGB SUPPORT]
-"Report". U.S. House of Representatives House International Relations Committee. 24 April 2002. Archived from the original on 28 February 2007. Retrieved 17 March 2007. [FARC dealings]
-Mallie, Bishop, p. 308 [ETA SUPPORT]
-"Inside The Ira - Weapons & Technology - The Ira & Sinn Fein - FRONTLINE - PBS". Retrieved 3 October 2014. [ETA SUPPORT]
"Inside The Ira - Weapons & Technology - The Ira & Sinn Fein - FRONTLINE - PBS". Retrieved 3 October 2014. [PLO]
NORAID
Bandit Country: Toby Harnden, ISBN 0-340-71737-8.
"Decommissioning in the summer - Ahern". BBC News. 1998-04-12. Retrieved 27 September 2008.
Duffy, Jonathan (2001-09-26). "Rich friends in New York". BBC News. Retrieved 27 September 2008.
"Passing the Hat for the Provos". Time. 1979-11-26. Retrieved 27 September 2008.
McDonald, Henry (2 July 2000). "English fascists to join loyalists at Drumcree". London: The Observer. Retrieved 30 December 2010. - C18
Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas. Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity. NYU Press, 2003. Page 45.LINKS TO COMBAT 18/BNSM
Wood, Ian S. Crimes of Loyalty: A History of the UDA. Edinburgh University Press, 2006. Page 339-40. Other Fascist groups
So every group that delivered or tried to deliver weapons is now suddenly a real, active participant in The Troubles? What about the companies that supplied weapons to the British Army? Why are you only focusing on the IRA and not on the Protestant side? Did you read WP:RS? Why do you keep coming back with that PBS source, while that is not backing up your claims? The Bannertalk 17:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
How am I only focusing on the IRA? I clearly added supporters and references for both. Who are not active combatants, they are under the support column. Under your logic - both Libya and Apartheid South Africa should be removed from the infobox. PBS is a reliable source - their articles on the subject and others are written by local and international experts. The reporter who wrote the list about PIRA decommissioning has a track record of reporting on terror cells in Ireland. They likewise source the work of Jane's Intelligence Review. Simon Levchenko (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm with The Banner here, you seem to be adding in anything with any remote link regardless of weight -----SnowdedTALK 19:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Then why mention any supporting parties in the first place.Simon Levchenko (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Every article is judged on its own merits. So that link has no relevance at all. The Bannertalk 20:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Point in case; why mention some supporters only to obscure others? Simon Levchenko (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Why mention groups that had no serious influence on the fighting? The Bannertalk 22:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Around half of all firearms used by the PIRA were imported from the United States via NORAID, the Harrison Network, and the Irish Mafia (through James Bulger). I would consider that significant support. Likewise, IRA members were trained in bomb making and other "specialties" by Libya and the PLO. The Unionists had only 1 shipment come from South Africa - their support came from elsewhere, too. This could be added to an expandable list.Simon Levchenko (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
You need clear sources that establish significance -----SnowdedTALK 23:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Page 247 is not available on line so you will have to provide a full quote for us to assess -----SnowdedTALK 06:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
"George Harrison, a leading IRA operative in the United States who worked with local Mafioso, procured perhaps 2,500 guns while active, as well as a million rounds of ammunition."Simon Levchenko (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
And this proves the significance of their support to the PIRA. Which received only around 1,000-1,100 firearms from Libya. Which - was listed as a supporter. Simon Levchenko (talk) 00:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
It still doe s not make him a belligerent or participant. Or can you prove that he went over to Northern Ireland and joined the fight? The Bannertalk 02:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
He worked with several accomplices- e.g., the Harrison Network. So, you are saying if they played no role in combat they should not be mentioned? Per that logic then, the page shall stay as it is; not listing any material supporters. Simon Levchenko (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Neither Libya nor S.A. were belligerents or participants in The Troubles and the sources don't support inclusion. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I think Libya should definitely be counted as a supporter, especially after the 1986 bombing of Libya. NORAID also should be there as raising money. Neither were actual belligerents. I don't think the PLO, Basque or FARC were of any consequence though they expressed support for each other. The rest of them were either directly working for the IRA or were just criminals working as gun runners for money, they weren't public organisations. The stuff under the Loyalist column is equally silly. So yes overall I agree with Banner. I think the whole supported by stuff should just be removed from the infobox as too remote from the actual happenings and only covered in the text. Dmcq (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@The Banner: Please be more careful in your choice of words: Why are you only focusing on the IRA and not on the Protestant side? - Considering the IRA are proud to boast of any Protestant member's they had so they don't look sectarian, and the fact there are Catholics who have supported or are loyalists, such a statement is inaccurate and wrong. Rather you mean "on the loyalist side".
On topic, whilst you could argue that they were involved in the conflict by aiding and abetting, they weren't directly involved. Otherwise why didn't the UK take military action against Libya or the such considering it was basically state sponsorship of the IRA by Libya? So I would oppose the addition to the infobox of participants of such entities. Mabuska(talk) 11:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The importation was not known until several shipments were intercepted. Likewise, talks resumed in the early 90s - Maggie was out of office. Simon Levchenko (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
No real difference between the new version and the previous version
I have taken the liberty of removing duplicate fields to make things obvious. First is the version as of 06:07, 19 June 2018, secondly is the "new" version. I am sure everyone can see the only supposed difference is the change of "Supported by:" to "Armament supply:" and the removal of "arms shipments". There is no real difference at all, so the objections are still valid. 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:D802:80A1:3B7D:C884 (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Why is this place such a kindergarten? Did those entities supply weapons or not? As is practice in e.g. List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War, there is an obvious distinction between the label 'Allied armed groups' covering heavy military commitment, versus the label 'Armament supply' strangely enough covering non-involvement except for arms supply. Substantiating such drivel as there being "no real difference" between aforementioned revisions with "everyone can see it" is invalid. There needs to be some level of consistency between related articles to prevent ownership sentiment among certain users, as is the case here. --131.164.141.250 (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Could you please stop your POV-pushing? The Bannertalk 18:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I have no intention to promote any side of the conflict. An expression of desire for an 'Armament supply' section - in line with various conflict infoboxes - is not in any way "POV-pushing". Are you done with your name calling and care to stay on topic? --131.164.141.250 (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Quite funny to see you complain about "name calling" when that is exactly what you are doing. The Bannertalk 19:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Tu quoque fallacy. I now recognize your aversion to discuss substance over form. Moving on.
You claim in your user page that you're "not afraid of being wrong" and yap yap. Fuck you for possessing the audacity to hijack my dear time with your rubbish. You're despicable human scum, worse than a dog. You filthy heap of canine dung. You're worth less than a tick and rectal itch. --131.164.141.250 (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Wow - seriously? Props to The Banner for template notifying the IP user of incivility, but this is a pattern of behavior which needs to be mentioned at ANI. Edaham (talk) 05:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Infobox content is not dictated by the content of infoboxes on other articles. You may wish to familiarise yourself with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, specifically:
When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance
Therefore any inclusion should be based on the significance of the addition to this specific article, not because an article on a vaguely related subject may include information in the infobox because it may be more significant to that article. The additions made to this infobox are not key facts, a single(?) importation of arms from South Africa is hardly a key fact is it? 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:DD5E:EDE:3F38:6174 (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Determining what are 'key' facts is subjective and thus requires consensus. For an IMO careful inclusion barrier, I would at least consider Libya-IRA arms shipments politically significant enough to pass, but I don't imagine making agreement with such a bunch of dumbasses. Other articles have less strict inclusion criteria than being proposed here, but let's not widen the scope because .. um .. guidelines. --131.164.141.250 (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Talking about dogs I get a whiff of sockpuppetry from the very long IP of very limited contributions to this site. Maybe I'm wrong but there's something fishy going on here. Also the shorter IP should be reported for that outburst. Mabuska(talk) 08:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I definitely saw small discrepancies throughout the article that involved information regarding the Provisional IRA and English. Specifically, the segments regarding the Bloody Sunday event, as well as other operations designated towards the protestants, were lined towards the Provisional IRA. Joeygaig (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Please don't make provocative accusations - if there are aspects of the article which do not show a proper balance or are not based on reliable sources then point them out with supporting evidence -----SnowdedTALK 05:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Further reading
Is there any reason for keeping a small list of further reading in this article. Are any of those titles significant enough to keep in the list given the number of references and the article List of books about the Troubles. -- PBS (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone notice it says something weird at the top?
I'm afraid that sort of vandalism happens all the time. Most of them reverted fairly rapidly and people who do that a couple of times are blocked. It's one of the problems with allowing anyone to edit the encyclopaedia but is considered worth it for other benefits. Dmcq (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Requested move 13 April 2019
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The Troubles → Northern Ireland conflict – This article's title seems euphemistic and not NPOV. Googling the term "The Troubles" with the word "euphemism" brings a long list of reliable sources that deride this term. Why are we still using this title? Northern Ireland conflict appears to be the preferred term among independent scholars and is neutral and formal. Why default to the colloquial term. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Comment. The title being a euphemism (if it is one) does not mean it is not the WP:COMMONNAME. Calidum 03:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Agreed but there is clearly more than one COMMONNAME and the euphemism is not NPOV. North Ireland conflict is also a COMMONNAME, arguably among the more reliable and more independent sources tempered by time.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Searching for "The Troubles" "Northern Ireland" returns 1,560,000 results, "Northern Ireland conflict" a mere 234,000. I do not see many sources actually deriding the term, only stating that it is a euphemism. I also see no evidence for the claim about independent scholars, nor an explanation as to how the title is POV. FDW777 (talk) 07:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per COMMONNAME -----SnowdedTALK 07:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - There may be more "formal" available titles, but the current title is almost certainly the most common one. Guliolopez (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
WithdrawnComment – It is clear I am ignorant of something here.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Support per WP:COMMONNAME: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." "The Troubles" is ambiguous. Searching for "The Troubles" in JSTOR gave me 39,648 results, but even the first page of 25 results included "Lizzie and the Troubles", "The Troubles at Texas", "The Troubles of 1865", "The Troubles Worsen", "The Troubles at the Center" (those are all book chapter titles that you'll see if you scroll down the page), and "The Troubles in Palestine", none of which have anything to do with the Northern Ireland conflict. Searching JSTOR for "Northern Ireland conflict" OR "conflict in Northern Ireland" gave me 2,778 results. I only looked through the first 100, but I'm confident that all two thousand relate to the subject of this article. That's quite enough to be able to say it's a common name. Northern Ireland conflict therefore fulfils the five naming criteria: it is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize; it is a title that readers are likely to look for; it unambiguously identifies the article's subject; it is concise; and it is consistent with the titles of articles in Category:Conflicts. "The Troubles" falls down on at least two (ambiguity and consistency), and arguably more, of the five. It's instantly recognisable to people from Ireland and Britain, but I'm not sure it conveys anything to readers in the rest of the world (Coffeeandcrumbs, for instance?). I urge editors to stop before saying "oppose" and ask themselves, are they doing it because they are used to, or fond of, the current title? Scolaire (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Comment. A word about Google searches. I searched for "The Troubles" "Northern Ireland", and underneath the search box it said "About 1,450,000 results". When I clicked through the pages, however, it took me no farther than page 14, where it said "Page 14 of about 137 results"! The results won't be the same for everyone, or even every time, but they will be comparable. Don't trust that number, and above all, don't make it your central argument in a discussion. Scolaire (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Comment Just to add, I believe I am a perfect test case for the WP:10 year test. I have no connection to the article or the subject. I am young and don't particularly remember that period in history. But I have a visual and auditory reaction to the word trouble that conflicts with the seriousness of subject. Forgive me but I hear and imagine some posh voice telling me to not worry about the little troubles over there. This happens every time I read a sentence that refers to the subject as The Troubles. The fact that it is capitalized does not relieve that dissonance. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs, with all due respect, your personal reaction is utterly irrelevant. As is my reaction, or that of any other editor.
The policy at WP:AT explains how article title ares selected. It's a very well-honed document, so do take time to study it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I will admit that you are definitely more familiar with the policies involved. My reason for starting this discussion is WP:NPOVNAME which says: Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following: 1. Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later... 2. Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious. This appears to be a colloquialism and far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious, at least to me. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs, do resist the temptation to cherrypick parts of a policy. That needs to be read in context. I don't think that "The Troubles" fits any definition of "colloquial I have seen, e,g. Merrian Webster's definition used in or characteristic of familiar and informal conversation. This is not street slang; it the term most widely used in reliable sources, in formal political discourse, and the media. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. The current title is indeed a euphemism, which makes 30 years of death and destruction sound like a stomach upset or a family rift. However, both government and media in the UK and Ireland were reluctant to acknowledge the reality that it was as a low-level civil war, so the euphemism was widely used. I would personally prefer a more direct term, but this the policy at WP:Article titles makes no room for the personal preferences of me or any other editor. I see no evidence that any single alternative comes anywhere near the level of usage of "The Troubles", let alone meets WP:NPOV. For example, even the IRA's term The "Long War" actually refers to a strategy adopted in 1976/77, which is 8 year after the conflict began ... so apart from being partisan it does't describe the 1968–1998 timespan which is the scope of this article.
However, I am open to solid evidence in favour on non-euphemistic alternative. Note that per WP:Search engine test, a lot of care needed to be taken in constructing searches, e.g. by searching only for reliable sources, by excluding Wikipedia and its mirrors, by finding the last age of Google searches rather than believing the usually bonkers totals displayed on the first page, by checking for false positives and false negatives etc. It gets tiresome having to point out the flaws in a crude general Google search which includes all manner of unreliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Agree and so Oppose - the above is a good summary. This is in line with WP:COMMONNAME, and all familiar with this, local, scholarly, or otherwise, know very well that it is a euphemism and a dodge, but that's part of the point. In the same way, WWII was "The Emergency"... I agree with other comments below, including that this is probably heading for a SNOW close.SeoR (talk) 07:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose The Troubles is overwhelmingly the common name. Even sources that use 'Northern Ireland conflict' such as this book note that it is 'more familiar' as The Troubles. Kges1901 (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Comment Google Ngram is interesting [1]. "The Troubles" has a long history of usage that predates the late 1960s and, as mentioned above, refers to other topics. "Northern Ireland conflict" has grown in usage more than "The Troubles" since the late 1960s. Whizz40 (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I think this is more interesting. The Troubles has a long history but the Northern Ireland conflict is unambiguous.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Not yet, probably "The Troubles" is actually highly ambiguous - to my grandmother it meant what we call the Irish War of Independence (a term that would have puzzled her, though she lived through it) and I think also the Irish Civil War. It has actually meant several different things over several centuries, going back to the Middle Ages. But at the moment it still seems to be the common name, and won't confuse too many. Scolaire is correct that it is not well known outside the ahem Northern Archipelago, and since the British media avoid it on PC grounds, it is probably unfamiliar to most younger British people by now. So in a few years we will need to make the change. Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per COMMONNAME, and some Google searching, keeping BHG's points in mind. The NGram posted by Whizz is interesting but it only goes up to the year 2000. If you change the date to 2008 (latest available), the trend becomes clearer [2]. After the conflict ended, "Northern Ireland conflict" falls off sharply, whereas "The Troubles" continues to increase. Never can fully trust just that, though. Checking Google Scholar case law, there seem to be more legal opinions calling it "The Troubles" than "Northern Ireland Conflict". Google Scholar article searches seem to suggest the same, a strong disparity in favor of "The Troubles" (clicking through page 60, then I gave up). It's not definitive proof and I'd be open to additional evidence, but "The Troubles" does seem to be the name that is used by most reliable sources (and that matches my own anecdotal experience as an American that it's the name most often used, though I personally don't care for the name). Levivich 16:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose: also per COMMONNAME. Searches don't really give that many results for Northern Ireland conflict besides which, which Northern Ireland conflict is this one? For more clarity The Troubles in Northern Ireland could be a compromise. ww2censor (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Yes this is a euphemism (and also understatement), but it is the common name. While it does downplay the seriousness of the events, it's not our job to right this (perceived) wrong. Thryduulf (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose move and snowclose, as it's obvious by this point that the current title is stable. ONR(talk) 03:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Struck, apologies, I was under the impression it was Troubles-related but upon further examination it isn’t. However, two editors endorsed a snow closure and consensus was clear so the closure itself remains. Many thanks to both, SITH(talk) 21:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Civil rights campaign and unionist backlash
The article currently states "one man, one vote – in Northern Ireland, only householders could vote in local elections, while in the rest of the United Kingdom all adults could vote", which implies that "one man one vote" existed in the rest of the UK. I added "In all parts of the United Kingdom, plural voting meant that owners of business premises had an additional vote.[1][2]" This was reverted for the stated reason that "references don't mention NICRA, so don't see the relevance of the inclusion to NICRA's goals". I had made the edit to show that 'one man one vote' did not exist anywhere for local elections anywhere in the United Kingdom in the mid-1960's. I feel that the article should make this clear, and I propose to reinstate the edit.Alekksandr (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
This appears to be a case of stating the reverse side of an argument before the argument has been made. The edit clarifies something that is not in the article to begin with. In this case we have one of a bulleted list of civil rights goals: "one man, one vote – in Northern Ireland, only householders could vote in local elections, while in the rest of the United Kingdom all adults could vote". There is no mention here, or anywhere else in the article, of the business vote. It was the disenfranchisement of people who didn't hold property, i.e. own a house (together with the fact that people were denied housing so that they couldn't get the vote) that was at the heart of the "One man, one vote" demand. The business vote was an issue, but it would have to be discussed in an appropriate place (not the bulleted list) before the "on the other hand" argument is added. Scolaire (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
To me, at least, the slogan 'One man/person, one vote' implies two things: -
1. That no-one should have less than one vote - i.e. that people who did not hold property should not be disfranchised.
2. That no-one should have more than one vote - i.e. that people who held business property should not have a second vote in respect of it.
While I realise that (2) was not at the forefront of the Civil Rights campaign, I feel that anyone reading the article has no way of knowing this unless it is stated in the article. I agree that the bulleted list should be clarified, as you suggest, to make it clear that it was the disenfranchisement of people who didn't hold property i.e. own a house, rather than the business vote, that was at the heart of the "One man, one vote" demand. I therefore suggest that the article should be amended to read "one man, one vote – this demand related primarily to the fact that in Northern Ireland, only householders could vote in local elections, while in the rest of the United Kingdom all adults could vote. A secondary issue was the business vote, which meant that owners of business property had a second vote in respect of it, and which also applied in local elections in the rest of the United Kingdom. Alekksandr (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Now amended as set out above - can anyone who has any issues with this please discuss here rather than reverting? Thanks in advanceAlekksandr (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm with Scolaire here and I have reverted it - if something is contested you have to establish consensus on the talk page before you insert it -----SnowdedTALK 05:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Just to clarify, Alekksandr, what I said in my reply was that while the business vote issue existed, it would have to be discussed in an appropriate place (not the bulleted list) before the "on the other hand" argument is added. It is far too complex to be a bullet point. I should have added, if it is to be discussed in this article. This article is about an armed conflict that lasted 30 years; it doesn't need all the minute details of social/political issues of a point in time before the violence began. It would be better to deal with it in the Northern Ireland civil rights movement article. Scolaire (talk) 08:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Members of the public as targets
I added to the lead the fact that members of the public were targeted. That happened frequently, yet it was reverted as needless & superfluous. It's relevant that they were often the targets of bombings, shootings etc. In many attacks they were the only/primary targets, especially in regard to those in the street and in pubs, restaurants & shops. If the objective was only to damage the buildings, they'd have always attacked them when they were closed. Jim Michael (talk) 08:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Most of the civilian casualties were caused by the security forces. To single out just republican groups is not a neutral approach. The Bannertalk 09:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
If members of the public were the target, why issue warnings so they were moved away from bombs? IRA, The Bombs and the Bullets: A History of Deadly Ingenuity by A.R. Oppenheimer (ISBN 978-0716528951) states:
Bombs, the IRA's chosen means of attack, have long been the most indiscriminate of weapons, whether used by terrorist groups or dropped from planes on cities. But on the whole the organisation avoided civilian casualties as far as possible within the frenetic mayhem of urban and rural insurgency warfare, a situation in which civilians will always get caught up in the conflict. This does not excuse the misery and injury it caused, as this strategy often went wrong, but may begin to explain it. The IRA did not target non-combatants, but there were civilian targets - individuals in or connected to the British government, royal family, judiciary and other establishment figures. Otherwise, chief targets were members or associates of the British forces and security services.
Editors own arguments about targets based on their own opinion of events are of no relevance whatsoever. FDW777 (talk) 10:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Warnings were not always given; warnings which were given were often grossly inadequate - giving insufficient time and/or not stating the location. Ordinary members of the public were frequently targeted by both republicans & loyalists, both individually & in groups. This isn't opinion. Attacks against members of the public, by republicans, who did not give adequate warnings, include:
Did the Army issue a warning that it would shoot unarmed civilians on Bloody Sunday? Did UDA-member Michael Stone warn the public when attacking unarmed civilians at Milltown Cemetery? Yet you blame only the IRA. The Bannertalk 07:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
You have provided no evidence regarding who the target of any of those bombs was.
Red Lion Pub bombing contains no sourced information regarding who or what the target was. If the target was civilians, why issue any warning at all?
Birmingham pub bombings contains no sourced information regarding who or what the target was. If the target was civilians, why issue any warning at all?
Mountainview Tavern bombing 1975 contains no sourced information regarding who or what the target was. The target could easily have been the UVF members known to frequent the bar, apparently.
Scott's Oyster Bar bombing contains no sourced information regarding who or what the target was. Given the location of the bar, the clientele could quite easily by members of the groups mentioned by Oppenheimer as I doubt you got many bricklayers in there.
Darkley killings is of no relevance to a sentence that you think should say "as well as a bombing campaign against infrastructure, commercial and political targets, and the general public".
Warrington bomb attacks contains no sourced information regarding who or what the target was. If the target was civilians, why issue any warning at all?
Why I even wasted my time doing that is a mystery to me anyway, since I already stated "Editors own arguments about targets based on their own opinion of events are of no relevance whatsoever". Per policy, you are not permitted to draw your own conclusion regarding the targets of bombs simply based on the warning(s) given being inadequate. FDW777 (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I've stated that loyalists also carried out attacks on members of the public without giving warnings. The sentence I added to in the lead was about republicans, but it could be reworded to include loyalists.
Credit shouldn't be given for giving inadequate warnings, though the perpetrators claimed it should.
There's no ref in Mountainview Tavern Bombing 1975 to back the statement in it that the place was popular with the UVF. Even if it were, there would have been many ordinary members of the public who were customers & staff.
I don't know who A.R. Oppenheimer is. He doesn't have a WP page. He isn't mentioned on Oppenheimer or Scott's Oyster Bar bombing. The link above isn't to an online source.
It's not opinion that the attacks I mentioned are among many in which ordinary members of the public were guaranteed to be victims.
The sentence in question should be expanded to include attacks other than bombings, so that those such as the Darkley killings would be included. That attack was certainly against ordinary members of the public.
The second Warrington bomb could not have had a target other than members of the public - it exploded in a busy shopping street.
So no sources to support your opinions then? FDW777 (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
You're claiming that it was a realistic possibility at the times of the attacks that ordinary members of the public wouldn't be victims of those attacks? Who/what else could possibly have been the targets in Darkley & Warrington?
Who are the groups you vaguely referred to as not bricklayers in regard to Scott's?
You are still trying to lay the blame solely with the IRA for targetting civilians when targetting commercial properties. But what about the Greysteel massacre, executed by the UDA/UFF? The Bannertalk 08:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
It's ridiculous to claim that ordinary members of the public were not the target of some of these attacks, especially Darkley & Warrington.
I'm not specifying the IRA only. Until this comment I hadn't mentioned them on this talk page. I mentioned the Darkley, which was by the INLA. Also, I've stated in this discussion that the sentence could be reworded to include loyalist attacks & that loyalists also carried out no-warning attacks against members of the public. Greysteel - revenge for the no-warning (although they said that they intended to give 11 seconds for all the staff & customers to leave the fish & chip shop & get far enough away from it to not be injured by the blast) Shankill Road bombing a week earlier is an example of that. Jim Michael (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
That's your opinion. However I provided a reliable source that contradicts your opinion, so simply repeating your opinion is pointless. I could provide several more sources that specifically relate to Warrington, but since the burden of evidence is on you to provide sources to support your claims I can't be bothered typing up the quotes unless I need to which at present I don't. FDW777 (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Nothing that I've stated here is opinion.
You mentioned a book by a non-notable author which isn't online & didn't even state a relevant passage from it.
The second Warrington bomb couldn't have had a target other than shoppers & shop staff.
Your hostility is totally unwarranted; I've been civil throughout.
If you can't be bothered, don't comment at all. Jim Michael (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Notability =/= reliability (but for the record an article on him can be found at Andy Oppenheimer), and the relevant phrase is "The IRA did not target non-combatants", or if you prefer a Warrington specific phrase from the same source it is "Also, the Provisionals realised that continued targeting of the British army and NI security services, or civilian deaths resulting from misguided or misdirected actions (such as the Warrington shopping centre bombing in 1993), was not going to alter the mindset of the Protestant majority in the North or coerce or cajole them into accepting a united Ireland.". Still nothing from you except opinion, so no further reply is needed. FDW777 (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
As long as you do not come with reliable evidence to blame only the Republicans, your writings are nothing more than a personal opinion. And that is simple not enough. The Bannertalk 17:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I've repeatedly stated in this discussion that loyalists also frequently targeted ordinary members of the public, so the claims from you that I'm saying that only republicans did so is clearly untrue. Over 700 civilians were killed by republicans & over 800 by loyalists - that's far too many to be accidental and/or due to a tiny number of members of the IRA, UDA etc. going against their leaders' policies. Even if it were believable that the March 1993 Warrington bombing were misguided or misdirected, no-one appears to have given an explanation as to what the intended target could have been - other than shoppers, shops, their staff etc. Jim Michael (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I've repeatedly stated. Yes, you did. But what you added to the article was only about the republicans. You would be far more credible when you came with a suggestion to add the attacks on civilians by loyalist and the security forces, properly sourced. That is good for the overall balance. The Bannertalk 17:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I said that could be reworded to include loyalists. It could also be positioned in a different place in the article. The fact that just over half the people who were killed in the Troubles were civilians is very relevant. Jim Michael (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
By the way: Protestant Action Force and Glenanne gang. "Over 700 civilians were killed by republicans & over 800 by loyalists - that's far too many to be accidental and/or due to a tiny number of members of the IRA, UDA etc. going against their leaders' policies". Indeed, this looks more like a deliberate campaign. The Bannertalk 19:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Location
I noticed that it says the conflict also affected "England, and mainland Europe".
Did the conflict NEVER touch Scotland and Wales? It seems weird it'd hit England and mainland Europe, but not those two.
Is it just a bad wording/misunderstanding of England/Britain? And if so, can it be fixed? 180.17.62.122 (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
A quick check gave no evidence of attacks in Wales and Scotland. There was a helicopter crash in Scotland, but not due an attack of some sort. So it looks to be correct. The Bannertalk 14:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
The only exception I'm aware of was the Glasgow pub bombings. There must have been an agreement among republicans to avoid Scotland & Wales. Jim Michael (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
True, Scotland should be added. Interesting to she that it was an UVF attack on civilians. The Bannertalk 19:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
In 1985, the IRA had 5 members (including Patrick Magee & Martina Anderson) as well as explosives, detonators & timers in Glasgow. They were planning bombings in 13 English towns & cities, which means that they used Scotland to plan attacks even though they weren't intending to carry them out there. Jim Michael (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE the purpose of the infobox is "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance". Two bombings on a single day in Scotland is not a key fact, and in my opinion it would be wholly misleading to present it as any way equal to the IRA's lengthy bombing campaigns in England. FDW777 (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Flags again
Previously briefly discussed at Talk:The Troubles/Archive 3#Ignoble flag usage in infobox. "the flags improve the article's quality, and make the infobox more aesthetically pleasing" is not valid per MOS:ICONDECORATION. While MOS:INFOBOXFLAG does list military conflicts as an acceptable use, it does not make them mandatory and the flags as they were added would appear to fall foul of "Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text" since they don't appear to convey information in addition to the text. If anything they confuse the reader due to the multiple uses of the Tricolor. If Takinginterest01 wishes to make a case for inclusion, they are welcome to do so. FDW777 (talk) 10:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Image showing Ulster Banner and Tricolour
File:Fountain (04).JPG was added to the Overview section ten years ago to illustrate "The Ulster Banner flying over a unionist area (foreground), and the Irish Tricolour flying over a nationalist area (background)." The problem with it is that the Ulster Banner dominates the photograph, while the Tricolour is only visible if you know what you are looking for and you study the photograph very, very hard. It is a very nice photograph, but not fit for purpose. For an image to properly portray a clash of symbols, the symbols should be of equal prominence and comparable size. You should not have to play Where's Wally? to see one of them. With a certain amount of regret, I am proposing that the image be deleted. Scolaire (talk) 10:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I would tend to agree. While the Tricolour does appear four (there are also two in the centre, one of them flying sideways) times in the photograph only one occurrence is visible in the thumbnail, and barely visible at best. I would have no objection to it being replaced by two photos, each giving the different flags being flown in their respective areas. FDW777 (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Collusion sections
I'm extremely wary of trying to make any changes myself, but the adjacent "Collusion" sections present an almost comical contrast. We have a well-referenced section about "many incidents of collusion" between British forces and loyalists, followed by a single sentence about an unnamed person colluding with the IRA (itself with plenty of citations, to be fair). If other editors think this is appropriate, I'll defer to that, but from the outside, it looks a lot either like either false balance or a badly underdeveloped Gardaí/IRA collusion section. --BDD (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I'd certainly agree one sentence isn't enough for a section, and it can certainly be expanded on and/or merged into the other section which can be renamed to reflect the more inclusive detail. That said, the levels of collusion don't seem to be of the same extent. Loyalists didn't generally carry out attacks in the Republic, for example after the death of Seamus Ludlow on 2 May 1976, they only kiled two other people in the Republic, Eddie Fullerton in 1991 and Martin Doherty in 1994. Timeline of Ulster Volunteer Force actions and Timeline of Ulster Defence Association actions contain very occasional bomb attacks during the period. As they mainly confined their activities to Northern Ireland, there was no real reason for the Gardaí to be investigating them. Obviously the incidents that did happen in their jurisdiction were investigated, one such investigation is alleged to have led to the leaking of an intelligence file on loyalist Ian Sproule to the IRA. But there simply wasn't the opportunity for members of the Gardaí to pass on information to the IRA, because generally speaking they didn't have intelligence files on loyalists, the RUC, the British Army or whoever else the IRA might have wanted to kill. There's allegations such as the ones by Kieran Conway, but allegations about unnamed people ferrying weapons, hiding suspects or tipping off the IRA about a raid aren't as controversial as the British Army and RUC allegedly colluding in murders, so they don't seem to have got the same amount of coverage in sources.
The Smithwick Tribunal's report is 1652 pages long so I'd hope that secondary sources reporting on it have examined it in detail and covered any relevant parts, so I'd expect the one sentence about Smithwick and Breen/Buchanan can be expanded upon, as well as any other incidents it might have looked at. As it's 1652 pages I haven't read it before replying, the Sproule source mentioned above notes that Smithwick made no finding in relation to Sproule (and I can't find his name in the report doing a search, which is somewhat surprising) despite it saying "In 2012 former Garda Commissioner Noel Conroy was grilled at the Smithwick Tribunal for failing to volunteer that he carried out a major probe into suspected collusion in Mr Sproule’s murder".
Thoughts? FDW777 (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I will add that the first section doesn't mention the Loughinisland massacre which it really should. But I'll hold off adding it for now, or possibly not at all depending on how the discussion goes. FDW777 (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for all this information! It seems obvious now that you say it that Gardaí/IRA collusion just wouldn't apply in many cases. The changes you've suggested all sound reasonable to me. Caveat: I'm looking at all of this from the other side of the Atlantic, and don't pretend to have any detailed knowledge about the subject. At this point, I think it makes sense to move the mention of the Gardaí incident to the other section and use a broader section heading. --BDD (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Was the Darkley killings the only church attack of the Troubles? If so, was there a policy to avoid targeting churches? Jim Michael (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, sadly there was no such policy and this was not the only attack on a church during The Troubles, but it is by far the one that caused the most media attention & most deaths.
*16 September: The "Protestant Action Force" claimed responsibility for shooting dead a Catholic civilian in the grounds of Holy Cross Roman Catholic Church on Crumlin Road, Belfast. This was claimed as retaliation for the killing of UVF member John Bingham two days before.
*12 October: the UFF claimed responsibility for shooting dead a Catholic civilian at his home on Deerpark Road, Belfast. It also claimed responsibility for bombing Christ the King Roman Catholic church in Limavady. Most of the building was destroyed but there were no injuries
There is other church bombings not included in UVF,RHC or UDA timelines I might add them in to the timelines... like these following Loyalist church bombings I upload to my YT account.
One by the UDA/UFF...
And not a church attack but imo just as bad & sectarian attacking Catholic children's schools.
The online magazine called "The Troubles issuu By Joe Baker" it details things everything to do with The Troubles including less known attacks like attacks on churches & childrens schools. Just look at this issue from January/February 1973, there's over a dozen of attacks on Churches, mostly Catholic ones. https://issuu.com/glenravel/docs/troubles19/16User:TommySocialistUser_talk:TommySocialist 23:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Also here's another quick list of attacks from Joe Bakers "The Troubles" Issue 19 (January/February 1973) and issue 22 (July/August 1973). https://issuu.com/glenravel/docs/troubles22
Fri 19 Jan 1973
Bombs had wrecked the national school and badly damaged a Catholic Church at Desertmartin RUC said that 25 - 30 lb bomb blew the roof of the church after the bomb had been left near the altar.
26 January 1973
A British Army bomb disposal expert defused a bomb found on a window of a Catholic Church,
in Saintfield, Belfast. It was believed the UVF was behind the attack.
9 Feb 1973
There was an attempt to set fire to a "Church of Ireland" Church at Ballynure, only small damage was done.
10 Feb 1973
"Catholic Church bombed"
A bomb which was placed at St Bernadette's Catholic Church on the Upper Knockbreda Road exploded causing damage to the side, porch and rooms immediatley inside the building but the main part was not damaged.
19 February 1973
St Brigid's Catholic Church in Derryvolgie Avenue came under attack during the night. A number of shots were fired at the church and the remaning 5 people inside it. No one was injured in the attack.
Sarurday July 23 1973
The Catholic church in Minorca Place, Carrickfergus was slightly damaged when a 2lb device which was placed on the wind sill exploded, some windows were damaged as well.
Monaday 30 July 1973
An explosion caused a lot of damage to a Catholic church in Killyman between Dungannon & Portadown. The device had been planted inside the building.
Wednesday 22 August 1973
Two bombs caused sever damage to Catholic churches. The first near Ballymena at Braid Chapel left the building in ruins and the second two hours later another bomb went of at a Church at Crebilly but was only small damage had occured, a number of near by house's were also damaged.
27 August Monday 1973
50 people were injured, three very seriously in 600lb car bomb attack, without warning the bomb exploded close to a Roman Catholic Church in Ballycastle, County Antrim. The bomb was planted on the 26 August it was timed to explode as Mass goers left the church. But the service ran late, and the bomb detonated when the congregation were still inside the church, avoiding large-scale loss of life. Three people were seriusly injured in the blast including BBC journalist Mr. Fred Tullen, presently working in Northern Ireland who had to have an amputated. [1]
For those who object to the use of "Northern Ireland and England" rather than "Northern Ireland and mainland Britain", here is a recent article that makes it crystal clear that only England was targeted by the IRA: Mackay, Neil (13 October 2019). "Inside story: Why the IRA never attacked Scotland". The Herald Scotland.. 81.17.242.238 (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
IRA attacks in Belgium
I did a little research and found this article and there are others so I have self-reverted but removed the reference. We haven't got references for the other countries so this seems consistent. -----SnowdedTALK 05:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
The AP ref I provided states: Since 1979, the IRA has mounted attacks in Belgium, the Netherlands and West Germany. Jim Michael (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Of course things like this could be avoided if disruptive editors added a source when originally adding material, or added a source when the material was challenged for the first time. Wikipedia:Verifiability is quite clear - "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." A wikilink to another article in an edit summary is not an inline citation is it? FDW777 (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
If you're aiming that at me, I'm not disruptive - I'm a productive, long-term editor.
It's undisputed that the IRA carried out attacks in Belgium - it's not controversial, a conspiracy theory, a hypothesis or a fringe view. The sentence in question had stood without a ref for a long time before I merely added Belgium to Gibraltar, the Netherlands & Germany. When I added a RS, it was wrongly reverted as not supporting the info.
The section in question should be expanded. It's very relevant that attacks in mainland Europe brought vocal opposition to the IRA from countries which were previously uninvolved & paid little attention to the Troubles - especially when the IRA attacked German, Belgian & Australian civilians. It reduced the IRA's appeal - even for those who were in favour of using violence against Brits & whom gave the IRA the benefit of the doubt that they didn't notice Hazell's German accent, Spanos & Melrose's Australian accents etc. indicating that they weren't British & hence weren't legitimate targets even from the IRA's point of view. Jim Michael (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Disruptive editing - A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as the following: Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
You are welcome. FDW777 (talk) 07:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
That is unfair FDW777, Jim Michael did add a source and he has not been disruiptive. I made a mistake in deleting it and reinserted without a reference leaving material here - see above thread. -----SnowdedTALK 08:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
He did indeed add a source, eventually. But it wasn't the first time, or even the second time. It was only when he made the edit for a third time he added a source. As I said in my original post, things like this could easily be avoided if people "added a source when originally adding material, or added a source when the material was challenged for the first time". The edit would have been made, nobody would have bothered to revert it, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. FDW777 (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Stop being hostile. Like I said, the sentence was long-standing & uncontroversial. I merely added Belgium to Gibraltar, the Netherlands & Germany. Having not initially added a source doesn't make me a disruptive editor. Jim Michael (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
It is you who is hostile and editwarring. You are coming with a claim without proper evidence. The random remark in the article you used as references is insufficient. The Bannertalk 15:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Nonsense - personally I think the reference was good enough and even if you disagree this agressive tone doesn't help. If you read the opening paragraph of this section you will find I checke it and found an additional clear reference. I've added it in although I don't think its necessary. -----SnowdedTALK 16:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for adding ONE useful source. The Bannertalk 18:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I've not been in the slightest bit hostile. I gave plenty of evidence. It's undisputed that the IRA carried out attacks in Belgium. It isn't a random remark - it's a factual statement in a reliable source. FDW & The Banner have both been unjustifiably hostile & patronising towards me since I started editing this article, even though none of my edits are controversial. I moved Killings of Nick Spanos and Stephen Melrose to Murders of Nick Spanos and Stephen Melrose because its undisputed that the killings of the Australian civilians was murder. The only dispute was whether particular people were guilty of the murders. Even if the civilians whose Australian accents made it clear that they weren't British soldiers had actually been off-duty British soldiers, it would still have been murder. The Netherlands in 1990 wasn't a war zone & the IRA weren't legitimate combatants anywhere in the world - even the Irish Government has long hated & outlawed them. However, it was moved back due to it being undiscussed & controversial, when in fact it was both discussed & uncontroversial. I added to the discussion over 25 hours before I moved the page, which wasn't replied to. Jim Michael (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't know why you are bringing this up here. You claim "However, it was moved back due to it being undiscussed & controversial, when in fact it was both discussed & uncontroversial. I added to the discussion over 25 hours before I moved the page, which wasn't replied to.". There is your talk page post. Can you point to a single sentence, or even a single phrase, which suggests you were going to move the page? The discussion you added to, a six year old discussion I feel it important to add, is not discussing a page title. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that in 2013 the article was titled Nick Spanos and Stephen Melrose, and was moved to the current title in 2014. FDW777 (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm bringing up that article here because it's part of the Troubles, so it draws more interested editors' attention to the page moves of a lesser viewed article. I've mentioned it on the talk page in question as well.
There's no rule requiring an editor states that (s)he intends to move a page before actually doing so. I clearly stated in my comment in question that the shootings were murder, adding to a discussion about that matter. The fact that the discussion started years ago isn't a problem, because it hadn't been closed or archived - so I didn't need to begin a new section. The discussion wasn't about the page title, but it's about the same issue - whether or not the shootings should be described as murder. Jim Michael (talk) 03:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Without my having to search the archives of this page, does anyone know if the need has ever has been discussed to clarify the origin of the term "The Troubles" for this conflict? Perhaps the expression is familiar and understandable to many, whereas it might also be taken as a somewhat glaring understatement by others? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it was "discussed" here. The answer is, local people just started calling it that, and it caught on. The next question is, how do you find a reliable source for that? If you read the hundreds of books and thousands of articles on the subject you'd probably get lucky eventually. Scolaire (talk) 11:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Not much of a discussion there, I'd say. Unanswered questions. Is it called "The Troubles" in any other encyclopdedia that we know of? Perhaps the article should be moved if we cannot find a source that makes this term look more legitimate? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
You asked why it was called the Troubles. You didn't ask if it was called the Troubles. FDW777 (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Obviously,. it is, in British sources. To me "Northern Ireland conflict" would be a more appropriate globally balanced term with "the Troubles" as a secondary name, not vice versa as it is now. Just one man's opinion. If "the Troubles" is more frequent all over the world, I concede that my opinion does not matter to Wikipedia. In any case, it was helpful to me to find out that the term originated as local slang of sorts. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I can only hope that the local (I perceive it as) escapist origin will be included in the text someday. It's rather touching. Without that, this looks rather arrogant. I arrived here by reading about the gory assassination of Mountbatten, only to find this horrifying conflict called "the Troubles". Get it? -SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Ulster loyalist paramilitaries/UPV vs UR
I notice the semi-paramilitary group the Ulster Resistance is in the Loyalist Belligerent forces. I don't think this group carried out a single bombing or a single shooting and maybe not even injured anyone during the conflict. The UPV helped the UVF kill 70-year-old Matilda Gould & they also helped the a joint UPV/UVF unit kill Catholic barman Peter Ward (18) & John Scullion (28), the Ulster Protestant Volunteers (UPV) along with the UVF also carried out a large number of bombings between March & April 1969 to bring down Northern Premier Terence O'Neill which they did successfully. They also probably had a hand in the first Loyalist bombing in Republic of Ireland at all when Loyalists carried out RTE Studio bombing on 5 August 1969 a week before the Battle of the Bogside. On the 19 October 1969 UPV & UVF member Thomas McDowell was planting a large gelignite bomb at Ballyshannon in Donegal, he killed himself when touched 5,600 volts of electricity. There was more UVF/UPV bombings in 1969 like the when they exploded a bomb at the grave of Wolfe Tone in Bodenstown, ruining one of the headstones. They were probably involved in bombings in 1970 as well like when on the 18 February they exploded a bomb at a 240-foot radio mast on Mongary Hill, near Raphoe, County Donegal, Republic of Ireland. The explosion put the transmitter out of action. The mast had allowed Irish Radio programmes to be received over most of Northern Ireland.
The UPV were much more active than Ulster Resistance and they should either replace or co-opted on to the Loyalist Belligerents. If UR is included in in the Loyalist groups, then Saor Éire (1967–75) should be included in the Irish Republican groups, they did more than both the CIRA or RIRA between October 1968 - April 1998
TommySocialist 17:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Saor Éire robbed a few banks, I don't see how that's more than the Continuity and Real IRA's documented activity prior to April 1998. FDW777 (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Comparing the search results of the troubles were and the troubles was on British and Irish newspapers' websites reveals that the plural is indeed the norm, whereas the latter are mostly matches of "the __ of the Troubles was" etc. or referring to the term. The same is true on JSTOR. On Google Ngram, "The Troubles is/was/has" don't even have enough occurrences to appear on the graph, while "The Troubles are/were/have" do (with both words capitalized and "case-insensitive" unchecked to make sure the conflict is the subject).
So shouldn't it be "The Troubles were"? Or am I missing something? Nardog (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Plural, I'd say. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Alright, edited the lead. Nardog (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
End date?
I realise the current end date is referenced, but CAIN say "It may prove as difficult to agree on a date for the end of 'the Troubles' as it is to agree on the date of beginning of the violent conflict". They are not as explicit as the "A number of dates have been used by different writers" line regarding the start date, instead settling for "There have been a number of significant events and developments". Does anyone think these dates should be incorporated into the sentence in the lead? If yes, I assume there would be no problem removing the "Date" field entirely from the infobox? I tend to think saying "Late 1960s–1997, 1998, 1999, 2005, or 2007" would be best avoided, it's much easier to deal with that in a sentence. FDW777 (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Anyone? It feels like I'm wasting my time bringing potentially controversial things up in advance. FDW777 (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Previous discussion from 2008. I don't know if anything much has changed in 12 years. Scolaire (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for that link. I notice that nowhere in that discussion did anyone actually provide any reference supporting their claims, whether it be CAIN, books, media outlets and so on. If they had, perhaps the discussion might have been more productive. In contrast I provided a reference in my very first sentence. To be clear I have no problem with the sentence "is usually deemed to have ended with the Good Friday Agreement of 1998" other than I feel it is an incomplete sentence, or in need of clarification in a further sentence or footnote or well, something. That the sentence says "is usually deemed" effectively says there are other proposed end dates, yet the article says nothing about them (and in the case of the infobox simply states 1998 as fact). FDW777 (talk) 14:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I have no sources to prove it but to my (at that time still Dutch) knowledge, the conflict was petering out making the agreement possible. The Bannertalk 15:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
CAIN is a useful resource, but the writings of Martin Melaugh should not be taken as gospel. Just because he said "a number of dates have been used [for the start of the conflict] by different writers" and "it may prove as difficult to agree on a date for the end of 'the Troubles' as it is to agree on the date of the beginning" doesn't mean the Wikipedia article has to say that. Certainly, there is no significant body of literature that says they began with the Easter Rising celebrations or the formation of the UVF. There must be plenty of sources that refer to 5 October 1968 as "the day the Troubles began". And do we need to give an end date in the lead at all? It could say "The IRA campaign ended with a ceasefire in 1997, and a political agreement was reached on Good Friday 1998, but the peace process continued until 2007 when a DUP/Sinn Féin executive was formed and Operation Banner was formally ended. In the infobox, that silly "late 1960s" should be changed to 1968, and 1998 should be left as representing the widespread view of the end date. Scolaire (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
While things did quieten down for a while after the imprisonment of Gusty Spence in 1966, there are some references that class the UVF's victims as the first of the Troubles.
Lost Lives (McKittrick et al.) June 11, 1966. John Patrick Scullion, West Belfast. Civilian, Catholic, 28, single, storeman. The first victim of the troubles
The Troubles: Ireland's Ordeal 1966–1995 and the Search for Peace (Coogan) The UVF did this by mounting a series of petrol bomb attacks on Catholic homes, schools and shops throughout the spring of 1966. On 7 May the UVF claimed the first life to be lost in the Troubles, that of an elderly Protestant, a Mrs Gould, who had the misfortune to live beside a Catholic pub which the UVF attacked with petrol bombs.
Loyalists (Taylor) Historically, Mrs Gould was the first victim of the current Troubles
I am sure there are some more for 1966, just as I know with 100% certainty there are references for 1969 as well as 1968. That's why "Late 1960s" seems the most sensible start date, if one has to be included at all. Picking just one of 1966, 1968 or 1969 would appear to violate WP:NPOV by completely excluding references that choose another start date. FDW777 (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
NPOV does not apply to the infobox. The article body should deal with the various events of the 1960s without the "there is little agreement" nonsense; the lead should summarise the article; but the infobox can and should give simple dates, reflecting the majority view. Scolaire (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
The "Irish conflict" again
I have again removed this addition by @Bbx118: as it is insufficiently referenced. It was previously added here by the same editor, and removed here by @Scolaire: as the first ref doesn't have "Irish conflict" anywhere that I can find, and the second is a review of a television programme by a random journalist; that does not make "Irish conflict" a commonly-used term. The new reference uses the phrase three times, but they don't come close to establishing it as a commonly-used term for the Troubles especially when you look at the context in which the phrase is used. FDW777 (talk) 06:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Agree. An author is entitled to describe the conflict as the "Irish conflict" if he wishes (though I notice that one of the three uses of the phrase seems to refer to the 19th-century Fenian campaign), but that does not make it an aka. Like the "random journalist" in the previous citation, it does not make it a commonly-used term. Scolaire (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
"Not a religious conflict"
This may make sense to those in Northern Ireland itself, but may seem laughable and even revisionist to Wikipedia's global audience with some (poor) knowledge of the events. The (just) 2 sources are academic and arcane and one of them even says "most agree" (that it was more or less solely about politics not really about religion at all) and also says something like "religion can't be the cause because religion can never be a prime cause of conflict". Far better elaboration in the actual article itself is needed over why the organised killing of Protestants by Catholics and vice versa was "not a religious conflict" when ostensibly the rest of the world was witnessing that and will be reading the article from an outside Ireland perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr gobrien (talk • contribs) 20:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The fact that is was a political conflict is clearly explained in both the lead and the Overview section. The bulk of the article deals with the conflict between republican paramilitaries and British security forces, or with the actions of loyalist or republican paramilitaries against people perceived to be on the "other side". If any reader with "some (poor) knowledge of the events" finds the concept that the conflict was not religious in nature "laughable and even revisionist", he or she need only read the article – or even just the first two sections – to understand why it is not. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to inform, not to conform to the misconceptions of its "global audience". The words "Catholic" and "Protestant" are used frequently in the article, because unfortunately they are the labels put on nationalists and unionists by most sources. But most sources do not describe the conflict as a religious one (or can you find multiple authoritative sources that do?). Compare the Bosnian War article where the word "Muslim" appears just as often as "Catholic" and "Protestant" in this one; yet nowhere is it argued that that conflict was a religious one. Scolaire (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
As a self-identifying member of the aforementioned 'global audience with some (poor) knowledge of the events,' this sentence took me by some surprise as well. Would be nice if it was elaborated a bit, "not a religious conflict despite the labels 'Catholic' and 'Protestant' being applied etc etc" by someone with better knowledge. Retswerb (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Editor from Northern Ireland here. I was born on the Protestant side. I have no religious belief myself, but I am still, for statistical purposes, ethnically if you like, Protestant.
It's not a "religious conflict" in that it's not a conflict over religious belief or even religious affiliation. The conflict between Catholics and Protestants is not over whose version of Christianity is best. The Catholics are not fighting to convert the Protestants to Catholicism or vice versa. At heart, it's a conflict over which country we belong to, Ireland or Britain, fought between two hereditary communities which, for historical reasons, are divided by religious affiliation. Compare it with the conflict in former Yugoslavia. One of the things that divided Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks was religion - Serbs being Orthodox, Croats being Catholic, Bosniaks being Muslim - but it was an ethnic and territorial conflict, not a religious one.
Does that make sense? --Nicknack009 (talk) 05:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
No really, as it does not explain the systematic discrimination of the Catholic population and the preference given to the Protestant population by government and employers. The Bannertalk 08:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Not all employers in 20th c NI favoured Protestants, although many did. When Ireland was partitioned, Protestants were the majority in the area that became NI - now they're about 40% of its population - which is another aspect that's insufficiently covered in the article.
An issue that isn't covered enough is that there were many instances of attacks by Catholics against Protestant civilians & vice versa which were motivated largely by sectarianism, revenge, resentment & general hatred between a significant proportion of the 2 communities. The motivation & scale of that isn't clear by reading this article - especially for those who are unfamiliar with the conflict. This article should be able to give our readers - even those who are from thousands of miles away & have no prior knowledge of it - a good understanding of what happened & why. Jim Michael (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Would it be fair to say the following? "It also had an ethnic or sectarian dimension. Despite the use of the terms 'Protestant' and 'Catholic' to refer to the two sides, it was not a religious conflict." As an ignorant outsider I think I'm starting to understand some of the dynamics, but I think the description as it stands lacks clarity. This at least would recognize the possible confusion and lead the reader to understand that there is more to the story. Retswerb (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Frankly, I think it's OK the way it is. No sense fiddling with it. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I think Retswerb's wording solves the problem of newbies who will be confused by "not a religious conflict" being followed by multiple uses of "Protestant" and "Catholic", and it does so in a concise way. Thoughts, Mr gobrien, Nicknack009, The Banner, Jim Michael? --Scolaire (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I think that, or some other clarification, might be a good idea. I can't say for certain, but I always assumed that Catholic and Protestant were used because it was easier than a journalist having to find out whether a Catholic was a nationalist or republican (or neither!), and a similar situation with a Protestant being a unionist or loyalist (again or neither). FDW777 (talk) 11:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I think it should include the fact that being either Protestant or Catholic has long been a major part of the identity of a high proportion of people from NI (including many who aren't religious & have never been involved in the Troubles) & that many people view the (people of the) other denomination as the enemy. Jim Michael (talk) 11:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Say that where? In that sentence in the lead? I think that would be too much. The first paragraph of the "Overview" section might be reworked to say something like that, if there was a reliable source to support it. Scolaire (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether it should be in the lead, the Overview section, or both. That's one of the reasons that I brought it to discussion here. Jim Michael (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Sounds acceptable to me. The Bannertalk 12:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
No further comment in the last three days. There seems to be a broad consensus in favour of Retswerb's wording, so I'm implementing this now. Perhaps Jim Michael could propose a wording for his perspective, citing a reasonably authoritative source? Scolaire (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
That's an improvement, but it doesn't explain that some combatants were sectarian, even if their side as a whole wasn't. There were many instances of Catholics attacking civilians who were (or whom they perceived to be) Protestant because of their denomination, and vice versa. It's also relevant that explicitly sectarian organisations have long existed in NI - an example of that is the Orange Order. This info should be in the lead &/or Overview section. Jim Michael (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
citing a reasonably authoritative source... FDW777 (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
And it's not up to other editors to write it for you. Scolaire (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Reverted massively unrefrerenced and biased addition
I have reverted the majority of this change, keeping in a couple of changes of wording I think are an improvement. Problems with it are as follows.
the two main ethnic, religious and political traditions in Northern Ireland. We've just been over this at #"Not a religious conflict"
while giving qualified support to the British Army is unreferenced. In fact the entire sentence is unreferenced, but since the British and nationalists perspectives are in that paragraph (and also unreferenced, sigh) it seems reasonable enough to include the unionist perspective
The Executive has collapsed repeatedly since its inception in 1999 (most recently for three years from January 2017), reflecting the incompatible national aspirations of the two traditions which the Agreement has required to share power. Many of the preconditions for the onset of the Troubles are still in place, including separation of children in school, residential neighbourhoods, political parties, sporting and cultural activities and historical narratives is unreferenced
As counties Fermanagh and Tyrone and border areas of Londonderry, Armagh, and Down were mainly nationalist, the Irish Boundary Commission could reduce Northern Ireland to four counties or less This was deleted without explanation, despite it being referenced. I have restored it.
although historians such as Peter Hart argue was changed from although historian Peter Hart argues. Since Peter Hart is the only person cited, I have restored it
This was in response to Eamon de Valera's recognition of the "special position of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church" in southern Ireland. I don't think that image caption needs to get any bigger with an unnecessary sop
The campaign recognised that to make progress it would have to draw in the Labour government at Westminster. The Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, was sympathetic to their objectives and had his own reasons to curtail the power of the Unionist Party, whose MPs at Westminster generally voted with the Conservative opposition.[1] In the 1966 Westminster election, republican socialist Gerry Fitt became the first nationalist MP to actually take his seat. He worked closely with sympathetic Labour MPs to develop the Campaign for Democracy in Ulster, a parliamentary pressure group.[2] Their aim was to overturn the convention that Westminster should not intervene in the affairs of the devolved administration. Paradoxically, this meant that they had an incentive to support the deployment of the British Army in Northern Ireland. This is a completely misplaced addition, and the last sentence is unreferenced. The Gerry Fitt reference is also incomplete, presumably it is the book by Michael A Murphy but with no ISBN, publisher, publication year or author information other than "Murphy" it is difficult to know. This paragraph might belong in the article somewhere, but it doesn't belong where it was added.
The more assertive elements in the campaign defied the ban, and some have subsequently acknowledged that they wanted to provoke police violence in the knowledge that international TV crews would be present.[3] The RUC took the bait, surrounded the marchers and beat many of them. This is a substantial misrepresentation of the Sunday Times article. The closest the article gets is when it says McCann says the strategy of some local activists was "to provoke the police into over reaction" and this was easily achieved. I note this also removed the wording supported by the CAIN reference, the relevant quotes from which are As the march approached the front line a number of RUC officers drew their batons and, without provocation, clubbed those at the head of the march, including two Nationalist MPs, We regret to state that we have no doubt that both Mr. Fitt and Mr. McAtteer were batoned by the police, at a time when no order to draw batons had been given and in circumstances in which the use of batons on these gentlemen was wholly without justification or excuse (from the Cameron Report) and Even the official report concluded that the police broke ranks at this point and "used their batons indiscriminately on people in Duke Street" (again from the Cameron Report). Even if we accept that some in the crowd did seek to provoke the RUC, smashing their batons of the heads of MPs Eddie McAteer and Gerry Fitt is still an unprovoked attack on them, as the reference states
After this, the movement became more radical This is unreferenced
humanitarian intervention was changed to the WP:EGG like intervention. Given the sentence says it was the Irish Army who were going to be performing the HUMANITARIAN intervention, it is highly misleading to simply say "intervention" as anyone not checking where the word linked to would assume military intervention
After the riots, the British Labour government set up the Hunt Committee to reform the RUC. It published its report with unusual haste on 12 October, recommending that the RUC become an unarmed force and the B Specials be disbanded. In effect, this meant that the British government was taking over control of security operations from Stormont. That change from the existing wording is not referenced
Despite the British government's attempt to do "nothing that would suggest partiality to one section of the community" and the improvement of the relationship between the Army and the local population following the Army assistance with flood relief in August 1970, the Falls Curfew and a situation... was changed to In July 1970, the Conservative Party won the Westminster election and Edward Heath replaced Harold Wilson as Prime Minister. Although the Conservatives had traditionally been allied with the Northern Ireland Unionists, the new British government said that it would do "nothing that would suggest partiality to one section of the community". Relationships between the Army and the local population improved slightly when the Army assisted with flood relief in August, but more broadly a situation... Unreferenced, and I fail to see why any mention of the Falls Curfew has been removed given it was a pivotal moment in the relationship between the British Army and the nationalist community in Belfast.
Evidence emerged during the Arms Crisis trial in 1970 that some ministers in the Irish government had supported the emergence of the Provisional IRA with donations of weapons and finance: Taoiseach Jack Lynch sacked Charles Haughey and Neil Blaney from their posts. I don't believe this is a neutral summary of the Arms Crisis, since it doesn't appear it was in the article before I do think it needs to be in there in some form. Discussion on this point especially welcome
Following the introduction of internment there were numerous gun battles between the British army and both the Provisional and Official IRA was changed to Following the introduction of internment there were numerous gun battles between the British army and the two wings of the IRA, who also attacked each other. I have not heard the introduction of internment being the catalyst for a feud between the two IRA factions, certainly not to the extent it needs mentioning in that sentence.
In response to the upsurge in violence before and after the introduction of internment, Heath initiated a comprehensive review of British policies towards the conflict. His Cabinet identified a wide range of options, including radical repartitioning and independence, but were unable to agree on a solution. A third event, Bloody Sunday, interrupted their deliberations. is unreferenced
The DUP withdrew from the talks process when Sinn Fein was admitted, refusing to negotiate with the representatives of a terrorist organisation which had not yet laid down its arms. Hopelessly one sided, loyalists were involved too
A feature of Northern Ireland politics since the Agreement has been the eclipse in electoral terms of parties such as the SDLP and Ulster Unionist Party (UUP), by rival parties such as Sinn Féin and the DUP was changed to A feature of Northern Ireland politics since the Agreement has been the eclipse in electoral terms of the 'moderate' parties – the SDLP and Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) – by their more assertively sectarian rivals – Sinn Féin and the DUP, "assertively sectarian", really??
The entire paragraph in the "Collusion" section (it's near the bottom of the diff, I'm not quoting it in full as it's huge. Things like Throughout the Troubles, the Irish Constitution provided moral cover for the IRA are clearly problematic as is the mention of Patrick Ryan. What does Patrick Ryan or the Constitution of Ireland have to do with collusion? Nothing at all would be the answer to that question. At the level of individual police officers, the Smithwick Tribunal has illustrated what could happen in the Republic is highly speculative.
I've tried to keep the improvements where possible, but those changes aren't helpful. FDW777 (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
References
^Wilson, Harold (1971). The Labour Government 1964-1970: A Personal Record. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson. p. 270.
It's nothing of the sort - you're wrong to grossly misinterpret my correct addition of an applicable project banner.
Read the criteria for the OC project - this clearly fits it: "... defined as organized crime, include people, events, and related information on: ... Terrorism groups." Many of the participants of the Troubles fit the definition of terrorist groups & were classified as such by governments. Although many people don't think of terrorist groups as part of organised crime, our OC proj does, which is why the banner should be here.
There's no such policy or guideline of an exclusion or declaration that you claim - if there were, you'd quote it (by which I mean quote policy, not an editor's comment). People claiming that convicted criminal Sands wasn't a criminal doesn't create a policy change, nor a consensus to make a wide exclusion from a project. The discussion on Sands' talk page isn't about WP projects. Jim Michael (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Ignoring the sectarianism and terror attacks, the paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland are/were involved in criminal activities. From smuggling to drugs to extortion to money laundering - all major things that kept things going for them. These things are the basis of organised crime and are still rife today. The Troubles might be "over", but the PSNI often go on about "criminal elements" when speaking of the UVF, UDA and dissident republicans. Sands was a criminal, otherwise he wouldn't have been jailed. Mabuska(talk) 18:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, yet the claim here is that I was wrong to put the Organized crime banner on this talk page. On Talk:Bobby Sands, there are repeated claims that I was wrong to put his article - along with those of Martina Anderson, Edward O'Brien & Patrick Magee in criminal categories. Jim Michael (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
We've been here so many times and our role is to avoid political commentary based on one position. I'm with Scolaire here -----SnowdedTALK 19:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
So, in a conflict between two sides, you follow the opinion of just one side in the conflict to judge over the other side? Not exactly a neutral point of view but plain bias. So I support the opinion of Scolaire. The Bannertalk 19:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
As you know, the Troubles was a conflict between 3 sides.
Who's following opinion rather than facts? I'm not.
Project banners are correctly applied to talk pages based on the projects' scope - that's not political commentary. Jim Michael (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
It is clear that the banner is controversial. The Bannertalk 20:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Based on what - a few comments here? Project banners aren't controversial - they're correctly present based on the scope of each project. If OC were a controversial project, there'd be loads of discussion on there about its scope during the 14+ years that it's existed, but there isn't. Jim Michael (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Just to be clear... I didn't agree or oppose Jim Michael's proposal, I'm simply stating the facts of reality. It can hardly be political commentary to classify someone who was jailed for a crime as a criminal. The very definition of criminal is someone who performs a crime. Stating otherwise is political commentary as you're denying a person's conviction. Gerry Adams was a convicted criminal right up until he very recently got his conviction squashed, so he gets to escape that label. Martina Anderson on the other hand hasn't so she is still a criminal.
Jim Michael, you will find that your greatest opposition to your proposal will be from republican/nationalist orientated editors, which is the case here as they feel the need to protect the republican ideology, figures and legacy, and why you have met opposition on those articles. Unless of course you haven't added it to any convicted loyalist articles yet? Doing a quick check at one famous loyalist criminal, Michael Stones and I see you have and without ANY opposition or argument on the talk page at all. The real bias is now on display.
I'd noticed that. Having neutrally edited many articles about terrorism of various varieties, I've received far more opposition in regard to Irish republican-related articles than in regard to all the others put together.
Having said that I'm not swung by bias towards preserving or destroying a political ideology. You can stick them on every single loyalist and republican article of a convicted paramilitary you can find on this site as having being convicted they are a criminal. It's simply a matter of fact and law. And considering its an issue that goes beyond Bobby Sands, a so called concensus on its talk page does not hold weight for the greater scope, which really should be discussed somewhere with a greater audience for greater input from editors who (hopefully) aren't swayed by their political ideology. Mabuska(talk) 20:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Indeed - those who were convicted, whose convictions haven't been overturned, are eligible for criminal cats. Jim Michael (talk) 09:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I do note that you haven't gotten around to putting the project banner at Billy Wright (loyalist) yet :-P Mabuska(talk) 20:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I haven't edited many bios of terrorists. His should have criminal cats & project banners. Jim Michael (talk) 09:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
That 2007 discussion didn't reach a full conclusion & not all the proposed creating or renaming of cats went ahead. The discussion didn't reach a consensus that articles about convicted terrorists shouldn't be in cats which have the word criminal in them. Another issue is that the discussion only covered republicans & (to a lesser extent) loyalists. We shouldn't create an exception for 1 or 2 groups or for one conflict or series of related conflicts. In any case, projects & their banners weren't even mentioned - so it can't have any effect on them. Jim Michael (talk) 09:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
So, care to throw in a fresh and full blown RFC? The Bannertalk 10:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Only if it's not restricted by nationality, religion, ideology, conflict, era etc. It should also not be confined to 1 noticeboard where most people who edit terrorist-related articles won't see it. If Patrick Magee is regarded as not a criminal or terrorist, then Michael Stone, Mohammed Atta, Gundolf Kohler & Andreas Baader have to be likewise absolved. Jim Michael (talk) 11:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
@Jim Michael: I have no interest in "absolving" anybody from anything, but I would agree that Michael Stone, Mohammed Atta or Andreas Baader should not be in any "criminal" or "murderer" category. They were not common criminals any more than Bobby Sands and co. Scolaire (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
You're asserting - as you've done many times before - that criminals who aren't common criminals fall outside the definition of criminal. However - the law, the mainstream media, our policies etc. don't say that. Jim Michael (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I've read all the replies here. I'm repeating facts, common sense & policies.
I'm replying to several aspects of this, but this section of the talk page is about the presence of the OC banner on this talk page - so its very much on-topic. I'm mentioning that because none of the comments here come close to justifying removing it. This article is clearly within the scope of the project, so its banner should be on this talk page.
People didn't object because most people who would have objected didn't know about discussions on a noticeboard which they've never been to. A discussion about criminal cats/classification etc. should not be restricted to 1 or 2 nationalities/ideologies/conflicts etc. We shouldn't be making an exception in regard to any of that. A person & act should be categorised as criminal wherever it takes place. Another problem with your claim that terrorists should be exempt is what would we do with people who have convictions for terrorist & non-terrorist-related crimes? Jim Michael (talk) 11:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
You repeatedly falsely accuse me of being biased, but you're by a significant margin the most biased long-term WP editor I've ever encountered, using quotes by convicts & their mothers in an effort to back your position. You're also patronising & uncivil, which goes against WP policy. Jim Michael (talk) 11:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Interesting, as you do the same. The Bannertalk 12:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Can you give examples of me claiming that criminals aren't criminals? Or being patronising &/or uncivil? Jim Michael (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
How about you're by a significant margin the most biased long-term WP editor I've ever encountered, in the very same paragraph you accuse me of being incivil. Some self-awareness might be more helpful. FDW777 (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
That's not uncivil. Also, it was only in response to repeated accusations & implications about me from you. Jim Michael (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Come on, you know better. The Bannertalk 14:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
You can see that what I've said is true & that I'm not the only WP editor whom he's uncivil towards. Jim Michael (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
It's not POV - they're relevant facts, most/all of which is backed by already-present refs. In regard to the subject of this section, the OC banner should be present because it fits that project's scope. Jim Michael (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I see Jim Michael neglects to mention things such as this where I provide a peer-reviewed academic journal article (titled "Irish Republican Prisoners - Political Detainees, Prisoners of War or Common Criminals?", no less!) written by legal and terrorism expert Clive Walker which says it was an explicit policy of the British government to portray the prisoners in a certain light in order to influence public perception (which seems to definitely had the desired effect on Jim Michael), yet he tried, and failed, to dismiss this. In the discussion Jim Michael provided a total of zero references to support his position, despite me repeatedly calling him out for his failure to do so. Neutral point of view calls for "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", not the views of an editor. FDW777 (talk) 12:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
You appear to be implying that the general public wouldn't view terrorists in a negative way if the UK government didn't portray them negatively. Jim Michael (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't see where I implied anything. I quoted the reference, any implication should be attributed to Clive Walker. FDW777 (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
All of the above is very impassioned and might more usefully be pursued on a message board on some other site, but it's missing the central point: The Troubles was an ethnic/nationalist conflict; it was not an incident of organised crime. The Pol Pot regime is not part of WikiProject Organised crime, nor is the Armenian Genocide. The Troubles doesn't belong either. Adding the banner was just a way of advertising a POV. Scolaire (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Banners are correctly applied based on their project's scope. The Troubles fits the criteria because it involved a lot of what it classes as organised crime. It's POV to remove those which are within the defined scope. Jim Michael (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Actions of state actors, even when they constitute genocide &/or war crimes, aren't within the project's scope. Jim Michael (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Scolaire ethco/nationalist conflict is such a load a nonsense. It was a sectarian/nationalist conflict no matter how much you try to pretend it was ethnic. So many contradictions to that in the history of Ireland especially the Troubles. But anything to sleep better at night I suppose?
In regards to FDW77s statement on the Brita trying to portray republicans more negative. What has that got to do with a convicted criminal being tagged as a criminal? If you are found guilty and convicted then you are a criminal guilty of a crime no matter how you are portrayed. Any excuse I suppose to oppose. Mabuska(talk) 22:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Someone in this merry-go-round stone walling tldr; discussion of false rebuttals highlight me to where the refutes are to the very valid points I made of were someone who is convicted of a crime is not a criminal in fact and in law. And how opposing such a description is not in itself political commentary and nothing less than bias at its worse? Gerry Adams is no longer a criminal. Peter Robinson still is after his guilty plea and fine for Clontibret. No bias here, just straight reasonable responses unlike the rest. Mabuska(talk) 22:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
In any case, governments typically portray all terrorists negatively - the UK gov, media routinely do so regardless of the terrorists' ideology. Jim Michael (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Have you ever herd of Amnesty International? Thousands of people all over the world every year are convicted of "criminal offences" on false grounds, often just because of something they said, or because it's politically expedient. Are you seriously saying that up until a week ago you believed that Gerry Adams was a criminal and now you don't? Would the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six still be criminals if the British legal system had continued to perpetuate that injustice for another thirty years?
Anyway, the question under discussion here is whether the Troubles constituted organised crime. The civil rights marches; the SDLP; the Alliance Party; Ian Paisley saying "Never| Never| Never!"; the Peace People – was all of that organised crime? "Ethno-nationalist" or "sectarian-nationalist" is a straw man. Calling it sectarian rather than ethnic does not turn it into organised crime. Scolaire (talk) 09:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
People whose convictions have been overturned (including the Birmingham Six, Guildford Four and Maguire Seven) aren't in cats which say that they're criminals. If we couldn't describe or categorise anyone as criminal because some people have been wrongly convicted, we wouldn't have criminal cats at all.
The point of discussion isn't whether the Troubles were organised crime. No-one's saying that all of it was, but there's no doubt that it involved a lot of organised crime - easily enough for it to be of interest to the OC project. Even if there weren't armed groups who were heavily involved in organised drug dealing, robberies & illegal importation of weapons (which there certainly were), the fact that several terrorist groups were major belligerents in the Troubles easily puts it within the project's scope.
It's bizarre that I'm being accused of bias by adding an applicable project banner to this talk page, because this article is about the conflict as a whole, not any particular action, individual, group or ideology. Jim Michael (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Seeing the way you accused the IRA/PIRA of the Claudy bombing is clear proof of your bias. If you had read the article, you could have seen that there was no clear evidence and no convictions. Only suspicions. Still you did put it down as a clear IRA-bombing. The Bannertalk 14:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I had read that article. Many terrorist attacks haven't had responsibility claimed for them, but you know that the PIRA are regarded as having been the perpetrators of that triple car bombing; they're the prime & only suspects. It's one of several major attacks which weren't mentioned at all in this article before I added them to it during last year & this year. If we couldn't assign (suspected) blame unless there was an admission by the group responsible, how would we deal with articles about Boko Haramattacks? Jim Michael (talk) 10:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Clear, even without proof you just blame them. The IRA/PIRA are only suspects, blamed by a non-neutral government. The Bannertalk 13:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The article gives evidence of their involvement, explaining why they're the prime & only suspects of it. Saying that the gov aren't neutral could be used to say likewise of many terrorist attacks in various parts of the world. The wording of the details of the Claudy bombing in the article have been altered & it's easily important enough to include. Jim Michael (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Who did or didn't commit the Claudy bombing doesn't affect the fact that the OC banner should be on this talk page because this article easily fits that project's criteria. Jim Michael (talk) 10:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I followed a notice about this discussion after I posted an unrelated issue at WT:IRELAND. I think the obvious answer here is to defer to the WikiProject. Is anyone in this discussion active in that project? It could well be that their membership list is out of date or incomplete.
Could we agree on some general principles? (1) Various groups involved in the Troubles engaged in criminal activity such as drug trafficking to fund their operations. (2) Those groups did not engage in such activity for primarily economic reasons. Assuming those are correct, I could see how such project tagging could be both accurate and inflammatory.
I would strongly suggest that if these articles are of interest to the project itself, we not object to the tagging, and if not, that we not force it onto them. --BDD (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
It's clear from the OC project's criteria that this is easily within its scope, which doesn't include a requirement that the motivation is primarily economic. Jim Michael (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
graffiti from the troubles
RUC watch tower
Deaths in the troubles
.svg){kind=small}
Consensus is clear that the WP:COMMONNAME is "The Troubles". (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}