| Revision as of 11:19, 8 April 2016 editScolaire (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,739 edits →Childhood: response← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 00:22, 5 November 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots8,070,420 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 10 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:WikiProject templates with unknown parameters)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (631 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Vital article|topic=History|level=4|class=C}} |
|
|
{{controversial}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{Calm}} |
|
{{Calm}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|listas=Troubles, The|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom|class=c |
|
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|terrorism=yes|terrorism-imp=Low|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject European history|importance=mid}} |
|
| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = no |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=mid}} |
|
| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = yes |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=Low}} |
|
| b3 <!--Structure --> = yes |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Ireland|importance=high}} |
|
| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = yes |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Law Enforcement|importance=mid}} |
|
| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = yes |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C|B-Class-1=no |
|
| b6 <!--Accessibility --> = yes |
|
|
|
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies-->|B-Class-2=yes |
|
|importance=mid}} |
|
|
|
<!-- 3.has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content-->|B-Class-3=yes |
|
{{WikiProject Irish Republicanism|class=c|importance=top}} |
|
|
|
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->|B-Class-4=yes |
|
{{WikiProject Unionism in Ireland|class=c|importance=High|unref=}} |
|
|
|
<!-- 5.contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams-->|B-Class-5=yes|British=yes|Cold-War=yes|Post-Cold-War=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Northern Ireland|class=c|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=c |
|
{{WikiProject Northern Ireland|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Unionism in Ireland|importance=High|unref=}} |
|
<!-- B-Class checklist --> |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=Mid|politics=yes|Politics of the United Kingdom-importance=Mid}} |
|
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->|B-Class-1=no |
|
|
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies-->|B-Class-2= yes |
|
|
<!-- 3.has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content-->|B-Class-3= yes |
|
|
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->|B-Class-4= yes |
|
|
<!-- 5.contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams-->|B-Class-5= yes |
|
|
|British-task-force=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{WikiProject Ireland|class=c |importance=high|needs-infobox=yes }} |
|
{{WikiProject Irish Republicanism|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{copied|from=The Troubles|to=Religion in Northern Ireland|to_diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=&diff=prev&oldid=267469904|from_oldid=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Troubles&oldid=267079759}} |
|
{{WikiProject Human rights|class=c|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject European history|class=c|importance=mid}}}} |
|
|
{{sanctions}} |
|
|
{{Troubles restriction}} |
|
{{Troubles restriction}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Annual readership|days=90}} |
|
|
{{refideas| }} |
|
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |
|
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |
|
|archiveprefix=Talk:The Troubles/Archive |
|
|archiveprefix=Talk:The Troubles/Archive |
| Line 42: |
Line 37: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Undue Weight to Independent NI Proposal == |
|
==Related AFD (2nd nomination) pending== |
|
|
Hard to believe only two editors (including nominator) had anything to say, during 1st nomination, which resulted in non admin closure due to lack of consensus, which is an intolerable and inexplicable outcome. See . ] 15:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find it very strange that the "Proposal of an independent Northern Ireland" section is twice as long as the entire "Political process" section, while not even the Agreement has its own section. The section is almost entirely an analysis of PM Wilson's unimplemented ideas. Also, the section also seems, to me, to promote a unionist view of the situation (e.g the UK couldn't possibly leave Northern Ireland). As discussed elsewhere on this talk page there is not enough information about diplomacy— I think this section should be dramatically reduced to make room for more impactful diplomacy topics. ] (]) 16:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Questions about recent edits == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:'''Support'''. This could largely be done with copyediting, I think. But some of the narrative is extremely unencyclopedic ("The British so wanted to leave Northern Ireland in 1975, however, that only the catastrophic consequences of doing so prevented it" -- what the hell is that). ] (]) 18:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
#Did nationalists argue that the state was neither legitimate nor democratic, or that partition was neither legitimate nor democratic? They're not the same thing. One was changed to the other but the citation was not changed. Which did Peter Taylor say? I'm inclined to think it was the former. |
|
|
|
:I would say '''Remove''' the entire section, and replace it with two or three short sentences, suitably sourced. ] (]) 10:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
#Did civil rights campaigners call for reform of the Ulster Special Constabulary (B-Specials)? It says so , but I'm pretty sure they called for it's disbandment, considering it incapable of reform. Again, a good citation would be useful. |
|
|
:] (]) 15:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
Also, re : home rule meant an Irish parliament subordinate to Wesminster; repeal of the union meant an Irish parliament independent of Westminster answering only to the king/queen. It's nonsense to say that the larger measure of repeal would have led to the smaller measure of home rule. I will not revert because there have been a lot of threats bandied about over 1RR lately, but I believe it should be changed. ] (]) 15:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Infobox photo == |
|
None of these questions has been answered. Instead there has been more "" which change the meaning of sentences while purporting to cite the same source. So, "alienated and radicalised" is not the same thing as " upsurge in violence". The CAIN source for internment figures uses "Catholic / Republican", not "nationalist". And I see no reason not to mention that the Provos arose from the IRA split. There is also suggesting that Protestants did not see the higher birth rate among Catholics as a threat because they knew that it was balanced by a higher emigration rate. I am reverting all recent edits until the editors engage. ] (]) 13:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Couldn't we get something a bit more informative/context-setting than the present map? The collages at ], ], ] are all pretty good I think. Perhaps something put together using the below pictures. |
|
:You're right, '"alienated and radicalised" is not the same thing as " upsurge in violence".' - the upsurge in violence was not just from nationalists, as your edit implies. Why have you deleted the explanation for the Catholic proportion of the population remaining stagnant, and why do you imply in your comment above that Protestants knew about it and that it relaxed their fears? Why do you interpret a statement that the USC were part of the police as some demand of NICRA? Why do you ignore the Protestantism of some of the original internees? Why do you weasel about "allegations" of torture? Why do you repeat the derivation of both IRA wings? Why do you include Bloody Friday in a paragraph about the Officials, and break the chronology? ] (]) 22:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
I couldn't find a good PD/CC photo of Irish Republicans (not re-enactors) to add to this but perhaps someone here knows of one? ]. ] (]) 14:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:The replacement of the map would be an excellent idea. However I don't believe any of those images are any good, other than possibly the Free Derry one. The problem is the important part of the image is in each case very small (but still generally in need of the rest of the image to provide important context), and once displayed in the infobox would not really look that good I don't think. ] (]) 19:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
::First of all, it is nonsense to use phrases such as "as your edit implies" and "why do you ignore/weasel/repeat?". None of my edits added new content: they were all reverts. Secondly, it is not for the person reverting a controversial edit to justify their revert; it is for the person adding controversial content to justify the addition. And that ''necessarily'' includes ''citing reliable sources''. It is not acceptable to alter a sentence to give a different point of view, and pretend that it is backed up by the reference that was already at the end of that sentence. I gave you an opportunity to justify your edits before I reverted and you declined to do so, making further questionable edits instead. Thirdly, the reasons for all my reverts were clearly spelled out in my edit summaries, which referred where appropriate to the discussion here. |
|
|
::Now, as regards the growth or non-growth of the Catholic population, I did not imply in my comment that Protestants knew about it and that it relaxed their fears, rather I complained that your edit implied it, when it said, "The prevalence of large families and a more rapid population growth among Catholics were seen as threats, even though this was offset by a higher emigration rate for Catholics until the 1950s." And where do you get your assertion that the Catholic proportion of the population remained stagnant? It was always my understanding that the Catholic population grew faster than the Protestant population during the entire period. tells us that it rose from 35% in the 1960s to 45% in 2011. See, this is why I ask for reliable sources to back up any added content. |
|
|
::As regards the USC, again I did not "interpret a statement that the USC were part of the police as some demand of NICRA". The bulleted list gives the goals of NICRA and other organisations, and you edited it to say "reform of the police force (Royal Ulster Constabulary and Ulster Special Constabulary)". I disputed the contention that their goals specifically included ''reform'' of the B-Specials rather than their disbandment. Again, you have the option of providing a reliable source – if such a source exists, which I doubt. |
|
|
::Finally, please do not make edits such as , where a convenient line break hides the other edits you made to the paragraphs. Or if you do, don't complain when somebody does a blanket revert rather than try to sift out the good edits from the bad. ] (]) 11:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:A collage would ''perhaps'' be a good replacement but care must be taken that the chosen picture are balanced. Just an idea: |
|
:::I wrote "higher emigration rate for Catholics ''until the 1950s.''" - why are you quoting statistics from the 1960s onwards? I didn't say NICRA sought reform of the USC, I mentioned that the USC were part of the police. ] (]) 12:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:# a row with a picture of a bonfire and an H-block monument. |
|
|
:# a row with a picture of bishop Edward Daly and a picture of Ian Paisley |
|
|
:# a row with road blocks and peace walls |
|
|
: <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 20:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Do we have these pictures in Wiki-Commons, or otherwise public domain/CC-licence? ] (]) 21:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Infobox == |
|
::::Okay, I missed that "until the 1950s". But so will the reader, and the sentence still gives the misleading impression that Protestant fears of a growing Catholic population were groundless. And it's still unsourced. The "reform" phrase says "reform of the police force: Royal Ulster Constabulary and Ulster Special Constabulary". The use of brackets instead of a colon does nor change its meaning. It still specifically includes the Specials in the bodies that were to be "reformed", which is wrong. And it's still unsourced. ] (]) 12:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have reversed, for the third time, an attempt by the same editor to add a nuanced point to the infobox. It is not an appropriate place for claims such as "sometimes" or "covertly", and I note that the sources provided don't support the precise claim being made anyway, since "Members of the RUC and UDR" and "senior Royal Ulster Constabulary and Ulster Defence Regiment officers were aware and in some cases approved of collusion" is not the same as "United Kingdom (covertly)". ] (]) 14:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::::Why do you believe the reader will miss the same things you do? Those fears were groundless, until the 1950s. Reform of the police doesn't preclude the disbandment of part of it. I don't believe sourcing will be an issue; insert cite requests where you believe they're appropriate. ] (]) 12:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*'''Agree'''. British Armed Forces and RUC are already in the infobox as belligerents. It's not appropriate to have them in the Ulster Loyalist column as well, with or without qualifiers. ] (]) 15:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
** The infobox on ] lists the CIA under both the first and third infoboxes. Why can't the same be done here?--] (]) 07:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
***In that infobox the CIA falls under "supported by" in both the first and third columns. In this one British Armed Forces and RUC are in the first column as belligerents. Listing them also under "supported by" in the third column is not appropriate. ] (]) 11:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
***:There is also difficulty regarding the level of collusion. Depending on who you ask, collusion was authorised at a high level or was simply the result of a few "rotten apples" within the ranks of the RUC and UDR, or somewhere inbetween. Therefore it's inappropriate to simply list the organisation even with a qualifier such as "sometimes" or "covertly" which fails to explain the complexity of the issue. The infobox simply isn't an appropriate place to deal with conplex nuances. ] (]) 16:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Agree''' The Troubles are far more complex then an infobox can reflect. And there are a lot of shades between white and black. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 17:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Would it be appropriate to include them under a qualifier like "Alleged"? I don't fully understand why inclusion as a belligerent makes it inappropriate to do something along those lines— is there a policy page to clarify? (Still learning this stuff!) ] (]) 22:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::::Adding templates is not necessary. You know where citations are needed and for what. If you do not add them, your edit will be reverted. ] (]) 12:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Proposal to remove "supported by" or similar from infobox == |
|
:::::::Templates? I'll look for sources for the issues you've raised here; feel free to add other cite requests, it'll save you posting here. ] (]) 12:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This has been deprecated at the infobox, see the request for comment at ]. Obviously that consensus takes precedence over any local consensus here, but thought it prudent to at least give some notice of its pending removal. ] (]) 23:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::::::Yes, templates: specifically ] templates. You know all of my concerns regarding your edits. Every one of the "facts" that you added and I reverted – with a clear rationale and a request for sources – and you added back can, should and will be re-reverted unless it is sourced. ] (]) 12:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*'''Partially Agree''' While I acknowledge the consensus and agree that, following the consensus, it is probably best to remove Libya, South Africa, etc., I do think that the issue of alleged RUC/BAF support for the loyalists is pretty important to the Troubles and could be worth including in a summary infobox (and it's rightfully mentioned in the intro). I admit this could be because I'm still used to seeing the "support" field, but I think that not including that in the infobox could be seen to promote the not-universally-agreed-upon idea of British neutrality in the conflict. ] (]) 03:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Agree''', for all the reasons given in that RfC. If it's deprecated, it should go. {{ping|Placeholderer}} With respect, it makes no sense whatever to remove "South Africa (arms shipments)", which is at least specific, and then add "United Kingdom (sometimes)" or "United Kingdom (covertly)", which is vague and confusing. Collusion is dealt with in the lead, and has its own section. If you think that the article generally promotes the idea of British neutrality in the conflict, you can raise it here on the talk page, or ] fix it. ] (]) 11:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::::::::I'll get to work on these so-called "facts". ] (]) 10:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*:Also with respect, I think that "(alleged)" would communicate the issue pretty effectively and specifically. I just think that it's not ideal for the only infobox options to be either to have the British as a completely independent belligerent, or have them fully supporting the loyalists (not to say that's your suggestion). From glancing at the article I think that the nuance is covered reasonably within the article, but I think it would be helpful to communicate that nuance in the infobox as well. That's compared to South African arms shipments, which weren't at all a defining component of the loyalist/republican conflict. I'll go peacefully if I'm outvoted on this— but I think as per the template discussion this would be a "rare" situation where making an exception to include a reference to alleged British support is more beneficial than bad. ] (]) 13:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*::The problem is if you allow one exception, people will want other exceptions to be made. There's a definite case to be made that the arms supplied by Irish Americans and Libya to the Provisionals played a huge role in the conflict. And once you add those, people will say that the South African supply of arms to loyalists should be added too, since that was definitely a factor (along with collusion) in the increase in loyalist killings in the early 1990s. And once that's added, we're right back with the infobox as it is at the moment (with the exception of the Soviet arms supply to the Sticks not being mentioned). ] (]) 17:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
In : 1) the citation added does not say that population growth rate was offset by emigration, 2) the citation added does not say that reform of the B-Specials was part of the NICRA demand for police reform, 3) a reference was added that "polity" is a word, but nobody denied that "polity" was a word, there's just a consensus not to use it, and 4) a number of other "facts" were added back without any attempt at referencing. ] (]) 14:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*:::The issue of British support for loyalists is very different from Libyan, South African, NORAID, or USSR support, particularly because the British are listed as a belligerent. To exclude their support entirely passively promotes unionist POV, while to include them entirely as supportive of unionists promotes nationalist POV. It's not a major source of Troubles-relevant contention for anyone I know of that South Africa supported the loyalists, while the allegation of British support for the loyalists was a very major issue to nationalist politicians (especially in Sinn Fein) at the time. |
|
|
|
|
|
*:::Under the template discussion I don't think the other sources of support are relevant enough to include. ] (]) 17:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
:1) - what do you think the higher birth rate was offset by? 2) - the citation doesn't need to say that because the edit doesn't say it. 3) - that's an unusual reading of that reference. 4) - care to point out any of these 'so-called facts', for example by appending citation requests, rather than being vague? ] (]) 14:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*::::To be blunt, "United Kingdom (alleged)" would not communicate the issue either effectively or specifically, or at all. It wasn't needed for the last 20 years and it's not needed now. ] (]) 18:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*:::::I think it'd be effective, but to be precise I should've said "precise" instead of specific (since you're right, it's definitely not specific). |
|
::1) Saying what we think something was caused by is ]. We don't do that here. If there isn't a reliable source somewhere that states the fact that you are trying to add, then you can't add it. That's policy. 2) The edit says that they wanted reform of the police including the B-Specials. Putting together the fact that they wanted reform of police and the fact that the police force officially included the Specials, in order to say that, is ], which, as part of the No original research policy, is not allowed on Misplaced Pages. 3) There is a consensus that "polity" is pedantic language, and as such neither necessary or desirable. Just adding a citation where the word "polity" is used does not justify going against that consensus. 4) I spelled out my difficulties with your edits in the posts at the top of this thread. To this day, you have not deigned even to acknowledge my questions, much less try to answer them. It's not helpful to ask me to add tags to the article. Just read those posts, and my edit summaries when I reverted your edits singly, and you will see what needs to be discussed, what needs to be cited, and what can't just be added back without first getting a consensus here on the talk page. If you took the trouble to actually articulate what you think is wrong with wrong with the article and how you think those problems might be addressed, instead of edit-warring coupled with aggressive demands that I justify reverts that I have already justified, you might find me willing to discuss how the article might actually be improved. ] (]) 17:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*:::::I'm clearly in the minority here and am going a bit beyond my comfort zone by perpetuating this discussion, so I'll step away unless stuff gets stirred up, but I'm not really convinced. I acknowledge the current consensus! Not to grab for the last word, and I know you don't mean for the 20 years comment to be taken too literally, but infoboxes are newer than that and the "Support" stuff even newer. The summary of my argument is that I think properly referencing alleged British support in the infobox could be good for NPOV, and I think that NPOV should take precedence over an admittedly strongly suggested convention. Thanks for being polite, all! ] (]) 20:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Agree''' with complete removal. We already have the section "Support outside Northern Ireland" where the nuances in more detail can be discussed. Plus we have the section "Collusion between security forces and paramilitaries". <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 15:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::You didn't answer my question. Are you really saying that you've no problem saying that the higher Catholic population growth rate was offset, but you're unwilling to say what it was offset by without a source? ] (]) 17:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I don't see the point of adding the information (conjecture?). The article as it stands makes a point: that fear of population growth among Catholics was a factor in unionists' attitude and behaviour towards them. This is consistent with the published sources. The edit seems to be trying to mitigate this in some way, but without actually saying so. Why? No, it wouldn't be true to say I have no problem saying that the higher Catholic population growth rate was offset by emigration, because I have no way of knowing whether or not it is actually the case (which is different from saying I have or don't have an alternative explanation). How do ''you'' know that it is the case? Where did you read it, or hear it? If there was a source where we could find the fact, then we could also see what conclusion the source drew from the fact. Failing that, it is wrong to make the bald statement in the absence of corroboration. |
|
|
::::And please don't say "you didn't answer my question", when you still apparently haven't bothered your arse even reading ''my'' question. ] (]) 18:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::But you accept it was offset? I've counted four questions in a quick scan of your previous comments, not including your last; which one do you mean? ] (]) 19:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::No, I don't accept anything. This appears to be something you have just decided for yourself. That's not good enough for me. You could start by answering my very first question at the top of this thread. You keep reverting to that edit without explaining or attempting to justify it. is your most recent revert. Every single change made in that edit is controversial; every single one needs to be explained, discussed, ''properly'' cited and agreed. ] says, "Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made". Please leave the article as it is until you get a consensus for your edits. ] (]) 22:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Probably nationalists argued all those things; I don't know what Taylor said they did. You're not seriously trying to tell me that a higher Catholic birth rate wasn't offset by something until the 1950s? If it wasn't, why did the Catholic proportion of the population decline? Either there wasn't a higher birth rate, or it was offset by something: you can't have it both ways. I also find it difficult to believe that you really consider removing a sentence about Bloody Friday from a paragraph about the Officials "controversial" and that it "needs to be explained, discussed, ''properly'' cited and agreed". Tone it down. ] (]) 22:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::"''Probably nationalists argued all those things; I don't know what Taylor said they did.''" It's an honest answer, but it shows that you are arguing from a position of ignorance. Whoever originally wrote that sentence took the trouble to read Taylor's book and say what was in it. You can't just say "I'd like the sentence to say something else" and put in your own personal thoughts in a way that implies that what you have added was taken from the cited source. That's why we have ], ] and ]. The same goes for all your other tinkering. You cannot just say what you think, or what you like better; "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that...''directly support'' the material being presented." If it's not policy-compliant, it can, should and will be reverted. |
|
|
::::::::As regards Official, Provisionals and Bloody Friday, since you have decided to explain and discuss it I will say that I have re-read those two paragraphs and I agree with you. The problem was that you made those changes in that you changed other things without justification, and so I reverted the whole edit. If you were to edit ''only'' to change the two paragraphs beginning "In 1972, the Provisional IRA killed..." and "The Official IRA killed..", I would not revert you. I would also agree with removing "emerged from a split..." from the paragraph before, but not with changing Moloney's "the nationalist community" to "nationalist communities". ] (]) 15:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::Aren't you arguing from a position of ignorance about what Taylor said? Disliking one part of an edit is no excuse for deleting all of it, that's just laziness. It's good that you've retreated from your earlier hyperbole but with more care these issues wouldn't arise. What nationalist community do you believe Moloney is referring to? Also, can you address the questions I asked about the Catholic birth rate in my last? ] (]) 16:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::1) No, I'm not arguing from a position of ignorance, because I'm not making a content argument, just a policy argument: changing cited text without knowing or apparently caring if the changed text is verifiable is wrong, full stop. 2) Wrong edits should and will be reverted, and there is no onus on the person reverting to sift out what may be good parts of the wrong edits. Calling it "laziness" is just being provocative. 3) I have retreated from nothing. Any of your disputed edits that you cannot explain and source may not be restored. Anything that you can justify and get agreement on can. 4) I have answered your questions about the Catholic birth rate more than once: it doesn't matter what I think or what you think. If it's not verifiable, it doesn't go in. I asked ''you'' some questions about it , and you never answered them. |
|
|
::::::::::Now, this whole business of recycling the same bogus arguments and haranguing me about stuff that I didn't even say is verging on trolling. I have made my position crystal clear. Unless you have something new to say and you say it in a civilised way, I'm not going to continue with this any longer. Goodbye and happy editing. ] (]) 18:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::The usual tactics from Gob Lofa; ask loads of questions but refuse to answer any; keep asking the same questions over and over even when they have been repeatedly answered; and always refuse to provide reliable references. I agree with Scolaire, unless each contested edit is fully explained and reliably referenced, then it should be reverted. ] (]) 20:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::I see. So because your revert is by your own admission wrong, you've no problem with me reverting it, right? You've certainly retreated from saying every part of the edit is controversial. You haven't answered any of my questions about the birth rate; have a look at my last. Which makes Snappy's 'more heat than light' interjection all the more Snappyish. ] (]) 23:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::::As has been said your usual tactics. You mix known controversial edits with routine ones and expect other editors to sort between the two. You are running a long slow edit war for your rejected use of 'polities'. You are using misleading edit summaries. 'See talk' should mean that there has been an agreement here, not that you have just repeated an assertion of your opinion. You can work with other editors when you want to so please do it will make life easier for everyone. Edits which you know have disagreement should not be made without agreement on the talk page If you can't get it call an RfC. ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::::::All of that applies to all of you. I'm not implying agreement by that edit summary, I'm pointing to where my arguments for it lie rather than trying to make them in the summary. The Officials weren't responsible for Bloody Friday so stop your controversial slow edit-warring to that effect. ] (]) 21:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scolaire, you removed the bolded from the following: "The two sides' positions became strictly defined following this period. From a unionist perspective, Northern Ireland's nationalists were inherently disloyal and determined to force unionists into a united Ireland. This threat was seen as justifying preferential treatment of unionists in housing, employment and other fields. The prevalence of large families and a more rapid population growth among Catholics were seen as threats, '''even though this was offset by a higher emigration rate for Catholics until the 1950s.ref>http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/ni/religion.htm</ref'''" |
|
|
|
|
|
As this sentence is describing attitudes in the decades immediately after partition, when the Protestant proportion of the population increased, can you explain why you removed it? ] (]) 22:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I already did: because the CAIN page says nothing about emigration, therefore it fails WP:V. Don't pretend you won't told this already. Unless and until it is ''properly'' sourced it can't go in. And unless you bring something new to the discussion ''and'' stop being confrontational, I am not going to respond again. Certainly not to answer questions I have already answered. ] (]) 22:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::None of that sentence is now referenced, but that doesn't seem to bother you as much as me adding a reference for the fact that the population increase was offset. Why not remove the whole thing? I added information to a totally unreferenced sentence, part of which I referenced, but while removing the referenced information I added along with the unreferenced, you leave a whole pile of unreferenced material. Please stop. ] (]) 23:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::If you think the sentence should be removed, then go ahead. I am only concerned with reverting edits that are against policy. Adding content that purports to be referenced, when the content is not supported by the cited source, is against policy and does not improve the article. ] (]) 10:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::The offset was sourced. ] (]) 20:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::If it is not reliably or verifiably sourced then it shouldn't go in. Simple. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== First British troops == |
|
|
|
|
|
At what point in the Troubles were the British army first deployed, and what was their brief? ] (]) 18:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::They were first deployed in Derry to restore order, after three days of fighting between nationalist rioters and police. It's in the ] section, fifth paragraph. ] (]) 22:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Plan to Add Section, "Childhood."== |
|
|
I am a university student and will be examining the childhood of children during the Northern Ireland Conflict, or “The Troubles.” This was an extremely hostile time in a “Western” nation fairly late in the twentieth century making this issue already unique, however the history of the child experience is downplayed in Misplaced Pages. “The Troubles” page on Misplaced Pages features only some sentences about how their parents were often toxic due to stress and that teens consumed a high amount of alcohol. I plan on enhancing this page with a “Childhood” section under the history tab which would go into greater detail as this was a generation that grew up during a chaotic time and would go on to live in their country during peacetime. I plan to provide more information on the psychological impact on children from the violence, socioeconomic effects and issues, their general ideas of what was occurring in their country, the attacks that children were involved with, and details on their day-to-day lives. This is a preliminary list of sources and will be enhanced. Any suggestions are welcomed. |
|
|
|
|
|
Bibliography: |
|
|
|
|
|
Browne, Brendan, and Clare Dwyer. “Navigating Risk: Understanding the Impact of the Conflict on Children and Young People in Northern Ireland.” ''Studies in Conflict and Terrorism'' 37, no. 9 (2014): 792-805, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2014.931213. |
|
|
|
|
|
Cairns, Ed. ''Caught in Crossfire: Children and the Northern Ireland Conflic''t. Belfast: The Appletree Press Ltd, 1987. Google Scholar Edition. |
|
|
|
|
|
Connolly, Paul, Siobhan Fitzpatrick, Tony Gallagher, and Paul Harris. “Addressing Diversity and Inclusion in the Early Years in Conflict-Affect Societies: A Case Study of the Media Initiative for Children- Northern Ireland.” ''International Journal of Early Years Education'' 14, no. 3 (2006): 263-278, doi:10.1080/09669760600880027. |
|
|
|
|
|
Downes, Ciara, Elaine Harrison, David Curran, and Michele Kavanagh. “The Trauma Still Goes On…: The Multigenerational Legacy of Northern Ireland’s Conflict.” ''Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry'' 18, no. 4 (2013): 583-603, doi: 10.1177/1359104512462548. |
|
|
|
|
|
Goeke-Morey, Marcie C., E. Mark Cumming, Kathleen Ellis, Christine E. Merrilees, Alice C. Schermerhorn, Peter Shirlow, and Ed Cairns. “The Differential Impact on Children of Inter- and Intra-Community Violence in Northern Ireland.” ''Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology'' 15, no. 4 (2009): 367-383, doi:10.1080/10781910903088932. |
|
|
|
|
|
Powell, Fred. “The Effect of the Northern Ireland Civil Conflict on Child Welfare.” ''International Social Work'' 23, no. 2 (1980): 25-32, doi:10.1177/002087288002300205. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think this is excessive for an encyclopaedia article. The ], ], and even ] articles do not have sections on childhood, despite the fact that children have been systematically killed, abducted etc. in those conflicts. While the size of your bibliography gives the impression that the topic is notable (in Misplaced Pages terms), in fact it consists only of a not well known 1987 book and articles in specialised journals. To include it here would give too much prominence to a facet of the conflict that doesn't have widespread coverage in the sources. Have a read of ] and you will see what I mean. ] (]) 08:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Yes if there was going to be an article I think it should be on the subject of childhood and war not Northern Ireland. And my understanding is that the suicide rate in Northern Ireland was quite low by British standards during the Troubles and has only soared to a bit more than the Scottish rate since there has been peace there. And the ones committing suicide now are not ones that were born or brought up during the worst of the troubles but when they were starting on the peace process. So it sounds like it might be interesting to figure out exactly what is happening but I wouldn't jump unthinkingly on the ohh the trauma the trauma sort of thing to explain it. ] (]) 13:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I like the proposal. The Troubles is one of the most studied conflicts in the world; I don't foresee any shortage of background material even for such a specific aspect of it. ] (]) 20:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: ATTN: ] -- as per ] and ], I don't think it is appropriate. Misplaced Pages is not a doctoral thesis. It is not fair to single out one conflict and ignore all the others regarding childhood traumas related to same. The article will be subject to ] if it POV-pushing. ] 21:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Just to clarify: what Lordofsharks is proposing is not to create a new article but to create a new section in this article. ] (]) 22:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Interesting thesis subject and if it is picked up and published in various sources then it might be a section. Too much danger of original research at the moment ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: Lordofsharks, I like your plan, but I think you need more historical sources, and less psychology. I also think it may be more productive to add material about children to the existing text, rather than create a new section. And is there a specific incident which especially affected children, that you could add? Keep reading and finding more sources, and let's talk more about this in person. ] (]) 19:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== External links modified == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|
|
|
|
|
I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: |
|
|
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.patfinucanecentre.org/misc/opbanner.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}). |
|
|
|
|
|
{{sourcecheck|checked=true}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 17:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Childhood == |
|
|
|
|
|
A huge wodge of text has been added . The editor concerned raised the question of adding the content ], and was told by five different editors that it was excessive detail and not suitable for addition to an encyclopaedia article. I can't see any alternative but to revert. ] (]) 18:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Scolaire, your concerns are heard but not accepted. I question these "five different editors" who believe that this addition would bring "excessive detail" to this encyclopaedic article. I do not believe that you should speak for other editors as you were the only one that brought up this specific issue. Other editors questioned if this was "point of view pushing" or have original research in which my addition features none. Removing information from a "C Level Article" is counter productive to an informative source such as Misplaced Pages and perhaps rather than simply deleting this information you could provide some specific problems with my submission rather than just stating that it has too much information. ] (]) 08:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::In addition to my objection, Dmcq said "I think it should be on the subject of childhood and war not Northern Ireland", Quis separabit said "I don't think it is appropriate. Misplaced Pages is not a doctoral thesis", Snowded said "Interesting thesis subject and ''if it is picked up and published in various sources'' then it might be a section" (emphasis added), and Cliomania said "it may be more productive to add material about children to the existing text, rather than create a new section", by which, I would guess, she did not mean "add the equivalent of a small article but don't give it a section heading". |
|
|
::So, to my specific problems. Your edit added 1,000 words to a section that previously only had 300 words, and 200 words to another section that previously only had 200 words, all on the basis of six journal articles out of all the countless books and articles that have been written about the Troubles. It made those two sections completely unbalanced. The social repercussions of the conflict are not "all about the children", and the Casualties section is not meant for a discussion of Dr. Sarah McDowell's "hierarchies of victimhood". As Snowded said, this is not a doctoral thesis, and neither is it a showcase for the work of doctoral students. If you could present the "take-home message" of your sandbox page in 100 words maximum, I believe it would be a useful addition to the article, but it is up to you to do the editing down. Trying to re-add massive blocks of text will only result in the edit being reverted again. ] (]) 11:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
I find it very strange that the "Proposal of an independent Northern Ireland" section is twice as long as the entire "Political process" section, while not even the Agreement has its own section. The section is almost entirely an analysis of PM Wilson's unimplemented ideas. Also, the section also seems, to me, to promote a unionist view of the situation (e.g the UK couldn't possibly leave Northern Ireland). As discussed elsewhere on this talk page there is not enough information about diplomacy— I think this section should be dramatically reduced to make room for more impactful diplomacy topics. Placeholderer (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Couldn't we get something a bit more informative/context-setting than the present map? The collages at Iraq War, Vietnam War, Malayan Emergency are all pretty good I think. Perhaps something put together using the below pictures.
I have reversed, for the third time, an attempt by the same editor to add a nuanced point to the infobox. It is not an appropriate place for claims such as "sometimes" or "covertly", and I note that the sources provided don't support the precise claim being made anyway, since "Members of the RUC and UDR" and "senior Royal Ulster Constabulary and Ulster Defence Regiment officers were aware and in some cases approved of collusion" is not the same as "United Kingdom (covertly)". Kathleen's bike (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met.svg)
.svg)
