Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Bobby Sands was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on May 5, 2011, May 5, 2012, May 5, 2014, May 5, 2019, and May 5, 2021. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I have again reverted the addition of biased categories from this article, and removed them in-line with consensus at other articles ( Martina Anderson, Edward O'Brien (Irish republican) and Patrick Magee (Irish republican))
The history of
Category:People imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict shows it was created as a result of
Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 9#Proposed solution to categorising those imprisoned during The Troubles, which starts right off by saying There has been extensive debate on how to neutrally categorise those individuals imprisoned during The Troubles in Britain and Ireland
I have emphasised an important word in that sentence. The extensive debate refers to
Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive16#POW category added to IRA articles,
Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive16#Yes, POW is correct (part 2),
Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive16#Compromise suggestions section (part 2) and
Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive16#POWs (mk III). @
Scolaire: summarises the whole issue perfectly in the last link, saying Woah! Hang on! You're not going to call them terrorists, you're going to call them criminals?? Let me say this one more time — this is not NPOV, this is extremely POV! I really had the feeling that you were pretty clued-in, that you were genuinely interested in finding a solution, but let me say: this is not it! Calling them criminals puts forward a point of view about the criminal justice system in the UK, as well as the competence of UK courts to try the cases, and whether politically-motivated acts can be treated as "criminal". So please, drop this one now!
Category:Criminals from Derry (city) contained only one article, Martina Anderson, despite it being created on 12 July 2019. This demonstrates clearly this was not an attempt to use categories to navigate to similar articles, but to add a criminal label to an article about a living person.
The debates concluded that it was inappropriate to categorise people imprisoned during the Troubles as criminals. This is supported by Wikipedia:Categorization of people#General considerations which says to categorize behaviour or acts as criminal, not people as criminal. FDW777 ( talk) 06:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
One side (the establishment) saw certain acts as crimes, and the other (the paramilitariesand their related political parties) saw them as political acts. Certainly, seven or eight years ago, there was a convention that they were not treated as either. The acts would be described as killings or robberies, and if a person was convicted and jailed for the act, they would be categorised as Category:Prisoners and detainees of Northern Ireland or a sub-cat of Category:People imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict. This applied equally to republicans, loyalists and members of the security forces.
Categorising known serious criminals as criminals isn't POV, but Bobby Sands isn't a known serious criminal; he is regarded as a terrorist by many people, and as a freedom fighter by many others (few would regard him as just a common criminal). It's entirely a matter of point of view (POV), unlike Bundy and Biggs, who were unambiguously criminals. You also say,
A killer may do some sort of psychological gymnastics to make himself come to the conclusion that planting a bomb in a hotel in Brighton & another in a hotel in London is justified, productive & helpful. That shows that you have strong feelings on the question, and you're expressing those strong feelings by adding a "criminal" cat. That is POV-pushing, even if it doesn't seem like it to you. I am not in any way an apologist for Sands. I simply think that having categories for political/religious activists who kill and categories for common criminals, and then putting people from one category into another, is unencyclopaedic. Scolaire ( talk) 11:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view.FDW777 ( talk) 12:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
years of appalling conditions, due to being on the blanket protest and dirty protest due to completely rejecting the label of criminal. These started due to the British government's three-pronged strategy, beginning in 1976 of criminalisation, normalistion and Ulsterisation. Criminalisation referring to the ending of internment without trial and the withdrawal of special category status, since before 1976 the British government were quite willing to accept that republican, and loyalist, prisoners weren't common criminals but had entirely different motivations. This is covered by any decent book on the Troubles. These authors give you an insight into the situation. Peter Taylor, Provos: The IRA and Sinn Féin page 251
Mrs McCloskey had said that she did not want her son to die and then when he lapsed into a coma she would take him off. 'I would like you to know that my son is not a criminal,' she said. 'He was a bad boy and he should not have shot that person. But if I thought he was a criminal I would never allow him to come inside my house again. Prior learned fast. 'That told me a great deal about the attitude and the mentality of the Republican community.'. Robert White Out of the Ashes: An Oral History of the Provisional Irish Republican Movement page 189
Adams, Carron, and Ruddy also visited Kieran Doherty and, when Adams told him that if he stayed on the fast he would be dead in a week, Doherty replied, 'Thatcher can't break us, I'm not a criminal.'Margaret M. Scull The Catholic Church and the Northern Ireland Troubles, 1968-1998 page 101
In addition, McCreesh told a rally in Toome: 'My brother is not a criminal', in direct response to Thatcher's 'crime is crime is crime, it is not political' speechIt was a deliberate strategy of the British government to present republican, and loyalist, prisoners as common criminals, it would not be neutral for Wikipedia to present their view as fact. FDW777 ( talk) 18:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
By doing so, the U.K. was given licence to obtain the return of Irish republicans from the U.S. without the vexing difficulty of establishing in fact and in law that Irish republicans are the "terrorists" and common criminals the two governments regularly pronounced them to be. Despite the vastness of their combined resource, the two governments had been markedly unsuccessful in convincing U.S. judicial officers of the correctness of their position.Naturally you'll provide zero references like you usually do when challenged. FDW777 ( talk) 14:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
As a result the public is coaxed into taking a perception of the terrorists which corresponds to that of the State. In other words, the terrorists are viewed simply as criminals, so their treatment as such is acceptable . . . Thus, criminalisation is an important conditioning factor to be applied to the minds of the British public, and it is equally aimed at channelling world opinion. Movements denounced as criminal plots rather than freedom fighters are much less likely to receive moral or material support from third states. FDW777 ( talk) 15:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Naturally you'll provide zero references like you usually do when challenged.With predictions that uncanny I should play the lottery more. You also misrepresent the completely off-topic claims you made about Reynhard Sinaga. As the original article with the interview in actually says
Even now Normawati struggles to believe that her son could be capable of such evil crimes. She did not even know that he was gay. “We are a good Christian family who do not believe in homosexuality. He is my baby,” she said.So she never said he wasn't a criminal or his actions weren't crime, so even if it was on-topic (which it blatantly isn't) it doesn't even support your point, whatever it is. You deliberately ignore that a policy based objection (in addition to the mention of the guideline Wikipedia:Categorization of people, which again you ignored) was made in my very first post on this page, when I quoted Scolaire saying
You're not going to call them terrorists, you're going to call them criminals?? Let me say this one more time — this is not NPOV, this is extremely POV. You can find the policy at WP:NPOV, since you appear to be totally ignorant of its existence. I have provided multiple references to support my arguments, you've proved a grand total of zero. FDW777 ( talk) 12:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view, so that doesn't mean they present the British government's viewpoint as fact. It's been well established that it was a specific policy of the British government to criminalize people imprisoned during the Troubles after 1976. Out of the Ashes: An Oral History of the Provisional Irish Republican Movement page 144 quotes Keirean Nugent saying
And I didn't see the logic in the British government - saw again that had them offenses been committed before the first of March 1976, I would be a politicial prisoner. It turned out I was arrested on the fourth of May 1976, which is only two months after the date. Yet, they were saying that you weren't a political prisoner, you were a criminal. That underlines the absurdity of the whole situation, that people convicted of offences committed before March 1976 still received special category status (ie. political status) but people convicted of offences committed after that date didn't receive special category status and were classed as common criminals. The British government are masters of talking out of both sides of their mouth at the same time.
Mrs McCloskey had said that she did not want her son to die and then when he lapsed into a coma she would take him off. 'I would like you to know that my son is not a criminal,' she said. 'He was a bad boy and he should not have shot that person. But if I thought he was a criminal I would never allow him to come inside my house again. Prior learned fast. 'That told me a great deal about the attitude and the mentality of the Republican community.'
bad boyand that he shot someone, but despite that she does not consider him a criminal.
Even now Normawati struggles to believe that her son could be capable of such evil crimes. She did not even know that he was gay. “We are a good Christian family who do not believe in homosexuality. He is my baby,” she said
Yes, he raped all those men. But that doesn't make him a criminal. So the two cases are not in any way similar. One mother acknowledges that her son did commit certain acts but says that doesn't make him a criminal, the other mother apparently labels his acts
evil crimes. FDW777 ( talk) 13:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Why does it feel like it's 2007 again? Per FDW777, Scolaire, and Snowded, the convention on wikipedia is pretty clear on the terrorist/criminal issue. The criminal category is not appropriate for this article. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Checkmate. FDW777 ( talk) 18:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
POA [Prison Officers Association] Chairman Colin Steel concurred with Richards and was critical of the Prison Department's policy of accommodating criminals along with 'very sophisticated politically orientated prisoners'You're convincing nobody and still haven't produced any references. Why don't you to go Talk:Nelson Mandela? Is it because you know full well your proposal will get shot down in flames and permanently stop your POV-pushing here? FDW777 ( talk) 17:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Nelson Mandela keeps getting brought up because he's the poster boy for people convicted of politically motivated crimes. He was convicted of more serious crimes than Bobby Sands and served far longer in prison. Yet there are no categories that directly label him a "criminal" on his article. If your intent is that all people convicted of politically motivated crimes should have a "criminal" label directly applied to them, I suggest you start there since you're failing miserably here. FDW777 ( talk) 09:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Why did he & his accomplices bomb a furniture shop? What was the significance of doing that? Did they have something against furniture, shops, the owner, or some combination of those? Is there a better explanation than something along the lines of: 'it was an economic target in the UK, so it was legitimate to attack it'? Jim Michael ( talk) 17:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps Jim Michael could propose a wording for his perspective, citing a reasonably authoritative source?. You replied without doing either, prompting replies including Scolaire's
And it's not up to other editors to write it for you. Your comments here show this is a pattern of behaviour. I doubt anybody is going to research anything on your behalf, so it's up to you to do the legwork. FDW777 ( talk) 09:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Your (sneering and trying to degrading) "advice" "Read a book.",
FDW777, is violating our wikiquette and is of NO real use to anyone interested in this question. It WOULD have been of great use if you wrote WHICH book - AND would have summarized what valuable information to this question you have found in this book.
Steue (
talk)
15:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks
Jim Michael.
And, if you
FDW777 really want to be of use, which I'm sure you want, you would include the page number.
Steue (
talk)
07:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Is as simple and easy as looking for the term "Balmoral" (if you don't know Belfast). No relation with the English royal family, it is a district -whose name comes from the Irish language- of South Belfast, as you can see in this Wikipedia link: [ [1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.39.218.10 ( talk) 13:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
In the TV series "Babylon 5" there is the character "Byron"
List_of_Babylon_5_characters#Byron.
Having seen this series and having read the article
Bobby Sands and seen the two images within it,
it is quite obvious, to me, that "Bobby Sands" was the inspiration to "Byron" of "Babylon 5".
But I don't know of any source for this.
Please ping me.
Steue (
talk)
20:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I tried to do it but the text looks wrong. Wikipedia's interface has changed. It used to be easy to do this. I've done what I wanted, it just looks wrong. Can someone please tweak this thing? 107.195.106.201 ( talk) 16:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
He wasn't a soldier he was a terrorist. 2A00:23C8:2293:7D01:1896:4E21:3A62:EBDB ( talk) 21:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Bobby Sands was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on May 5, 2011, May 5, 2012, May 5, 2014, May 5, 2019, and May 5, 2021. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I have again reverted the addition of biased categories from this article, and removed them in-line with consensus at other articles ( Martina Anderson, Edward O'Brien (Irish republican) and Patrick Magee (Irish republican))
The history of
Category:People imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict shows it was created as a result of
Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 9#Proposed solution to categorising those imprisoned during The Troubles, which starts right off by saying There has been extensive debate on how to neutrally categorise those individuals imprisoned during The Troubles in Britain and Ireland
I have emphasised an important word in that sentence. The extensive debate refers to
Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive16#POW category added to IRA articles,
Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive16#Yes, POW is correct (part 2),
Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive16#Compromise suggestions section (part 2) and
Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive16#POWs (mk III). @
Scolaire: summarises the whole issue perfectly in the last link, saying Woah! Hang on! You're not going to call them terrorists, you're going to call them criminals?? Let me say this one more time — this is not NPOV, this is extremely POV! I really had the feeling that you were pretty clued-in, that you were genuinely interested in finding a solution, but let me say: this is not it! Calling them criminals puts forward a point of view about the criminal justice system in the UK, as well as the competence of UK courts to try the cases, and whether politically-motivated acts can be treated as "criminal". So please, drop this one now!
Category:Criminals from Derry (city) contained only one article, Martina Anderson, despite it being created on 12 July 2019. This demonstrates clearly this was not an attempt to use categories to navigate to similar articles, but to add a criminal label to an article about a living person.
The debates concluded that it was inappropriate to categorise people imprisoned during the Troubles as criminals. This is supported by Wikipedia:Categorization of people#General considerations which says to categorize behaviour or acts as criminal, not people as criminal. FDW777 ( talk) 06:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
One side (the establishment) saw certain acts as crimes, and the other (the paramilitariesand their related political parties) saw them as political acts. Certainly, seven or eight years ago, there was a convention that they were not treated as either. The acts would be described as killings or robberies, and if a person was convicted and jailed for the act, they would be categorised as Category:Prisoners and detainees of Northern Ireland or a sub-cat of Category:People imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict. This applied equally to republicans, loyalists and members of the security forces.
Categorising known serious criminals as criminals isn't POV, but Bobby Sands isn't a known serious criminal; he is regarded as a terrorist by many people, and as a freedom fighter by many others (few would regard him as just a common criminal). It's entirely a matter of point of view (POV), unlike Bundy and Biggs, who were unambiguously criminals. You also say,
A killer may do some sort of psychological gymnastics to make himself come to the conclusion that planting a bomb in a hotel in Brighton & another in a hotel in London is justified, productive & helpful. That shows that you have strong feelings on the question, and you're expressing those strong feelings by adding a "criminal" cat. That is POV-pushing, even if it doesn't seem like it to you. I am not in any way an apologist for Sands. I simply think that having categories for political/religious activists who kill and categories for common criminals, and then putting people from one category into another, is unencyclopaedic. Scolaire ( talk) 11:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view.FDW777 ( talk) 12:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
years of appalling conditions, due to being on the blanket protest and dirty protest due to completely rejecting the label of criminal. These started due to the British government's three-pronged strategy, beginning in 1976 of criminalisation, normalistion and Ulsterisation. Criminalisation referring to the ending of internment without trial and the withdrawal of special category status, since before 1976 the British government were quite willing to accept that republican, and loyalist, prisoners weren't common criminals but had entirely different motivations. This is covered by any decent book on the Troubles. These authors give you an insight into the situation. Peter Taylor, Provos: The IRA and Sinn Féin page 251
Mrs McCloskey had said that she did not want her son to die and then when he lapsed into a coma she would take him off. 'I would like you to know that my son is not a criminal,' she said. 'He was a bad boy and he should not have shot that person. But if I thought he was a criminal I would never allow him to come inside my house again. Prior learned fast. 'That told me a great deal about the attitude and the mentality of the Republican community.'. Robert White Out of the Ashes: An Oral History of the Provisional Irish Republican Movement page 189
Adams, Carron, and Ruddy also visited Kieran Doherty and, when Adams told him that if he stayed on the fast he would be dead in a week, Doherty replied, 'Thatcher can't break us, I'm not a criminal.'Margaret M. Scull The Catholic Church and the Northern Ireland Troubles, 1968-1998 page 101
In addition, McCreesh told a rally in Toome: 'My brother is not a criminal', in direct response to Thatcher's 'crime is crime is crime, it is not political' speechIt was a deliberate strategy of the British government to present republican, and loyalist, prisoners as common criminals, it would not be neutral for Wikipedia to present their view as fact. FDW777 ( talk) 18:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
By doing so, the U.K. was given licence to obtain the return of Irish republicans from the U.S. without the vexing difficulty of establishing in fact and in law that Irish republicans are the "terrorists" and common criminals the two governments regularly pronounced them to be. Despite the vastness of their combined resource, the two governments had been markedly unsuccessful in convincing U.S. judicial officers of the correctness of their position.Naturally you'll provide zero references like you usually do when challenged. FDW777 ( talk) 14:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
As a result the public is coaxed into taking a perception of the terrorists which corresponds to that of the State. In other words, the terrorists are viewed simply as criminals, so their treatment as such is acceptable . . . Thus, criminalisation is an important conditioning factor to be applied to the minds of the British public, and it is equally aimed at channelling world opinion. Movements denounced as criminal plots rather than freedom fighters are much less likely to receive moral or material support from third states. FDW777 ( talk) 15:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Naturally you'll provide zero references like you usually do when challenged.With predictions that uncanny I should play the lottery more. You also misrepresent the completely off-topic claims you made about Reynhard Sinaga. As the original article with the interview in actually says
Even now Normawati struggles to believe that her son could be capable of such evil crimes. She did not even know that he was gay. “We are a good Christian family who do not believe in homosexuality. He is my baby,” she said.So she never said he wasn't a criminal or his actions weren't crime, so even if it was on-topic (which it blatantly isn't) it doesn't even support your point, whatever it is. You deliberately ignore that a policy based objection (in addition to the mention of the guideline Wikipedia:Categorization of people, which again you ignored) was made in my very first post on this page, when I quoted Scolaire saying
You're not going to call them terrorists, you're going to call them criminals?? Let me say this one more time — this is not NPOV, this is extremely POV. You can find the policy at WP:NPOV, since you appear to be totally ignorant of its existence. I have provided multiple references to support my arguments, you've proved a grand total of zero. FDW777 ( talk) 12:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view, so that doesn't mean they present the British government's viewpoint as fact. It's been well established that it was a specific policy of the British government to criminalize people imprisoned during the Troubles after 1976. Out of the Ashes: An Oral History of the Provisional Irish Republican Movement page 144 quotes Keirean Nugent saying
And I didn't see the logic in the British government - saw again that had them offenses been committed before the first of March 1976, I would be a politicial prisoner. It turned out I was arrested on the fourth of May 1976, which is only two months after the date. Yet, they were saying that you weren't a political prisoner, you were a criminal. That underlines the absurdity of the whole situation, that people convicted of offences committed before March 1976 still received special category status (ie. political status) but people convicted of offences committed after that date didn't receive special category status and were classed as common criminals. The British government are masters of talking out of both sides of their mouth at the same time.
Mrs McCloskey had said that she did not want her son to die and then when he lapsed into a coma she would take him off. 'I would like you to know that my son is not a criminal,' she said. 'He was a bad boy and he should not have shot that person. But if I thought he was a criminal I would never allow him to come inside my house again. Prior learned fast. 'That told me a great deal about the attitude and the mentality of the Republican community.'
bad boyand that he shot someone, but despite that she does not consider him a criminal.
Even now Normawati struggles to believe that her son could be capable of such evil crimes. She did not even know that he was gay. “We are a good Christian family who do not believe in homosexuality. He is my baby,” she said
Yes, he raped all those men. But that doesn't make him a criminal. So the two cases are not in any way similar. One mother acknowledges that her son did commit certain acts but says that doesn't make him a criminal, the other mother apparently labels his acts
evil crimes. FDW777 ( talk) 13:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Why does it feel like it's 2007 again? Per FDW777, Scolaire, and Snowded, the convention on wikipedia is pretty clear on the terrorist/criminal issue. The criminal category is not appropriate for this article. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Checkmate. FDW777 ( talk) 18:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
POA [Prison Officers Association] Chairman Colin Steel concurred with Richards and was critical of the Prison Department's policy of accommodating criminals along with 'very sophisticated politically orientated prisoners'You're convincing nobody and still haven't produced any references. Why don't you to go Talk:Nelson Mandela? Is it because you know full well your proposal will get shot down in flames and permanently stop your POV-pushing here? FDW777 ( talk) 17:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Nelson Mandela keeps getting brought up because he's the poster boy for people convicted of politically motivated crimes. He was convicted of more serious crimes than Bobby Sands and served far longer in prison. Yet there are no categories that directly label him a "criminal" on his article. If your intent is that all people convicted of politically motivated crimes should have a "criminal" label directly applied to them, I suggest you start there since you're failing miserably here. FDW777 ( talk) 09:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Why did he & his accomplices bomb a furniture shop? What was the significance of doing that? Did they have something against furniture, shops, the owner, or some combination of those? Is there a better explanation than something along the lines of: 'it was an economic target in the UK, so it was legitimate to attack it'? Jim Michael ( talk) 17:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps Jim Michael could propose a wording for his perspective, citing a reasonably authoritative source?. You replied without doing either, prompting replies including Scolaire's
And it's not up to other editors to write it for you. Your comments here show this is a pattern of behaviour. I doubt anybody is going to research anything on your behalf, so it's up to you to do the legwork. FDW777 ( talk) 09:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Your (sneering and trying to degrading) "advice" "Read a book.",
FDW777, is violating our wikiquette and is of NO real use to anyone interested in this question. It WOULD have been of great use if you wrote WHICH book - AND would have summarized what valuable information to this question you have found in this book.
Steue (
talk)
15:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks
Jim Michael.
And, if you
FDW777 really want to be of use, which I'm sure you want, you would include the page number.
Steue (
talk)
07:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Is as simple and easy as looking for the term "Balmoral" (if you don't know Belfast). No relation with the English royal family, it is a district -whose name comes from the Irish language- of South Belfast, as you can see in this Wikipedia link: [ [1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.39.218.10 ( talk) 13:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
In the TV series "Babylon 5" there is the character "Byron"
List_of_Babylon_5_characters#Byron.
Having seen this series and having read the article
Bobby Sands and seen the two images within it,
it is quite obvious, to me, that "Bobby Sands" was the inspiration to "Byron" of "Babylon 5".
But I don't know of any source for this.
Please ping me.
Steue (
talk)
20:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I tried to do it but the text looks wrong. Wikipedia's interface has changed. It used to be easy to do this. I've done what I wanted, it just looks wrong. Can someone please tweak this thing? 107.195.106.201 ( talk) 16:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
He wasn't a soldier he was a terrorist. 2A00:23C8:2293:7D01:1896:4E21:3A62:EBDB ( talk) 21:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)