This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article has been
automatically rated by a
bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Unionism in Ireland, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Unionism in IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Unionism in IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Unionism in IrelandUnionism in Ireland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
This article has been
automatically rated by a
bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
Disputed fact tag
I have deleted this sentence as
original research: They have never provided evidence that the 86-year old man had any connection whatever with those assassinations. That type of comment must be sourced - meaning that we need a
reliable source that states that the IRA has failed to provide this evidence. Since it's not sourced, and one user has refused to allow a {{fact}} tag to stay on it, then the only solution is for the sentence to come out. |
Mr. Darcytalk20:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)reply
It's a little clumsy, but it meets
WP:V. Incidentally, the answer to the question about sourcing is this: You would need to find a source that says something like, "The IRA has never provided evidence to connect Sir Stronge to those assassinations." In other words, if a reliable source says that the IRA didn't provide the evidence, then that's good enough for Wikipedia. Does that make sense? |
Mr. Darcytalk00:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Yes it does. I just don't find myself very convinced by author Tim's implied unsourced and unverified slur about a respected 86-year old victim. -
Kittybrewster00:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)reply
WHo was he respected by? Not the nationalist community thats for sure. I havea great quote from Gerry Adams that I am just about to put into the article which pretty much clears up the view of the nationalist community with regards this man.--
Vintagekits00:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Wrong, Vintagekits. There is a quote saying how he was respected by the nationalist community in the article! He was much more respected than the IRA who are descrived as "dregs of society" - highly aprropriate!--
Couter-revolutionary09:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)reply
I did my research. James Stronge initally redirected here, and there was no link at the top of the page to suggest the existence of further James Stronges. Don't blame me for your failure to create the page properly. One Night In Hackney30320:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
For goodness sake, this is turning into a move war. My reply to Counter-revolutionary got lost when the talk page moved yet again. Can everyone please agree to discuss the issue before any further moves? --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
20:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I was telling BrownHaried whatever to do their research, not you. There is no edit war, it is being discussed. I just happended to make a mess of the move, hence all the corrections. It should use his full title. --
Counter-revolutionary20:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I would also point out that if you'd mentioned the existence of other James Stronges when the move was proposed, it wouldn't have been moved in the first place. One Night In Hackney30320:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Substantive reply, if the page stays in place long enough to post it. First, sorry I didn't find the other James Stronges: I looked for any hint of disambiguaton, and didn't find it. Should have checked the baronets list :( Anyway, since we have more than one, it seems to me that the question is whether one is considerably more notable than another. If the 9th Baronet passes that test, i suggest he shoukd be at that
James Stronge, but otherwise at
Sir James Stronge, 9th Baronet. I can see no case for the article being at
Sir James Stronge, 9th Baronet of Tynan, which is where the page is now. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
20:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I have speedy deleted the mis-spelt redirects, but I'm not going to move the main article until there is a consensus on where it should be. That does not seem to be the case so far. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
07:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
This article should be renamed as the claim to the title has never been proven, then this article should be moved to 'James Stronge'.--
padraig3uk12:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Burkes, Debretts, Who's Who - none of which are reliable sources. If he hasnt legally claimed his Baronetcy then he aint a Baronet.--
Vintagekits14:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)reply
See this
[2] and here
[3] where it says It is a popular misconception that the heir apparent succeeds automatically to a baronetcy on the death of the current holder. Nothing could be further from the truth. By a Royal Warrant of King Edward VII dated 8th February 1910 an Official Roll was established to be kept at the Home Office. It was further stated "that no person whose name is not entered on the Official Roll of Baronets shall be received as a Baronet, or shall be addressed or mentioned by that title in any civil or military Commission, Letters Patent or other official document." if he dosen't qualify then the title shouldn't be used. As for Burkes, Debretts, Who's Who, they only used the information supplied to them by the people involved themselves--
padraig3uk14:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't see if that is necessary the quote above makes it clear that he can't be referred to as a baronet, and the last recognised holder was the 8th Baronet.--
padraig3uk16:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Of course they dont overrule it, they reflect it, ie Burkes Peerage and Baronetage reflect the actual laws and titles,
SqueakBox16:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)reply
They only use the info provided by the person claiming to hold the title, that dosen't overrule the fact that the 8th Baronet is the last recognised holder of the title on the official record, therefore the 9th and 10th holders are not proven.--
padraig3uk16:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Do you know how these publications are produced? Obviously not - they dont reflect anything, they are compiled from questionairres sent out to the individuals - therefore they are reflecting there own perceptions of themselves from what the public perceives them as or that law.--
Vintagekits17:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Burkes is not compiled by way of any questionaire &c. and is an accurate and reliable source to shew that he is known as Sir James Stronge, 9th Baronet. --
Counter-revolutionary00:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Burkes may be a good source, but I accordance to Law his claim is not recorded on the official roll, therefore he was never given the title.--
padraig3uk18:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I think you misunderstand how wiki works - if you want to asert something you must provide the evidence. The evidence is there to show that can cannot be a Baronet despite what the vanity publications say. If he was not legally a Baronet then he is not a Baronet its as simple as that.--
Vintagekits18:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I already have above near the top of this section, also one of the ref you use in the infobox to support your claim refers to him as Major Hon. James Matthew Stronge
[4] yet your using this to support your claim he held the title.--
padraig3uk18:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Removed (yet again!) as unsourced weasel wording. Someone is decorated if they have a Victoria Cross, so rather than use a vague (and totally unsourced) term, specify what decoration he had. One Night In Hackney30320:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)reply
I have just modified 2 external links on
James Stronge (Mid-Armagh MP). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article has been
automatically rated by a
bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Unionism in Ireland, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Unionism in IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Unionism in IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Unionism in IrelandUnionism in Ireland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
This article has been
automatically rated by a
bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
Disputed fact tag
I have deleted this sentence as
original research: They have never provided evidence that the 86-year old man had any connection whatever with those assassinations. That type of comment must be sourced - meaning that we need a
reliable source that states that the IRA has failed to provide this evidence. Since it's not sourced, and one user has refused to allow a {{fact}} tag to stay on it, then the only solution is for the sentence to come out. |
Mr. Darcytalk20:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)reply
It's a little clumsy, but it meets
WP:V. Incidentally, the answer to the question about sourcing is this: You would need to find a source that says something like, "The IRA has never provided evidence to connect Sir Stronge to those assassinations." In other words, if a reliable source says that the IRA didn't provide the evidence, then that's good enough for Wikipedia. Does that make sense? |
Mr. Darcytalk00:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Yes it does. I just don't find myself very convinced by author Tim's implied unsourced and unverified slur about a respected 86-year old victim. -
Kittybrewster00:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)reply
WHo was he respected by? Not the nationalist community thats for sure. I havea great quote from Gerry Adams that I am just about to put into the article which pretty much clears up the view of the nationalist community with regards this man.--
Vintagekits00:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Wrong, Vintagekits. There is a quote saying how he was respected by the nationalist community in the article! He was much more respected than the IRA who are descrived as "dregs of society" - highly aprropriate!--
Couter-revolutionary09:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)reply
I did my research. James Stronge initally redirected here, and there was no link at the top of the page to suggest the existence of further James Stronges. Don't blame me for your failure to create the page properly. One Night In Hackney30320:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
For goodness sake, this is turning into a move war. My reply to Counter-revolutionary got lost when the talk page moved yet again. Can everyone please agree to discuss the issue before any further moves? --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
20:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I was telling BrownHaried whatever to do their research, not you. There is no edit war, it is being discussed. I just happended to make a mess of the move, hence all the corrections. It should use his full title. --
Counter-revolutionary20:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I would also point out that if you'd mentioned the existence of other James Stronges when the move was proposed, it wouldn't have been moved in the first place. One Night In Hackney30320:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Substantive reply, if the page stays in place long enough to post it. First, sorry I didn't find the other James Stronges: I looked for any hint of disambiguaton, and didn't find it. Should have checked the baronets list :( Anyway, since we have more than one, it seems to me that the question is whether one is considerably more notable than another. If the 9th Baronet passes that test, i suggest he shoukd be at that
James Stronge, but otherwise at
Sir James Stronge, 9th Baronet. I can see no case for the article being at
Sir James Stronge, 9th Baronet of Tynan, which is where the page is now. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
20:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I have speedy deleted the mis-spelt redirects, but I'm not going to move the main article until there is a consensus on where it should be. That does not seem to be the case so far. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
07:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
This article should be renamed as the claim to the title has never been proven, then this article should be moved to 'James Stronge'.--
padraig3uk12:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Burkes, Debretts, Who's Who - none of which are reliable sources. If he hasnt legally claimed his Baronetcy then he aint a Baronet.--
Vintagekits14:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)reply
See this
[2] and here
[3] where it says It is a popular misconception that the heir apparent succeeds automatically to a baronetcy on the death of the current holder. Nothing could be further from the truth. By a Royal Warrant of King Edward VII dated 8th February 1910 an Official Roll was established to be kept at the Home Office. It was further stated "that no person whose name is not entered on the Official Roll of Baronets shall be received as a Baronet, or shall be addressed or mentioned by that title in any civil or military Commission, Letters Patent or other official document." if he dosen't qualify then the title shouldn't be used. As for Burkes, Debretts, Who's Who, they only used the information supplied to them by the people involved themselves--
padraig3uk14:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't see if that is necessary the quote above makes it clear that he can't be referred to as a baronet, and the last recognised holder was the 8th Baronet.--
padraig3uk16:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Of course they dont overrule it, they reflect it, ie Burkes Peerage and Baronetage reflect the actual laws and titles,
SqueakBox16:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)reply
They only use the info provided by the person claiming to hold the title, that dosen't overrule the fact that the 8th Baronet is the last recognised holder of the title on the official record, therefore the 9th and 10th holders are not proven.--
padraig3uk16:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Do you know how these publications are produced? Obviously not - they dont reflect anything, they are compiled from questionairres sent out to the individuals - therefore they are reflecting there own perceptions of themselves from what the public perceives them as or that law.--
Vintagekits17:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Burkes is not compiled by way of any questionaire &c. and is an accurate and reliable source to shew that he is known as Sir James Stronge, 9th Baronet. --
Counter-revolutionary00:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Burkes may be a good source, but I accordance to Law his claim is not recorded on the official roll, therefore he was never given the title.--
padraig3uk18:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I think you misunderstand how wiki works - if you want to asert something you must provide the evidence. The evidence is there to show that can cannot be a Baronet despite what the vanity publications say. If he was not legally a Baronet then he is not a Baronet its as simple as that.--
Vintagekits18:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I already have above near the top of this section, also one of the ref you use in the infobox to support your claim refers to him as Major Hon. James Matthew Stronge
[4] yet your using this to support your claim he held the title.--
padraig3uk18:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Removed (yet again!) as unsourced weasel wording. Someone is decorated if they have a Victoria Cross, so rather than use a vague (and totally unsourced) term, specify what decoration he had. One Night In Hackney30320:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)reply
I have just modified 2 external links on
James Stronge (Mid-Armagh MP). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.