this article tries to make the orange order look like they're persecuted by catholics. I suggest re-editing completely and involve say someone who isnt a catholic OR protestant. Stick to the issue and dont involve personal opinion.
"There are two related organisations, the increasingly left-wing militant Apprentice Boys of Derry (named after Catholic guild apprentices who refused entry to and preented a besieging French army from entering Derry),"
This is wrong is so many ways I don't even want to begin correcting it.
Jmwalsh...
I have not said anything about the Orange Order in Ireland because there is little information available about its history there. I gather it has been most extensively studied in Canada. I leave it to those who are better informed than I to fill in its Irish role. If you check my profile you will notice I have a Catholic name, but I am neither Catholic nor Protestant.
Jfitzg
The page has improved greatly - thanks Efghij - but it still needs a little npov and more information. It's sometimes a hard subject for those involved to discuss "neutrally" though. Paul
There was no need to separate Canada from the Commonwealth given that it is a member.
Something needs to be done to the opening paragraph, which at the moment reads as if the Orange Order were some sort of benign charitable organisation like the Lions Club or something. I added the following carefully NPOV statement, to try to put this right:
In April 2004 a Scottish court ruled that it was fair comment to describe the organisation as "sectarian", "anti-Catholic" and "protestant-supremacist".
[1].
User:Hcheney reverted this, saying "revert - this edit is blatantly POV; this is relevant for either the Galloway or Ingram article, not the Orange Order - this should be included if the House of Lords upholds the ruling upon appeal" Apart from the patent nonsense about the House of Lords - there is no suggestion of an appeal, as far as I know, and even if there was it seems extraordinarily unlikely that it would go to the Lords - it is clearly untrue to say that my edit was POV. It is the very model of a NPOV ststement. "X says Y about Z" It doesn't say that the Orangemen are "sectarian" etc, it says that a Scottish court has ruled that to say so is fair comment.
GrahamN
17:17, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure why we're referring to the comment an an NPOV one - I'm with User:Hcheney on this. Primarily, it's a statement of the form "W said X about Y's statement Z" - which is hardly an authoritative or appropriate basis for inclusion in Wikipedia. It is, clearly, a point of view.
To further explain why this comment is inappropriate, consider the meaning of Fair comment in UK law. Fair Comment does not necessarily imply that the comment is either true or fair. Essentially, all it says is that the opinion was honestly held, and not given maliciously or recklessly without regard to the facts. The discussion may also need to be on a matter of "public interest" as well (which might exclude certain comments on someone's private affairs). The court said little more than that the opinion quoted might be honestly held, and did not defame an individual. The test for inclusion in an NPOV Wikipedia article is stronger than that.
It is quite in order to include such documentary evidence as you may find of anti-catholicism, sectarianism, or supremacist statements (though less emotive terms might be helpful). On the other hand, it adds nothing to the debate to say that a Scottish court found that someone's opinions on the subject did not meet the legal definition of defamation of an individual.
I propose to delete the "point of view", after a brief period of reflection.
Given that the organisation itself claims not to be supremacist, the NPOV guidelines suggest that such views might be more appropriately discussed in an Opposing Views section.
Paul 17:39, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Neutrality is about more than just sticking to factual statements. It's about the tone of an article and the balance of its overall presentation. However the sentence in dispute should be left out of the opening paragraphy simply because it's not very important. As Paul says it also gives a very misleading impression to someone not aware of the legal definition of 'fair comment'. There should be some reference to the controversy in the opening paragraph though. I suggest we change the sentence to something like:
I would also question the description "exclusively Protestant" in the intro. Obviously it is a true statement but the fact that only Protestants are permitted is a detail that would usually be left for the body of the article. It currently reads like the first sentence of the intro has been deliberately written to draw attention to one particular criticism of the organisation. "The Orange Order is a Protestant fraternal organisation" is sufficient for the intro.
Iota 19:27, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Graham N wrote:
To the contrary, I absolutely agree that the fact that a lot of people see the Orange Order as sectarian is important. That's why i tried to reword the intro to express that. What is unimportant is what a judge happened to say on a particular occasion about an obscure point of law, because that is what it amounts to once you take into account what "fair comment" actually means.
The new wording may have been a general statement but i dont agree that it was POV. I dont think that anyone would really deny that "some/many Catholics think the OO is sectarian". Nor is it always inappropriate to use general statements. The introduction to an article is supposed to be a short summary that encapsulates all of the most important things about the topic without going into specifics. So we could write "Sinn Fein/the Ancient Order of Hibernias/X/Y/Z thinks the Orange Order are sectarian" but that is too specific for the intro and would leave out the fact that many of its critics dont belong to any organisation and may (like yourself) not fit into any other neat category. IMO it is ok (and often necessary) to use general statements although it is best to back them up with more specific details later in the main body of the article. This is the way things are done in plenty of other articles.
This is a reasonable criticism.
I dont think it's acceptable to continue with a highly problematic (and IMO POV) sentence until a better one is agreed upon. The statement may be a neutral attribution but IMO it is still POV (in spirit at the very least) to draw attention to criticisms of a group by using a statment that (a) is highly misleading and (b) amounts to promoting to the intro a fact that is not important enough to go there. I have tried again with an alternative wording:
Remove that sentence if you really must. But please dont put back the bit about the judge and fair comment, at least until we can find some consensus, because i really feel strongly that it is not acceptable. Iota 03:01, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
--
Aughavey 21:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)The paragraph inserted about the 2005 St Patrick`s Day parade in Cork is entirely incorrect. The Orange Order were invited to send a small group to participate in the Cork St Patrick`s Day parade as part of a celebration of the cultural diversity of the island of Ireland as well as Cork being the European City of Culture. The Orange Order accepted the invitiation. A single Belfast Lodge with their wives and children were to have participated in the parade alongside Africans, Filipines and Chinese families as well as the usual paraders. It was not until the parade organisers received some threatening phone calls stating "we know who you are and what you are planning" that the Orange Order consulted the Gardai (Police) about safety and subsequently withdrew on the grounds of the safety of their wives and children whilst thanking the parades organisers for their invite and they hoped to be reinvited next year.
The question therefore is who is intolerant? The Orange Order for accepting an invitation to march not only in the South of Ireland but in Cork alongside other minority groups on St Patricks Day (and no doubt wearing spriggs of Shamrock as they usually do)? Or the small minority issueing threats? There was no local outcry at all just a few extremists mostly from Northern Ireland.
To back this up:-
Orange Order pulls out of parade
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4275523.stm
Protestant cleric attacks invite to Orangemen
http://www.irishexaminer.com/pport/web/Full_Story/did-sgzWW0VMhhfecsglO-LCk0lQvU.asp
Orangemen to march in Cork
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2091-1482649,00.html
Orangemen Set To March On St Paddy's Day In Cork
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/story/18282
Isn't there some particular instrument (pipes, flutes?) that is associated to the order and Irish Catholics wouldn't play?
Yes. The lambeg drum -- Leathlaobhair 18:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
The Order is indeed controversial in non-members' eyes.
I think the article should mention that Presbyterians were excluded from joining until c. the 1840s. They don't often mention that do they?
I don't understand why there is a fairly hefty, seperate exposition of the Glorious Revelotion on this page. Obviously it is very bound up with the Orange Order's history, but I think that mention of the effects of 1688-89 should be more intergrated into a description of the Order's history. Having a long discursion on the political effects of the Glorious revolution just looks clumsy on a page about the Orange Order, as opposed to on a page on the Glorious Revolution.
For starters, the phrase, "It is a historical fact..." should go. Either state it because everyone agrees and it won't be controvercial, or cite an unbiased source. I'm not saying it's not true (I have no idea), "it is a historical fact" is generally a red flag for arm-waving.
Next, I do like the entry, but parts of it are very wordy, and read more like a tribute to the order than an encyclopaedia entry. I'd suggest trimming out some of the quotes and generally covering the facts surrounding the order.
Just some suggestions. Overall, quite nice. - Harmil 28 June 2005 19:03 (UTC)
Aughavey 29 June 2005 01:05 (UTC) i would like to know where lapsed pacifist gets his facts from. The Adelaide Hospital Society has not disbanded http://www.adelaide.ie/
Aughavey 29 June 2005 01:11 (UTC) I also dispute the insertion of the word "similar" and / or "religious" in this sentence. The Orange Institution contributed more members than any other organisation full stop. "The Orange institution saw more of its members serve and make the supreme sacrifice in the First World War than any other religious organisation."
Aughavey 29 June 2005 07:19 (UTC) I also note that lapsed pacifist has changed the following "defeating the Fenians at Ridgeway, Ontario in 1866. An obelisk there marks the spot where Orangemen died in defending their country against the Fenian invaders." to read "the colony". Canada was the Province of British North America and then in 1867 the Dominion of Canada not a colony.
Small point: Aughavey changed "largely based in northern Ireland and western Scotland " to "largely based in Northern Ireland and western Scotland". This was probably a reflex edit, or did you really intend to exclude Donegal? -- Red King 29 June 2005 17:35 (UTC)
Aughavey 29 June 2005 21:57 (UTC) "as the Catholic Church requires its adherents to make all reasonable efforts to raise all their children in the same religion, regardless of the other parent's faith." The Catholic churches Ne Temere decree: in earlier times Catholics had been discouraged, even forbidden, by their church from being married by anyone but a priest. Nevertheless, if a Catholic were married by a Protestant minister, the marriage was recognised by the church as valid. Then in 1908 the pope issued a decree, known from its first words as the Ne Temere decree, stating that in future the church would not recognise such marriages as valid.
Aughavey 30 June 2005 08:46 (UTC) The Ne Temere decree is still in effect. To clarify the line "It is opposed to the Good Friday Agreement."
Wednesday 15 April 1998 The Grand Orange Lodge, the ruling body of the Orange Order, decided not to support the Good Friday Agreement. While not rejecting the Agreement outright the members demanded clarification of a number of issues from British Prime Minister, Tony Blair before it would consider changing its position. [During the referendum campaign the Orange Order came out against the Agreement.]
With regards to the charity sction. The charities listed are Orange owned and run charities. The Orange Order routinely does charitable work for other charities which as stated are given a small amount of coverage.
Aughavey 4 July 2005 18:15 (UTC) With refernce to:- "During the 1992 marching season, the then British Secretary of State, Sir Patrick Mayhew declared "the actions of the marchers would have disgraced a tribe of cannibals" after Orangemen taunted residents of a Catholic neighbourhood they were marching through about the recent murders of five locals by the UDA. The UDA members had killed the men (who had no paramilitary connections) when they sprayed a betting-shop with gunfire. The UDA was made an illegal organisation by the British government shortly afterwards."
Whilst relevant it is worth pointing out this has more to do with "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland, the political status of Northern Ireland rather than direct the Orange Order.
The Universit of Ulster CAIN website records the following:-
Betting Shop Killings / Bookmaker's Shop Killings On 5 February 1992 five Catholic were killed in a gun attack on a bookmakers (a licensed betting shop) in the Ormeau Road area of Belfast. In a statement claiming responsibility the Ulster Freedom Fighters (UFF), a cover name (pseudonym) used by the Ulster Defence Association (UDA), concluded with the words "Remember Teebane".
Note Teebane: Teebane On 17 January 1992 the Irish Republican Army (IRA) exploded a bomb killing eight Protestant civilians who had been travelling in a minibus past Teebane crossroads between Cookstown and Omagh, County Tyrone. The men had been working at a military base in County Tyrone and were travelling home when the attack occurred.
The tit-for-tat killings were not uncommon throughout the 30 year troubles in Northern Ireland before the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998.
Aughavey 5 July 2005 09:57 (UTC) "as well as French Hugenots (including the ancestors of Davy Crockett) fleeing persecution from the Catholic Church. There were also a number of English settlers, largely Anglican. The ruling Anglo-Irish had already been in Ireland for centuries."
I think it is important to note that the Anglo-Irish had been ruling Ireland from dublin for centuries before the plantation of Ulster. Another interesting fact is that in 1155 the then "Bishop" of Rome, Pope Adrian IV granted control of Ireland to England. The grant was confirmed in 1172 by the then "Bishop" of Rome, Pope Alexander III in 1172. I do not believe that this grant has ever been revoked.
This is not quite right (the bit about the anglo-Irish anyway). The "Old English" of the pre-Elizabethan era were not the same people as the "Protestant Ascendancy" of the 17th century onwards. They had been very largely integrated into Gaelic society by the time of the tudors and even the more "English" Pale community were excluded from power because they remained Catholic after the reformation. Because of this, the "Old English" became "Irish" over the course of the 17th C, both in the eyes of the Authorities and in their own identity. Re the Pope, I believe this would be revoked by the fact the vatican recognised the Irish Free State in 1922! Not to mention the fact that the Popes had been backing Spanish, French and Jacobite claims to the throne of Ireland from 1580 - 1750 or so. Jdorney 13:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Aughavey 5 July 2005 10:01 (UTC)
"Many of its members also belong to the Democratic Unionist Party and various loyalist paramilitary groups."
Whilst it is certainly true that there may be members who associate with such things it is entirely against the rules. I is entirely possible that many school teachers, many civil servants or anything else are members of Loyalist paramilitaries. Each private lodge is responsible for its own discipline but anyone convicted of a serious crime would normally be expelled from the Order although it is at the lodges discretion to vote on it ie someone who genuinely repents of a previous crime (since Jesus forgives sin) may be accepted as a member etc.
Aughavey
13:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
"In
1870 and
1871, 60 people were killed in riots in
New York City during Orange Order marches in the city. Orange marches in the city have been banned ever since."
This is absolutely not true.
Aughavey 17:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC) "Nine people had been killed and more than a hundred injured (including women and children) during the parade the year before, when a riot broke out after the marchers had taunted Irish Catholics with sectarian songs and slogans. The ban appalled many nativists, who saw it as bowing down to the wishes of the Irish Catholic immigrant community. "
have you any evidence of this lapsed pacifist? seeing as you previously stated the above that they were banned to this day i will take you points of view, which they clearly are, with a pinch of salt. The accounts of the attacks on the Twelfth (of July) 1870 picnicers by 500-600 men makes a gory story; nine died in the affray, and, perhaps, 100 were injured. A reporter of the "New York Times" blamed the Roman Catholics. He said, "The attack was premeditated and altogether unwarranted." Archbishop McCloskey, and the Irish clergy, who spoke against any counter demonstration on the Twelfth, were condemned by Thomas Kerrigan, President of the New York Hiberniansduring a speech where he condemned the attitude of the churchmen, and the Roman Church's attitude to Orangeism in Ireland. He promised that it would not be permitted to act in the same way in America.
I tidied up the history section because I thought it was a bit of a mess. It went forwards and backwards in time and went into too much detail on things that were not really relevant, like the Glorious Revolution. I think this article could also lose the paragraphs about the flight of the earls and the 1641 rebellion to be honest. There's articles already on all these things if people want to contribute to them. Jdorney 15:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry about that, didn't realise I had done it. Just revert it. Jdorney 22:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I've taken out most of the more blatantly biased language, but I feel the article could probably be improved in other ways. XYaAsehShalomX 17:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
"The "Laws and Constitutions of the Loyal Orange Institution of Scotland", 1986 state: "No ex-Roman Catholic will be admitted into the Institution unless he is a Communicant in a Protestant Church for a reasonable period." Likewise the "Constitution, Laws and Ordinances of the Loyal Orange Institution of Ireland" (1967) state: "No person who at any time has been a Roman Catholic.... shall be admitted into the Institution, except after permission given by a vote of seventy five per cent of the members present founded on testimonials of good character . . . "(39) In the 19th century, Rev. Dr. Mortimer O'Sullivan, a converted Roman Catholic was a Grand Chaplain of the Orange Order in Ireland.
In the 1950's Scotland also had a converted Roman Catholic as a Grand Chaplain - Rev. William McDermott"
quote taken from the article:-
THE ORANGE ORDER:
An Evangelical Perspective
ORANGEISM COMPARED WITH FREEMASONRY
SOME EVANGELICAL OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED
A REPLY TO W.J.McK.McCORMICK
By REV. IAN MEREDITH B.A., M.Th. Grand Chaplain Grand Orange Lodge of Scotland & REV. BRIAN KENNAWAY M.A. Deputy Grand Chaplain Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland
Could someone explain the origin of the emblems in the flag? I am quite ignorant on this one Fasach Nua 22:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I've Deleted the Roots section as it adds little to any understanding of the Orange Order itself. Instead I've added references to the Plantation of Ulster, the Irish Rebellion of 1641 and the Williamite war in Ireland in the (now rather inelegant) first sentence of the History section.
If you want to see the edit please go here.
JASpencer 20:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
These two paragraphs contradict each other as written:
Protestant groups were formed to oppose the Catholic groups, one of which was the exclusively [[Anglican]] [[Peep O'Day Boys]], which later became the Orange Order.{{fact}}
and:
After a disturbance in [[Benburb]] on 24th June 1794, in which Protestant homes were attacked, the [[Freemasons]]' organisation was appealed to by one of its members, [[James Wilson (Orangeman)|James Wilson]], to organise themselves to defend the Protestant population.{{fact}}
JASpencer 21:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
The article states "Members are required to be Protestant with a belief in the Trinity, which excludes Unitarians and certain other Christian denominations and all non-Christians." However the qualifications cited in the footnote only mention that "An Orangeman should have a sincere love and veneration for his Heavenly Father; a humble and steadfast faith in Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, believing in Him as the only Mediator between God and man." This does not seem to be explicitly trinitarian; it does not mention the deity of Christ or of the Holy Spirit, nor does it exclude a unitarian belief merely in God as Father and Jesus as mediator. I understand that the present Grand Master in Ireland is unitarian. Unless someone can cite firm evidence that the Order is trinitarian I would wish to query the section 'Requirements for entry'
---
the Order is indeed Trinitarian.
Members are not allowed to be married to a Roman Catholic or have a Catholic mother. That's a nice friendly organization for you! However makes no violent commitment to crush the 'opposition' (Sinn Fein oath).
I undid the cut and paste move of February 2006 from Orange Order to Orange Institution, but there is talk both at Talk:Orange Order and Talk:Orange Institution. I prefer the former, as do the incoming links. -- Henrygb 00:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Why has this been moved from a name that is well known to everyone Orange Order and to a name that is barely reflected even in the article where Orange Order outweighs Orange Institution by a large amount? I don't see any discussion on the Talk page about this move. Can someone explain, preferably in the first paragraph of the article. Dabbler 22:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Curious why there is practically no explanation at all about the roots of the word 'Orange' in the context of this article/topic and actually very little in general about William of Orange. A bit too much preoccupation with the more contentious elements of this article perhaps? Rgds, JOHN NATHANN 18:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
This article seems to be almost entirely pointless. Where is there a statement as to the foundation of the OO and its roots and antecedents, its subsequent history and a chronology? Currently it seems to be little more than an apologia; looking through the discussion page the article seems to have been anti-oo, then pro-, then anti. Now its pro. But can we have some FACTS please. Can someone qualified for the job actually outline its history, PLEASE! 79.66.53.26 16:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Paul M.
Orange Halls have often been the target of Republican/Nationalist vandalism, paint bombings, sectarian graffiti and arson attacks with many of the halls suffering severe damage, if not complete destruction.
Could someone please help me with rewording this sentence? "Often" is a Weasel word, how often does this happen? I think there is a lot of POV in this sentence. Drinkanotherday 16:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no such thing as the City of Derry Grand Lodge, County Londonderry GAA or Derry Port and Harbour Commissioner. It is just wrong to refer to Derry when talking about the Orange Order. Traditional unionist 09:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Its intrinsically a sectarian organisation. They celebrate William of Orange's victory over the Jacobites. What was did William have that Jacob didn't? Protestant faith!
To the best of my knowledge, there was never an English king called Jacob. 86.43.195.7 ( talk) 07:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I have provided a ref for this claim please dont edit war on this. BigDunc 12:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
How can sectarian be a PoV term look at sectarian. And the Catholic Church are not sectarian they do not barr anyone joining who where another religon neither do Protestant, Muslim or Hindu they all actively encourage new members from any other religous organisation. BigDunc 12:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you not proving my point "many protestants are barred from membership, mainly unitarians" due to there religon so it is sectarian. BigDunc 12:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Traditional unionist I hope you will be taking out this "PoV" term "sectarian graffiti" in the article too, seen as you are against the use of the word. BigDunc 13:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that saying it is "sectarian" is ok. It carries connotations. Wikidictionary, for example, under the "sectarian" definition (see here), has "bigoted" and "narrow-minded" as part of the definition. I think we can say that the Order has been accused of it. This link provides a good refernece should anyone wish to put this into this article, or the Ancient Order of Hibernians. If all we're saying is that it is a sect that only allows some people in, why don't we just state it like that without using the word? Logoistic 23:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep the reference, but lose the wording? What is the point of the reference? -- Domer48 15:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly what is the point in changing the wording and keeping the reference. BigDunc 15:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Still NO ONE can give a source or reference to disprove it is not a sectarian organisation, yet insist on removing sources. An encyclopedic article should present facts warts and all. BigDunc 17:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
“Orangemen like to present their annual festival as a celebration of civil and religious liberty, expressing their cultural heritage and identity in a spectacle of marching enjoyed by all. The reality can be quite different. The parades that dominate the summer months often do so provocatively and selfishly without regard to the cost in terms of community relations or the public purse. Some of the marches are unmistakably triumphal. Participants see them as a continuing and vigorous manifestation of their Protestantism, Unionism and loyalty to the British Crown. They subconsciously under line divisions and seek to assert ascendancy. Some have likened the way that local lodges parade the limits of their parishes to the way that a tom cat marks out territory, signalling the Orangemen’s unyielding belief that they are a powerful majority who will resist any process of change.” Again I simply wish to illustrate that there is a precipitation of the Order that is not shared by its members. This quote is taken from Chris Ryders and Vincent Kearney’s book Drumcree: The Orange Order’s Last Stand, Methuen Publishing Ltd, London, 2001, ISBN 0 413 76260 2. -- Domer48 10:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Who else disagrees, can they be quoted by a relilable source. Are you suggesting that the references are POV, or the editors are pushing a POV. Should we do away with references, and cite only sources which you agree with? Since you have yet to provide a reference to support your opinion, I see no reason why the use of sectarian can not be used to describe th OO. If you do provide a reference, that to can be added to balance any references all ready there? -- Domer48 17:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I beg to differ, this is not bickering, this is a discussion. The simple fact of the matter is 1) there have been a number of references put forward to show that the OO is a sectarian organisation. The sources are historical, contemporary, reliable and verifiable. 2) Not one source has been put forward to suggest otherwise. Just because someone dose not like the information, is not sufficient reason to keep this information out of the article. 3) The article will not remain locked because there is a disagreement here on the discussion page. The article will be unlocked, the referenced information will be added, and it is up to editors to provide contrary views to those included in the article. 4) Editors who engage in edit warring, or removing sourced or referenced material simply because they do not like it, will have to explain themselves to administrators. I would like to add, that I will only be contributing to the discussion page, in order to improve my approach to controversial dialogue. -- Domer48 20:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I feel your definition Traditional unionist backs up what refs were put in the article and as for Farrell being a bigot dont make me laugh read Michael Farrell. There is only one person coming across like a bigot. Read this definition and decide who it is "A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own." BigDunc 20:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
“The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.” This is not only fact but is also policy. I suggest you read it, as it will clear this matter up for us all. Could you please answer the above questions.-- Domer48 20:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Logoistic thanks for the offer of outside help, and another opinion. There has been one opinion offered on this discussion, [3], a view I would share. Thanks again -- Domer48 21:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I would imagine that we have a requirement for the whole article be as neutral as possible. So how about removing the fraternal organisation from the lead? I would consider the use of that term as having connotations which would unduly slant the article. I would like also for the questions I posed to be answered. If I’m to improve my talk page discussion, I will have to deal with editors who refuse to back up their opinion with sources and references. As this can cause frustration and annoyance. -- Domer48 22:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
You are actually going out of your way to show your anti-orange bias, I don't think that helps anyone. Traditional unionist 22:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
This quote then is also biased [4], but is one from R. Foster. Who is very anti-Republican, and a noted revisionist. Chris Ryders and Vincent Kearney’s book Drumcree: The Orange Order’s Last Stand, I consider biased, very muted on the Orders history. Traditional unionist, could you suggest a book I should read, which dose not contain any bias? Can we now move to the suggestions by SirFozzie and One Night In Hackney 303. Thanks -- Domer48 09:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Traditional unionist you have accepted the use of references, so can we now move on? Can we now move to the suggestions by SirFozzie and One Night In Hackney 303. Thanks -- Domer48 12:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Traditional unionist, there was a number of references put forward, you have rejected them all. -- Domer48 13:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
“The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.” This is not only fact but is also policy. I suggest you read it, as it will clear this matter up for us all. -- Domer48 13:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
There is enough evidence to prove the sectarian nature of the OO. Traditional unionist you have not supplyed one counter claim to prove or disprove the references except to call it bigoted, biased and nationalist propaganda, so I feel we should go with the suggestion made by SirFozzie. BigDunc 13:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
You have provided the qualifications of an orangeman. There is no doubt that these could be reinterpreted as sectarian, but that does not make it true. It is verifiable that some (eg Farrell) think it is sectarian, that does not make it true. You cannot proffer opinions as facts. Traditional unionist 13:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that a historical section be added. This would improve the article, and would challenge the opinion in the Order only became overtly political around the issue of Parnell. I would suggest also that there should be a section on the Battle of the diamond, as I have a number of opposing views? I am again confining myself to the discussion page and will only put forward references. -- Domer48 21:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Traditional unionist I was under the impression that you accepted the use of references. Your selective attitude is disappointing. I can only refer you to my edit on the use of sources, and hope you will accept the policies as outlined. -- Domer48 13:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
None of the proposals show what we are meaning by inserting the word "sectarian", just getting the word in with some references. If we are saying that they exclude catholics then we should say this without the word because of the negative connotations of "sectarian". We cannot ignore the fact that it is frequently described as sectarian, as well as the fact that this carries negative conotations and therefore presents the order negatively. Therefore, if this is what we are trying to say, I propose adding the following after the second sentance in the "Requirements for entry" section:
Because of this, the institution is sometimes labelled as sectarian, a term that carries negative connotation.
Thus, it would read:
Members are required to be Protestant with a belief in the Trinity. This excludes Catholics, Unitarians and certain other Christian denominations and all non-Christians. Because of this, the institution is often labelled as sectarian, a term that carries negative connotation. Most jurisdictions require both the spouse and parents of potential applicants to be Protestant, although the Grand Lodge can be appealed to make exceptions for converts. Members of the Order face the threat of expulsion for attending any Catholic religious ceremonies.
We could add references to show this labelling if necessary, although I don't think it is. Does this sound acceptable? Logoistic 13:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Logoistic for your contribution to the discussion. It is both constructive and reasonable, and will help expand the “Requirements for entry” section. This discussion however, is dealing with the lead section on the article, and as such, the use of the term “sectarian,” is to portray the negative connotation implied. Is that not what all the references have suggested, and stated. Since you yourself show in your alternative “the institution is often labelled as sectarian.” I imagine you know what connotation is “often” implied, when it is used. -- Domer48 19:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
"Thus the idea that sectarianism was an artificial invention of the government moved back into fashion. Sectarianism was certainly encouraged by the authorities in some areas, especially through the Orange Order; but it was not invented." R. F. Foster, The Irish Story, Penguin Books, England, 2002. I do not like to quote this book, because the author is a revisionist, but is accepted by anti-nationalists (bought it third hand). But even he is not being messing with his words. The OO is considered sectarian. -- Domer48 20:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I have talked with Traditional Unionist, and he let me know he had no problem with the sentence discussed here on the talk page. Therefore, I have added it to the article.
Since the page is still protected for a bit longer, let's take advantage of the chance to get it all out now, so there's no further edit warring later. Does anyone have any problem with the article as it now stands? SirFozzie 02:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
No I am not happy with the lead surprise surprise who are the opponents of the OO? And if we are going to be pedantic on the use of negative connotations what about fraternal is that not a positive connotation? Should the article not be neutral? BigDunc 10:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
And again acording to definition I provided Sectarian is Factual. BigDunc 13:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe this section is relevant to the discussion Aatomic1 14:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
..."or neutrally cite an actual credible person or body that has used that term ("X says Y")." Cant see a problem with getting refs for this. BigDunc 14:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Aatomic1 if you read BigDunc's contrabution, you will notice that they quote from WP:Words to avoid. If you read my contrabution, you will notice that the word sectarian is in inverted commas. Which means that it is a quoted by someone. As to the rest of your reasoning, are you suggesting that unless the OO describe themselves as sectarian, no one else can? It has been agreed that "sectarian" is going in, all we are discussing is how it should be phrased. -- Domer48 17:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Traditional unionistthats a compleatly different discussion. Lets stick to this article, and get this out of the way first shall we. I would again remind you to be civil, and do not make statements you can not back up. How do you feel about my suggestion? -- Domer48 21:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Traditional unionist on your talk page you have agreed that it should appear in the lead, and that it should include that the Order rejects this. [5] So I would ask again, is my suggested wording ok, “The Orange Order is considered to be a ‘sectarian’ organisation by many outside the Order,” as I consider that it covers both points you have made. -- Domer48 08:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Logoistic your wording is fine, for the section it is in “Requirements for Entry,” however we are dealing with the “Lead” section. The “Lead” section is supposed to be a synopsis of the article. The synopsis we have agreed must contain the “sectarian” reference/s, as it forms an important part of the article. What we are trying to decide is how we word it in the “Lead,” which accurately reflects the references, but also points out that the order rejects this. (To date, no citation has been provided, which reflects this rejection, but that’s another matter) The only possible conclusion I can determine is that you consider that it should not be addressed in the lead? As to SirFozzie’s suggestion, BigDunc has pointed out that the references used, are not opponents of the Order, therefore the use of the word "opponents" is not appropriate. -- Domer48 15:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
michael Farrell isn't an opponent of the Orange? Traditional unionist 16:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
There are many quotes now apart from Farrell’s, not that his should be dismissed. The fixation on Farrell is I consider disingenuous.
“The order survived many bannings, its reinstatement often as the result of noble insistence, and was to play a significant part in Ulster politics and sectarian violence thereafter…The titular and persistent tribute to William III is ironic in light of his known non-sectarian views.” Sean McMahon, A Short History of Ireland, Mercier Press, 1996, Dublin, ISBN 1 85635 137 8.
“…that evening the victorious protestants established an ‘Orange Society” to protect their own immediate interests and to maintain the protestant ascendancy. During the next few months the Roman Catholics of Armagh and the neighbouring counties were subjected to a violent persecution, which drove thousands of them to take refuge in Connaught.” J. C. Beckett, The Making of Modern Ireland 1603-1923, Faber and Faber, London, 1966, SBN 571 09267 5.
I consider that it has now been established beyond question, that the Order is sectarian. Sectarian in its broadest sense. Not one citation has been proffered to refute this, and still the discussion goes on. Now the question remains, is my suggested wording acceptable, or should we go for a more illuminating description of the Orders sectarianism. -- Domer48 17:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
To date there has been 12 references put forward to illustrate the the inclusion of the line “The Orange Order is considered to be a ‘sectarian’ organisation by many outside the Order.” No cited sources have been put forward to refute them. This line should go in. -- Domer48 20:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, I can't agree. let me copy a section for you from the Words to Avoid page.
Such terms often convey to readers an implied viewpoint — that of the "outsider looking in and labelling as they see it". The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it is pejorative or inflammatory in nature.
It's often a good idea to avoid terms that appear biased or may be perceived so by some notable group, even if technically they aren't. A more neutral wording is preferable and can be found by careful thought. Often an easy way to do this is to describe rather than label, or neutrally cite an actual credible person or body that has used that term ("X says Y").
Let's find that more neutral wording and use that careful thought. SirFozzie 20:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
So after the word “fraternal organisation” we could include the following “although according to a number of historians, academics, authors and journalists the Order is considered to be a “sectarian organisation.” Bearing in mind that we could put a reference beside each group of people who say it to denote the comment. So A, B, C, and D say it though E dose not. -- Domer48 20:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
SirFozzie the references above 12 according to Domer48 have they not shown that the term is used by a lot of people are they not encompassed in ...neutrally cite an actual credible person or body that has used that term ("X says Y"). or are you saying that they are not neutral? BigDunc 20:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
ONIH that is some link, and is just the icing on the cake. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are its a ... -- Domer48 20:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
So know we have insiders outsiders a lot of siders yet it can not be said on WP. Great link ONIH BigDunc 21:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Dunc, watch it. There are guidelines on WP, and I'm doing my best to keep everyone inside those guidelines. I'm not saying it can't be said, I'm saying it has to be said and cited properly.
(edit conflicted comment)
BigDunc: What I'm trying to avoid is saying "Others Say X" in the article. Domer's suggestion would be better. It cites WHO says WHAT about the Orange Instituion. "Irish Historian So-And-So stated that the Institution was sectarian in his book, "My Book"." for example.
ONiH: I have no problem with that, but I would also suggest that we look into adding in the quotes that show (apparently) the head of the Orange Institution softening it's anti-Catholic edge, and also that it considers itself as "Sectarian as the Bank of Scotland". SirFozzie 21:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
SirFozzie if it is not too much of an imposition, could you, based on the accumulating amount of references, put together a sentence similar to your last one. If the words not and barge pole are in the answer I would understand. I also have a problem fraternal, its not cited, and based on the run around we’ve had, at least one would be nice? -- Domer48 21:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure. New Section coming up! SirFozzie 21:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
QUESTION can the leader of the OO change the constitution without discussing with it's members? BigDunc 21:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
How about a sentence like the following in the lead. "In recent years, the Orange Institution has attempted to soften its Anti-Catholic edge (insert reference to that UPI article above), in an attempt to shed the view that it was inherently sectarian (insert reference to the article above where the head of the Grand Order of the range Institution in Scotland said "Yes it's sectarian, but as sectarian as the Church of Scotland") replacing the current one that's in there. Would that help? SirFozzie 21:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
1. It needs to demonstrate the fact that lots of people label/have labelled it "sectarian". This means detatching it from the article persona by explicitly highlighting an outside.
2. It needs to show what it means by sectarian (and the only definition that would get in is that it is protestant-only, and has been anti-Catholic). To remove the negative connotation from the article's persona I have suggested we need to explicilty highlight the context with which it is defined (hence my own proposal "This excludes Catholics, Unitarians and certain other Christian denominations and all non-Christians. Because of this, the institution is often labelled as sectarian,..."). I furthered this by highlighting that the negative connotation is there ("...a term that carries negative connotation"), but is not directly linked to the facts that the order excludes non-protestants. In other words, it is not fact that the order is "bigotted".
I know my proposal wasn't supposed to go in the lead, but it is easilly transferred. Logoistic 23:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I think your suggested wording is coming very close to what we are looking for here. Particularly “owing to its history and rules.” Your references though, could be taken either way, and I would be concerned that down the road they would be challenged. One only has to look at the reaction to my references. -- Domer48 18:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Serious question, that is the extent of the POV being pushed here by the usual nationalist tag team. If the team are putting up links claiming that the order is sectarian and then insist on its inclusion in an article, than can other editors produce links that insist the IRA were murderers and insist that that POV is included? Conypiece 17:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Ae you Conypiece asking editors to form a team this is against WP guidelines disruptive editing BigDunc 17:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks SirFozzie. -- Domer48 17:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Totally agree SirFozzie. BigDunc 17:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, Conypiece, let me explain what I'm trying to do, so hopefully we can ratchet down the rhetoric. In this latest flap over the word Sectarian, we had a previous discussion and it was agreed that we would not use the word "others", because that's too nebulous. One of the problems with these series of articles is that yes, both sides have a PoV that is wildly divergent from the others point of view. In this case, the folks who want to see that sentence in the lead have provided references (note, that works both ways, did you see I posted a possible reference that states the Order's head in Scotland has removed several anti-catholic things from the Order's charter, which led me to trying to add a bit in the lead about them softening their anti-catholic edge). What we are trying to do is be both clear and concise.
Would you prefer something like.. Opponents of the Orange Insitution have charged that the Institution is Sectarian, due to its goals and banning of Roman Catholic members, a charge the Institution denies as a whole, but the head of the Orange Institution in Scotland, Ian Wilson used the term to describe the Institution (comparing it to the Church of Scotland) with a link to this article. [ [11] SirFozzie 18:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
(changed the title)... here's the quote from the source.
The Grand Master also made the controversial admission that his organisation is "sectarian" - but defended its right to exist. He said: "I take a very ‘reformed’ stance - we stand for civil and religious liberty. "The order is a broad church, open to anybody who accepts Christ as saviour, and accepts scripture as the sole rule of faith. "OK, we’re ‘sectarian’ - just as is the Church of Scotland, in the sense of being people all of one mind - like Roman Catholics. "But that’s not anti-Catholic, it’s not bigotry. I genuinely welcome the contribution the Irish, say, have made to this country.
SirFrozzie, the word “Opponents,” who are they? The only references we have used are historians, academics, Journalists and Authors/Solicitors/Civil Rights Leaders. We could hardly describe them as “Opponents.” -- Domer48 19:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Could I again suggest this “The Orange Order is considered to be a ‘sectarian’ organisation by many outside the Order.”We are going to get to the finer points in the article in anyway. Logoistic proposel will be in the lead of the “Requirements for entry” section. There is also my suggestion on the "Historical Background," were additional information can be added. We all agree after all that ‘sectarian’ is going in the "Lead." -- Domer48 19:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair point One Night In Hackney 303 and is backed up with references. How about this "The Orange Order is considered to be 'sectarian' by many outside the Order, however this is an accusation rejected by some within the Institution." -- Domer48 20:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Please Traditional unionist, lets remain civil, and try to move forward. What do you think of my suggestion. -- Domer48 21:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I was going to suggest that in the main space [12], but you are right about Drumcree. It has for the past ten years been such a major issue. -- Domer48 21:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Traditional unionist, your references say between 40-50,000. Hardly hundreds of thousands. One Night In Hackney 303 is right to ask for references. How about the suggestion? I might be rejected by others, it is only a suggestion after all. -- Domer48 21:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
SirFozzie's edit in the lead would be ok with me if, like Domer's suggestions, sectarian is put in speech marks (the single ones 'i.e.'). This is virtually the same as Domer's, plus includes details of the context it is used. TU seems to agree with it, I do, and I think Domer does. Any objections to leaving it with this small change? Also, there seems no objections to my proposal in the main article. So SirFozzie - can we make these changes please? Logoistic 10:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
ONIH is right about the scare quotes, never thought about that. There had been a link to the sectarian article, and that should be there also. I still have a problem with the use of the word 'Opponents' because the references would not consider themselves as such. -- Domer48 11:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The Traditional unionist has missed everyone elses point most noteably his own..His defence of his partisan views and his retardation of the subject is as he would put it "nonsense".. Breen32 15:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Well for starters the RUC was a notorious sectarian so called law inforcement group,which was made up at one stage by over 95% of your unionist brethern-do you see any link? shall i go further.. Breen32 17:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
since when are bare relavent facts known as outbursts..?are you in the dark about your own history..?Or is it everyone elses fault that the unionist population held the monoply on being a member of the RUC.. Breen32 19:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Could other Editors put forward their suggestions, and we can discuss it below them? -- Domer48 18:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
We have a proposed wording. It includes the fact that opponents of the order regard it as sectarian, sectarian being a quote from these opponents. Traditional unionist 19:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Traditional unionist instead of starting another song and dance, put some wording under mine which you consider would cover the matter. Because you are just knocking any suggestion at the moment. -- Domer48 19:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Well put it under mine, if its there on the table. -- Domer48 19:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Can editors put forward their suggestions, thanks. -- Domer48 08:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The orgins of unionism is scottish settlers sent to Ireland to farm the land,and essentially remove or control the native people by means of military support and aggression,this in todays terms would be classed as ethnic cleansing..this is with out doubt pure and utter sectarianism from one group of people to another.. Breen32 11:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
One Night In Hackney 303 the point has been made a number of times now, Traditional unionist is dead set agaings reason, we should all move on, and put forward suggestions. -- Domer48 14:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not rejecting everything. I am happy with the form of words as it stands, provided the quote is properly attributed as such. ONiH, try googling Australian Brehon Law Society. I think the results will show all they need to about the neutrality of that organisation. Very little evidence that it exists, and all there is is in SF propaganda. Traditional unionist 19:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Traditional unionist you have provided nothing, no source, no citation and no verifiable information for any of your views. All you have provided is your opinion. Now, provide verifiably referenced sources that say that the sources that have been provided are Nationalist propaganda, Republican propaganda, Biased, Bigoted, or just plain wrong. As far as I’m concerned, this part of the discussion is over. There are now two suggestions on the table, if editors wish to add more please do so, and let us get on with it.-- Domer48 20:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The Orange Institution, more commonly known as the Orange Order, is a Protestant fraternal organisation based predominantly in Northern Ireland and Scotland with lodges throughout the Commonwealth and the United States. It was founded in Loughgall, County Armagh, Ireland in 1795; its name is a tribute to Dutch-born Protestant king of England, William III, of the House of Orange-Nassau. It is suggested by both contemporary and historical commentators that the Orange Order is a sectarian organisation, a view endorsed by one of its leading members in Scotland.
Can we look at the wording and offer suggestions. Not opinions on the use of the word sectarian, that has been well covered and discussed by Editors. -- Domer48 21:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Done. -- Domer48 21:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes that looks good to me. BigDunc 21:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The final sentence is stuffed with POV. This does not stand up. Traditional unionist 22:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Traditional unionist the final sentence is cited, verifiable and reliably sourced. You opinion has not. -- Domer48 22:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It is cited, it is not verifiable and is certainly not reliably sourced. One out of three isn't good enough. Traditional unionist 23:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
lets make it one out of four... Breen32 00:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Brendan O'Leary, advisor to Kevin McNamara and Mo Mowlam, two of the most pro Nationalist Labour NI spokespeople in history. Australian politician, made his pronouncements on behalf of an obscure law society with clear links to Catholic Ireland. Michael Farrell, a well known Nationalist. You can't claim these people's opinions as facts, they are clearly not neutral, they all have a clear POV. Traditional unionist 08:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
If they are not neutral-then will you explain their point of view.. Breen32 09:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe Mo Mowlan and Kevin Mc Namara are just far too sensible and have proven them selfs reasonable beyond doubt for you to see them as anything else but non neutral..Academics such as them surely cant be that pro nationalist as to your POV..Why are you so unreasonable when you wont provide refrenses.. Breen32 20:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
This discussion has gone on long enough with
USER:Traditional unionist not providing any sources or references to back up his claim dispite 12 references been given for the proposal.
The text in the lead that has been put forward is this;
The Orange Institution, more commonly known as the Orange Order, is a Protestant fraternal organisation based predominantly in Northern Ireland and Scotland with lodges throughout the Commonwealth and the United States. It was founded in Loughgall, County Armagh, Ireland in 1795; its name is a tribute to Dutch-born Protestant king of England, William III, of the House of Orange-Nassau. It is suggested by both contemporary and historical commentators that the Orange Order is a sectarian organisation, a view endorsed by one of its leading members in Scotland.
References will be added when this is put in to the article. BigDunc 09:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Over ten references have been provided, Traditional unionist, has only provided comment, opinion and no references. This is not a content dispute, Traditional unionist is just being disruptive. -- Domer48 10:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
And regardless the references are there, you have supplied nothing but opinion. BY THE WAY, everyone involved is being checkUsered, including you. So your point is? Exactly, you are devoid of anything other than opinion, and none of that is referenced. -- Domer48 11:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
When you have dug yourself into a hole, my advice is stop digging [13]. As part of the ArbCom, I do not need to provide evidence, you'll be check usered anyway. O and by the way, "It is suggested" is not "trying to have that referenced as fact." Breen32 is a sock of BigDunc, but BigDunc is a sock of Domer48, but Breen32 is not Domer48, ye right. And still no admin steps in to say, you requesting a CheckUser as a reference to back up your lack of sources, just dose not work. -- Domer48 11:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} In the last sentence of the lead, please change "Opponents" to "Observers". Despite repeated requests, no sources have been provided to prove the sources are "Opponents". One Night In Hackney 303 13:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Editprotected requests are only intended for completely uncontroversial changes, not ones like this that are related to the reason for protection. Please discuss the issues here rather than asking uninvolved admins to join the dispute. I have no opinion on the merits of this proposed change; it's a general policy not to make changes to protected pages that have any significant chance of being disputed. — Carl (
CBM ·
talk)
13:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Please add {{fact|date=September 2007}} after "Opponents" in the last sentence of the lead. That way we need a verifiable reliable source provided, and if it is not provided the word has to go, at some point. One Night In Hackney 303 13:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Political links and related organizations
"The Order first became overtly political during Charles Stewart Parnell's campaign for Home Rule in the 1880s"
citation needed This information is wrong, the Order has been "overtly political," since it founding. Please place the tag, and I'll provide the references which will correct this misinformation.--
Domer48
13:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I have not asked for it to be removed yet. When I do remove it, it will be replaced with references. -- Domer48 13:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Controversy
"Its spokespeople and supporters describe the Orange Order as a pious organisation, celebrating Protestant culture and identity, but it is accused of sectarianism and anti-Catholicism."
citation needed
This information is unreferenced, reference can be provided, but an Admin suggests concensus is required to do so. Unreferenced material can be challanged and removed, I'd like to place references. --
Domer48
13:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I am struggling to see any consensus. Might I suggest WP:RTP to allow any neutral observer with a short attention span to form an opinion. Aatomic1 13:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Aatomic1 please remaine civil. -- Domer48 13:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
England
"Most English lodges are based in the Liverpool area, including Toxteth. An estimated 4,000 Orangemen, women and children parade in Liverpool and Southport every 12 July, watched by tens[citation needed] of thousands more."
No references have been provided, therefore it should be removed.--
Domer48
13:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} The Twelfth Main article: The Twelfth "The highlights of the Orange year are the parades leading up to the celebrations on the Twelfth of July. The Twelfth however remains a deeply divisive issue, not least because of allegations of triumphalism and anti-Catholicism against the Orange Order in the conduct of its Walks and criticism of its alleged behaviour towards Roman Catholics."
I would like placed fact tags / citation tag after the words "allegations" and "alleged." My question being who is making these allagations?-- Domer48 12:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
How would I go about merging Orange Walk into this article. And why not merge The Twelfth while we at it, this would make the whole article more comprehensive? -- Domer48 13:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
This is nothing of the sort, please do not cause anymore trouble.-- Domer48 13:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
You have said "is probably similar to AFD," and opposed it regardless of knowing what it entails? -- Domer48 13:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Well now were getting somewhere. So you agree with a merge of Orange Walk then. -- Domer48 13:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there any admins looking at this article who are brave enough to step up to the breach and stop one editor holding this article to ransom thanks. At this rate this article will be blocked forever. BigDunc 13:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Lets not go down that road, shall we [15]. -- Domer48 13:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Hadn't noticed that, thanks! Traditional unionist 13:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Glad I could help [16]. -- Domer48 13:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
You have provided opinion, not evidence, there is a difference. -- Domer48 13:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The section below shows what your up against, Blank, there will be no sources or references added to it. -- Domer48 13:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Could you please put the refs,sources or what ever you claim to have brought to this disscusion. I would ask other editors not to post to this section on till after TU has posted. BigDunc 13:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I am about to ask for the page unprotecting on RFPP. However before I do so I would like an agreement that there will be no edit warring. I require the page unprotecting so I can add tags to certain contentious sentences, I am not planning on making any other changes. Everyone agree? One Night In Hackney 303 13:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Traditional unionist is not holding this page to ransom, based soly on their opinion. The section above is evidence enough of that. Full of their references. Work away ONIH, and let Admin deal with TU if they cause disruption. -- Domer48 14:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
As I have explained, editprotected requests on this page are unlikely to be fulfilled. Please stop trying to involve admins in the dispute here. If you cannot come to consensus about the content of the article by discussion here, consider mediation. I don't expect any admin will be willing to edit the page because while the content is still a subject of active dispute. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 20:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I see the sources Traditional unionist claim exists to cite the required text have not yet been added to the article. Perhaps Traditional unionist would either like to add them to the article now, or list them below so another editor can do it? Simply saying you've produced them already is no longer acceptable, I'd like them adding to the article please. One Night In Hackney 303 22:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok then, could you provide the reference for "Opponents."? So we can just get that out of the way? Thanks -- Domer48 15:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Your rational, now the reference? Thanks -- Domer48 16:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I really don't have time for this nonsense. Some of those do need referenced, but others, when removed, make the piece read like a Sinn Fein manifesto. I will look for some references when I get a moment. Traditional unionist 13:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The ones that dont I left all the rest reads like an OO love in just because you dont like what the truth is about the OO you can not leave un sourced pieces in the article. BigDunc 14:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Traditional Unionist, either provide references, or the claims can't remain in the article.-- Padraig 14:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Please can editors stop edit warring, and discuss this issue. I have issued WP:3RR warnings to two editors, and further edit warring is likely to lead to blocks and possibly to the protection of the article.
If the discussion cannot be resolved through discussion, trying some of the further steps suggested at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Traditional unionist read WP:ATT and WP:RS BigDunc 14:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Do not patronize me. Please read WP:BURO Traditional unionist 14:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I would not dream of patronising you just showing you the error of your ways. BigDunc 14:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Pity your refs aren't. BigDunc 15:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
You've managed to destroy my afternoon's study - and now I have to go to work. I'll be hoking out a few books tonight and coming back with more tomorrow. Traditional unionist 15:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
This article might benefit from {{ TOCleft}}. Rich Farmbrough, 17:51 2 October 2007 (GMT).
There is a proposal being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles/Proposed_decision#Just_a_heads_up by various admins and parties to the ongoing ArbCom case that would limit the editors to 1 revert/week (not counting reverts of anonymous IP addresses) I don't want anyone to miss it, because if it gets put through and someone gets blocked for breaking it, I don't want any complaining about "I didn't know about it!" SirFozzie 18:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Padraig: I'm not the one who decided, so I'm not going to be the one to wheel war (well, sorta wheel war, but I have faith in the judgement of Alison and BrownHairedGirl as well). Also, it was recognized by both admins that it took two to tango. So rather then block them BOTH, one final warning. SirFozzie 19:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
It can’t be explained! One of the main problems is the lack of consistency on how policies are applied. We had the ridiculous situation already, were having provided multiple references, we are told to go of and find consensus. Never mind the fact that one editor, refused to cite sources for their opinion. The equation is as follows Comment + Opinion - References = Article Lock (Need Consensus). I have raised this before, some editors prefer article locks! Why not as part of this solution, impose blocks as opposed to articles being locked, that is what was proposed in the last ArbCom I was involved in? Look at this recent situation, Dunc removes unreferenced material which had been tagged, TU replaces it. And this is an edit war? That "two to tango" is BS, no offence intended Fozz. -- Domer48 19:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Fozie I have asked TU to provide sources for the OO article umpteen times all you have to do is look at the talk page and here and he has failed to do so. He seems to want to have page protection on this article which always seems to be on the page he reverts too. BigDunc 19:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Yet its now being proposed to put all editors on 1RR per week because one editor can't provide references to support his POV editing, and reverts attempts to remove unsourced material with edit summaries such as this and this.-- Padraig 19:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Locking an article is not something done lightly, I agree. Usually, when two editors go to war over an articlem it's better to give cool-off blocks to the warriors rather then lock the article, because someone not involved in the edit war might come in and improve it. With this many folks involved, locks are sometimes better to get ALL the editors to calm down. Didn't work here, agreed. And just to explain where I'm coming from on this, with the amount of bad feeling that's going on, it's always good to show that you went the extra mile to try to resolve conflicts without edit-warring. It's less likely to piss of the admin who shows up later, ;) SirFozzie 19:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Fozzie is right: go the extra mile. You all know how these edit wars start, and there are plenty of things that editors on both sides could have done to stop the situation escalating. I'm not saying that they would necessarily have worked, but it is important to try them.
I can see were you are coming from but are the tags not indication that an editor is going to make a change after a period of time. I felt it would be pointless to ask TU about it as he would have churned out the same responses he has given the last 4 weeks or so since I came in to contact with him on this article. And he would not have done anything different he would have reverted no matter what. But I have learned from this episode. BigDunc 21:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Could not have put it better Padraig that is exactly what he wanted page protected on his POV again. BigDunc 21:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that Padraig may well be right that if TU had been asked again for the refs, they would not have been forthcoming. That is being cited as a justification for not trying, but I think that it's exactly the opposite: it's a very good reason why you should have tried. (Yes, I know hindsight is 20-20 etc, but we're in lesson-learning mode) If he had been asked again, there were two possibilities: either he provided the refs, in which case you could move on (if only to assessing them), or he didn't, in which case it would have been entirely reasonable of you to say something along the lines of "do it soon, or it will be reverted". That way you could now be demonstrating that you really had exhausted efforts to resolve things, and that would be clear to any admin coming to the article. And that's what you need if you want admins in this territory to take actions other than the neutral steps of warning both sides or protecting the article: you need to demonstrate not just that the other party is wrong, but that you really have tried to avoid another conflict. I certainly would not like to bet that we will not now have the same situation in a week. But I do allow myself to hope that if there is still an impasse in a week's time, that it won't have become an edit war. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I was talking about dialogue before removing the contested material. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Should it not have been the case that TU, rather than reverting, gone of and got the references and then place the information back into the article. After all, they went and added unreferenced material back into an article, which had been clearly tagged. Would it be at all possible to stop refering to this issue as an edit war, because that is simply not the case. And one more thing, will this article being locked address this problem? If not, it should be unlocked. -- Domer48 08:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I have been reviewing yesterday's edit war, and the deep frustration felt by editors on both sides of this argument. I would like to try to suggest a way forward.
I have already suggested that editors re-read Wikipedia:Resolving disputes and consider some of the options there, but I note that Wikipedia:Requests for mediation will not take on a dispute unless the editors involved have already started a discussion, though editors may want to consider seeking assistance from the informal mediation cabal.
However, I have been reviewing yesterday's edit war, and it occurred to me that one of the difficulties is that several contentious issues were under discussion at the same time. That makes hard to focus on solutions to particular points of contention.
So my suggestion is to:
Starting from the top of the article, the section on The Twelfth appears to have several points of contention:
I don't claim to have identified all the issues in that section, or even to have characterised them accurately. The editors involved here are the ones who need to identify the issues, and I am just trying to show how things could be broken down.
One thing stands out for me from this section: that the Orange and nationalist/republican perspectives on this issue have both identified a need for references for points which concern them, and yesterday's edit-war cycle involved editors from both sides fact-tagging points with which they disagreed, and removing fact tags from points which they thought were self-evident. It seems to me that both sides have some research to do.
As above, this is only a suggestion. If there is a better way forward, please use it! -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, as far as I could see, the entire paragraph for the Twelth needed referenced. It seems ludicrous to claim that it is more than an allegation that the event is sectarian etc. The BIRW report shows that it is an allegation. On the point of 90% of Orange parades being uncontentious, this is a truism in Northern Ireland, reported year after year on TV reports. I have provided two references for this, and in time I think I know where I can find one in a couple of academic works. Yet ONiH is intent on portraying a truism as fluid, as if the small parade in Ballinamalard (for example) will suddenly erupt in sectarian violence next year! Its daft.
Traditional unionist
12:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
(de-indent). I think that there are two issues here:
I have a question. Unreferenced material was removed yesterday - it is now clear that references for some of it was readily and easily available. Where is the line between someone who removes information that they cannot find references for, and someone who removes information which they for whatever reason choose not to look for the references? Surely the latter is vandalism? Traditional unionist 15:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you comment on this content dispute please? [17] Thanks, Valenciano 13:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
First Citation tag. Remove the word “allegations.” And also the word “alleged,” on the next line were the citation tag was removed. They are not allegations and they are not alleged. These references show this quite clearly. They are made up of both contemporary and historical sources. I have included most of the applicable paragraphs to dispel any notion of selectivity. The sources more than qualify as both reliable and verifiable, to be sure of it I have included some biographical information. -- Domer48 18:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
"Orangemen like to present their annual festival as a celebration of civil and religious liberty, expressing their cultural heritage and identity in a spectacle of marching enjoyed by all. The reality can be quite different. The parades that dominate the summer months often do so provocatively and selfishly without regard to the cost in terms of community relations or the public purse. Some of the marches are unmistakably triumphal. Participants see them as a continuing and vigorous manifestation of their Protestantism, Unionism and loyalty to the British Crown…The lodges’ insistence on marching anywhere at any time, and the bands’ habit of playing louder as they pass Catholic churches and neighbourhoods have helped to thwart any prospect of a mutually respectful relationship. In fact, Catholics see the Order as the all-powerful instrument through which they were consigned to second-class citizenship in Northern Ireland for decades after partition in 1922."
Reference Drumcree: The Orange Order’s Last stand, Chris Ryder and Vincent Kearney, Methuen,
ISBN
0 413 76260 2.
Chris Ryder is a freelance journalist writing regularly for publications including the Sunday Times and Irish Times, and was previously Northern Ireland correspondent for the Daily Telegraph. His previous books include Inside the Maze: The Untold Story of the Northern Ireland Prison Service and The RUC: A Force Under Fire.
Vincent Kearney is Northern Ireland correspondent for the Sunday Times, and formerly Political Correspondent for the Belfast Telegraph. He was Northern Ireland Journalist of the Year in 1995, and in 1996 he was a member of the Belfast Telegraph team who received the Northern Ireland All News Media award for coverage of the Drumcree stand-off and its aftermath.
"It has sometimes been difficult to discern such high-minded sentiments, for example when Orangemen triumphantly hold up five fingers as they parade past a spot where five Catholics were shot dead. Previous marching seasons have produced widespread disorder, and while other elements bear some responsibility for these disasters, it is the Order’s metronomic determination to march past hostile Catholic areas which has time and again occasioned serious disturbance. It was in fact ever thus, for throughout its two-century history the Order has left behind a trail of troubles… But it was Belfast which saw the worst of the violence with repeated riots during the marching season, most of them following Orange demonstrations, 2 major disturbances taking place between 1813 and 1886. Several of the Subsequent government inquiries showed that most of the city’s policemen were Orangemen. Six commissions of inquiry were set up to report on the causes of rioting. The reports of all six blamed two main factors, poor policing and Orange parades. One report said: “The celebration of that [Orange July] that is plainly and unmistakably the originating cause of these riots”, adding the occasion was used “to remind one party of the triumph of their ancestors over those of the other, and to inculcate the feelings of Protestant superiority over their Roman Catholic neighbours."
"Friction had developed because the marchers insisted on a age-old route homeward through what had now become a solidly Catholic district, Garvaghy Road. After protester stood quietly to allow the march past, as agreed, they were angered when local Ulster Unionist MP David Trimble said there had been no compromise and held hands aloft with the Reverend Ian Paisley to applause from Orangemen in the centre of Portadown."
Reference Through the Minefield, David McKittrick, Blackstaff Press, 1999, Belfast, ISBN 0 85640 652 x Parameter error in {{ ISBN}}: invalid character.
David McKittrick was named Correspondent of the Year by the BBC’s What the Papers Say in February 1999, and two months later was named Journalist of the Year in the Northern Ireland Press and Broad casting Awards. As Ireland correspondent of the London Independent since 1986, he has won several other media awards, as well as the Ewart-Biggs Memorial Prize for the promotion of peace and under standing in Ireland. A frequent broadcaster who has reported on Northern Ireland since 1973, this is the fourth collection of his journalism to be published by Blackstaff Press. He is co-author with Eamonn Mallie of the 1996 book The Fight for Peace.
Well you know how I feel then Helenalex I have been asking TU for 4 weeks to ref this article all to know joy. BigDunc 14:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok then, so we can take out the words “alleged” and “allegations.” Because they are not allegations and they are not alleged, but verifiable facts. While TU considers that "it isn't enough to take the word allegations out," they do conceed, that it "is verifiable...that there have been instances of insensitivity and wrong doing" and "there are well known examples of wrongdoing by so called Orangemen." Helenalex there are two references there in that section on "The Twelfth" after " most Orange parades however had passed off peacefully and without incident," and two more will not hurt, thanks for that. So that should address TU's point on it not being a "hate fest," and is in the same paragraph. So can we go along with my proposed wording for this section as shown in the sandbox -- Domer48 17:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I very much afraid that is not an acceptable response to the reasonable discussion we are having. First, you accept the validity of the references! Therefore the words “alleged” and “allegations” are gone. Your comment that it “simply isn't encyclopaedic” is nonsensical. As to “it simply makes a POV statement and leaves it at that,” is absurd, I’m removing the POV from the statements. If you wish to broaden the section, by all means do so, all I ask is that you reference it. Please no more blog sites. Now I would just make one more point here before we move on. TU no more comment and opinion, as evidenced by your last contribution. We on this article are attempting to move things along. This is not going to be allowed to drag on this time! The references are their, I provided them, move on shall we? -- Domer48 19:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
To help editors trying to reach consensus on creating a consensus version of the article, I have created a copy of the latest version of the article, at Talk:Orange Institution/sandbox. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad that people are starting to work constructively. Before particular sentences get set in concrete ('we agreed on this exact wording!') it seems to me that the particularly contentious sentences have become extremely awkward, and also that it makes no sense to have the Twelfth section seperate from - and on a different part of the page from! - the section on parades. I've done a sandbox fix of both issues at Talk:Orange Institution/sandbox/Helenalex. Where multiple footnotes exist for one sentence, I've run them together so that all the references are in the one footnote. This looks a lot better, imo. -- Helenalex 21:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
That seems fine with me User:Helenalex/sandbox/OrangeInstitution, lets see what others think? -- Domer48 09:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Helenalex , can we move on to my suggestion on the Political links and related organizations section, while the others review your proposel? It should be a simple enough one, the ref's are there? -- Domer48 09:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like to have this sentence changed:
The Order first became overtly political during Charles Stewart Parnell's campaign for Home Rule in the 1880s. citation needed
This is clearly patent nonsense, as these references will attest. I would propose changing the sentence to:
The Order, from its very inception was an overtly political organisation.
References:
"The Protestant only Orange Order, established in the I 790s to carry out sectarian warfare against the Catholic Defenders in the countryside, functioned as a shadow government that enforced the rules of Ulster’s religious caste system. Its sprawling network of lodges controlled private sector hiring and public sector services. The extent of the discrimination was clear at Harland & Wolff shipyards in Belfast, where there were only 225 Catholics in a work force of three thousand in 1 887.
The Protestants of the Orange Order understood that this blatant discrimination would not continue if a Dublin-based legislature were established. So, speaking the language they believed Britain would understand, they argued that Home Rule would be Rome rule, that in a self-governing Ireland, they would be subjected to the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church. Seeing a chance to win support for his Conservative Party, Lord Randolph Churchill told colleagues that “the Orange card would be the one to play.'"
Reference: For the Cause of Liberty, Terry Golway, Touchstone, 2000, ISBN 0 684 85556 9
"But that same night a body of magistrates, squires, squireens, and parsons in County Armagh met together and formed the Mother Lodge of the Orange Society. Under a pretext of zeal for law, order, and the Protestant religion an oath-bound secret society on the Masonic model was organised, which, in practice, proved a fomenting centre, as well as a cloak of protection, for the organised knavery into which the Peep-of-Day Boys had degenerated. The Orange Order became an organised conspiracy of all the most de generate reactionaries of every social strata—an instrument whereby the lumpen strata were used as tools to break up the solidarity engendered by the United Irish men, and to replace the struggle for democratic advance by disintegrating it into an embittered war of sect against sect, from which the only ones to profit were the dare Beresford clique in Dublin Castle and their hangers-on of every social grade. In evaluting the Orange Society it must not be forgotten that the bodies it was founded to disrupt and destroy—the United Irishmen and the Defenders—functioned, the one as a great liberating force, and the other as a tenants’ protection league and an agrarian trade union. The Orange lodges functioned as a “union-smashing” force, operating in the interest of an oligarchical clique threatened with overthrow by a revolutionary-democratic advance. They constituted the first Fascist body known in history."
Reference: Ireland Her Own, T. A. Jackson, Lawrence & Wishart, London, First published in 1947, Reprinted 1971, 1973, 1976, 1985 and 1991, ISBN 0 85315 735 9
"However, this very fact brought home to the government the extreme seriousness of the United Irish threat and military measures were immediately taken against the secret society in its stronghold among the Presbyterians and Catholics of Ulster. The ruthless way in which the army now conducted its search for arms and information was remarkably successful and by the end of 1797 the conspiracy in that part of Ireland was virtually broken. A not inconsiderable factor in the breaking of it was a reversion on the part of many Protestants to their old sectarian ways under the auspices of the recently founded Orange Society."
Reference: Ireland A History, Robert Kee, Abacus, First published 1982 Revised edition published 2003, 2004 and 2005, ISBN 0 349 11676 8
"In Armagh, there was a pitched battle in September 1795 between Protestant and Catholic groups. The Defenders were overwhelmed. Following this fight, a new extra-parliamentary body was founded, the Orange Society, which later changed its name to the Orange Order The aim of the Society was to maintain what its members no longer trusted the parliament to do, and it defined its loyalty in a distinctly conditional way: ‘to support and defend the King and his heirs as long as he or they support the Protestant Ascendancy’. Many Catholics living in mainly Protestant districts were forcibly driven out, most of them finding refuge in Connacht. Those who remained trusted to the Defenders to keep the roofs over their heads."
Reference: Ireland History of a Nation, David Ross, Geddes & Grosset, Scotland, First published 2002, Reprinted 2005 & 2006, ISBN 10: 1 84205 164 4
From it’s inception the Orange Order has been politically motivated! That motivation has been 'overtly political.' That they were encouraged and supported by a political party would mean that the Order was involved in parliamentary politics befor the time of Parnell. -- Domer48 14:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Helenalex, could you possible suggest a book which would be the polar opposite of the T. A. Jackson book. Or something which would refute his claims? -- Domer48 15:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
HelenalexI have placed the referenced text into this section. I don't think this comes down to how we define 'political,' butsimply going by what the sources say. I have removed one of the references, on your advice, and not because I have a problem with it. -- Domer48 13:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Has any editor found a citation for what is required in this section if not I intend to remove them. BigDunc 17:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Never said that is what I am going to do I have refs for this but will wait till Monday to give you time. BigDunc 19:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually the references are there to remove the words Traditional unionist, and to keep them there would be POV! There gone on Monday. -- Domer48 16:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
What you have done is an utter disgrace. You have pushed nationalist POV into an encyclopedic article, thus discrediting the entire project. Well done. Traditional unionist 11:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Grow up. Traditional unionist 12:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Traditional Unionist, find references to fix what you think is wrong, rather then complaining about it here.-- Padraig 13:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Traditional unionistI would yet again remind you to remain civil, and cease to engage in personal attacks on editors. I would also strongly recommend you read the talk page guidelines. Your edits appear now to be disruptive in order to simply make a point. Stop now! Cite policies to illustrate your point, opinion dose not count. -- Domer48 13:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
If it is your intension to have the article locked again, I would strongly suggest you think again. You have had amply opportunity to reference material, and have flatly refused to do so. Though, you have found time to edit war. Stop now! -- Domer48 13:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
It's good to see that the bickering seems to have stopped and constructive things are now being done with this page. It was about time a history section was added. Having said that, I'm wondering if it's maybe a bit too long for this page? Perhaps there should be a History of the Orange Institution page, which could include more info, and a shorter version on this page. -- Helenalex ( talk) 01:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
"Of the approximately 700 Orange Halls in Northern Ireland, 282 have been targeted by nationalist arsonists" (emphasis added). Source says "There are 700 Orange halls across Ireland. Since the Troubles began, 282 have been targeted by arsonists". Let's stick to what sources say, instead of pretending the OO don't torch their own halls for the insurance money or to gain sympathy. One Night In Hackney 303 15:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
How do editors feel about archiving some of this talk page. Here is a link on different methods. Any suggestions welcome. -- Domer48 ( talk) 21:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
This article raises serious NPOV issues.
Furthermore the article needs extensive wikifying and major editing, to conform to encyclopædic standards. FearÉIREANN\ (talk) 29 June 2005 23:44 (UTC)
I agree Helenalex, no problem with 'brethren' and its hard to make out what the other things are Setanta's concerned about? "it is surely not in the remit of Wikipedia to strengthen negatives about organisations or people?" We should not include negative information on the OO? -- Domer48 'fenian' 21:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Please do not remove referenced information, or alter the content of same. -- Domer48 ( talk) 15:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
TU I've been down this road with you already. Now do not distort referenced information. If you wish to challange this information, please provide a referenced source. Now there are three references on this, and none of them are Coogan's, if you like I can add one from him as well. Now do not distort this information. -- Domer48 ( talk) 17:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
TU, there are three references to back it up, I should know I added it. Now please do not alter the referenced information. -- Domer48 ( talk) 17:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
1 For the Cause of Liberty, Terry Golway, Touchstone, 2000,
ISBN
0-684-85556-9;
2. Ireland: A History, Robert Kee, Abacus, First published 1982 Revised edition published 2003, 2004 and 2005,
ISBN
0-349-11676-8;
3.Ireland History of a Nation, David Ross, Geddes & Grosset, Scotland, First published 2002, Reprinted 2005 & 2006, ISBN 10: 1 84205 164 4
BigDunc (
talk)
17:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Page numbers now provided. -- Domer48 ( talk) 17:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Now TU, even you would agree I was reserved in my edit. That I could add another couple of references is enough to suggest I have been restrained. Now would you like to have some of the quotes put in, or have I been correct in my edit -- Domer48 ( talk) 17:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow, you really have found three bigots. It is still not verifird that the Order is political. There are some historical inaccuracies in those quotes, and they are written in very POV language, not very good academic works if this is indicitive of what is in the rest of them! I'll do some reading after work tomorrow to get at some truth here, but you can take it as read that I'm not happy with this bile being presented as fact. Traditional unionist ( talk) 18:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
TU please, now there is no need for that. I have went to a little effort here for you, a simple thanks would have been enough. -- Domer48 ( talk) 18:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Terry Golway is City Editor and columnist at The New York Observer. He is also a frequent contributor to the Irish Echo, America, American Heritage, The Boston Globe, The New York Times, and other national publications. He is the author of Irish Rebel: John Devoy and America’s Fight for Ireland freedom and co-author of The Irish in America, a companion book to the award-winning PBS documentary series. Now what book is not correctly titled?-- Domer48 ( talk) 18:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
TU, I can see were this is going, and I'm not going to get into it with you. On Golway, you ommit The New York Observer, The Boston Globe, The New York Times, American Heritage. Now I have tried to be helpful. The discussion is over. -- Domer48 ( talk) 18:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Look, one of two things, I can pile a number of quotes onto that article which are supported by WP:V and WP:RS, in addition to the ones here, or I can walk away. Now I will walk away, because you have nothing left to offer this discussion. -- Domer48 ( talk) 18:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
You only here what you want to here. What I'm saying is, that I can reference everything that I add. I could references this over and over just to prove a point, but why should I. Your blinkers are never going to be of, so it makes no difference what I do. Now, go off and get yourself a couple of books, and add as much referenced text as you wish, but just don't edit war anymore. -- Domer48 ( talk) 18:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, as requested by the checkuser I was talking to, I have submitted a formal Check User request at RfCU. I would suggest that both sides take the next 24-48 hours off from any OI page edits (I don't want to block anyone from edit warring, and I don't want to lock out other editors from possibly improving the article), while that works, and also to try to determine whether the sources satisfy NPOV (I can't say either way to it at the moment, I need a hell of a lot more free time then what I have right now to check the sources). So let's all step back, no one has to protect pages, no one has to be blocked, and we improve the article. K? SirFozzie ( talk) 19:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Who is being Requests for checkusered AGAIN. TU asked for it before, and it showed I was not Dunc or Breen or Pappin. Now I have no problem with it, but an editor who deliberatly changes a referenced statement, can request one. So the advice is: If an editor changes text to push their known bias, the best thing you can do is leave it! -- Domer48 ( talk) 20:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I have never taken advantage of anyone. I have listened to the advice, and tried to go along with it, and all I got was shafted. Were are the admins when I’m getting messed about? Now I’m not crying about it, I even gave you the opportunity to step in and pull me up if you thought I was out of line. Told you to be a hard nosed fucker about it. And I was left swinging. I have every POV merchant on my case, and I know now, all I have to do is put one foot wrong and I’m over a barrel. That is just the way it is! The only reason I understand the policies here, is because I had everyone of them used on me, but I have yet to see them used to protect an editor who plays by the rules. The Checkuser was wrong! -- Domer48 ( talk) 20:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Please do not remove referenced material from article and dont edit war. BigDunc ( talk) 14:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
That is a second hand account and not an appropriate source. Traditional unionist ( talk) 14:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
You put it in not me I just read it all and didn't select what I wanted from it see WP:SYNTHESIS-- BigDunc ( talk) 14:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I think your point ONiH is a little semantic and doesn't alter the substance of what this is about. As far as the minor alteration goes, it is however, probably right. Also, you seem to understand, unlike Dunc/Domer what the source says. Nowhere do SF refute the claim that they are removing a statue of a son of the town simplky because he was an orangeman. I would however dispute the way it is protrayed here. I haven't read the sources today, but memory tells me that the BBC report this as fact, and the subsequent utterings from the provos in no way refutes the claim, and to my reading actually backs it up.
Traditional unionist (
talk)
14:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
TU as far as this discussion is concerned, all I have said was, that you should be given the benifit of the doubt on the synthesis of information, and that I can not understand how you can object to a reference that you yourself introduced. Now you are raising the provos in the discussion, dispite the fact that they are not mentioned at all? Please stick to the point at hand, and try remaine civil. -- Domer48 ( talk) 15:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
"According to Sinn Fein he was first and foremost an Orangeman and he made anti-Catholic speeches." and that "There was an inventory of 10 items, one of them a republican dedication to hunger striker Kevin Lynch, which may cause offence to the republican side of the community if it was removed," and also "His track-record was substantially representative of just one side of the community, you cannot cherry-pick neutrality - it's either neutral or not." And the only second hand source I can find in YOUR refs is from Edwin Stevenson a UUP member hardly the most impartial person. Also I cant find any refs to say what the IRA say on this subject BigDunc ( talk) 15:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Now before you even think about replying, just pretend the person that said this is someone you've never dealt with before, and you know nothing about them:
There's plenty more needs to be done, but that's more than enough to be going on with. So, do you want to argue about one or two sentences, or do you want to actually create a decent article? Over to you..... One Night In Hackney 303 12:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Other suggestions:
Everyone's being so constructive... This isn't quite up there with the Paisley/McGuiness lovefest in terms of unlikeliness, but it makes a nice change. Let's try and keep it up. :) -- Helenalex ( talk) 09:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I see there is a reference for this, but I'm almost certain it is wrong. The 12th is a de facto public holiday, but it isn't actually. Most employers offer staff either St Patricks day or the 12th off as a publ;ic holiday, but I don't think either are. St Patricks day might be, but like I say, am almost certain the 12th isn't. I'll check it out. Traditional unionist ( talk) 12:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone suggestions as to do with comments by Galloway in the England section as TU says it is not certain that he was refering to the OO in England if anything I would assume he was talking about the OO in Scotland as he was refering to Adam Ingram who was a member of a lodge in Glasgow. BigDunc ( talk) 15:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
"however some demoninations of Protestants are also ineligible for membership" is sourced by this. Am I missing something, as I don't see anything that says "some demoninations of Protestants are also ineligible for membership" on the page? One Night In Hackney 303 16:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This one to be precise. According to this Rossnowlagh is the only parade to be held in the Republic. If there's a source saying otherwise please cite it and amend the text accordingly. One Night In Hackney 303 20:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
offended by the Orange, they tore up their own city? When was this? -- Domer48 ( talk) 13:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I have proposed merging James Sloan (Orangeman) into this article. If nothing is known about him other than the bare fact that he founded the Orange institution, then per WP:BIO1E there is no need for a separate article. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Historically Dan Winter deserves an article more than the other two. I'd say leave the other two and merge (de facto delete) sloan. Someone will come along and make articles out of them, not doing any harm. Traditional unionist ( talk) 21:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Would it be possible for someone to produce a navigation template for this article and its related content? -- Jza84 | Talk 16:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I just removed this from the article, but I thought its inventiveness (particularly the bit about the tuba) deserved preservation on the talk page. -- Helenalex ( talk) 04:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm guessing it's found its way to uncyclopedia, if it didn't come from there in the first place. Gamerunknown ( talk) 10:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I have once again removed the additions that are either unsourced, unreliably sourced, and/or a complete misrepresentation of what a source says. O Fenian ( talk) 23:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
As the Orange Orders take their name from William of Orange, what is the position of the Netherlands on this? I just think it's interesting that the section entitled 'Throughout the World' makes no reference to the fact that a Dutch national is used for the basis of an order bearing their name, but it appears to have no link whatsoever to the country of their origin? Has the establishment of these Orders ever affected the Dutch? I just think it's an interesting legacy that could be addressed in this article. Particularly as one country's national hero is immortalised to a greater extent in another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.5.36 ( talk) 23:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
This is not a forum for discussion, but as far as I know no Dutch lodge ever existed. There was one in Poland briefly, but I do not have a positive source on this. Hachimanchu ( talk) 22:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
The section on structure seems to give a confusing account but doesn't really give an indication of total membership size (it's also unsourced). IRWolfie- ( talk) 21:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
This page should not be merged with the main Orange Order page as this branch of the Order has a lot of individual information that would get lost in the Orange Order's page. The page should not be merged for the same reason that the Fermanagh GAA pages should not be merged with the overall GAA pages - they are individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ni fact finder ( talk • contribs) 11:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
This page is fairly unique and should be allowed to stand on its own right, please advise if this tag can be taken off the page in relation to mergers? Ni fact finder ( talk) 22:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Please do not merge this page, with a membership of 2500, 90 lodges and some 60 halls; this organization is at the hub of PUL community in fermanagh. With hundreds of events year round and an attendance of over 20k (a third of the population of fermanagh) at the 12th of July (main event). This organisation deserves its own reference page on wiki especially as other smaller or similar sized organizations already have their own pages. The OO in fermanagh is a Christian organisation that provides a common link between different protestant communities, it provides social, culturual, historical, educational, sporting, musical and religious events, as well as numerous charity donations. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
109.156.159.30 (
talk)
18:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I believe the Fermanagh orange gives a broad insight into the orange order within fermanagh. It provides a range of information unique to the county of fermanagh and to the people of fermanagh that are passionate about their lodges. Generations of people that have left this land will be interested in views pages like this as its relative to them on there search for their roots. It also provides a information about a culture that is wide ranging but linked is so many way. I believe the page should have it own unique standing. 86.158.69.197 ( talk) 20:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
What is the declared purpose of the organisation? I don't see that in the article. 78.86.61.94 ( talk) 12:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Please do not merge this page, with a membership of 2500, 90 lodges and some 60 halls; this organization is at the hub of PUL community in fermanagh. With hundreds of events year round and an attendance of over 20k (a third of the population of fermanagh) at the 12th of July (main event). This organisation deserves its own reference page on wiki and smaller or similar sized organizations already have their own pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.159.30 ( talk) 14:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Please reconsider merging this page as Fermanagh and indeed Enniskillen played a very large part in the in the Nine year war or War of the Grand Alliance freeing Europe and saving England and Ireland from the hands of King Louis XlV of France. Because of the victory of William of Orange at The battle of the Boyne we have our civil and religious liberties which we enjoy today for all religions and none! Enniskillen raised 2 armies from the people of Fermanagh to fight in this Battle and surely deserves their individuality in this field of the Orange Order. To merge it would be the same effect as having a city like London, dublin or even Paris linked somewhere under Europe and not given it's proper place as the capital of it's own country. Please reconsider! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.158.179 ( talk) 01:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The nature of any links between the Orange Order and loyalist paramillitaries is an important topic, but I'm a bit concerned that there seems to be a desire to list every member who was also involved in paramillitary activity. There are a number of reasons:
1) Was the person prominent in the Orange Order or was their membership of the Orange Order important in either motivating or aiding their loyalism? There's no evidence that it was in any of this. 2) For that matter there's no real evidence that the membership of the two organisations was overlapping in any of these cases (although unlike point 1 I'd be surprised if they weren't overlapping). 3) The whole guilt by association list approach means that there is a strong smell of original research here. This section barely touches on the Nationalist critique and doesn't mention any official Orange or loyalist response - relying instead on what appears on banners and other important but fragmentary pieces of information better suited to a newspaper article than here.
As said, the link between the Orange Order and Loyalist paramillitaries is important (it is not a red herring like the Ku Klux Klan) but what would be more fitting would be some explanation as to where the allegations are coming from (the Nationalist and Republican communities), why they are important (a massive part in the opposition to marches through Catholic areas), what the Orange Order officially says (I suspect that it really dislikes the link, although the pro-Orange web presence is fairly rubbish so the best I could find was here) and previously noted discrepancies or confimatory views.
Something like:
I think an alternative could be to remove the section, but I think that this is a very important subject in the current debate around the Orange Order.
JASpencer ( talk) 09:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Is the comment made by Tim Pat Coogan in his book about the Easter Rising really relevant? Having not read the book I can't say whether this is an observation backed up by evidence or a throw away comment. Given that, as un-registered user 74.215.61.251 points out, there are huge differences between the Order and the Ku Klux Klan. The Klan began as a kind of veterans association for Confederate ex-servicemen and was overwhelmingly concentrated in the "old south" of the United States. Latterly the distribution involved the mid-west, most famously Indiana. What little Orange Order there was in the 19th century United States was concentrated in the extreme north east of the country, notably around New York. This leads me to suspect that Coogan and the other reference, Bell, may be guilty of a bit of lazy characterisation and have perhaps not done the research necessary to support such claims.
Rather than clutter up that section with a whole load of qualifications for these assertions, I’ve just deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Furious Andrew ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it doesn't seem entirely relevant, in fact it reads more like Republican propaganda, sorry if I'm mistaken Tim Pat Coogan or O Fenian. Could someone perhaps quote the passage? If the book did indeed make this point then okay (if its in a book, its got to be true!) but there are some fundamental differences between the OO and KKK that need to be clarified somewhat. Firstly the Orange Order are not racist, the OO have many non-white members in the UK, Canada and Africa. I assume the comparison here is their alleged religious intolerance. This could equally be applied to the ancient order of hibernians, or any other republican group who are opposed the Queen (the supreme governer of the Church of the church of england) Secondly the Ku Klux Klan are a secret organisation, the OO are anything but! Lastly there is the aspect of violence. While historically the OO have been involved in violent affairs, and quite possibly linked to paramilitaries, the OO themselves have never been proscribed as an illegal or terrorist group. The KKK on the other hand are very much a nationalist terrorist organisation, having bombed baptist (protestant) churches and schoolbuses and held public lynchings. Hachimanchu ( talk) 22:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
You were to fast on the hot button and my comments here crossed while you were adding yours.... I've had a chance to read what Coogan had to say about the KKK in 1916: The Easter Rising. Coogan states: "[The Orange Order] served both as a militia and a bonding organization for militant Protestantism, spreading to England in 1807 where the Tories, especially around Liverpool, used the movement against the Liberals. Later it would develop in America manifesting itself in such movements as the Know Nothings and the Ku Klux Klan. The Order also proved useful to employers [presumably in Ireland] as a device for keeping Protestant and Catholic workers from uniting for better wages and conditions." There is nothing further concerning the Order in the USA, whether relative to the KKK or not. Coogan cites no sources for his claim, and other scholarship notes the "feeble" presence of the Order in the USA (see McRaild, Millar, etc.). No source on the Klan I've found mentions the Orange Order having anything to do with the Klan's foundation at all. As for the Know Nothings, I have found sources which indicate Orangemen did join them and were active participants in the mid-1800s. I have deleted the Coogan citation, which appears to be an anomoly as far as scholarship on the KKK is concerned, but I will add other sourced material that discusses the role of Orangemen in the Know Nothings. Eastcote ( talk) 23:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
On Google Books there is frequent comparisons between the Order, the Know Nothings and the Klan from a wide variety of sources. You are interpreting and offering an analysis of the source, when what you should be doing is providing a source which challenges Coogan. Simply put, why not add additional sources, and least we forget, the sentence is attributed to Coogan. -- Domer48 'fenian' 20:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, I can buy the latest change. A subsection under USA that talks about American references to the Order. And yes, some Americans are aware of the Orange Order's existence in Ireland, but there is really no visibility of the order here in the USA itself. Believe it or not. Fraternal groups such as the Masons, Elks, Eagles, Shriners, Knights of Columbus are are common. Chapters/lodges of other organizations were established here over the years, but are not well known by the general public, such as the Orange Order, the Oddfellows, the Hibernians, B'nai B'rith, etc. Some are better known in certain regions. The USA is a big place. The Hibernians and B'nai B'rith are probably better known than the Orange Order. Eastcote ( talk) 15:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I still don't see the need for the KKK comparisons, but since some people seem so desperate to include them can we clarify the fact that these are at best tenous comparisons made by a few individuals, and not a matter of historical 'links' or shared history. Incidentally some of the comparisons made could also be applied to Republican groups, who also march in areas they are not welcome, also hold dubious religious and political views (eg the 'Ancient' Order of Hibernians). Here are some fundamental ways in which the two groups differ: 1. The Orange Order, as previously mentioned, are not a secretive group. In fact their presence is controversial largely BECAUSE of the attention they draw to themselves in their very public processions. Incidentally, the nationalists, from the historic Whiteboys to the modern IRA in its many guises, are a secret group who use terror for political ends. 2. The Orange Order, in the last two hundred years at least, are a non-violent group. Where there have been violent skirmishes it is usually in self-defence as they come under attack from Nationalists. Incidentally the IRA, much like the KKK, have been outlawed as a terrorist group, and have been linked to (and admitted to) many acts of violence and terror, both favoring the use of bombs targetting civilians 3. The Orange Order, unlike the KKK, have never held any racist ideology. They hold strong religious views about the Catholic Church (as opposed to catholics in general) but not about nationality or race. In contrast, the Nationalist movement regards 'The Brits' (ie "get 'The Brits' out now") as racially distinct from the Irish. As an example of this, there have been black members of the orange order and the bands who march with them for years, in Northern Ireland, the British Mainland and in Africa and America. On a wider scale, there have been black members of the UDA, and even in the 1700's a black man was among a mob who evicted catholics from their homes in the Shankill, although he was later imprisoned. [holy war in belfast] And quite apart from being innocent victims of Protestant aggression, Irish Catholics were almost solely responsible for the New York Draft riots, where they ultimately hung a small black girl in her orphanage. Hachimanchu ( talk) 05:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
And there the comparisons end entirely. Conversely, the similarities between the IRA and KKK continue: 1. Both were formed after civil war, as a resistance movement to a 'foreign power'. 2. Both were formed around 1916 3. Both are organisations dedicated to the removal of 'foreign' civilians from what they perceive to be 'their country' 4. Both supported the Nazis during World War 2 5. Both have very strongly anti-jewish rhetoric 6. Both have links to the Aryan Brotherhood 7. Many ex-IRA members are now members of Parliament with Sinn Fein, there is at least one Republican politician who is a former KKK member. 8. Both are known to use propaganda and outright lies to incite violence and hatred. Hachimanchu ( talk) 05:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
As above, the comparison with the KKK is completely bizarre, and I presume it has just been added by Nationalists to discredit the Orange Order. As the comment above me shows nicely, one could just as easily (and unfairly) state that the KKK and the IRA are similar. You could basically compare ANY organisation with the KKK if you made your links tenuous enough (as they certainly are in this case). Surely this section should be removed. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
131.111.184.88 (
talk)
05:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Just try it and see the stonewalling that results. Eastcote ( talk) 14:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
My comments explaining why I believe this section to be laughably unnecessary appear to have been deleted. Here is them copied from an earlier revision of this talk page, with my comments on why all of the sections, except the part by Tim Pat Coogan (which could be merged with the section on America) should be deleted:
On the right of Orangemen to march in quasi-military fashion through areas, regardless of the views of the residents, Orangemen often cite the example of the Klan and the American Nazi Party. In the Orders petition to the Northern Ireland Parades Commission in June 2002, on the Orders right to march, they cited American case law which had upheld the right to public demonstrations by both the Klan and the American Nazi Party.[122] "Often cite"? Completely vague. Furthermore, citing a law which was once used for the Ku Klux Klan doesn't mean the OO has similarities to the KKK; that's just a basic logic fail.
In Ireland Civil Rights activists often dismissed Loyalist paramilitaries as the Irish version of the Ku Klux Klan. "Often?" Source?
“ We viewed the [Orange Order] as similar to the KKK - so bare-faced and confident enough in the bigoted status quo that they wore bowler hats and sashes rather than white robes and pointed hoods.[123] ” Yes, a certain group of people viewed the Order as similar to the KKK. Hardly an unbiased group of people. Such statements could be made on any Wikipedia page to justify any view. As the example I gave previously, certain Loyalists today incorrectly view Sinn Fein as terrorists; I certainly wouldn't support editing the Sinn Fein article to include such a thing, as such minority opinions can be used to prove or disprove any assertion one wishes to make.
Brian Dooley says it would be 'grossly inaccurate' to suggest that the Orange Order 'mirrored' the KKK, they did he notes share obvious similarities, not least their hostility to Catholicism. Both organisations paraded in bizarre costumes, with the Klan in their white hoods and sheets and the Orangemen in their bowler hats and sashes, with leaders of the Klan going by titles such as Grand Goblin or Imperial Wizard and the Order having less exotic titles as Worshipful Master. Dooley, citing Wyn Craig's history of the Klan notes that during the 1920s the Klan targeted Catholic Churches to fill an 'emotional need for a concrete, foreign-based enemy...the Pope', with these attacks providing a unifying force in support for the Klan among Protestant Churches.[123] Again, I do not see how any intelligent person could take this seriously; you can make anything similar to anything else using such weak arguments. The KKK are a society of humans in America, the US Democrats are a society of humans in America - both of those are sourced facts, should we make a comparison to the KKK on the US Democrat Wikipedia page?
US Congressman Donald Payne, who according to John McGarry is one of the most influential black politicians in Congress said in an article in the Sunday Times that 'there are many parallels between Catholics in and the situation the black community faced in the United States.' Payne would be present in July 2000, to observe the Orange Orders attempts to march through a nationalist area. According to McGarry, President Bill Clinton refused a request by British Government Leader Tony Blair to put pressure on Irish Republicans to make concessions on police reform because he considered bowing to Unionist demands would be like 'leaving Alabama and Georgia under all-white cops.'[124] This has absolutely nothing to do with the KKK whatsoever, and is completely irrelevant.
With regards to the assertion that the OO was in some way related to the formation of the Klan, there is actually some evidence against this. It has been suggested that the inspiration for the Klan was based on Sir Walter Scott's novels, and of pseudo-celtic (Scottish Highland) ceremonies such as cross burning. Certainly many of the settlers in the American south were of Scottish Highland Jacbite origin, who fled after Culloden or the Highland clearances. This is even evident in the 'Rebel flag', based on the Scottish saltire, and confederate songs which were often inspired by traditonal gaelic ballads. Lets not forget either there was a large Irish Catholic contingent who fought for the confederates. And yes the highland clans were largely protestant, but they should not be confused with the Ulster Scots, although some did originate from the highlands and even spoke gaelic. The Highland clans mainly fought for the jacobites, and therefore against the ulster scots at the boyne for example, and with irish catholics at culloden. The anti-catholicism evident in the second klan may have more to do with the Scottish reformation, or I somewhat suspect the large hispanic population in the south and the recent wars with Mexico. The origins of the klan are cloaked in mystery, but I refer you to this article which cites the nazarenos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_regalia_and_insignia (groups of Catholics who evicted protestants, jews and muslims from Spain during the Spanish Inquisition). The name 'Ku Klux Klan' it has been suggested was related to the Greek word 'Cyclos' Incidentally the Klan's second highest rank, the Grand wizard, is cloaked in green, which is a color of Irish Republicanism rarely if ever used by the orange order. Hachimanchu ( talk) 22:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
In addition to violating WP:LEAD the addition has no page number (which is required), and a search of the book on Google Books shows it does not even contain the words "doctrine", "doctrinal", "injunction" or "uncharitable", and since the addition reads "Proponents have noted that much of the language within the Order's Constitution in relation to Catholic doctrine mirrors that of the mainline Protestant denominations, and the injunction within the Qualifications to abstain from all uncharitable, words, actions or sentiments towards non-Protestants is cited to emphasise the focus on doctrinal, rather than personal, disagreement" you'd expect at least one if not all of those words to appear in the text. In addition the only place the word "constitution" appears in on page 274 in a list of books, the text reading "Kelly, James, Sir Edward Newenham, MP, 1783-1814: Defender of the Protestant Constitution (Dublin, 2004)". As such I dispute that the book sources that text, and it is up to those who claim it does to provide quotes proving it. I also note in addition that the synopsis of the book is "A bleak, honest, and shocking account of how Northern Ireland's Orange Order, a religious institution founded in 1795 to defend Protestantism, has tragically departed from its core values and become associated with sectarian violence and political intrigue", which suggests the source is not being used in an NPOV way. 2 lines of K 303 13:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
As mentioned above, I have reviewed the book, and have inserted a new para on what the book has to say, with appropriate quotes, page numbers, etc. Eastcote ( talk) 01:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I would have to agree this doesn't belong in the lead, please read WP:LEAD. Mo ainm ~Talk 11:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The article mentioned that the Orange order had once cited a US Supreme Court case dealing with Nazis' right to parade. I deleted the reference as it seemed a completely unfair way of attacking the order. Perhaps they are as bad as the KKK but the fact that they cite one of the leading cases from the US Supreme Court on the right to demonstrate is hardly proof of anything. MathHisSci ( talk) 23:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the "parallels" section altogether, as it appears to serve no purpose other than to condemn the Orange Order through very tenuous association with the KKK, that the sources do not support. As MathHisSci has pointed out above, Coogan does not say that there is a parallel between the two organisations. The discussion above demonstrates that there is no consensus for this controversial section to be included in the article. Mooretwin ( talk) 11:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I will not be commenting on the synthesis being put forward here in lieu of reasoned argument. The bad faith accusations being trotted out as per usual will obviously be ignored. I will also be adding some more referenced information as it will address some of the spurious suggestions be offered at the minute. -- Domer48 'fenian' 20:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I see a nationalist editor has now moved the Nazi/KKK section to become a subsection of "links with loyalist paramilitaries". This appears to add a further layer of synthesis, i.e. that there is a three-way connection between loyalist paramilitaries, the Orange Order and the US NAzi Party/KKK. This is getting ridiculous. Mooretwin ( talk) 10:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think the whole section on the KKK is unnecessary, misleading, non-neutral, and given more weight in the article than it should be. However, to address a couple of your points: How does one present balance where there is a void of information, unless it is to present histories that show no mention of the Orange Order's "manifestation" in the KKK? We have a statement from a single historian who says Orangeism "manifested itself" in the KKK. No other historian makes this claim, out of a great many books written on the KKK. To "manifest" means to "make evident". Where is the evidence of Orangism to be found in the KKK? There is no evidence. (Anti-Catholicism in the Klan is not evidence since anti-Catholicism is not unique to Orangeism). It is impossible to find a statement in a reliable secondary source that says "the Orange Order did NOT manifest itself in the KKK," simply because it was not a historical factor for them to write about. As I've said before, Coogan just plain got it wrong. His statement is simply a toss-out, with no elaboration. No other historian talks about Orangeism manifesting itself in the Klan. Certainly the Klan tried to steal members from the Order, partcularly in Canada in the 1920s, but they were trying to steal from the Rotary Club as well. One would be hard pressed to find a historian claiming Orangeism "manifesting itself" in the Rotary Club. As for the Kaufmann citation, Kaufmann is a recognized historian, and his book is a reliable source. It is only your personal opinion that it is "fringe" view. The Order itself has stated this view concerning its right to march, and it provides balance to present this viewpoint, which is why Kaufmann himself provided it as an "alternate" viewpoint. Got to have balance, if we must have this section at all. (BTW, it's "rationale", not "rational").
Eastcote (
talk)
21:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
An image used in this article, File:Orange Order in Ghana.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Orange Order in Ghana.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 22:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC) |
Removed per WP:HONORIFIC. I'll also point out again that baronets don't get referred to as "Sir Joe Bloggs", it's "Sir Joe Bloggs, 1st (or whatever) Baronet". 2 lines of K 303 17:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
1. WP:HONORIFIC states 'Except for the initial reference and infobox, do not add honorific titles to existing instances of a person's name where they are absent'. In other words, it is appropriate to add an honorific title to the initial reference to a name. Each of the Grand Masters is only referred to once, and so that reference is the initial reference in each case.
2. Would it be appropriate to amend the page to refer to 'Sir James Stronge, 5th Baronet' and 'Sir Edward Archdale, 1st Baronet' ? Alekksandr ( talk) 17:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
With respect, I suggest that WP:HONORIFIC means what it says. And that it would be strange if wikipedia prohibited recording, in a list such as this, the fact that one of the holders was a knight or baronet. Alekksandr ( talk) 19:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Page changed accordingly. Alekksandr ( talk) 18:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I've re-wrote almost the entire "Formation and early history" section as:
Whilst it still doesn't make pleasant reading for an Orangeman who'd like to present a clean version of the orders foundation, it is now written in a more balanced and neutral tone. Mabuska (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Orange Order's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article. The Orange Orphan Society is a registered charity - Registered Charity Number: 1068498 and contact details are found at http://www.charitychoice.co.uk/the-loyal-orange-orphan-society-of-england-88447 If this does not answer your question please clarify.
Reference named "Bardon":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
In this article, Orange institutions in other countries are just a branch of the Orange Order in Northern Ireland. I would mention the Orange Lodge, the Glaswegian Orange Foundation (mentioned in thatcher's memoirs btw.) etc. I do not think this is correct. -- Wiskeps ( talk) 07:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the description of the flag as "consisting of an orange background with a St George's Cross and the purple star of the Williamite forces" has been removed. Is there some good reason for removing the description of the flag? Dmcq ( talk) 11:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Further to previous comment does this section not run counter to Wikipedia guidelines i.e. "sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged". These 'comparisons' are only made by opponents of the Orange Order. I think this section should be removed and the comparison is cover for criticism. Removal is supported by the previous talk discussion also.-- Flexdream ( talk) 21:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Snowded: there is no evidence for the article to state that Orange Order parades have "often" led to violence. The two sources don't mention it, indeed they only refer to two separate incidences in Belfast over the past year or two. The reasoning of past tense is also tenuous seeing as "have sometimes" is also past tense.
Out of the vast number of Orange Order parades a year (well over a thousand, including main demonstration and feeder), very few have any disturbances, and when they do happen it is almost always in Belfast (and usually a feeder parade of a couple of lodges), either near the Short Strand or Ardoyne. Stating "sometimes" better reflects the reality as it is not as common as the press and republicans would have people believe. How many Orange Order parades and 12ths through mainly nationalist towns have led to violence? Even during the Troubles it is in the minority.
So unless you can reliably source that it "often" has led to violence, then the article should not state it as it is implying that it happens a lot when in reality in terms of the number of parades, it doesn't really. Mabuska (talk) 10:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
"Orange marches have led to violence and been a source of controversy on many occasions". It's simply stating the facts: there has been violence and/or controversy around Orange marches many times, not just during the Troubles. Different marches have sparked violence and controversy at different times. The wording doesn't imply that it's been all marches or even most marches. Asarlaí 15:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Certain Orange marches are a source of controversy, which has sometimes led to violence."- it is as factual and accurate as we can get without overstating or giving false impressions. It is certain Orange marches, not all, not the majority of, but a certain minority, usually hand in hand with the most controversial. But not all controversial parades end in a riot - many do end peacefully. Mabuska (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Your argument still wrongfully overstates the number of controversial parades. It is only certain parades, or rather routes to be more specific, that are controversial. Not a significant number of them.
According to the Parades Commission website, the number of controversial Orange Order parades in Northern Ireland is small. The figures for 2014 are heavily skewed as the Ligoneil Orange Order applied almost everyday to parade through Twaddell Avenue, which is controversial, hence giving a distortion picture for that year. Of the 439 sensitive parade applications by the Orange Order in 2014, 298 were by the Ligoneil Combine seeking to finish off that one parade. That leaves only 141 other sensitive Orange Order parade applications in 2014. Considering 52 of them are from the Portadown Orange Lodge weekly application to finish off their 12th parade through Garvaghy, that leaves only 89 other controversial/sensitive applications. Out of the 1,245 non-sensitive Orange Order parade applications, that means only around 6.5% of Orange Order parade applications in 2014 were sensitive (and that doesn't include other possible repeated applications). The location of them is also probably restricted to a select few areas.
So yes Snowded, your view is quite far off the mark here. Mabuska (talk) 10:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
How much do you need before you call it "often"? Surely "annually" would be a better word? Scolaire ( talk) 13:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Certain Orange marches are a source of controversy, which has sometimes led to violence.". We could state
A minority of Orange Order parades have been classified as controversial by the Parades Commission, and some of these have led to violence.. We could even state
A minority of Orange Order parades have been classified as controversial by the Parades Commission, and some of these have often led to violence., but then that is overstating the Ardoyne and Short Strand flashpoints that always end up in the press, but I can compromise on that use of often, but then again you'ns would need to compromise and accept reality. Mabuska (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
"Orange marches have sparked controversy and violence on many occasions, but today most are without incident"? This article isn't just about the Orange Order today, it covers the Order's whole history. Orange marches have sparked controversy and/or violence almost every year for the past 200 years, ever since they started in the 1790s. However, today most of the hundreds of marches each year pass off without incident. This wording takes both of those into account and I think it's a fair compromize. ~ Asarlaí 14:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
"The reality is that since the start of the Troubles they are controversial and have led to violence."- that's just as bad as the unproveable "virtually all" statement. The majority of parades have never been controversial. There were incidents at parades before the Troubles. The 1831 Maghera 12th riot I've already mentioned above. The attacking of a Protestant Sunday school outing of children carrying Bible texts and flags attacked by members of an AOH procession in Castledawson in 1912. There were even incidents at some parades a decade before the creation of the Orange Order involving that most reputable organisation known as the Irish Volunteers, a company of which purposely paraded close to a Catholic area.
"Orange marches have sparked controversy and violence on many occasions, but most are without incident"? We could even switch it around and say
"While most Orange marches are without incident, they have sparked controversy and violence on many occasions". It takes into account that Orange marches have sparked controversy and/or violence almost every year since they began, but it also takes into account that most of the hundreds of yearly marches are peaceful. Also, it's untrue to say they only spark controversy/violence "periodically" or "sporadically". ~ Asarlaí 23:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The 'Marching Days' beginning on July 12 each year...are considered highlights of the Protestant calendar. Unfortunately, the 'Marches wind their way through Catholic enclaves, a provocative move that ensures resistance, trouble, and often violence.
Violent conflicts between Protestant Unionists and Catholic nationalists are routinely triggered by violent Catholic reactions to provocative 'Orange' marches in Catholic neighborhoods – which is exactly why the Protestants choose to march through these neighborhoods.
Loyal (Protestant) orders, the largest being the Orange Order, hold the most well-known and controversial parades.
Of even more interest, despite the recent proliferation of paramilitary symbols on flags, bannerettes, uniforms and drums carried by bandsmen, there are almost no pictures [in the unionist press] of any such regalia...This situation is particularly noticeable in Belfast where the blood and thunder bands, with their many references to the UVF, YCV, and even the Red Hand Commando, now dominate the parade.
There were numerous other incidents. Infamously during a contested Orange parade through the mainly nationalist Ormeau Road in 1992 following the sectarian murder of five people...television news pictures clearly showed several Orangemen triumphantly holding up their white-gloved hands, displaying five fingers to the nationalist crowds watching from behind the security cordon...
Other factors didn't help in the post-1969 period. For instance, the rise in Loyalist 'Kick the Pope' bands and the increasingly aggressive drumming of these bands helped to heighten tension in the Catholic zone through which Orange marches passed.
[Post-WW2] Orange marches were frequently dominatory in their routes and symbolism and were not simply officially tolerated but officially sanctioned. Rare bans on unusually provocative marches were later rescinded under Orange pressure.
[Seamus Heaney's] poem, 'Orange Drums, Tyrone, 1966', captures better than any statistic the bitterness and hatred that fuel the violence on one side of the conflict in Northern Ireland.
The annual Orange parades in Northern Ireland, recalling the defeat of Catholics by William of Orange in 1691, hearten the participants but feed the feelings of anger and powerlessness of the Catholic minority.
The most controversial of these marches and parades are those which pass through Catholic/Nationalist areas or neighborhoods, such as the Garvaghy Road in Portadown or the Lower Ormeau Road in Belfast, along routes that the Orangemen assert are 'traditional'. The Orange marches are not only controversial political and sectarian events, but are also highly gendered.
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |page.134=
(
help)In addition, it is difficult to explain peace to children when they experience, first-hand, the effects of the Orange Order marches and other forms of violence that characterise the community in which they live.
With truly heroic stupidity, the Northern Ireland administration in Stormont [in 1969] allowed the deliberately provocative annual marches of Orange militants and bigots through Catholic neighborhoods to go forward, promising ferocious reprisals against anyone who tried to impede them.
There's enough in there for a whole article section. And that's just the point: there should be a dedicated section. Information shouldn't be given by tinkering with a sentence in the lead. I'll make some comments on these refs. The word "controversial" (or "provocative") is not qualified anywhere, either to say that it applies only to a minority of parades or to restrict its use to those parades that are marked "controversial" by the Parades Commission. They are controversial (and provocative), full stop. Likewise with violence: they relate Orange parades, not "some Orange parades", to violence. As regards the current wording, "in recent times" is not only too vague (you can equally say that the Earth was formed in recent times) but also misleading, as it suggests that before a certain point, Orange marches were just a fun day out, with Catholics smiling and waving and Orangemen making speeches about brotherly love and religious tolerance. The straight "Orange marches through mainly Catholic and nationalist neighbourhoods have often led to violence" was in the lead for well over a year. I am restoring that, and adding a straight "are controversial" on the basis of these refs and the above discussion. Scolaire ( talk) 07:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Mabuska, can you explain your edit summary? Gob Lofa ( talk) 08:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The pair of you are heading towards an interaction ban if you carry on like this. I think it is badly worded, but my recollection of history is that the restriction was significant an should be there in some form. Is there a source that says something along those lines? Putting a time period in for example might help. In the mean time please don't comment on each other .... ---- Snowded TALK 12:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
( edit conflict)Snowded it is only another attempt to get a reaction out of me considering that since our respective bans only Gob Lofa has been making uncivil comments and accusations. On topic, it is however misleading to state in an edit summary to "See talk" considering there is no consensus here for Gob Lofa's edit, and misleading to claim we agree on a time scale when we don't.
Personally if they believe that their view is fact then there will be an academic and reliable source to back it up, until then the article should remain at the previous version as the edit is disputed and the issue unresolved. Gob Lofa's edit is likewise badly worded and confusing. If the Bill of Rights granted liberties to all Protestants then why state "Although these were soon qualified for Nonconformist Protestants", considering by being Protestant they fall under "to all Protestants".
Also did this bill that was passed in the English parliament even cover Ireland? Did the Irish parliament even pass and enact it for it to apply to Irish Protestants? Bill of Rights 1689 makes no mention of it having effect in Ireland or being passed by the Irish parliament, and whilst we don't use Wikipedia as a source, you'd have thought that it would have been in there somewhere if it did. I can't find mention of this bill in regards to Ireland yet in the indices of books I've so far checked, so may have to delve into the chapters themselves. Though it would be helpful if Gob Lofa provided some sources. Mabuska (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
As before, did this Bill of Rights even have any status in Ireland? I'm finding it hard to find evidence it did at all especially considering it would require the Parliament of Ireland to pass it. On that basis I'd suggest the unsourced statement: The 1689 Bill of Rights granted civil and religious liberties on Protestant subjects, and the Glorious Revolution strengthened Parliament in relation to the Monarchy. be removed from the article as it serves no real purpose. I also note that the article on the bill doesn't make mention of Protestant civil and religious liberties at all, all it did was restore the Protestants right to have arms for their defense not to practice their religion. Yes the Orange Order make frequent claims about "civil and religious liberty" (despite the irony of the penals laws on non-conformists and Catholics), yet that is in respect to their view that King William's victory over the Catholic James ensured Protestant survival. Indeed are the civil and religious liberties they go on about not the ones promised (for Protestants and Catholics) by King William after the Treaty of Limerick, which the Irish Parliament refused/failed to implement? Mabuska (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Considering that "tirade" was nearly two months and a 1RR block ago, I have been nothing but civil to you since, though the same can not be said in reverse. I didn't respond because I had no need too. My position was spelled out clearly and you wouldn't respond to my questions or points, instead trying to focus on me rather than article content. So why should I repeat myself when the answer is already there and considering you weren't willing to engage in discussing the article content or points raised about it? Why didn't I remove it by now? Because I had forgot all about this discussion. Mabuska (talk) 12:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
An editor has added these, I have reverted as per MOS "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence". Scots/Ulster Scots would be at a push, Irish, well, no. And both are unsourced (the Scots no different from the English either way). Murry1975 ( talk) 14:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
"Plebeian"? Really, Mabuska? Gob Lofa ( talk) 23:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Alongside these state-sponsored festivites, however, a parallel tradition of plebeian festivity was tolerated. Not my word, but that used in an academic work not subject to the sensationalism of tabloids and "plebgate". Mabuska (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Mabuska, you write 'Soon, however, guns were also being given out to the "Protestant Boys" to defend them from attacks by Catholics.', implying that previously the Protestants had been unarmed. Did you mean to imply this? Gob Lofa ( talk) 19:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
That is no excuse for altering sourced information to something it doesn't backup yet keeping the source as if it does. Mabuska (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Mabuska, when you write "drunken brawls in the Markethill area...despite originating in a quarrel between two Presbyterians.", what exactly do you mean? It seems an odd thing to say. Did these Presbyterians really introduce drunken brawling to the Markethill area? Gob Lofa ( talk) 22:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Orange Order/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Article requires some attention from an uninvolved user. Eric Kaufmann (a respected author in the field) has contributed a little, but the substance of the article is clearly written in several different partisan ways. This article is of top importance to WP:UNIONISM and should be improved. Traditional unionist ( talk) 13:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 21:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 15:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Mabuska, you re-inserted this part of a comment: "[not] the relaxation of the popery laws but the pretence." Do you know what this means, in the context of the rest of the quote? I certainly don't and I fear other readers may be in the same position. Gob Lofa ( talk) 21:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Done. Mabuska (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Mabuska, why do you describe William Richardson's clearly partisan account as "a detailed analysis"? Strong smell of POV off that one. Gob Lofa ( talk) 11:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Mabuska? Gob Lofa ( talk) 13:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Because the question does not merit answering in this case as it is simply wilful convultion by yourself in an attempt to provoke. If you are so sure there is a problem with it open a RfC for more input. Mabuska (talk) 11:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
You didn't make yourself clear. I assumed you meant provide where in the source was the wording used. If it is something that is fringe and controversial I would agree to stating who is using "detailed analysis", however you have provided no evidence that it is a fringe viewpoint or even controversial. Even if Dr. Richardson was biased or involved—which no evidence has been provided by yourself only speculation and OR so your argument doesn't have any support—that doesn't mean that he can't give a detailed analysis of the situation. So unless you provide evidence to back up your assertions there is no change to be made. Mabuska (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Snowded, that looks like another 1RR violation you've chalked up. Gob Lofa ( talk) 16:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Snowded, I believe the UVF's source for its weaponry warrants a mention, given the international context. Gob Lofa ( talk) 13:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Orange Order. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Is there any reason that they are not listed in the 'See Also' section? It would seem appropriate to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Threadnecromancer ( talk • contribs) 19:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Orange Order. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I changed Siege of Cork to second Siege of Limerick in the list of battles celebrated because the latter was far more important, being the one at which James capitulated, and so seems far more likely. But the problem is that I don't have access to the citation. [1] Does anybody have it to check? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 14:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 14 external links on Orange Order. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.grandorangelodge.co.uk/press/Orange-Standard/2011-Standard/1107-Julyl2011/article2.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://roughian.tripod.com/index-29.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/diaspora/guides/orange.shtml{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.pulseresources.org/content/browsecategory.php?c=9When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Orange Order. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Is the Orange Order's opposition to the Irish language revitalisation (see here) relevant enough to include in the article? Inter&anthro ( talk) 02:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 10:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
this article tries to make the orange order look like they're persecuted by catholics. I suggest re-editing completely and involve say someone who isnt a catholic OR protestant. Stick to the issue and dont involve personal opinion.
"There are two related organisations, the increasingly left-wing militant Apprentice Boys of Derry (named after Catholic guild apprentices who refused entry to and preented a besieging French army from entering Derry),"
This is wrong is so many ways I don't even want to begin correcting it.
Jmwalsh...
I have not said anything about the Orange Order in Ireland because there is little information available about its history there. I gather it has been most extensively studied in Canada. I leave it to those who are better informed than I to fill in its Irish role. If you check my profile you will notice I have a Catholic name, but I am neither Catholic nor Protestant.
Jfitzg
The page has improved greatly - thanks Efghij - but it still needs a little npov and more information. It's sometimes a hard subject for those involved to discuss "neutrally" though. Paul
There was no need to separate Canada from the Commonwealth given that it is a member.
Something needs to be done to the opening paragraph, which at the moment reads as if the Orange Order were some sort of benign charitable organisation like the Lions Club or something. I added the following carefully NPOV statement, to try to put this right:
In April 2004 a Scottish court ruled that it was fair comment to describe the organisation as "sectarian", "anti-Catholic" and "protestant-supremacist".
[1].
User:Hcheney reverted this, saying "revert - this edit is blatantly POV; this is relevant for either the Galloway or Ingram article, not the Orange Order - this should be included if the House of Lords upholds the ruling upon appeal" Apart from the patent nonsense about the House of Lords - there is no suggestion of an appeal, as far as I know, and even if there was it seems extraordinarily unlikely that it would go to the Lords - it is clearly untrue to say that my edit was POV. It is the very model of a NPOV ststement. "X says Y about Z" It doesn't say that the Orangemen are "sectarian" etc, it says that a Scottish court has ruled that to say so is fair comment.
GrahamN
17:17, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure why we're referring to the comment an an NPOV one - I'm with User:Hcheney on this. Primarily, it's a statement of the form "W said X about Y's statement Z" - which is hardly an authoritative or appropriate basis for inclusion in Wikipedia. It is, clearly, a point of view.
To further explain why this comment is inappropriate, consider the meaning of Fair comment in UK law. Fair Comment does not necessarily imply that the comment is either true or fair. Essentially, all it says is that the opinion was honestly held, and not given maliciously or recklessly without regard to the facts. The discussion may also need to be on a matter of "public interest" as well (which might exclude certain comments on someone's private affairs). The court said little more than that the opinion quoted might be honestly held, and did not defame an individual. The test for inclusion in an NPOV Wikipedia article is stronger than that.
It is quite in order to include such documentary evidence as you may find of anti-catholicism, sectarianism, or supremacist statements (though less emotive terms might be helpful). On the other hand, it adds nothing to the debate to say that a Scottish court found that someone's opinions on the subject did not meet the legal definition of defamation of an individual.
I propose to delete the "point of view", after a brief period of reflection.
Given that the organisation itself claims not to be supremacist, the NPOV guidelines suggest that such views might be more appropriately discussed in an Opposing Views section.
Paul 17:39, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Neutrality is about more than just sticking to factual statements. It's about the tone of an article and the balance of its overall presentation. However the sentence in dispute should be left out of the opening paragraphy simply because it's not very important. As Paul says it also gives a very misleading impression to someone not aware of the legal definition of 'fair comment'. There should be some reference to the controversy in the opening paragraph though. I suggest we change the sentence to something like:
I would also question the description "exclusively Protestant" in the intro. Obviously it is a true statement but the fact that only Protestants are permitted is a detail that would usually be left for the body of the article. It currently reads like the first sentence of the intro has been deliberately written to draw attention to one particular criticism of the organisation. "The Orange Order is a Protestant fraternal organisation" is sufficient for the intro.
Iota 19:27, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Graham N wrote:
To the contrary, I absolutely agree that the fact that a lot of people see the Orange Order as sectarian is important. That's why i tried to reword the intro to express that. What is unimportant is what a judge happened to say on a particular occasion about an obscure point of law, because that is what it amounts to once you take into account what "fair comment" actually means.
The new wording may have been a general statement but i dont agree that it was POV. I dont think that anyone would really deny that "some/many Catholics think the OO is sectarian". Nor is it always inappropriate to use general statements. The introduction to an article is supposed to be a short summary that encapsulates all of the most important things about the topic without going into specifics. So we could write "Sinn Fein/the Ancient Order of Hibernias/X/Y/Z thinks the Orange Order are sectarian" but that is too specific for the intro and would leave out the fact that many of its critics dont belong to any organisation and may (like yourself) not fit into any other neat category. IMO it is ok (and often necessary) to use general statements although it is best to back them up with more specific details later in the main body of the article. This is the way things are done in plenty of other articles.
This is a reasonable criticism.
I dont think it's acceptable to continue with a highly problematic (and IMO POV) sentence until a better one is agreed upon. The statement may be a neutral attribution but IMO it is still POV (in spirit at the very least) to draw attention to criticisms of a group by using a statment that (a) is highly misleading and (b) amounts to promoting to the intro a fact that is not important enough to go there. I have tried again with an alternative wording:
Remove that sentence if you really must. But please dont put back the bit about the judge and fair comment, at least until we can find some consensus, because i really feel strongly that it is not acceptable. Iota 03:01, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
--
Aughavey 21:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)The paragraph inserted about the 2005 St Patrick`s Day parade in Cork is entirely incorrect. The Orange Order were invited to send a small group to participate in the Cork St Patrick`s Day parade as part of a celebration of the cultural diversity of the island of Ireland as well as Cork being the European City of Culture. The Orange Order accepted the invitiation. A single Belfast Lodge with their wives and children were to have participated in the parade alongside Africans, Filipines and Chinese families as well as the usual paraders. It was not until the parade organisers received some threatening phone calls stating "we know who you are and what you are planning" that the Orange Order consulted the Gardai (Police) about safety and subsequently withdrew on the grounds of the safety of their wives and children whilst thanking the parades organisers for their invite and they hoped to be reinvited next year.
The question therefore is who is intolerant? The Orange Order for accepting an invitation to march not only in the South of Ireland but in Cork alongside other minority groups on St Patricks Day (and no doubt wearing spriggs of Shamrock as they usually do)? Or the small minority issueing threats? There was no local outcry at all just a few extremists mostly from Northern Ireland.
To back this up:-
Orange Order pulls out of parade
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4275523.stm
Protestant cleric attacks invite to Orangemen
http://www.irishexaminer.com/pport/web/Full_Story/did-sgzWW0VMhhfecsglO-LCk0lQvU.asp
Orangemen to march in Cork
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2091-1482649,00.html
Orangemen Set To March On St Paddy's Day In Cork
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/story/18282
Isn't there some particular instrument (pipes, flutes?) that is associated to the order and Irish Catholics wouldn't play?
Yes. The lambeg drum -- Leathlaobhair 18:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
The Order is indeed controversial in non-members' eyes.
I think the article should mention that Presbyterians were excluded from joining until c. the 1840s. They don't often mention that do they?
I don't understand why there is a fairly hefty, seperate exposition of the Glorious Revelotion on this page. Obviously it is very bound up with the Orange Order's history, but I think that mention of the effects of 1688-89 should be more intergrated into a description of the Order's history. Having a long discursion on the political effects of the Glorious revolution just looks clumsy on a page about the Orange Order, as opposed to on a page on the Glorious Revolution.
For starters, the phrase, "It is a historical fact..." should go. Either state it because everyone agrees and it won't be controvercial, or cite an unbiased source. I'm not saying it's not true (I have no idea), "it is a historical fact" is generally a red flag for arm-waving.
Next, I do like the entry, but parts of it are very wordy, and read more like a tribute to the order than an encyclopaedia entry. I'd suggest trimming out some of the quotes and generally covering the facts surrounding the order.
Just some suggestions. Overall, quite nice. - Harmil 28 June 2005 19:03 (UTC)
Aughavey 29 June 2005 01:05 (UTC) i would like to know where lapsed pacifist gets his facts from. The Adelaide Hospital Society has not disbanded http://www.adelaide.ie/
Aughavey 29 June 2005 01:11 (UTC) I also dispute the insertion of the word "similar" and / or "religious" in this sentence. The Orange Institution contributed more members than any other organisation full stop. "The Orange institution saw more of its members serve and make the supreme sacrifice in the First World War than any other religious organisation."
Aughavey 29 June 2005 07:19 (UTC) I also note that lapsed pacifist has changed the following "defeating the Fenians at Ridgeway, Ontario in 1866. An obelisk there marks the spot where Orangemen died in defending their country against the Fenian invaders." to read "the colony". Canada was the Province of British North America and then in 1867 the Dominion of Canada not a colony.
Small point: Aughavey changed "largely based in northern Ireland and western Scotland " to "largely based in Northern Ireland and western Scotland". This was probably a reflex edit, or did you really intend to exclude Donegal? -- Red King 29 June 2005 17:35 (UTC)
Aughavey 29 June 2005 21:57 (UTC) "as the Catholic Church requires its adherents to make all reasonable efforts to raise all their children in the same religion, regardless of the other parent's faith." The Catholic churches Ne Temere decree: in earlier times Catholics had been discouraged, even forbidden, by their church from being married by anyone but a priest. Nevertheless, if a Catholic were married by a Protestant minister, the marriage was recognised by the church as valid. Then in 1908 the pope issued a decree, known from its first words as the Ne Temere decree, stating that in future the church would not recognise such marriages as valid.
Aughavey 30 June 2005 08:46 (UTC) The Ne Temere decree is still in effect. To clarify the line "It is opposed to the Good Friday Agreement."
Wednesday 15 April 1998 The Grand Orange Lodge, the ruling body of the Orange Order, decided not to support the Good Friday Agreement. While not rejecting the Agreement outright the members demanded clarification of a number of issues from British Prime Minister, Tony Blair before it would consider changing its position. [During the referendum campaign the Orange Order came out against the Agreement.]
With regards to the charity sction. The charities listed are Orange owned and run charities. The Orange Order routinely does charitable work for other charities which as stated are given a small amount of coverage.
Aughavey 4 July 2005 18:15 (UTC) With refernce to:- "During the 1992 marching season, the then British Secretary of State, Sir Patrick Mayhew declared "the actions of the marchers would have disgraced a tribe of cannibals" after Orangemen taunted residents of a Catholic neighbourhood they were marching through about the recent murders of five locals by the UDA. The UDA members had killed the men (who had no paramilitary connections) when they sprayed a betting-shop with gunfire. The UDA was made an illegal organisation by the British government shortly afterwards."
Whilst relevant it is worth pointing out this has more to do with "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland, the political status of Northern Ireland rather than direct the Orange Order.
The Universit of Ulster CAIN website records the following:-
Betting Shop Killings / Bookmaker's Shop Killings On 5 February 1992 five Catholic were killed in a gun attack on a bookmakers (a licensed betting shop) in the Ormeau Road area of Belfast. In a statement claiming responsibility the Ulster Freedom Fighters (UFF), a cover name (pseudonym) used by the Ulster Defence Association (UDA), concluded with the words "Remember Teebane".
Note Teebane: Teebane On 17 January 1992 the Irish Republican Army (IRA) exploded a bomb killing eight Protestant civilians who had been travelling in a minibus past Teebane crossroads between Cookstown and Omagh, County Tyrone. The men had been working at a military base in County Tyrone and were travelling home when the attack occurred.
The tit-for-tat killings were not uncommon throughout the 30 year troubles in Northern Ireland before the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998.
Aughavey 5 July 2005 09:57 (UTC) "as well as French Hugenots (including the ancestors of Davy Crockett) fleeing persecution from the Catholic Church. There were also a number of English settlers, largely Anglican. The ruling Anglo-Irish had already been in Ireland for centuries."
I think it is important to note that the Anglo-Irish had been ruling Ireland from dublin for centuries before the plantation of Ulster. Another interesting fact is that in 1155 the then "Bishop" of Rome, Pope Adrian IV granted control of Ireland to England. The grant was confirmed in 1172 by the then "Bishop" of Rome, Pope Alexander III in 1172. I do not believe that this grant has ever been revoked.
This is not quite right (the bit about the anglo-Irish anyway). The "Old English" of the pre-Elizabethan era were not the same people as the "Protestant Ascendancy" of the 17th century onwards. They had been very largely integrated into Gaelic society by the time of the tudors and even the more "English" Pale community were excluded from power because they remained Catholic after the reformation. Because of this, the "Old English" became "Irish" over the course of the 17th C, both in the eyes of the Authorities and in their own identity. Re the Pope, I believe this would be revoked by the fact the vatican recognised the Irish Free State in 1922! Not to mention the fact that the Popes had been backing Spanish, French and Jacobite claims to the throne of Ireland from 1580 - 1750 or so. Jdorney 13:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Aughavey 5 July 2005 10:01 (UTC)
"Many of its members also belong to the Democratic Unionist Party and various loyalist paramilitary groups."
Whilst it is certainly true that there may be members who associate with such things it is entirely against the rules. I is entirely possible that many school teachers, many civil servants or anything else are members of Loyalist paramilitaries. Each private lodge is responsible for its own discipline but anyone convicted of a serious crime would normally be expelled from the Order although it is at the lodges discretion to vote on it ie someone who genuinely repents of a previous crime (since Jesus forgives sin) may be accepted as a member etc.
Aughavey
13:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
"In
1870 and
1871, 60 people were killed in riots in
New York City during Orange Order marches in the city. Orange marches in the city have been banned ever since."
This is absolutely not true.
Aughavey 17:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC) "Nine people had been killed and more than a hundred injured (including women and children) during the parade the year before, when a riot broke out after the marchers had taunted Irish Catholics with sectarian songs and slogans. The ban appalled many nativists, who saw it as bowing down to the wishes of the Irish Catholic immigrant community. "
have you any evidence of this lapsed pacifist? seeing as you previously stated the above that they were banned to this day i will take you points of view, which they clearly are, with a pinch of salt. The accounts of the attacks on the Twelfth (of July) 1870 picnicers by 500-600 men makes a gory story; nine died in the affray, and, perhaps, 100 were injured. A reporter of the "New York Times" blamed the Roman Catholics. He said, "The attack was premeditated and altogether unwarranted." Archbishop McCloskey, and the Irish clergy, who spoke against any counter demonstration on the Twelfth, were condemned by Thomas Kerrigan, President of the New York Hiberniansduring a speech where he condemned the attitude of the churchmen, and the Roman Church's attitude to Orangeism in Ireland. He promised that it would not be permitted to act in the same way in America.
I tidied up the history section because I thought it was a bit of a mess. It went forwards and backwards in time and went into too much detail on things that were not really relevant, like the Glorious Revolution. I think this article could also lose the paragraphs about the flight of the earls and the 1641 rebellion to be honest. There's articles already on all these things if people want to contribute to them. Jdorney 15:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry about that, didn't realise I had done it. Just revert it. Jdorney 22:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I've taken out most of the more blatantly biased language, but I feel the article could probably be improved in other ways. XYaAsehShalomX 17:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
"The "Laws and Constitutions of the Loyal Orange Institution of Scotland", 1986 state: "No ex-Roman Catholic will be admitted into the Institution unless he is a Communicant in a Protestant Church for a reasonable period." Likewise the "Constitution, Laws and Ordinances of the Loyal Orange Institution of Ireland" (1967) state: "No person who at any time has been a Roman Catholic.... shall be admitted into the Institution, except after permission given by a vote of seventy five per cent of the members present founded on testimonials of good character . . . "(39) In the 19th century, Rev. Dr. Mortimer O'Sullivan, a converted Roman Catholic was a Grand Chaplain of the Orange Order in Ireland.
In the 1950's Scotland also had a converted Roman Catholic as a Grand Chaplain - Rev. William McDermott"
quote taken from the article:-
THE ORANGE ORDER:
An Evangelical Perspective
ORANGEISM COMPARED WITH FREEMASONRY
SOME EVANGELICAL OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED
A REPLY TO W.J.McK.McCORMICK
By REV. IAN MEREDITH B.A., M.Th. Grand Chaplain Grand Orange Lodge of Scotland & REV. BRIAN KENNAWAY M.A. Deputy Grand Chaplain Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland
Could someone explain the origin of the emblems in the flag? I am quite ignorant on this one Fasach Nua 22:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I've Deleted the Roots section as it adds little to any understanding of the Orange Order itself. Instead I've added references to the Plantation of Ulster, the Irish Rebellion of 1641 and the Williamite war in Ireland in the (now rather inelegant) first sentence of the History section.
If you want to see the edit please go here.
JASpencer 20:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
These two paragraphs contradict each other as written:
Protestant groups were formed to oppose the Catholic groups, one of which was the exclusively [[Anglican]] [[Peep O'Day Boys]], which later became the Orange Order.{{fact}}
and:
After a disturbance in [[Benburb]] on 24th June 1794, in which Protestant homes were attacked, the [[Freemasons]]' organisation was appealed to by one of its members, [[James Wilson (Orangeman)|James Wilson]], to organise themselves to defend the Protestant population.{{fact}}
JASpencer 21:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
The article states "Members are required to be Protestant with a belief in the Trinity, which excludes Unitarians and certain other Christian denominations and all non-Christians." However the qualifications cited in the footnote only mention that "An Orangeman should have a sincere love and veneration for his Heavenly Father; a humble and steadfast faith in Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, believing in Him as the only Mediator between God and man." This does not seem to be explicitly trinitarian; it does not mention the deity of Christ or of the Holy Spirit, nor does it exclude a unitarian belief merely in God as Father and Jesus as mediator. I understand that the present Grand Master in Ireland is unitarian. Unless someone can cite firm evidence that the Order is trinitarian I would wish to query the section 'Requirements for entry'
---
the Order is indeed Trinitarian.
Members are not allowed to be married to a Roman Catholic or have a Catholic mother. That's a nice friendly organization for you! However makes no violent commitment to crush the 'opposition' (Sinn Fein oath).
I undid the cut and paste move of February 2006 from Orange Order to Orange Institution, but there is talk both at Talk:Orange Order and Talk:Orange Institution. I prefer the former, as do the incoming links. -- Henrygb 00:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Why has this been moved from a name that is well known to everyone Orange Order and to a name that is barely reflected even in the article where Orange Order outweighs Orange Institution by a large amount? I don't see any discussion on the Talk page about this move. Can someone explain, preferably in the first paragraph of the article. Dabbler 22:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Curious why there is practically no explanation at all about the roots of the word 'Orange' in the context of this article/topic and actually very little in general about William of Orange. A bit too much preoccupation with the more contentious elements of this article perhaps? Rgds, JOHN NATHANN 18:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
This article seems to be almost entirely pointless. Where is there a statement as to the foundation of the OO and its roots and antecedents, its subsequent history and a chronology? Currently it seems to be little more than an apologia; looking through the discussion page the article seems to have been anti-oo, then pro-, then anti. Now its pro. But can we have some FACTS please. Can someone qualified for the job actually outline its history, PLEASE! 79.66.53.26 16:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Paul M.
Orange Halls have often been the target of Republican/Nationalist vandalism, paint bombings, sectarian graffiti and arson attacks with many of the halls suffering severe damage, if not complete destruction.
Could someone please help me with rewording this sentence? "Often" is a Weasel word, how often does this happen? I think there is a lot of POV in this sentence. Drinkanotherday 16:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no such thing as the City of Derry Grand Lodge, County Londonderry GAA or Derry Port and Harbour Commissioner. It is just wrong to refer to Derry when talking about the Orange Order. Traditional unionist 09:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Its intrinsically a sectarian organisation. They celebrate William of Orange's victory over the Jacobites. What was did William have that Jacob didn't? Protestant faith!
To the best of my knowledge, there was never an English king called Jacob. 86.43.195.7 ( talk) 07:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I have provided a ref for this claim please dont edit war on this. BigDunc 12:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
How can sectarian be a PoV term look at sectarian. And the Catholic Church are not sectarian they do not barr anyone joining who where another religon neither do Protestant, Muslim or Hindu they all actively encourage new members from any other religous organisation. BigDunc 12:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you not proving my point "many protestants are barred from membership, mainly unitarians" due to there religon so it is sectarian. BigDunc 12:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Traditional unionist I hope you will be taking out this "PoV" term "sectarian graffiti" in the article too, seen as you are against the use of the word. BigDunc 13:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that saying it is "sectarian" is ok. It carries connotations. Wikidictionary, for example, under the "sectarian" definition (see here), has "bigoted" and "narrow-minded" as part of the definition. I think we can say that the Order has been accused of it. This link provides a good refernece should anyone wish to put this into this article, or the Ancient Order of Hibernians. If all we're saying is that it is a sect that only allows some people in, why don't we just state it like that without using the word? Logoistic 23:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep the reference, but lose the wording? What is the point of the reference? -- Domer48 15:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly what is the point in changing the wording and keeping the reference. BigDunc 15:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Still NO ONE can give a source or reference to disprove it is not a sectarian organisation, yet insist on removing sources. An encyclopedic article should present facts warts and all. BigDunc 17:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
“Orangemen like to present their annual festival as a celebration of civil and religious liberty, expressing their cultural heritage and identity in a spectacle of marching enjoyed by all. The reality can be quite different. The parades that dominate the summer months often do so provocatively and selfishly without regard to the cost in terms of community relations or the public purse. Some of the marches are unmistakably triumphal. Participants see them as a continuing and vigorous manifestation of their Protestantism, Unionism and loyalty to the British Crown. They subconsciously under line divisions and seek to assert ascendancy. Some have likened the way that local lodges parade the limits of their parishes to the way that a tom cat marks out territory, signalling the Orangemen’s unyielding belief that they are a powerful majority who will resist any process of change.” Again I simply wish to illustrate that there is a precipitation of the Order that is not shared by its members. This quote is taken from Chris Ryders and Vincent Kearney’s book Drumcree: The Orange Order’s Last Stand, Methuen Publishing Ltd, London, 2001, ISBN 0 413 76260 2. -- Domer48 10:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Who else disagrees, can they be quoted by a relilable source. Are you suggesting that the references are POV, or the editors are pushing a POV. Should we do away with references, and cite only sources which you agree with? Since you have yet to provide a reference to support your opinion, I see no reason why the use of sectarian can not be used to describe th OO. If you do provide a reference, that to can be added to balance any references all ready there? -- Domer48 17:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I beg to differ, this is not bickering, this is a discussion. The simple fact of the matter is 1) there have been a number of references put forward to show that the OO is a sectarian organisation. The sources are historical, contemporary, reliable and verifiable. 2) Not one source has been put forward to suggest otherwise. Just because someone dose not like the information, is not sufficient reason to keep this information out of the article. 3) The article will not remain locked because there is a disagreement here on the discussion page. The article will be unlocked, the referenced information will be added, and it is up to editors to provide contrary views to those included in the article. 4) Editors who engage in edit warring, or removing sourced or referenced material simply because they do not like it, will have to explain themselves to administrators. I would like to add, that I will only be contributing to the discussion page, in order to improve my approach to controversial dialogue. -- Domer48 20:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I feel your definition Traditional unionist backs up what refs were put in the article and as for Farrell being a bigot dont make me laugh read Michael Farrell. There is only one person coming across like a bigot. Read this definition and decide who it is "A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own." BigDunc 20:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
“The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.” This is not only fact but is also policy. I suggest you read it, as it will clear this matter up for us all. Could you please answer the above questions.-- Domer48 20:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Logoistic thanks for the offer of outside help, and another opinion. There has been one opinion offered on this discussion, [3], a view I would share. Thanks again -- Domer48 21:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I would imagine that we have a requirement for the whole article be as neutral as possible. So how about removing the fraternal organisation from the lead? I would consider the use of that term as having connotations which would unduly slant the article. I would like also for the questions I posed to be answered. If I’m to improve my talk page discussion, I will have to deal with editors who refuse to back up their opinion with sources and references. As this can cause frustration and annoyance. -- Domer48 22:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
You are actually going out of your way to show your anti-orange bias, I don't think that helps anyone. Traditional unionist 22:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
This quote then is also biased [4], but is one from R. Foster. Who is very anti-Republican, and a noted revisionist. Chris Ryders and Vincent Kearney’s book Drumcree: The Orange Order’s Last Stand, I consider biased, very muted on the Orders history. Traditional unionist, could you suggest a book I should read, which dose not contain any bias? Can we now move to the suggestions by SirFozzie and One Night In Hackney 303. Thanks -- Domer48 09:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Traditional unionist you have accepted the use of references, so can we now move on? Can we now move to the suggestions by SirFozzie and One Night In Hackney 303. Thanks -- Domer48 12:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Traditional unionist, there was a number of references put forward, you have rejected them all. -- Domer48 13:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
“The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.” This is not only fact but is also policy. I suggest you read it, as it will clear this matter up for us all. -- Domer48 13:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
There is enough evidence to prove the sectarian nature of the OO. Traditional unionist you have not supplyed one counter claim to prove or disprove the references except to call it bigoted, biased and nationalist propaganda, so I feel we should go with the suggestion made by SirFozzie. BigDunc 13:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
You have provided the qualifications of an orangeman. There is no doubt that these could be reinterpreted as sectarian, but that does not make it true. It is verifiable that some (eg Farrell) think it is sectarian, that does not make it true. You cannot proffer opinions as facts. Traditional unionist 13:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that a historical section be added. This would improve the article, and would challenge the opinion in the Order only became overtly political around the issue of Parnell. I would suggest also that there should be a section on the Battle of the diamond, as I have a number of opposing views? I am again confining myself to the discussion page and will only put forward references. -- Domer48 21:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Traditional unionist I was under the impression that you accepted the use of references. Your selective attitude is disappointing. I can only refer you to my edit on the use of sources, and hope you will accept the policies as outlined. -- Domer48 13:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
None of the proposals show what we are meaning by inserting the word "sectarian", just getting the word in with some references. If we are saying that they exclude catholics then we should say this without the word because of the negative connotations of "sectarian". We cannot ignore the fact that it is frequently described as sectarian, as well as the fact that this carries negative conotations and therefore presents the order negatively. Therefore, if this is what we are trying to say, I propose adding the following after the second sentance in the "Requirements for entry" section:
Because of this, the institution is sometimes labelled as sectarian, a term that carries negative connotation.
Thus, it would read:
Members are required to be Protestant with a belief in the Trinity. This excludes Catholics, Unitarians and certain other Christian denominations and all non-Christians. Because of this, the institution is often labelled as sectarian, a term that carries negative connotation. Most jurisdictions require both the spouse and parents of potential applicants to be Protestant, although the Grand Lodge can be appealed to make exceptions for converts. Members of the Order face the threat of expulsion for attending any Catholic religious ceremonies.
We could add references to show this labelling if necessary, although I don't think it is. Does this sound acceptable? Logoistic 13:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Logoistic for your contribution to the discussion. It is both constructive and reasonable, and will help expand the “Requirements for entry” section. This discussion however, is dealing with the lead section on the article, and as such, the use of the term “sectarian,” is to portray the negative connotation implied. Is that not what all the references have suggested, and stated. Since you yourself show in your alternative “the institution is often labelled as sectarian.” I imagine you know what connotation is “often” implied, when it is used. -- Domer48 19:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
"Thus the idea that sectarianism was an artificial invention of the government moved back into fashion. Sectarianism was certainly encouraged by the authorities in some areas, especially through the Orange Order; but it was not invented." R. F. Foster, The Irish Story, Penguin Books, England, 2002. I do not like to quote this book, because the author is a revisionist, but is accepted by anti-nationalists (bought it third hand). But even he is not being messing with his words. The OO is considered sectarian. -- Domer48 20:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I have talked with Traditional Unionist, and he let me know he had no problem with the sentence discussed here on the talk page. Therefore, I have added it to the article.
Since the page is still protected for a bit longer, let's take advantage of the chance to get it all out now, so there's no further edit warring later. Does anyone have any problem with the article as it now stands? SirFozzie 02:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
No I am not happy with the lead surprise surprise who are the opponents of the OO? And if we are going to be pedantic on the use of negative connotations what about fraternal is that not a positive connotation? Should the article not be neutral? BigDunc 10:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
And again acording to definition I provided Sectarian is Factual. BigDunc 13:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe this section is relevant to the discussion Aatomic1 14:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
..."or neutrally cite an actual credible person or body that has used that term ("X says Y")." Cant see a problem with getting refs for this. BigDunc 14:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Aatomic1 if you read BigDunc's contrabution, you will notice that they quote from WP:Words to avoid. If you read my contrabution, you will notice that the word sectarian is in inverted commas. Which means that it is a quoted by someone. As to the rest of your reasoning, are you suggesting that unless the OO describe themselves as sectarian, no one else can? It has been agreed that "sectarian" is going in, all we are discussing is how it should be phrased. -- Domer48 17:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Traditional unionistthats a compleatly different discussion. Lets stick to this article, and get this out of the way first shall we. I would again remind you to be civil, and do not make statements you can not back up. How do you feel about my suggestion? -- Domer48 21:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Traditional unionist on your talk page you have agreed that it should appear in the lead, and that it should include that the Order rejects this. [5] So I would ask again, is my suggested wording ok, “The Orange Order is considered to be a ‘sectarian’ organisation by many outside the Order,” as I consider that it covers both points you have made. -- Domer48 08:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Logoistic your wording is fine, for the section it is in “Requirements for Entry,” however we are dealing with the “Lead” section. The “Lead” section is supposed to be a synopsis of the article. The synopsis we have agreed must contain the “sectarian” reference/s, as it forms an important part of the article. What we are trying to decide is how we word it in the “Lead,” which accurately reflects the references, but also points out that the order rejects this. (To date, no citation has been provided, which reflects this rejection, but that’s another matter) The only possible conclusion I can determine is that you consider that it should not be addressed in the lead? As to SirFozzie’s suggestion, BigDunc has pointed out that the references used, are not opponents of the Order, therefore the use of the word "opponents" is not appropriate. -- Domer48 15:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
michael Farrell isn't an opponent of the Orange? Traditional unionist 16:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
There are many quotes now apart from Farrell’s, not that his should be dismissed. The fixation on Farrell is I consider disingenuous.
“The order survived many bannings, its reinstatement often as the result of noble insistence, and was to play a significant part in Ulster politics and sectarian violence thereafter…The titular and persistent tribute to William III is ironic in light of his known non-sectarian views.” Sean McMahon, A Short History of Ireland, Mercier Press, 1996, Dublin, ISBN 1 85635 137 8.
“…that evening the victorious protestants established an ‘Orange Society” to protect their own immediate interests and to maintain the protestant ascendancy. During the next few months the Roman Catholics of Armagh and the neighbouring counties were subjected to a violent persecution, which drove thousands of them to take refuge in Connaught.” J. C. Beckett, The Making of Modern Ireland 1603-1923, Faber and Faber, London, 1966, SBN 571 09267 5.
I consider that it has now been established beyond question, that the Order is sectarian. Sectarian in its broadest sense. Not one citation has been proffered to refute this, and still the discussion goes on. Now the question remains, is my suggested wording acceptable, or should we go for a more illuminating description of the Orders sectarianism. -- Domer48 17:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
To date there has been 12 references put forward to illustrate the the inclusion of the line “The Orange Order is considered to be a ‘sectarian’ organisation by many outside the Order.” No cited sources have been put forward to refute them. This line should go in. -- Domer48 20:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, I can't agree. let me copy a section for you from the Words to Avoid page.
Such terms often convey to readers an implied viewpoint — that of the "outsider looking in and labelling as they see it". The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it is pejorative or inflammatory in nature.
It's often a good idea to avoid terms that appear biased or may be perceived so by some notable group, even if technically they aren't. A more neutral wording is preferable and can be found by careful thought. Often an easy way to do this is to describe rather than label, or neutrally cite an actual credible person or body that has used that term ("X says Y").
Let's find that more neutral wording and use that careful thought. SirFozzie 20:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
So after the word “fraternal organisation” we could include the following “although according to a number of historians, academics, authors and journalists the Order is considered to be a “sectarian organisation.” Bearing in mind that we could put a reference beside each group of people who say it to denote the comment. So A, B, C, and D say it though E dose not. -- Domer48 20:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
SirFozzie the references above 12 according to Domer48 have they not shown that the term is used by a lot of people are they not encompassed in ...neutrally cite an actual credible person or body that has used that term ("X says Y"). or are you saying that they are not neutral? BigDunc 20:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
ONIH that is some link, and is just the icing on the cake. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are its a ... -- Domer48 20:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
So know we have insiders outsiders a lot of siders yet it can not be said on WP. Great link ONIH BigDunc 21:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Dunc, watch it. There are guidelines on WP, and I'm doing my best to keep everyone inside those guidelines. I'm not saying it can't be said, I'm saying it has to be said and cited properly.
(edit conflicted comment)
BigDunc: What I'm trying to avoid is saying "Others Say X" in the article. Domer's suggestion would be better. It cites WHO says WHAT about the Orange Instituion. "Irish Historian So-And-So stated that the Institution was sectarian in his book, "My Book"." for example.
ONiH: I have no problem with that, but I would also suggest that we look into adding in the quotes that show (apparently) the head of the Orange Institution softening it's anti-Catholic edge, and also that it considers itself as "Sectarian as the Bank of Scotland". SirFozzie 21:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
SirFozzie if it is not too much of an imposition, could you, based on the accumulating amount of references, put together a sentence similar to your last one. If the words not and barge pole are in the answer I would understand. I also have a problem fraternal, its not cited, and based on the run around we’ve had, at least one would be nice? -- Domer48 21:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure. New Section coming up! SirFozzie 21:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
QUESTION can the leader of the OO change the constitution without discussing with it's members? BigDunc 21:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
How about a sentence like the following in the lead. "In recent years, the Orange Institution has attempted to soften its Anti-Catholic edge (insert reference to that UPI article above), in an attempt to shed the view that it was inherently sectarian (insert reference to the article above where the head of the Grand Order of the range Institution in Scotland said "Yes it's sectarian, but as sectarian as the Church of Scotland") replacing the current one that's in there. Would that help? SirFozzie 21:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
1. It needs to demonstrate the fact that lots of people label/have labelled it "sectarian". This means detatching it from the article persona by explicitly highlighting an outside.
2. It needs to show what it means by sectarian (and the only definition that would get in is that it is protestant-only, and has been anti-Catholic). To remove the negative connotation from the article's persona I have suggested we need to explicilty highlight the context with which it is defined (hence my own proposal "This excludes Catholics, Unitarians and certain other Christian denominations and all non-Christians. Because of this, the institution is often labelled as sectarian,..."). I furthered this by highlighting that the negative connotation is there ("...a term that carries negative connotation"), but is not directly linked to the facts that the order excludes non-protestants. In other words, it is not fact that the order is "bigotted".
I know my proposal wasn't supposed to go in the lead, but it is easilly transferred. Logoistic 23:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I think your suggested wording is coming very close to what we are looking for here. Particularly “owing to its history and rules.” Your references though, could be taken either way, and I would be concerned that down the road they would be challenged. One only has to look at the reaction to my references. -- Domer48 18:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Serious question, that is the extent of the POV being pushed here by the usual nationalist tag team. If the team are putting up links claiming that the order is sectarian and then insist on its inclusion in an article, than can other editors produce links that insist the IRA were murderers and insist that that POV is included? Conypiece 17:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Ae you Conypiece asking editors to form a team this is against WP guidelines disruptive editing BigDunc 17:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks SirFozzie. -- Domer48 17:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Totally agree SirFozzie. BigDunc 17:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, Conypiece, let me explain what I'm trying to do, so hopefully we can ratchet down the rhetoric. In this latest flap over the word Sectarian, we had a previous discussion and it was agreed that we would not use the word "others", because that's too nebulous. One of the problems with these series of articles is that yes, both sides have a PoV that is wildly divergent from the others point of view. In this case, the folks who want to see that sentence in the lead have provided references (note, that works both ways, did you see I posted a possible reference that states the Order's head in Scotland has removed several anti-catholic things from the Order's charter, which led me to trying to add a bit in the lead about them softening their anti-catholic edge). What we are trying to do is be both clear and concise.
Would you prefer something like.. Opponents of the Orange Insitution have charged that the Institution is Sectarian, due to its goals and banning of Roman Catholic members, a charge the Institution denies as a whole, but the head of the Orange Institution in Scotland, Ian Wilson used the term to describe the Institution (comparing it to the Church of Scotland) with a link to this article. [ [11] SirFozzie 18:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
(changed the title)... here's the quote from the source.
The Grand Master also made the controversial admission that his organisation is "sectarian" - but defended its right to exist. He said: "I take a very ‘reformed’ stance - we stand for civil and religious liberty. "The order is a broad church, open to anybody who accepts Christ as saviour, and accepts scripture as the sole rule of faith. "OK, we’re ‘sectarian’ - just as is the Church of Scotland, in the sense of being people all of one mind - like Roman Catholics. "But that’s not anti-Catholic, it’s not bigotry. I genuinely welcome the contribution the Irish, say, have made to this country.
SirFrozzie, the word “Opponents,” who are they? The only references we have used are historians, academics, Journalists and Authors/Solicitors/Civil Rights Leaders. We could hardly describe them as “Opponents.” -- Domer48 19:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Could I again suggest this “The Orange Order is considered to be a ‘sectarian’ organisation by many outside the Order.”We are going to get to the finer points in the article in anyway. Logoistic proposel will be in the lead of the “Requirements for entry” section. There is also my suggestion on the "Historical Background," were additional information can be added. We all agree after all that ‘sectarian’ is going in the "Lead." -- Domer48 19:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair point One Night In Hackney 303 and is backed up with references. How about this "The Orange Order is considered to be 'sectarian' by many outside the Order, however this is an accusation rejected by some within the Institution." -- Domer48 20:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Please Traditional unionist, lets remain civil, and try to move forward. What do you think of my suggestion. -- Domer48 21:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I was going to suggest that in the main space [12], but you are right about Drumcree. It has for the past ten years been such a major issue. -- Domer48 21:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Traditional unionist, your references say between 40-50,000. Hardly hundreds of thousands. One Night In Hackney 303 is right to ask for references. How about the suggestion? I might be rejected by others, it is only a suggestion after all. -- Domer48 21:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
SirFozzie's edit in the lead would be ok with me if, like Domer's suggestions, sectarian is put in speech marks (the single ones 'i.e.'). This is virtually the same as Domer's, plus includes details of the context it is used. TU seems to agree with it, I do, and I think Domer does. Any objections to leaving it with this small change? Also, there seems no objections to my proposal in the main article. So SirFozzie - can we make these changes please? Logoistic 10:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
ONIH is right about the scare quotes, never thought about that. There had been a link to the sectarian article, and that should be there also. I still have a problem with the use of the word 'Opponents' because the references would not consider themselves as such. -- Domer48 11:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The Traditional unionist has missed everyone elses point most noteably his own..His defence of his partisan views and his retardation of the subject is as he would put it "nonsense".. Breen32 15:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Well for starters the RUC was a notorious sectarian so called law inforcement group,which was made up at one stage by over 95% of your unionist brethern-do you see any link? shall i go further.. Breen32 17:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
since when are bare relavent facts known as outbursts..?are you in the dark about your own history..?Or is it everyone elses fault that the unionist population held the monoply on being a member of the RUC.. Breen32 19:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Could other Editors put forward their suggestions, and we can discuss it below them? -- Domer48 18:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
We have a proposed wording. It includes the fact that opponents of the order regard it as sectarian, sectarian being a quote from these opponents. Traditional unionist 19:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Traditional unionist instead of starting another song and dance, put some wording under mine which you consider would cover the matter. Because you are just knocking any suggestion at the moment. -- Domer48 19:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Well put it under mine, if its there on the table. -- Domer48 19:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Can editors put forward their suggestions, thanks. -- Domer48 08:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The orgins of unionism is scottish settlers sent to Ireland to farm the land,and essentially remove or control the native people by means of military support and aggression,this in todays terms would be classed as ethnic cleansing..this is with out doubt pure and utter sectarianism from one group of people to another.. Breen32 11:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
One Night In Hackney 303 the point has been made a number of times now, Traditional unionist is dead set agaings reason, we should all move on, and put forward suggestions. -- Domer48 14:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not rejecting everything. I am happy with the form of words as it stands, provided the quote is properly attributed as such. ONiH, try googling Australian Brehon Law Society. I think the results will show all they need to about the neutrality of that organisation. Very little evidence that it exists, and all there is is in SF propaganda. Traditional unionist 19:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Traditional unionist you have provided nothing, no source, no citation and no verifiable information for any of your views. All you have provided is your opinion. Now, provide verifiably referenced sources that say that the sources that have been provided are Nationalist propaganda, Republican propaganda, Biased, Bigoted, or just plain wrong. As far as I’m concerned, this part of the discussion is over. There are now two suggestions on the table, if editors wish to add more please do so, and let us get on with it.-- Domer48 20:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The Orange Institution, more commonly known as the Orange Order, is a Protestant fraternal organisation based predominantly in Northern Ireland and Scotland with lodges throughout the Commonwealth and the United States. It was founded in Loughgall, County Armagh, Ireland in 1795; its name is a tribute to Dutch-born Protestant king of England, William III, of the House of Orange-Nassau. It is suggested by both contemporary and historical commentators that the Orange Order is a sectarian organisation, a view endorsed by one of its leading members in Scotland.
Can we look at the wording and offer suggestions. Not opinions on the use of the word sectarian, that has been well covered and discussed by Editors. -- Domer48 21:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Done. -- Domer48 21:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes that looks good to me. BigDunc 21:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The final sentence is stuffed with POV. This does not stand up. Traditional unionist 22:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Traditional unionist the final sentence is cited, verifiable and reliably sourced. You opinion has not. -- Domer48 22:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It is cited, it is not verifiable and is certainly not reliably sourced. One out of three isn't good enough. Traditional unionist 23:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
lets make it one out of four... Breen32 00:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Brendan O'Leary, advisor to Kevin McNamara and Mo Mowlam, two of the most pro Nationalist Labour NI spokespeople in history. Australian politician, made his pronouncements on behalf of an obscure law society with clear links to Catholic Ireland. Michael Farrell, a well known Nationalist. You can't claim these people's opinions as facts, they are clearly not neutral, they all have a clear POV. Traditional unionist 08:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
If they are not neutral-then will you explain their point of view.. Breen32 09:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe Mo Mowlan and Kevin Mc Namara are just far too sensible and have proven them selfs reasonable beyond doubt for you to see them as anything else but non neutral..Academics such as them surely cant be that pro nationalist as to your POV..Why are you so unreasonable when you wont provide refrenses.. Breen32 20:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
This discussion has gone on long enough with
USER:Traditional unionist not providing any sources or references to back up his claim dispite 12 references been given for the proposal.
The text in the lead that has been put forward is this;
The Orange Institution, more commonly known as the Orange Order, is a Protestant fraternal organisation based predominantly in Northern Ireland and Scotland with lodges throughout the Commonwealth and the United States. It was founded in Loughgall, County Armagh, Ireland in 1795; its name is a tribute to Dutch-born Protestant king of England, William III, of the House of Orange-Nassau. It is suggested by both contemporary and historical commentators that the Orange Order is a sectarian organisation, a view endorsed by one of its leading members in Scotland.
References will be added when this is put in to the article. BigDunc 09:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Over ten references have been provided, Traditional unionist, has only provided comment, opinion and no references. This is not a content dispute, Traditional unionist is just being disruptive. -- Domer48 10:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
And regardless the references are there, you have supplied nothing but opinion. BY THE WAY, everyone involved is being checkUsered, including you. So your point is? Exactly, you are devoid of anything other than opinion, and none of that is referenced. -- Domer48 11:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
When you have dug yourself into a hole, my advice is stop digging [13]. As part of the ArbCom, I do not need to provide evidence, you'll be check usered anyway. O and by the way, "It is suggested" is not "trying to have that referenced as fact." Breen32 is a sock of BigDunc, but BigDunc is a sock of Domer48, but Breen32 is not Domer48, ye right. And still no admin steps in to say, you requesting a CheckUser as a reference to back up your lack of sources, just dose not work. -- Domer48 11:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} In the last sentence of the lead, please change "Opponents" to "Observers". Despite repeated requests, no sources have been provided to prove the sources are "Opponents". One Night In Hackney 303 13:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Editprotected requests are only intended for completely uncontroversial changes, not ones like this that are related to the reason for protection. Please discuss the issues here rather than asking uninvolved admins to join the dispute. I have no opinion on the merits of this proposed change; it's a general policy not to make changes to protected pages that have any significant chance of being disputed. — Carl (
CBM ·
talk)
13:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Please add {{fact|date=September 2007}} after "Opponents" in the last sentence of the lead. That way we need a verifiable reliable source provided, and if it is not provided the word has to go, at some point. One Night In Hackney 303 13:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Political links and related organizations
"The Order first became overtly political during Charles Stewart Parnell's campaign for Home Rule in the 1880s"
citation needed This information is wrong, the Order has been "overtly political," since it founding. Please place the tag, and I'll provide the references which will correct this misinformation.--
Domer48
13:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I have not asked for it to be removed yet. When I do remove it, it will be replaced with references. -- Domer48 13:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Controversy
"Its spokespeople and supporters describe the Orange Order as a pious organisation, celebrating Protestant culture and identity, but it is accused of sectarianism and anti-Catholicism."
citation needed
This information is unreferenced, reference can be provided, but an Admin suggests concensus is required to do so. Unreferenced material can be challanged and removed, I'd like to place references. --
Domer48
13:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I am struggling to see any consensus. Might I suggest WP:RTP to allow any neutral observer with a short attention span to form an opinion. Aatomic1 13:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Aatomic1 please remaine civil. -- Domer48 13:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
England
"Most English lodges are based in the Liverpool area, including Toxteth. An estimated 4,000 Orangemen, women and children parade in Liverpool and Southport every 12 July, watched by tens[citation needed] of thousands more."
No references have been provided, therefore it should be removed.--
Domer48
13:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} The Twelfth Main article: The Twelfth "The highlights of the Orange year are the parades leading up to the celebrations on the Twelfth of July. The Twelfth however remains a deeply divisive issue, not least because of allegations of triumphalism and anti-Catholicism against the Orange Order in the conduct of its Walks and criticism of its alleged behaviour towards Roman Catholics."
I would like placed fact tags / citation tag after the words "allegations" and "alleged." My question being who is making these allagations?-- Domer48 12:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
How would I go about merging Orange Walk into this article. And why not merge The Twelfth while we at it, this would make the whole article more comprehensive? -- Domer48 13:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
This is nothing of the sort, please do not cause anymore trouble.-- Domer48 13:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
You have said "is probably similar to AFD," and opposed it regardless of knowing what it entails? -- Domer48 13:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Well now were getting somewhere. So you agree with a merge of Orange Walk then. -- Domer48 13:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there any admins looking at this article who are brave enough to step up to the breach and stop one editor holding this article to ransom thanks. At this rate this article will be blocked forever. BigDunc 13:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Lets not go down that road, shall we [15]. -- Domer48 13:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Hadn't noticed that, thanks! Traditional unionist 13:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Glad I could help [16]. -- Domer48 13:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
You have provided opinion, not evidence, there is a difference. -- Domer48 13:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The section below shows what your up against, Blank, there will be no sources or references added to it. -- Domer48 13:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Could you please put the refs,sources or what ever you claim to have brought to this disscusion. I would ask other editors not to post to this section on till after TU has posted. BigDunc 13:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I am about to ask for the page unprotecting on RFPP. However before I do so I would like an agreement that there will be no edit warring. I require the page unprotecting so I can add tags to certain contentious sentences, I am not planning on making any other changes. Everyone agree? One Night In Hackney 303 13:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Traditional unionist is not holding this page to ransom, based soly on their opinion. The section above is evidence enough of that. Full of their references. Work away ONIH, and let Admin deal with TU if they cause disruption. -- Domer48 14:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
As I have explained, editprotected requests on this page are unlikely to be fulfilled. Please stop trying to involve admins in the dispute here. If you cannot come to consensus about the content of the article by discussion here, consider mediation. I don't expect any admin will be willing to edit the page because while the content is still a subject of active dispute. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 20:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I see the sources Traditional unionist claim exists to cite the required text have not yet been added to the article. Perhaps Traditional unionist would either like to add them to the article now, or list them below so another editor can do it? Simply saying you've produced them already is no longer acceptable, I'd like them adding to the article please. One Night In Hackney 303 22:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok then, could you provide the reference for "Opponents."? So we can just get that out of the way? Thanks -- Domer48 15:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Your rational, now the reference? Thanks -- Domer48 16:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I really don't have time for this nonsense. Some of those do need referenced, but others, when removed, make the piece read like a Sinn Fein manifesto. I will look for some references when I get a moment. Traditional unionist 13:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The ones that dont I left all the rest reads like an OO love in just because you dont like what the truth is about the OO you can not leave un sourced pieces in the article. BigDunc 14:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Traditional Unionist, either provide references, or the claims can't remain in the article.-- Padraig 14:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Please can editors stop edit warring, and discuss this issue. I have issued WP:3RR warnings to two editors, and further edit warring is likely to lead to blocks and possibly to the protection of the article.
If the discussion cannot be resolved through discussion, trying some of the further steps suggested at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Traditional unionist read WP:ATT and WP:RS BigDunc 14:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Do not patronize me. Please read WP:BURO Traditional unionist 14:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I would not dream of patronising you just showing you the error of your ways. BigDunc 14:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Pity your refs aren't. BigDunc 15:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
You've managed to destroy my afternoon's study - and now I have to go to work. I'll be hoking out a few books tonight and coming back with more tomorrow. Traditional unionist 15:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
This article might benefit from {{ TOCleft}}. Rich Farmbrough, 17:51 2 October 2007 (GMT).
There is a proposal being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles/Proposed_decision#Just_a_heads_up by various admins and parties to the ongoing ArbCom case that would limit the editors to 1 revert/week (not counting reverts of anonymous IP addresses) I don't want anyone to miss it, because if it gets put through and someone gets blocked for breaking it, I don't want any complaining about "I didn't know about it!" SirFozzie 18:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Padraig: I'm not the one who decided, so I'm not going to be the one to wheel war (well, sorta wheel war, but I have faith in the judgement of Alison and BrownHairedGirl as well). Also, it was recognized by both admins that it took two to tango. So rather then block them BOTH, one final warning. SirFozzie 19:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
It can’t be explained! One of the main problems is the lack of consistency on how policies are applied. We had the ridiculous situation already, were having provided multiple references, we are told to go of and find consensus. Never mind the fact that one editor, refused to cite sources for their opinion. The equation is as follows Comment + Opinion - References = Article Lock (Need Consensus). I have raised this before, some editors prefer article locks! Why not as part of this solution, impose blocks as opposed to articles being locked, that is what was proposed in the last ArbCom I was involved in? Look at this recent situation, Dunc removes unreferenced material which had been tagged, TU replaces it. And this is an edit war? That "two to tango" is BS, no offence intended Fozz. -- Domer48 19:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Fozie I have asked TU to provide sources for the OO article umpteen times all you have to do is look at the talk page and here and he has failed to do so. He seems to want to have page protection on this article which always seems to be on the page he reverts too. BigDunc 19:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Yet its now being proposed to put all editors on 1RR per week because one editor can't provide references to support his POV editing, and reverts attempts to remove unsourced material with edit summaries such as this and this.-- Padraig 19:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Locking an article is not something done lightly, I agree. Usually, when two editors go to war over an articlem it's better to give cool-off blocks to the warriors rather then lock the article, because someone not involved in the edit war might come in and improve it. With this many folks involved, locks are sometimes better to get ALL the editors to calm down. Didn't work here, agreed. And just to explain where I'm coming from on this, with the amount of bad feeling that's going on, it's always good to show that you went the extra mile to try to resolve conflicts without edit-warring. It's less likely to piss of the admin who shows up later, ;) SirFozzie 19:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Fozzie is right: go the extra mile. You all know how these edit wars start, and there are plenty of things that editors on both sides could have done to stop the situation escalating. I'm not saying that they would necessarily have worked, but it is important to try them.
I can see were you are coming from but are the tags not indication that an editor is going to make a change after a period of time. I felt it would be pointless to ask TU about it as he would have churned out the same responses he has given the last 4 weeks or so since I came in to contact with him on this article. And he would not have done anything different he would have reverted no matter what. But I have learned from this episode. BigDunc 21:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Could not have put it better Padraig that is exactly what he wanted page protected on his POV again. BigDunc 21:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that Padraig may well be right that if TU had been asked again for the refs, they would not have been forthcoming. That is being cited as a justification for not trying, but I think that it's exactly the opposite: it's a very good reason why you should have tried. (Yes, I know hindsight is 20-20 etc, but we're in lesson-learning mode) If he had been asked again, there were two possibilities: either he provided the refs, in which case you could move on (if only to assessing them), or he didn't, in which case it would have been entirely reasonable of you to say something along the lines of "do it soon, or it will be reverted". That way you could now be demonstrating that you really had exhausted efforts to resolve things, and that would be clear to any admin coming to the article. And that's what you need if you want admins in this territory to take actions other than the neutral steps of warning both sides or protecting the article: you need to demonstrate not just that the other party is wrong, but that you really have tried to avoid another conflict. I certainly would not like to bet that we will not now have the same situation in a week. But I do allow myself to hope that if there is still an impasse in a week's time, that it won't have become an edit war. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I was talking about dialogue before removing the contested material. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Should it not have been the case that TU, rather than reverting, gone of and got the references and then place the information back into the article. After all, they went and added unreferenced material back into an article, which had been clearly tagged. Would it be at all possible to stop refering to this issue as an edit war, because that is simply not the case. And one more thing, will this article being locked address this problem? If not, it should be unlocked. -- Domer48 08:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I have been reviewing yesterday's edit war, and the deep frustration felt by editors on both sides of this argument. I would like to try to suggest a way forward.
I have already suggested that editors re-read Wikipedia:Resolving disputes and consider some of the options there, but I note that Wikipedia:Requests for mediation will not take on a dispute unless the editors involved have already started a discussion, though editors may want to consider seeking assistance from the informal mediation cabal.
However, I have been reviewing yesterday's edit war, and it occurred to me that one of the difficulties is that several contentious issues were under discussion at the same time. That makes hard to focus on solutions to particular points of contention.
So my suggestion is to:
Starting from the top of the article, the section on The Twelfth appears to have several points of contention:
I don't claim to have identified all the issues in that section, or even to have characterised them accurately. The editors involved here are the ones who need to identify the issues, and I am just trying to show how things could be broken down.
One thing stands out for me from this section: that the Orange and nationalist/republican perspectives on this issue have both identified a need for references for points which concern them, and yesterday's edit-war cycle involved editors from both sides fact-tagging points with which they disagreed, and removing fact tags from points which they thought were self-evident. It seems to me that both sides have some research to do.
As above, this is only a suggestion. If there is a better way forward, please use it! -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, as far as I could see, the entire paragraph for the Twelth needed referenced. It seems ludicrous to claim that it is more than an allegation that the event is sectarian etc. The BIRW report shows that it is an allegation. On the point of 90% of Orange parades being uncontentious, this is a truism in Northern Ireland, reported year after year on TV reports. I have provided two references for this, and in time I think I know where I can find one in a couple of academic works. Yet ONiH is intent on portraying a truism as fluid, as if the small parade in Ballinamalard (for example) will suddenly erupt in sectarian violence next year! Its daft.
Traditional unionist
12:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
(de-indent). I think that there are two issues here:
I have a question. Unreferenced material was removed yesterday - it is now clear that references for some of it was readily and easily available. Where is the line between someone who removes information that they cannot find references for, and someone who removes information which they for whatever reason choose not to look for the references? Surely the latter is vandalism? Traditional unionist 15:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you comment on this content dispute please? [17] Thanks, Valenciano 13:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
First Citation tag. Remove the word “allegations.” And also the word “alleged,” on the next line were the citation tag was removed. They are not allegations and they are not alleged. These references show this quite clearly. They are made up of both contemporary and historical sources. I have included most of the applicable paragraphs to dispel any notion of selectivity. The sources more than qualify as both reliable and verifiable, to be sure of it I have included some biographical information. -- Domer48 18:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
"Orangemen like to present their annual festival as a celebration of civil and religious liberty, expressing their cultural heritage and identity in a spectacle of marching enjoyed by all. The reality can be quite different. The parades that dominate the summer months often do so provocatively and selfishly without regard to the cost in terms of community relations or the public purse. Some of the marches are unmistakably triumphal. Participants see them as a continuing and vigorous manifestation of their Protestantism, Unionism and loyalty to the British Crown…The lodges’ insistence on marching anywhere at any time, and the bands’ habit of playing louder as they pass Catholic churches and neighbourhoods have helped to thwart any prospect of a mutually respectful relationship. In fact, Catholics see the Order as the all-powerful instrument through which they were consigned to second-class citizenship in Northern Ireland for decades after partition in 1922."
Reference Drumcree: The Orange Order’s Last stand, Chris Ryder and Vincent Kearney, Methuen,
ISBN
0 413 76260 2.
Chris Ryder is a freelance journalist writing regularly for publications including the Sunday Times and Irish Times, and was previously Northern Ireland correspondent for the Daily Telegraph. His previous books include Inside the Maze: The Untold Story of the Northern Ireland Prison Service and The RUC: A Force Under Fire.
Vincent Kearney is Northern Ireland correspondent for the Sunday Times, and formerly Political Correspondent for the Belfast Telegraph. He was Northern Ireland Journalist of the Year in 1995, and in 1996 he was a member of the Belfast Telegraph team who received the Northern Ireland All News Media award for coverage of the Drumcree stand-off and its aftermath.
"It has sometimes been difficult to discern such high-minded sentiments, for example when Orangemen triumphantly hold up five fingers as they parade past a spot where five Catholics were shot dead. Previous marching seasons have produced widespread disorder, and while other elements bear some responsibility for these disasters, it is the Order’s metronomic determination to march past hostile Catholic areas which has time and again occasioned serious disturbance. It was in fact ever thus, for throughout its two-century history the Order has left behind a trail of troubles… But it was Belfast which saw the worst of the violence with repeated riots during the marching season, most of them following Orange demonstrations, 2 major disturbances taking place between 1813 and 1886. Several of the Subsequent government inquiries showed that most of the city’s policemen were Orangemen. Six commissions of inquiry were set up to report on the causes of rioting. The reports of all six blamed two main factors, poor policing and Orange parades. One report said: “The celebration of that [Orange July] that is plainly and unmistakably the originating cause of these riots”, adding the occasion was used “to remind one party of the triumph of their ancestors over those of the other, and to inculcate the feelings of Protestant superiority over their Roman Catholic neighbours."
"Friction had developed because the marchers insisted on a age-old route homeward through what had now become a solidly Catholic district, Garvaghy Road. After protester stood quietly to allow the march past, as agreed, they were angered when local Ulster Unionist MP David Trimble said there had been no compromise and held hands aloft with the Reverend Ian Paisley to applause from Orangemen in the centre of Portadown."
Reference Through the Minefield, David McKittrick, Blackstaff Press, 1999, Belfast, ISBN 0 85640 652 x Parameter error in {{ ISBN}}: invalid character.
David McKittrick was named Correspondent of the Year by the BBC’s What the Papers Say in February 1999, and two months later was named Journalist of the Year in the Northern Ireland Press and Broad casting Awards. As Ireland correspondent of the London Independent since 1986, he has won several other media awards, as well as the Ewart-Biggs Memorial Prize for the promotion of peace and under standing in Ireland. A frequent broadcaster who has reported on Northern Ireland since 1973, this is the fourth collection of his journalism to be published by Blackstaff Press. He is co-author with Eamonn Mallie of the 1996 book The Fight for Peace.
Well you know how I feel then Helenalex I have been asking TU for 4 weeks to ref this article all to know joy. BigDunc 14:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok then, so we can take out the words “alleged” and “allegations.” Because they are not allegations and they are not alleged, but verifiable facts. While TU considers that "it isn't enough to take the word allegations out," they do conceed, that it "is verifiable...that there have been instances of insensitivity and wrong doing" and "there are well known examples of wrongdoing by so called Orangemen." Helenalex there are two references there in that section on "The Twelfth" after " most Orange parades however had passed off peacefully and without incident," and two more will not hurt, thanks for that. So that should address TU's point on it not being a "hate fest," and is in the same paragraph. So can we go along with my proposed wording for this section as shown in the sandbox -- Domer48 17:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I very much afraid that is not an acceptable response to the reasonable discussion we are having. First, you accept the validity of the references! Therefore the words “alleged” and “allegations” are gone. Your comment that it “simply isn't encyclopaedic” is nonsensical. As to “it simply makes a POV statement and leaves it at that,” is absurd, I’m removing the POV from the statements. If you wish to broaden the section, by all means do so, all I ask is that you reference it. Please no more blog sites. Now I would just make one more point here before we move on. TU no more comment and opinion, as evidenced by your last contribution. We on this article are attempting to move things along. This is not going to be allowed to drag on this time! The references are their, I provided them, move on shall we? -- Domer48 19:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
To help editors trying to reach consensus on creating a consensus version of the article, I have created a copy of the latest version of the article, at Talk:Orange Institution/sandbox. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad that people are starting to work constructively. Before particular sentences get set in concrete ('we agreed on this exact wording!') it seems to me that the particularly contentious sentences have become extremely awkward, and also that it makes no sense to have the Twelfth section seperate from - and on a different part of the page from! - the section on parades. I've done a sandbox fix of both issues at Talk:Orange Institution/sandbox/Helenalex. Where multiple footnotes exist for one sentence, I've run them together so that all the references are in the one footnote. This looks a lot better, imo. -- Helenalex 21:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
That seems fine with me User:Helenalex/sandbox/OrangeInstitution, lets see what others think? -- Domer48 09:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Helenalex , can we move on to my suggestion on the Political links and related organizations section, while the others review your proposel? It should be a simple enough one, the ref's are there? -- Domer48 09:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like to have this sentence changed:
The Order first became overtly political during Charles Stewart Parnell's campaign for Home Rule in the 1880s. citation needed
This is clearly patent nonsense, as these references will attest. I would propose changing the sentence to:
The Order, from its very inception was an overtly political organisation.
References:
"The Protestant only Orange Order, established in the I 790s to carry out sectarian warfare against the Catholic Defenders in the countryside, functioned as a shadow government that enforced the rules of Ulster’s religious caste system. Its sprawling network of lodges controlled private sector hiring and public sector services. The extent of the discrimination was clear at Harland & Wolff shipyards in Belfast, where there were only 225 Catholics in a work force of three thousand in 1 887.
The Protestants of the Orange Order understood that this blatant discrimination would not continue if a Dublin-based legislature were established. So, speaking the language they believed Britain would understand, they argued that Home Rule would be Rome rule, that in a self-governing Ireland, they would be subjected to the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church. Seeing a chance to win support for his Conservative Party, Lord Randolph Churchill told colleagues that “the Orange card would be the one to play.'"
Reference: For the Cause of Liberty, Terry Golway, Touchstone, 2000, ISBN 0 684 85556 9
"But that same night a body of magistrates, squires, squireens, and parsons in County Armagh met together and formed the Mother Lodge of the Orange Society. Under a pretext of zeal for law, order, and the Protestant religion an oath-bound secret society on the Masonic model was organised, which, in practice, proved a fomenting centre, as well as a cloak of protection, for the organised knavery into which the Peep-of-Day Boys had degenerated. The Orange Order became an organised conspiracy of all the most de generate reactionaries of every social strata—an instrument whereby the lumpen strata were used as tools to break up the solidarity engendered by the United Irish men, and to replace the struggle for democratic advance by disintegrating it into an embittered war of sect against sect, from which the only ones to profit were the dare Beresford clique in Dublin Castle and their hangers-on of every social grade. In evaluting the Orange Society it must not be forgotten that the bodies it was founded to disrupt and destroy—the United Irishmen and the Defenders—functioned, the one as a great liberating force, and the other as a tenants’ protection league and an agrarian trade union. The Orange lodges functioned as a “union-smashing” force, operating in the interest of an oligarchical clique threatened with overthrow by a revolutionary-democratic advance. They constituted the first Fascist body known in history."
Reference: Ireland Her Own, T. A. Jackson, Lawrence & Wishart, London, First published in 1947, Reprinted 1971, 1973, 1976, 1985 and 1991, ISBN 0 85315 735 9
"However, this very fact brought home to the government the extreme seriousness of the United Irish threat and military measures were immediately taken against the secret society in its stronghold among the Presbyterians and Catholics of Ulster. The ruthless way in which the army now conducted its search for arms and information was remarkably successful and by the end of 1797 the conspiracy in that part of Ireland was virtually broken. A not inconsiderable factor in the breaking of it was a reversion on the part of many Protestants to their old sectarian ways under the auspices of the recently founded Orange Society."
Reference: Ireland A History, Robert Kee, Abacus, First published 1982 Revised edition published 2003, 2004 and 2005, ISBN 0 349 11676 8
"In Armagh, there was a pitched battle in September 1795 between Protestant and Catholic groups. The Defenders were overwhelmed. Following this fight, a new extra-parliamentary body was founded, the Orange Society, which later changed its name to the Orange Order The aim of the Society was to maintain what its members no longer trusted the parliament to do, and it defined its loyalty in a distinctly conditional way: ‘to support and defend the King and his heirs as long as he or they support the Protestant Ascendancy’. Many Catholics living in mainly Protestant districts were forcibly driven out, most of them finding refuge in Connacht. Those who remained trusted to the Defenders to keep the roofs over their heads."
Reference: Ireland History of a Nation, David Ross, Geddes & Grosset, Scotland, First published 2002, Reprinted 2005 & 2006, ISBN 10: 1 84205 164 4
From it’s inception the Orange Order has been politically motivated! That motivation has been 'overtly political.' That they were encouraged and supported by a political party would mean that the Order was involved in parliamentary politics befor the time of Parnell. -- Domer48 14:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Helenalex, could you possible suggest a book which would be the polar opposite of the T. A. Jackson book. Or something which would refute his claims? -- Domer48 15:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
HelenalexI have placed the referenced text into this section. I don't think this comes down to how we define 'political,' butsimply going by what the sources say. I have removed one of the references, on your advice, and not because I have a problem with it. -- Domer48 13:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Has any editor found a citation for what is required in this section if not I intend to remove them. BigDunc 17:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Never said that is what I am going to do I have refs for this but will wait till Monday to give you time. BigDunc 19:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually the references are there to remove the words Traditional unionist, and to keep them there would be POV! There gone on Monday. -- Domer48 16:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
What you have done is an utter disgrace. You have pushed nationalist POV into an encyclopedic article, thus discrediting the entire project. Well done. Traditional unionist 11:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Grow up. Traditional unionist 12:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Traditional Unionist, find references to fix what you think is wrong, rather then complaining about it here.-- Padraig 13:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Traditional unionistI would yet again remind you to remain civil, and cease to engage in personal attacks on editors. I would also strongly recommend you read the talk page guidelines. Your edits appear now to be disruptive in order to simply make a point. Stop now! Cite policies to illustrate your point, opinion dose not count. -- Domer48 13:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
If it is your intension to have the article locked again, I would strongly suggest you think again. You have had amply opportunity to reference material, and have flatly refused to do so. Though, you have found time to edit war. Stop now! -- Domer48 13:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
It's good to see that the bickering seems to have stopped and constructive things are now being done with this page. It was about time a history section was added. Having said that, I'm wondering if it's maybe a bit too long for this page? Perhaps there should be a History of the Orange Institution page, which could include more info, and a shorter version on this page. -- Helenalex ( talk) 01:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
"Of the approximately 700 Orange Halls in Northern Ireland, 282 have been targeted by nationalist arsonists" (emphasis added). Source says "There are 700 Orange halls across Ireland. Since the Troubles began, 282 have been targeted by arsonists". Let's stick to what sources say, instead of pretending the OO don't torch their own halls for the insurance money or to gain sympathy. One Night In Hackney 303 15:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
How do editors feel about archiving some of this talk page. Here is a link on different methods. Any suggestions welcome. -- Domer48 ( talk) 21:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
This article raises serious NPOV issues.
Furthermore the article needs extensive wikifying and major editing, to conform to encyclopædic standards. FearÉIREANN\ (talk) 29 June 2005 23:44 (UTC)
I agree Helenalex, no problem with 'brethren' and its hard to make out what the other things are Setanta's concerned about? "it is surely not in the remit of Wikipedia to strengthen negatives about organisations or people?" We should not include negative information on the OO? -- Domer48 'fenian' 21:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Please do not remove referenced information, or alter the content of same. -- Domer48 ( talk) 15:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
TU I've been down this road with you already. Now do not distort referenced information. If you wish to challange this information, please provide a referenced source. Now there are three references on this, and none of them are Coogan's, if you like I can add one from him as well. Now do not distort this information. -- Domer48 ( talk) 17:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
TU, there are three references to back it up, I should know I added it. Now please do not alter the referenced information. -- Domer48 ( talk) 17:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
1 For the Cause of Liberty, Terry Golway, Touchstone, 2000,
ISBN
0-684-85556-9;
2. Ireland: A History, Robert Kee, Abacus, First published 1982 Revised edition published 2003, 2004 and 2005,
ISBN
0-349-11676-8;
3.Ireland History of a Nation, David Ross, Geddes & Grosset, Scotland, First published 2002, Reprinted 2005 & 2006, ISBN 10: 1 84205 164 4
BigDunc (
talk)
17:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Page numbers now provided. -- Domer48 ( talk) 17:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Now TU, even you would agree I was reserved in my edit. That I could add another couple of references is enough to suggest I have been restrained. Now would you like to have some of the quotes put in, or have I been correct in my edit -- Domer48 ( talk) 17:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow, you really have found three bigots. It is still not verifird that the Order is political. There are some historical inaccuracies in those quotes, and they are written in very POV language, not very good academic works if this is indicitive of what is in the rest of them! I'll do some reading after work tomorrow to get at some truth here, but you can take it as read that I'm not happy with this bile being presented as fact. Traditional unionist ( talk) 18:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
TU please, now there is no need for that. I have went to a little effort here for you, a simple thanks would have been enough. -- Domer48 ( talk) 18:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Terry Golway is City Editor and columnist at The New York Observer. He is also a frequent contributor to the Irish Echo, America, American Heritage, The Boston Globe, The New York Times, and other national publications. He is the author of Irish Rebel: John Devoy and America’s Fight for Ireland freedom and co-author of The Irish in America, a companion book to the award-winning PBS documentary series. Now what book is not correctly titled?-- Domer48 ( talk) 18:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
TU, I can see were this is going, and I'm not going to get into it with you. On Golway, you ommit The New York Observer, The Boston Globe, The New York Times, American Heritage. Now I have tried to be helpful. The discussion is over. -- Domer48 ( talk) 18:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Look, one of two things, I can pile a number of quotes onto that article which are supported by WP:V and WP:RS, in addition to the ones here, or I can walk away. Now I will walk away, because you have nothing left to offer this discussion. -- Domer48 ( talk) 18:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
You only here what you want to here. What I'm saying is, that I can reference everything that I add. I could references this over and over just to prove a point, but why should I. Your blinkers are never going to be of, so it makes no difference what I do. Now, go off and get yourself a couple of books, and add as much referenced text as you wish, but just don't edit war anymore. -- Domer48 ( talk) 18:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, as requested by the checkuser I was talking to, I have submitted a formal Check User request at RfCU. I would suggest that both sides take the next 24-48 hours off from any OI page edits (I don't want to block anyone from edit warring, and I don't want to lock out other editors from possibly improving the article), while that works, and also to try to determine whether the sources satisfy NPOV (I can't say either way to it at the moment, I need a hell of a lot more free time then what I have right now to check the sources). So let's all step back, no one has to protect pages, no one has to be blocked, and we improve the article. K? SirFozzie ( talk) 19:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Who is being Requests for checkusered AGAIN. TU asked for it before, and it showed I was not Dunc or Breen or Pappin. Now I have no problem with it, but an editor who deliberatly changes a referenced statement, can request one. So the advice is: If an editor changes text to push their known bias, the best thing you can do is leave it! -- Domer48 ( talk) 20:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I have never taken advantage of anyone. I have listened to the advice, and tried to go along with it, and all I got was shafted. Were are the admins when I’m getting messed about? Now I’m not crying about it, I even gave you the opportunity to step in and pull me up if you thought I was out of line. Told you to be a hard nosed fucker about it. And I was left swinging. I have every POV merchant on my case, and I know now, all I have to do is put one foot wrong and I’m over a barrel. That is just the way it is! The only reason I understand the policies here, is because I had everyone of them used on me, but I have yet to see them used to protect an editor who plays by the rules. The Checkuser was wrong! -- Domer48 ( talk) 20:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Please do not remove referenced material from article and dont edit war. BigDunc ( talk) 14:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
That is a second hand account and not an appropriate source. Traditional unionist ( talk) 14:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
You put it in not me I just read it all and didn't select what I wanted from it see WP:SYNTHESIS-- BigDunc ( talk) 14:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I think your point ONiH is a little semantic and doesn't alter the substance of what this is about. As far as the minor alteration goes, it is however, probably right. Also, you seem to understand, unlike Dunc/Domer what the source says. Nowhere do SF refute the claim that they are removing a statue of a son of the town simplky because he was an orangeman. I would however dispute the way it is protrayed here. I haven't read the sources today, but memory tells me that the BBC report this as fact, and the subsequent utterings from the provos in no way refutes the claim, and to my reading actually backs it up.
Traditional unionist (
talk)
14:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
TU as far as this discussion is concerned, all I have said was, that you should be given the benifit of the doubt on the synthesis of information, and that I can not understand how you can object to a reference that you yourself introduced. Now you are raising the provos in the discussion, dispite the fact that they are not mentioned at all? Please stick to the point at hand, and try remaine civil. -- Domer48 ( talk) 15:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
"According to Sinn Fein he was first and foremost an Orangeman and he made anti-Catholic speeches." and that "There was an inventory of 10 items, one of them a republican dedication to hunger striker Kevin Lynch, which may cause offence to the republican side of the community if it was removed," and also "His track-record was substantially representative of just one side of the community, you cannot cherry-pick neutrality - it's either neutral or not." And the only second hand source I can find in YOUR refs is from Edwin Stevenson a UUP member hardly the most impartial person. Also I cant find any refs to say what the IRA say on this subject BigDunc ( talk) 15:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Now before you even think about replying, just pretend the person that said this is someone you've never dealt with before, and you know nothing about them:
There's plenty more needs to be done, but that's more than enough to be going on with. So, do you want to argue about one or two sentences, or do you want to actually create a decent article? Over to you..... One Night In Hackney 303 12:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Other suggestions:
Everyone's being so constructive... This isn't quite up there with the Paisley/McGuiness lovefest in terms of unlikeliness, but it makes a nice change. Let's try and keep it up. :) -- Helenalex ( talk) 09:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I see there is a reference for this, but I'm almost certain it is wrong. The 12th is a de facto public holiday, but it isn't actually. Most employers offer staff either St Patricks day or the 12th off as a publ;ic holiday, but I don't think either are. St Patricks day might be, but like I say, am almost certain the 12th isn't. I'll check it out. Traditional unionist ( talk) 12:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone suggestions as to do with comments by Galloway in the England section as TU says it is not certain that he was refering to the OO in England if anything I would assume he was talking about the OO in Scotland as he was refering to Adam Ingram who was a member of a lodge in Glasgow. BigDunc ( talk) 15:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
"however some demoninations of Protestants are also ineligible for membership" is sourced by this. Am I missing something, as I don't see anything that says "some demoninations of Protestants are also ineligible for membership" on the page? One Night In Hackney 303 16:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This one to be precise. According to this Rossnowlagh is the only parade to be held in the Republic. If there's a source saying otherwise please cite it and amend the text accordingly. One Night In Hackney 303 20:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
offended by the Orange, they tore up their own city? When was this? -- Domer48 ( talk) 13:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I have proposed merging James Sloan (Orangeman) into this article. If nothing is known about him other than the bare fact that he founded the Orange institution, then per WP:BIO1E there is no need for a separate article. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Historically Dan Winter deserves an article more than the other two. I'd say leave the other two and merge (de facto delete) sloan. Someone will come along and make articles out of them, not doing any harm. Traditional unionist ( talk) 21:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Would it be possible for someone to produce a navigation template for this article and its related content? -- Jza84 | Talk 16:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I just removed this from the article, but I thought its inventiveness (particularly the bit about the tuba) deserved preservation on the talk page. -- Helenalex ( talk) 04:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm guessing it's found its way to uncyclopedia, if it didn't come from there in the first place. Gamerunknown ( talk) 10:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I have once again removed the additions that are either unsourced, unreliably sourced, and/or a complete misrepresentation of what a source says. O Fenian ( talk) 23:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
As the Orange Orders take their name from William of Orange, what is the position of the Netherlands on this? I just think it's interesting that the section entitled 'Throughout the World' makes no reference to the fact that a Dutch national is used for the basis of an order bearing their name, but it appears to have no link whatsoever to the country of their origin? Has the establishment of these Orders ever affected the Dutch? I just think it's an interesting legacy that could be addressed in this article. Particularly as one country's national hero is immortalised to a greater extent in another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.5.36 ( talk) 23:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
This is not a forum for discussion, but as far as I know no Dutch lodge ever existed. There was one in Poland briefly, but I do not have a positive source on this. Hachimanchu ( talk) 22:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
The section on structure seems to give a confusing account but doesn't really give an indication of total membership size (it's also unsourced). IRWolfie- ( talk) 21:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
This page should not be merged with the main Orange Order page as this branch of the Order has a lot of individual information that would get lost in the Orange Order's page. The page should not be merged for the same reason that the Fermanagh GAA pages should not be merged with the overall GAA pages - they are individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ni fact finder ( talk • contribs) 11:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
This page is fairly unique and should be allowed to stand on its own right, please advise if this tag can be taken off the page in relation to mergers? Ni fact finder ( talk) 22:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Please do not merge this page, with a membership of 2500, 90 lodges and some 60 halls; this organization is at the hub of PUL community in fermanagh. With hundreds of events year round and an attendance of over 20k (a third of the population of fermanagh) at the 12th of July (main event). This organisation deserves its own reference page on wiki especially as other smaller or similar sized organizations already have their own pages. The OO in fermanagh is a Christian organisation that provides a common link between different protestant communities, it provides social, culturual, historical, educational, sporting, musical and religious events, as well as numerous charity donations. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
109.156.159.30 (
talk)
18:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I believe the Fermanagh orange gives a broad insight into the orange order within fermanagh. It provides a range of information unique to the county of fermanagh and to the people of fermanagh that are passionate about their lodges. Generations of people that have left this land will be interested in views pages like this as its relative to them on there search for their roots. It also provides a information about a culture that is wide ranging but linked is so many way. I believe the page should have it own unique standing. 86.158.69.197 ( talk) 20:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
What is the declared purpose of the organisation? I don't see that in the article. 78.86.61.94 ( talk) 12:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Please do not merge this page, with a membership of 2500, 90 lodges and some 60 halls; this organization is at the hub of PUL community in fermanagh. With hundreds of events year round and an attendance of over 20k (a third of the population of fermanagh) at the 12th of July (main event). This organisation deserves its own reference page on wiki and smaller or similar sized organizations already have their own pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.159.30 ( talk) 14:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Please reconsider merging this page as Fermanagh and indeed Enniskillen played a very large part in the in the Nine year war or War of the Grand Alliance freeing Europe and saving England and Ireland from the hands of King Louis XlV of France. Because of the victory of William of Orange at The battle of the Boyne we have our civil and religious liberties which we enjoy today for all religions and none! Enniskillen raised 2 armies from the people of Fermanagh to fight in this Battle and surely deserves their individuality in this field of the Orange Order. To merge it would be the same effect as having a city like London, dublin or even Paris linked somewhere under Europe and not given it's proper place as the capital of it's own country. Please reconsider! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.158.179 ( talk) 01:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The nature of any links between the Orange Order and loyalist paramillitaries is an important topic, but I'm a bit concerned that there seems to be a desire to list every member who was also involved in paramillitary activity. There are a number of reasons:
1) Was the person prominent in the Orange Order or was their membership of the Orange Order important in either motivating or aiding their loyalism? There's no evidence that it was in any of this. 2) For that matter there's no real evidence that the membership of the two organisations was overlapping in any of these cases (although unlike point 1 I'd be surprised if they weren't overlapping). 3) The whole guilt by association list approach means that there is a strong smell of original research here. This section barely touches on the Nationalist critique and doesn't mention any official Orange or loyalist response - relying instead on what appears on banners and other important but fragmentary pieces of information better suited to a newspaper article than here.
As said, the link between the Orange Order and Loyalist paramillitaries is important (it is not a red herring like the Ku Klux Klan) but what would be more fitting would be some explanation as to where the allegations are coming from (the Nationalist and Republican communities), why they are important (a massive part in the opposition to marches through Catholic areas), what the Orange Order officially says (I suspect that it really dislikes the link, although the pro-Orange web presence is fairly rubbish so the best I could find was here) and previously noted discrepancies or confimatory views.
Something like:
I think an alternative could be to remove the section, but I think that this is a very important subject in the current debate around the Orange Order.
JASpencer ( talk) 09:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Is the comment made by Tim Pat Coogan in his book about the Easter Rising really relevant? Having not read the book I can't say whether this is an observation backed up by evidence or a throw away comment. Given that, as un-registered user 74.215.61.251 points out, there are huge differences between the Order and the Ku Klux Klan. The Klan began as a kind of veterans association for Confederate ex-servicemen and was overwhelmingly concentrated in the "old south" of the United States. Latterly the distribution involved the mid-west, most famously Indiana. What little Orange Order there was in the 19th century United States was concentrated in the extreme north east of the country, notably around New York. This leads me to suspect that Coogan and the other reference, Bell, may be guilty of a bit of lazy characterisation and have perhaps not done the research necessary to support such claims.
Rather than clutter up that section with a whole load of qualifications for these assertions, I’ve just deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Furious Andrew ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it doesn't seem entirely relevant, in fact it reads more like Republican propaganda, sorry if I'm mistaken Tim Pat Coogan or O Fenian. Could someone perhaps quote the passage? If the book did indeed make this point then okay (if its in a book, its got to be true!) but there are some fundamental differences between the OO and KKK that need to be clarified somewhat. Firstly the Orange Order are not racist, the OO have many non-white members in the UK, Canada and Africa. I assume the comparison here is their alleged religious intolerance. This could equally be applied to the ancient order of hibernians, or any other republican group who are opposed the Queen (the supreme governer of the Church of the church of england) Secondly the Ku Klux Klan are a secret organisation, the OO are anything but! Lastly there is the aspect of violence. While historically the OO have been involved in violent affairs, and quite possibly linked to paramilitaries, the OO themselves have never been proscribed as an illegal or terrorist group. The KKK on the other hand are very much a nationalist terrorist organisation, having bombed baptist (protestant) churches and schoolbuses and held public lynchings. Hachimanchu ( talk) 22:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
You were to fast on the hot button and my comments here crossed while you were adding yours.... I've had a chance to read what Coogan had to say about the KKK in 1916: The Easter Rising. Coogan states: "[The Orange Order] served both as a militia and a bonding organization for militant Protestantism, spreading to England in 1807 where the Tories, especially around Liverpool, used the movement against the Liberals. Later it would develop in America manifesting itself in such movements as the Know Nothings and the Ku Klux Klan. The Order also proved useful to employers [presumably in Ireland] as a device for keeping Protestant and Catholic workers from uniting for better wages and conditions." There is nothing further concerning the Order in the USA, whether relative to the KKK or not. Coogan cites no sources for his claim, and other scholarship notes the "feeble" presence of the Order in the USA (see McRaild, Millar, etc.). No source on the Klan I've found mentions the Orange Order having anything to do with the Klan's foundation at all. As for the Know Nothings, I have found sources which indicate Orangemen did join them and were active participants in the mid-1800s. I have deleted the Coogan citation, which appears to be an anomoly as far as scholarship on the KKK is concerned, but I will add other sourced material that discusses the role of Orangemen in the Know Nothings. Eastcote ( talk) 23:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
On Google Books there is frequent comparisons between the Order, the Know Nothings and the Klan from a wide variety of sources. You are interpreting and offering an analysis of the source, when what you should be doing is providing a source which challenges Coogan. Simply put, why not add additional sources, and least we forget, the sentence is attributed to Coogan. -- Domer48 'fenian' 20:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, I can buy the latest change. A subsection under USA that talks about American references to the Order. And yes, some Americans are aware of the Orange Order's existence in Ireland, but there is really no visibility of the order here in the USA itself. Believe it or not. Fraternal groups such as the Masons, Elks, Eagles, Shriners, Knights of Columbus are are common. Chapters/lodges of other organizations were established here over the years, but are not well known by the general public, such as the Orange Order, the Oddfellows, the Hibernians, B'nai B'rith, etc. Some are better known in certain regions. The USA is a big place. The Hibernians and B'nai B'rith are probably better known than the Orange Order. Eastcote ( talk) 15:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I still don't see the need for the KKK comparisons, but since some people seem so desperate to include them can we clarify the fact that these are at best tenous comparisons made by a few individuals, and not a matter of historical 'links' or shared history. Incidentally some of the comparisons made could also be applied to Republican groups, who also march in areas they are not welcome, also hold dubious religious and political views (eg the 'Ancient' Order of Hibernians). Here are some fundamental ways in which the two groups differ: 1. The Orange Order, as previously mentioned, are not a secretive group. In fact their presence is controversial largely BECAUSE of the attention they draw to themselves in their very public processions. Incidentally, the nationalists, from the historic Whiteboys to the modern IRA in its many guises, are a secret group who use terror for political ends. 2. The Orange Order, in the last two hundred years at least, are a non-violent group. Where there have been violent skirmishes it is usually in self-defence as they come under attack from Nationalists. Incidentally the IRA, much like the KKK, have been outlawed as a terrorist group, and have been linked to (and admitted to) many acts of violence and terror, both favoring the use of bombs targetting civilians 3. The Orange Order, unlike the KKK, have never held any racist ideology. They hold strong religious views about the Catholic Church (as opposed to catholics in general) but not about nationality or race. In contrast, the Nationalist movement regards 'The Brits' (ie "get 'The Brits' out now") as racially distinct from the Irish. As an example of this, there have been black members of the orange order and the bands who march with them for years, in Northern Ireland, the British Mainland and in Africa and America. On a wider scale, there have been black members of the UDA, and even in the 1700's a black man was among a mob who evicted catholics from their homes in the Shankill, although he was later imprisoned. [holy war in belfast] And quite apart from being innocent victims of Protestant aggression, Irish Catholics were almost solely responsible for the New York Draft riots, where they ultimately hung a small black girl in her orphanage. Hachimanchu ( talk) 05:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
And there the comparisons end entirely. Conversely, the similarities between the IRA and KKK continue: 1. Both were formed after civil war, as a resistance movement to a 'foreign power'. 2. Both were formed around 1916 3. Both are organisations dedicated to the removal of 'foreign' civilians from what they perceive to be 'their country' 4. Both supported the Nazis during World War 2 5. Both have very strongly anti-jewish rhetoric 6. Both have links to the Aryan Brotherhood 7. Many ex-IRA members are now members of Parliament with Sinn Fein, there is at least one Republican politician who is a former KKK member. 8. Both are known to use propaganda and outright lies to incite violence and hatred. Hachimanchu ( talk) 05:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
As above, the comparison with the KKK is completely bizarre, and I presume it has just been added by Nationalists to discredit the Orange Order. As the comment above me shows nicely, one could just as easily (and unfairly) state that the KKK and the IRA are similar. You could basically compare ANY organisation with the KKK if you made your links tenuous enough (as they certainly are in this case). Surely this section should be removed. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
131.111.184.88 (
talk)
05:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Just try it and see the stonewalling that results. Eastcote ( talk) 14:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
My comments explaining why I believe this section to be laughably unnecessary appear to have been deleted. Here is them copied from an earlier revision of this talk page, with my comments on why all of the sections, except the part by Tim Pat Coogan (which could be merged with the section on America) should be deleted:
On the right of Orangemen to march in quasi-military fashion through areas, regardless of the views of the residents, Orangemen often cite the example of the Klan and the American Nazi Party. In the Orders petition to the Northern Ireland Parades Commission in June 2002, on the Orders right to march, they cited American case law which had upheld the right to public demonstrations by both the Klan and the American Nazi Party.[122] "Often cite"? Completely vague. Furthermore, citing a law which was once used for the Ku Klux Klan doesn't mean the OO has similarities to the KKK; that's just a basic logic fail.
In Ireland Civil Rights activists often dismissed Loyalist paramilitaries as the Irish version of the Ku Klux Klan. "Often?" Source?
“ We viewed the [Orange Order] as similar to the KKK - so bare-faced and confident enough in the bigoted status quo that they wore bowler hats and sashes rather than white robes and pointed hoods.[123] ” Yes, a certain group of people viewed the Order as similar to the KKK. Hardly an unbiased group of people. Such statements could be made on any Wikipedia page to justify any view. As the example I gave previously, certain Loyalists today incorrectly view Sinn Fein as terrorists; I certainly wouldn't support editing the Sinn Fein article to include such a thing, as such minority opinions can be used to prove or disprove any assertion one wishes to make.
Brian Dooley says it would be 'grossly inaccurate' to suggest that the Orange Order 'mirrored' the KKK, they did he notes share obvious similarities, not least their hostility to Catholicism. Both organisations paraded in bizarre costumes, with the Klan in their white hoods and sheets and the Orangemen in their bowler hats and sashes, with leaders of the Klan going by titles such as Grand Goblin or Imperial Wizard and the Order having less exotic titles as Worshipful Master. Dooley, citing Wyn Craig's history of the Klan notes that during the 1920s the Klan targeted Catholic Churches to fill an 'emotional need for a concrete, foreign-based enemy...the Pope', with these attacks providing a unifying force in support for the Klan among Protestant Churches.[123] Again, I do not see how any intelligent person could take this seriously; you can make anything similar to anything else using such weak arguments. The KKK are a society of humans in America, the US Democrats are a society of humans in America - both of those are sourced facts, should we make a comparison to the KKK on the US Democrat Wikipedia page?
US Congressman Donald Payne, who according to John McGarry is one of the most influential black politicians in Congress said in an article in the Sunday Times that 'there are many parallels between Catholics in and the situation the black community faced in the United States.' Payne would be present in July 2000, to observe the Orange Orders attempts to march through a nationalist area. According to McGarry, President Bill Clinton refused a request by British Government Leader Tony Blair to put pressure on Irish Republicans to make concessions on police reform because he considered bowing to Unionist demands would be like 'leaving Alabama and Georgia under all-white cops.'[124] This has absolutely nothing to do with the KKK whatsoever, and is completely irrelevant.
With regards to the assertion that the OO was in some way related to the formation of the Klan, there is actually some evidence against this. It has been suggested that the inspiration for the Klan was based on Sir Walter Scott's novels, and of pseudo-celtic (Scottish Highland) ceremonies such as cross burning. Certainly many of the settlers in the American south were of Scottish Highland Jacbite origin, who fled after Culloden or the Highland clearances. This is even evident in the 'Rebel flag', based on the Scottish saltire, and confederate songs which were often inspired by traditonal gaelic ballads. Lets not forget either there was a large Irish Catholic contingent who fought for the confederates. And yes the highland clans were largely protestant, but they should not be confused with the Ulster Scots, although some did originate from the highlands and even spoke gaelic. The Highland clans mainly fought for the jacobites, and therefore against the ulster scots at the boyne for example, and with irish catholics at culloden. The anti-catholicism evident in the second klan may have more to do with the Scottish reformation, or I somewhat suspect the large hispanic population in the south and the recent wars with Mexico. The origins of the klan are cloaked in mystery, but I refer you to this article which cites the nazarenos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_regalia_and_insignia (groups of Catholics who evicted protestants, jews and muslims from Spain during the Spanish Inquisition). The name 'Ku Klux Klan' it has been suggested was related to the Greek word 'Cyclos' Incidentally the Klan's second highest rank, the Grand wizard, is cloaked in green, which is a color of Irish Republicanism rarely if ever used by the orange order. Hachimanchu ( talk) 22:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
In addition to violating WP:LEAD the addition has no page number (which is required), and a search of the book on Google Books shows it does not even contain the words "doctrine", "doctrinal", "injunction" or "uncharitable", and since the addition reads "Proponents have noted that much of the language within the Order's Constitution in relation to Catholic doctrine mirrors that of the mainline Protestant denominations, and the injunction within the Qualifications to abstain from all uncharitable, words, actions or sentiments towards non-Protestants is cited to emphasise the focus on doctrinal, rather than personal, disagreement" you'd expect at least one if not all of those words to appear in the text. In addition the only place the word "constitution" appears in on page 274 in a list of books, the text reading "Kelly, James, Sir Edward Newenham, MP, 1783-1814: Defender of the Protestant Constitution (Dublin, 2004)". As such I dispute that the book sources that text, and it is up to those who claim it does to provide quotes proving it. I also note in addition that the synopsis of the book is "A bleak, honest, and shocking account of how Northern Ireland's Orange Order, a religious institution founded in 1795 to defend Protestantism, has tragically departed from its core values and become associated with sectarian violence and political intrigue", which suggests the source is not being used in an NPOV way. 2 lines of K 303 13:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
As mentioned above, I have reviewed the book, and have inserted a new para on what the book has to say, with appropriate quotes, page numbers, etc. Eastcote ( talk) 01:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I would have to agree this doesn't belong in the lead, please read WP:LEAD. Mo ainm ~Talk 11:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The article mentioned that the Orange order had once cited a US Supreme Court case dealing with Nazis' right to parade. I deleted the reference as it seemed a completely unfair way of attacking the order. Perhaps they are as bad as the KKK but the fact that they cite one of the leading cases from the US Supreme Court on the right to demonstrate is hardly proof of anything. MathHisSci ( talk) 23:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the "parallels" section altogether, as it appears to serve no purpose other than to condemn the Orange Order through very tenuous association with the KKK, that the sources do not support. As MathHisSci has pointed out above, Coogan does not say that there is a parallel between the two organisations. The discussion above demonstrates that there is no consensus for this controversial section to be included in the article. Mooretwin ( talk) 11:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I will not be commenting on the synthesis being put forward here in lieu of reasoned argument. The bad faith accusations being trotted out as per usual will obviously be ignored. I will also be adding some more referenced information as it will address some of the spurious suggestions be offered at the minute. -- Domer48 'fenian' 20:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I see a nationalist editor has now moved the Nazi/KKK section to become a subsection of "links with loyalist paramilitaries". This appears to add a further layer of synthesis, i.e. that there is a three-way connection between loyalist paramilitaries, the Orange Order and the US NAzi Party/KKK. This is getting ridiculous. Mooretwin ( talk) 10:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think the whole section on the KKK is unnecessary, misleading, non-neutral, and given more weight in the article than it should be. However, to address a couple of your points: How does one present balance where there is a void of information, unless it is to present histories that show no mention of the Orange Order's "manifestation" in the KKK? We have a statement from a single historian who says Orangeism "manifested itself" in the KKK. No other historian makes this claim, out of a great many books written on the KKK. To "manifest" means to "make evident". Where is the evidence of Orangism to be found in the KKK? There is no evidence. (Anti-Catholicism in the Klan is not evidence since anti-Catholicism is not unique to Orangeism). It is impossible to find a statement in a reliable secondary source that says "the Orange Order did NOT manifest itself in the KKK," simply because it was not a historical factor for them to write about. As I've said before, Coogan just plain got it wrong. His statement is simply a toss-out, with no elaboration. No other historian talks about Orangeism manifesting itself in the Klan. Certainly the Klan tried to steal members from the Order, partcularly in Canada in the 1920s, but they were trying to steal from the Rotary Club as well. One would be hard pressed to find a historian claiming Orangeism "manifesting itself" in the Rotary Club. As for the Kaufmann citation, Kaufmann is a recognized historian, and his book is a reliable source. It is only your personal opinion that it is "fringe" view. The Order itself has stated this view concerning its right to march, and it provides balance to present this viewpoint, which is why Kaufmann himself provided it as an "alternate" viewpoint. Got to have balance, if we must have this section at all. (BTW, it's "rationale", not "rational").
Eastcote (
talk)
21:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
An image used in this article, File:Orange Order in Ghana.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Orange Order in Ghana.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 22:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC) |
Removed per WP:HONORIFIC. I'll also point out again that baronets don't get referred to as "Sir Joe Bloggs", it's "Sir Joe Bloggs, 1st (or whatever) Baronet". 2 lines of K 303 17:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
1. WP:HONORIFIC states 'Except for the initial reference and infobox, do not add honorific titles to existing instances of a person's name where they are absent'. In other words, it is appropriate to add an honorific title to the initial reference to a name. Each of the Grand Masters is only referred to once, and so that reference is the initial reference in each case.
2. Would it be appropriate to amend the page to refer to 'Sir James Stronge, 5th Baronet' and 'Sir Edward Archdale, 1st Baronet' ? Alekksandr ( talk) 17:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
With respect, I suggest that WP:HONORIFIC means what it says. And that it would be strange if wikipedia prohibited recording, in a list such as this, the fact that one of the holders was a knight or baronet. Alekksandr ( talk) 19:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Page changed accordingly. Alekksandr ( talk) 18:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I've re-wrote almost the entire "Formation and early history" section as:
Whilst it still doesn't make pleasant reading for an Orangeman who'd like to present a clean version of the orders foundation, it is now written in a more balanced and neutral tone. Mabuska (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Orange Order's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article. The Orange Orphan Society is a registered charity - Registered Charity Number: 1068498 and contact details are found at http://www.charitychoice.co.uk/the-loyal-orange-orphan-society-of-england-88447 If this does not answer your question please clarify.
Reference named "Bardon":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
In this article, Orange institutions in other countries are just a branch of the Orange Order in Northern Ireland. I would mention the Orange Lodge, the Glaswegian Orange Foundation (mentioned in thatcher's memoirs btw.) etc. I do not think this is correct. -- Wiskeps ( talk) 07:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the description of the flag as "consisting of an orange background with a St George's Cross and the purple star of the Williamite forces" has been removed. Is there some good reason for removing the description of the flag? Dmcq ( talk) 11:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Further to previous comment does this section not run counter to Wikipedia guidelines i.e. "sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged". These 'comparisons' are only made by opponents of the Orange Order. I think this section should be removed and the comparison is cover for criticism. Removal is supported by the previous talk discussion also.-- Flexdream ( talk) 21:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Snowded: there is no evidence for the article to state that Orange Order parades have "often" led to violence. The two sources don't mention it, indeed they only refer to two separate incidences in Belfast over the past year or two. The reasoning of past tense is also tenuous seeing as "have sometimes" is also past tense.
Out of the vast number of Orange Order parades a year (well over a thousand, including main demonstration and feeder), very few have any disturbances, and when they do happen it is almost always in Belfast (and usually a feeder parade of a couple of lodges), either near the Short Strand or Ardoyne. Stating "sometimes" better reflects the reality as it is not as common as the press and republicans would have people believe. How many Orange Order parades and 12ths through mainly nationalist towns have led to violence? Even during the Troubles it is in the minority.
So unless you can reliably source that it "often" has led to violence, then the article should not state it as it is implying that it happens a lot when in reality in terms of the number of parades, it doesn't really. Mabuska (talk) 10:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
"Orange marches have led to violence and been a source of controversy on many occasions". It's simply stating the facts: there has been violence and/or controversy around Orange marches many times, not just during the Troubles. Different marches have sparked violence and controversy at different times. The wording doesn't imply that it's been all marches or even most marches. Asarlaí 15:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Certain Orange marches are a source of controversy, which has sometimes led to violence."- it is as factual and accurate as we can get without overstating or giving false impressions. It is certain Orange marches, not all, not the majority of, but a certain minority, usually hand in hand with the most controversial. But not all controversial parades end in a riot - many do end peacefully. Mabuska (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Your argument still wrongfully overstates the number of controversial parades. It is only certain parades, or rather routes to be more specific, that are controversial. Not a significant number of them.
According to the Parades Commission website, the number of controversial Orange Order parades in Northern Ireland is small. The figures for 2014 are heavily skewed as the Ligoneil Orange Order applied almost everyday to parade through Twaddell Avenue, which is controversial, hence giving a distortion picture for that year. Of the 439 sensitive parade applications by the Orange Order in 2014, 298 were by the Ligoneil Combine seeking to finish off that one parade. That leaves only 141 other sensitive Orange Order parade applications in 2014. Considering 52 of them are from the Portadown Orange Lodge weekly application to finish off their 12th parade through Garvaghy, that leaves only 89 other controversial/sensitive applications. Out of the 1,245 non-sensitive Orange Order parade applications, that means only around 6.5% of Orange Order parade applications in 2014 were sensitive (and that doesn't include other possible repeated applications). The location of them is also probably restricted to a select few areas.
So yes Snowded, your view is quite far off the mark here. Mabuska (talk) 10:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
How much do you need before you call it "often"? Surely "annually" would be a better word? Scolaire ( talk) 13:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Certain Orange marches are a source of controversy, which has sometimes led to violence.". We could state
A minority of Orange Order parades have been classified as controversial by the Parades Commission, and some of these have led to violence.. We could even state
A minority of Orange Order parades have been classified as controversial by the Parades Commission, and some of these have often led to violence., but then that is overstating the Ardoyne and Short Strand flashpoints that always end up in the press, but I can compromise on that use of often, but then again you'ns would need to compromise and accept reality. Mabuska (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
"Orange marches have sparked controversy and violence on many occasions, but today most are without incident"? This article isn't just about the Orange Order today, it covers the Order's whole history. Orange marches have sparked controversy and/or violence almost every year for the past 200 years, ever since they started in the 1790s. However, today most of the hundreds of marches each year pass off without incident. This wording takes both of those into account and I think it's a fair compromize. ~ Asarlaí 14:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
"The reality is that since the start of the Troubles they are controversial and have led to violence."- that's just as bad as the unproveable "virtually all" statement. The majority of parades have never been controversial. There were incidents at parades before the Troubles. The 1831 Maghera 12th riot I've already mentioned above. The attacking of a Protestant Sunday school outing of children carrying Bible texts and flags attacked by members of an AOH procession in Castledawson in 1912. There were even incidents at some parades a decade before the creation of the Orange Order involving that most reputable organisation known as the Irish Volunteers, a company of which purposely paraded close to a Catholic area.
"Orange marches have sparked controversy and violence on many occasions, but most are without incident"? We could even switch it around and say
"While most Orange marches are without incident, they have sparked controversy and violence on many occasions". It takes into account that Orange marches have sparked controversy and/or violence almost every year since they began, but it also takes into account that most of the hundreds of yearly marches are peaceful. Also, it's untrue to say they only spark controversy/violence "periodically" or "sporadically". ~ Asarlaí 23:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The 'Marching Days' beginning on July 12 each year...are considered highlights of the Protestant calendar. Unfortunately, the 'Marches wind their way through Catholic enclaves, a provocative move that ensures resistance, trouble, and often violence.
Violent conflicts between Protestant Unionists and Catholic nationalists are routinely triggered by violent Catholic reactions to provocative 'Orange' marches in Catholic neighborhoods – which is exactly why the Protestants choose to march through these neighborhoods.
Loyal (Protestant) orders, the largest being the Orange Order, hold the most well-known and controversial parades.
Of even more interest, despite the recent proliferation of paramilitary symbols on flags, bannerettes, uniforms and drums carried by bandsmen, there are almost no pictures [in the unionist press] of any such regalia...This situation is particularly noticeable in Belfast where the blood and thunder bands, with their many references to the UVF, YCV, and even the Red Hand Commando, now dominate the parade.
There were numerous other incidents. Infamously during a contested Orange parade through the mainly nationalist Ormeau Road in 1992 following the sectarian murder of five people...television news pictures clearly showed several Orangemen triumphantly holding up their white-gloved hands, displaying five fingers to the nationalist crowds watching from behind the security cordon...
Other factors didn't help in the post-1969 period. For instance, the rise in Loyalist 'Kick the Pope' bands and the increasingly aggressive drumming of these bands helped to heighten tension in the Catholic zone through which Orange marches passed.
[Post-WW2] Orange marches were frequently dominatory in their routes and symbolism and were not simply officially tolerated but officially sanctioned. Rare bans on unusually provocative marches were later rescinded under Orange pressure.
[Seamus Heaney's] poem, 'Orange Drums, Tyrone, 1966', captures better than any statistic the bitterness and hatred that fuel the violence on one side of the conflict in Northern Ireland.
The annual Orange parades in Northern Ireland, recalling the defeat of Catholics by William of Orange in 1691, hearten the participants but feed the feelings of anger and powerlessness of the Catholic minority.
The most controversial of these marches and parades are those which pass through Catholic/Nationalist areas or neighborhoods, such as the Garvaghy Road in Portadown or the Lower Ormeau Road in Belfast, along routes that the Orangemen assert are 'traditional'. The Orange marches are not only controversial political and sectarian events, but are also highly gendered.
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |page.134=
(
help)In addition, it is difficult to explain peace to children when they experience, first-hand, the effects of the Orange Order marches and other forms of violence that characterise the community in which they live.
With truly heroic stupidity, the Northern Ireland administration in Stormont [in 1969] allowed the deliberately provocative annual marches of Orange militants and bigots through Catholic neighborhoods to go forward, promising ferocious reprisals against anyone who tried to impede them.
There's enough in there for a whole article section. And that's just the point: there should be a dedicated section. Information shouldn't be given by tinkering with a sentence in the lead. I'll make some comments on these refs. The word "controversial" (or "provocative") is not qualified anywhere, either to say that it applies only to a minority of parades or to restrict its use to those parades that are marked "controversial" by the Parades Commission. They are controversial (and provocative), full stop. Likewise with violence: they relate Orange parades, not "some Orange parades", to violence. As regards the current wording, "in recent times" is not only too vague (you can equally say that the Earth was formed in recent times) but also misleading, as it suggests that before a certain point, Orange marches were just a fun day out, with Catholics smiling and waving and Orangemen making speeches about brotherly love and religious tolerance. The straight "Orange marches through mainly Catholic and nationalist neighbourhoods have often led to violence" was in the lead for well over a year. I am restoring that, and adding a straight "are controversial" on the basis of these refs and the above discussion. Scolaire ( talk) 07:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Mabuska, can you explain your edit summary? Gob Lofa ( talk) 08:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The pair of you are heading towards an interaction ban if you carry on like this. I think it is badly worded, but my recollection of history is that the restriction was significant an should be there in some form. Is there a source that says something along those lines? Putting a time period in for example might help. In the mean time please don't comment on each other .... ---- Snowded TALK 12:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
( edit conflict)Snowded it is only another attempt to get a reaction out of me considering that since our respective bans only Gob Lofa has been making uncivil comments and accusations. On topic, it is however misleading to state in an edit summary to "See talk" considering there is no consensus here for Gob Lofa's edit, and misleading to claim we agree on a time scale when we don't.
Personally if they believe that their view is fact then there will be an academic and reliable source to back it up, until then the article should remain at the previous version as the edit is disputed and the issue unresolved. Gob Lofa's edit is likewise badly worded and confusing. If the Bill of Rights granted liberties to all Protestants then why state "Although these were soon qualified for Nonconformist Protestants", considering by being Protestant they fall under "to all Protestants".
Also did this bill that was passed in the English parliament even cover Ireland? Did the Irish parliament even pass and enact it for it to apply to Irish Protestants? Bill of Rights 1689 makes no mention of it having effect in Ireland or being passed by the Irish parliament, and whilst we don't use Wikipedia as a source, you'd have thought that it would have been in there somewhere if it did. I can't find mention of this bill in regards to Ireland yet in the indices of books I've so far checked, so may have to delve into the chapters themselves. Though it would be helpful if Gob Lofa provided some sources. Mabuska (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
As before, did this Bill of Rights even have any status in Ireland? I'm finding it hard to find evidence it did at all especially considering it would require the Parliament of Ireland to pass it. On that basis I'd suggest the unsourced statement: The 1689 Bill of Rights granted civil and religious liberties on Protestant subjects, and the Glorious Revolution strengthened Parliament in relation to the Monarchy. be removed from the article as it serves no real purpose. I also note that the article on the bill doesn't make mention of Protestant civil and religious liberties at all, all it did was restore the Protestants right to have arms for their defense not to practice their religion. Yes the Orange Order make frequent claims about "civil and religious liberty" (despite the irony of the penals laws on non-conformists and Catholics), yet that is in respect to their view that King William's victory over the Catholic James ensured Protestant survival. Indeed are the civil and religious liberties they go on about not the ones promised (for Protestants and Catholics) by King William after the Treaty of Limerick, which the Irish Parliament refused/failed to implement? Mabuska (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Considering that "tirade" was nearly two months and a 1RR block ago, I have been nothing but civil to you since, though the same can not be said in reverse. I didn't respond because I had no need too. My position was spelled out clearly and you wouldn't respond to my questions or points, instead trying to focus on me rather than article content. So why should I repeat myself when the answer is already there and considering you weren't willing to engage in discussing the article content or points raised about it? Why didn't I remove it by now? Because I had forgot all about this discussion. Mabuska (talk) 12:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
An editor has added these, I have reverted as per MOS "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence". Scots/Ulster Scots would be at a push, Irish, well, no. And both are unsourced (the Scots no different from the English either way). Murry1975 ( talk) 14:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
"Plebeian"? Really, Mabuska? Gob Lofa ( talk) 23:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Alongside these state-sponsored festivites, however, a parallel tradition of plebeian festivity was tolerated. Not my word, but that used in an academic work not subject to the sensationalism of tabloids and "plebgate". Mabuska (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Mabuska, you write 'Soon, however, guns were also being given out to the "Protestant Boys" to defend them from attacks by Catholics.', implying that previously the Protestants had been unarmed. Did you mean to imply this? Gob Lofa ( talk) 19:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
That is no excuse for altering sourced information to something it doesn't backup yet keeping the source as if it does. Mabuska (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Mabuska, when you write "drunken brawls in the Markethill area...despite originating in a quarrel between two Presbyterians.", what exactly do you mean? It seems an odd thing to say. Did these Presbyterians really introduce drunken brawling to the Markethill area? Gob Lofa ( talk) 22:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Orange Order/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Article requires some attention from an uninvolved user. Eric Kaufmann (a respected author in the field) has contributed a little, but the substance of the article is clearly written in several different partisan ways. This article is of top importance to WP:UNIONISM and should be improved. Traditional unionist ( talk) 13:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 21:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 15:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Mabuska, you re-inserted this part of a comment: "[not] the relaxation of the popery laws but the pretence." Do you know what this means, in the context of the rest of the quote? I certainly don't and I fear other readers may be in the same position. Gob Lofa ( talk) 21:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Done. Mabuska (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Mabuska, why do you describe William Richardson's clearly partisan account as "a detailed analysis"? Strong smell of POV off that one. Gob Lofa ( talk) 11:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Mabuska? Gob Lofa ( talk) 13:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Because the question does not merit answering in this case as it is simply wilful convultion by yourself in an attempt to provoke. If you are so sure there is a problem with it open a RfC for more input. Mabuska (talk) 11:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
You didn't make yourself clear. I assumed you meant provide where in the source was the wording used. If it is something that is fringe and controversial I would agree to stating who is using "detailed analysis", however you have provided no evidence that it is a fringe viewpoint or even controversial. Even if Dr. Richardson was biased or involved—which no evidence has been provided by yourself only speculation and OR so your argument doesn't have any support—that doesn't mean that he can't give a detailed analysis of the situation. So unless you provide evidence to back up your assertions there is no change to be made. Mabuska (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Snowded, that looks like another 1RR violation you've chalked up. Gob Lofa ( talk) 16:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Snowded, I believe the UVF's source for its weaponry warrants a mention, given the international context. Gob Lofa ( talk) 13:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Orange Order. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Is there any reason that they are not listed in the 'See Also' section? It would seem appropriate to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Threadnecromancer ( talk • contribs) 19:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Orange Order. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I changed Siege of Cork to second Siege of Limerick in the list of battles celebrated because the latter was far more important, being the one at which James capitulated, and so seems far more likely. But the problem is that I don't have access to the citation. [1] Does anybody have it to check? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 14:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 14 external links on Orange Order. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.grandorangelodge.co.uk/press/Orange-Standard/2011-Standard/1107-Julyl2011/article2.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://roughian.tripod.com/index-29.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/diaspora/guides/orange.shtml{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.pulseresources.org/content/browsecategory.php?c=9When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Orange Order. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Is the Orange Order's opposition to the Irish language revitalisation (see here) relevant enough to include in the article? Inter&anthro ( talk) 02:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 10:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)