|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To the reader who does not know what occured this word is meaningless. The word murder is not PoV, it implies the deliberate killing of another, exactly what happened here. I think this page is being used by others to promote certain PoV's which, perhaps, believe in playing-down this murder.-- Couter-revolutionary 12:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
It is significant, it shows the mainstream republican reaction to his murder. To remove it clearly shows a PoV and if you continue to do this I shall have you written up, as it were. The quotation marks I added were purely for stylistic purposes.-- Couter-revolutionary 22:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see why Currie's statement has been removed and is not considered important. It strikes me as a very important statement and fully merits being highlighted. Burke's peerage does happen to be considered a reliable source. Tyrenius 00:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
This creates an unfortunate ambiguity that he was murdered only briefly, as opposed to permanently:
I think it should be:
Tyrenius 00:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, very very minor edit war at the very most. Edit + revert v 2 reverts. I recommend WP:BRD, i.e. an edit, a revert, then discussion. However, everyone is at fault for not opening a discussion on this page, which is what it's for. Don't leave such things just to edit summaries. I have looked at the ref and it appears that neither "murdered" nor "targetted" are mentioned. The simplest thing is to let the IRA speak for themselves without interpretation and let the reader make up his/her own mind as to what they wish to read into it.
Thus instead of:
it would read:
I may have missed something here, but this seems the obvious solution. Please discuss below.
Tyrenius 21:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I would have thought the term "murdered" should occur in the lead section and that there would be a reliable source to validate it. The Commons biography says "killed" but the Tynan family history uses "murdered". Is there not a coroner's report or national newspaper report that clarifies this?
Tyrenius 21:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The use of the term murdered instead of Killed is pure POV.-- padraig3uk 13:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Could editors on this page, please study WP:TPG. The above conversation is largely a blatant violation of it. The talk page is not a place for opinions or unsubstantiated argument. That is not how to write articles. Please provide sources for statements, as in WP:ATT to be used per WP:NPOV. This is elementary stuff. Also we are not dealing with Bloody Sunday. Argue that on the talk page for that article. Tyrenius 01:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the info in the opening paragraph about Stronge's political career should be appreviated and most of this should be moved in to a new section in the body of the article - any ojections to this from anyone? I can only see wp:mos type objections being credible here Weggie 11:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
This article seemed to imply, incorrectly, that Sir Norman may have had a role in certain killings. It is obvious to those involved (yes not necessarily to all and sundry) that Sir Norman was not mixed up in anything like that. This is what I am attempting to stress, yet user:Vintagekits wishes me to provided a source for this. Suggestions?-- Couter-revolutionary 23:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
(unindent)(edit conflict) This is quite correct per wikipedia policy and the statement "Sir Norman had no connection with those killings" must be removed (this is not to imply that he did have any connection, I must point out). The article does not state he was involved in killings anyway, so there is no need to refute it. The IRA statement followed by Austin Currie's statement provide contrasting attitudes which give the reader sufficient information to make their own judgement. Tyrenius 00:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
This term has been allowed only in the IRA quote to represent accurately their statement on this event. It should not be used elsewhere in the text, unless there is a verifiable reliable source that uses this term, and we've already debated elsewhere what constitutes such a source. Tyrenius 00:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Vk, stop violating WP:POINT. We are not talking about Londonderry. We are not talking about the use of the word terrorist. We are talking about the word assassination to use in a specific place or places in this article. Wikipedia does not work by precedent and it is not consistent. Also per WP:TPG please stop misusing the talk page to express your personal opinions which are irrelevant to the article, which are not substantiated and which are plainly designed to annoy other users, as you know what their reaction will be to such statements. This is the second time in a short time that a needless provocative comment by you has had to be removed. If you carry on doing this, I will block you. I might point out earlier that other users were stopped from making deliberately inflammatory comments about the IRA. It cuts both ways. Tyrenius 14:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
No question he was PC (NI), which is mentioned in the main text. But is it correctly shown in line 1 as Rt Hon or PC (NI) ? - Kittybrewster 21:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
-- Couter-revolutionary 21:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Our style is to use neither for commoners — for some ridiculous reason we're not allowed to use "The Right Honourable", and it'd be misleading to put the post-nominal there when it's not supposed to be used, so we're stuck in a rather absurd limbo. Yet another example of anti-British bias making everything difficult. Proteus (Talk) 21:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be wonderful if we could use "Right Honourable", but I don't think the anti-status people will allow it. -- Ibagli ( Talk) 23:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Can this be removed or explained? - Kittybrewster 00:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Here are some international sources for the use of the word "murder" to describe the death of Sir Norman Stronge. I think this indicates it is a widely held, I would say majority, view. Nevertheless, it may be best to state who has called it murder for the sake of objectivity, as with the use of the word "terrorist" in Al Quaida.
Tyrenius 00:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
[9] . No justification for changing this by amending the quotation. See WP:ATT WP:RS and stop being disruptive. - Kittybrewster 17:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Vintage, out of curiousity - what difference does this make to you?
The sources clearly say the warrant was for a charge of murder. We don't use euphemisms. Follow the source accurately please. Also the source doesn't say the charges were dropped; it says Shannon was acquited. Fidelity to the source is essential in articles. Tyrenius 00:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
That was quite funny. It's not up to me to scour for sources: it's up to you to provide them, if you have a point to make. Many sources, e.g. The New York Times, are perfectly acceptable, and doubtless all or some of these (I'm not greatly familiar with them):
You (and no one else either from what I can see) never cite the Irish press, which I find surprising. Why not? Do they say the same as the British press and the Burning Bush perchance? Tyrenius 03:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
There were too many headings and small sections which prevented any flow. I have created bigger sections and less headings.
I have considered the use of the words "killing" and "murder" attempting only to apply wikipedia policies of WP:ATT and WP:NPOV and their derivative guidelines, including Wikipedia: words to avoid:
The word "murder" falls into this category. As major sources use the term, it must be included. However, it must also be attributed to them. A straightforward solution is to describe the events in neutral terms, i.e. use the word "killing", which is after all what happened. I think in the circumstances of the death, the reader can safely be left to draw whatever conclusions they choose. I have put the labelling of the death as murder into a Reactions section, as it was a reaction to the event after it. It can then be compared with other reactions, and again the reader can make their own judgement. It is fundamental to wikipedia to present information in a neutral and impersonal manner, even though this may go against an editor's natural instincts, though of course these can be opposite in different editors.
All of this does create a disproportionately large section on the death, and I think the answer to this is to expand the previous section on his life and career. The marriage date is missing at the moment.
I have deleted the UDA lines. This is original research. There is no source that connects this to Sir Norman Stronge, only an editor's idea that it is connected.
Some of the details may need to be clarified, revised or more closely referenced, but please do not insert statements which may be contentious which are not supported by appropriate references.
Note also per WP:LEAD that the lead section is not an introduction. It is a summary of the article for those that want a quick overview without necessarily reading the whole text. I have augmented it with this in mind. Ideally the lead section should not be referenced, as it is only an abbreviated version of the main text, where the references should be.
If there are any disputes over the revision, please open talk below, giving each subject its own heading for clarity. Talk related to the article is best stated on this page, not on user talk pages, in order that all editors may have a chance to participate.
Tyrenius 03:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Can I just point out I think the NYT part should be removed? One story on the link does say murdered, but another story does not. One Night In Hackney 303 03:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
In the infobox it says 'Speaker of the Northern Ireland Parliament' at the time of his death this didn't exist either the position or parliament, so the infobox is misleading as it gives one the impression that it is still currently in existance. Shouldn't this be changed to 'Former Speaker of the Former Northern Ireland Parliament.-- padraig3uk 10:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
These appear to have been given by editors who have worked on the article. They are meant to be given by editors who have not! I've reverted to original state. Tyrenius 04:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Moved from a talk page and distilled.
I've just noticed there's 20 years missing, during which he is wearing a long wig (see photo). Tyrenius 04:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Does this quotation actually add anything?
'Tim Pat Coogan stated in The Green Book: I, "Sir Norman Stronge and his son were shot and their home burned because sectarian assassinations were claiming the lives of Catholics"'
This looks to be merely Mr. Coogan's opinion.--
Major Bonkers
(talk)
09:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
This is no other Norman Stronge, therefore per WP:NCNT it should not be at its present location. One Night In Hackney 303 05:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Moved to Norman Stronge in accordance to WP:NCNT.-- padraig3uk 14:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Re. this edit [10]. It is factual to state that a) the IRA were (and are) proscribed in Northern Ireland, Great Britain, where this attack took place and, as a consequence the high velocity weapons and grenades used were illegal. Thus it gives an accurate, factual, representation to be included.-- Counter-revolutionary 19:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Much of this story is re-told in Tynan Abbey, but with a different tone. We should try to make the descriptions of the events in various articles more consistent. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
This does not meet WP:RS. An "fsnet" domain name is free webhosting, so it's just someone with a website. The banner reads "Sinn Fein/IRA where (sic) nothing more..." so it doesn't seem to have "an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight". Removed the unreliable source, and requested citation. One Night In Hackney 303 22:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Surely this is a good article. Everything's referenced, reads very well, nice style, NPoV, &c., &c... -- Counter-revolutionary ( talk) 13:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Disruptive edits are never acceptable. WP:NPOV comments by Republican sympathisers are certainly not acceptable. Sir Norman Stronge and his son were brutally murdered in the most heinous circumstances. The adjective 'killed' does not go anywhere close to describing this barbaric and cowardly crime against humanity. -- De Unionist ( talk) 12:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
To you it would be! Killed is when you get run over crossing a road, murdered is cold-blooded pre-meditated killing, see Murder for description. The term murder is totally appropriate in this context. -- De Unionist ( talk) 09:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you should read murder which is very clear on the distinction with the commonly used 'killed'. Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought), and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide. The killing of Sir Norman Stronge and his son James by the PIRA falls squarely within this definition. Appeasement of a uncivil minority is not an option. -- De Unionist ( talk) 23:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Norman Stronge. 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) 01:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To the reader who does not know what occured this word is meaningless. The word murder is not PoV, it implies the deliberate killing of another, exactly what happened here. I think this page is being used by others to promote certain PoV's which, perhaps, believe in playing-down this murder.-- Couter-revolutionary 12:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
It is significant, it shows the mainstream republican reaction to his murder. To remove it clearly shows a PoV and if you continue to do this I shall have you written up, as it were. The quotation marks I added were purely for stylistic purposes.-- Couter-revolutionary 22:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see why Currie's statement has been removed and is not considered important. It strikes me as a very important statement and fully merits being highlighted. Burke's peerage does happen to be considered a reliable source. Tyrenius 00:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
This creates an unfortunate ambiguity that he was murdered only briefly, as opposed to permanently:
I think it should be:
Tyrenius 00:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, very very minor edit war at the very most. Edit + revert v 2 reverts. I recommend WP:BRD, i.e. an edit, a revert, then discussion. However, everyone is at fault for not opening a discussion on this page, which is what it's for. Don't leave such things just to edit summaries. I have looked at the ref and it appears that neither "murdered" nor "targetted" are mentioned. The simplest thing is to let the IRA speak for themselves without interpretation and let the reader make up his/her own mind as to what they wish to read into it.
Thus instead of:
it would read:
I may have missed something here, but this seems the obvious solution. Please discuss below.
Tyrenius 21:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I would have thought the term "murdered" should occur in the lead section and that there would be a reliable source to validate it. The Commons biography says "killed" but the Tynan family history uses "murdered". Is there not a coroner's report or national newspaper report that clarifies this?
Tyrenius 21:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The use of the term murdered instead of Killed is pure POV.-- padraig3uk 13:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Could editors on this page, please study WP:TPG. The above conversation is largely a blatant violation of it. The talk page is not a place for opinions or unsubstantiated argument. That is not how to write articles. Please provide sources for statements, as in WP:ATT to be used per WP:NPOV. This is elementary stuff. Also we are not dealing with Bloody Sunday. Argue that on the talk page for that article. Tyrenius 01:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the info in the opening paragraph about Stronge's political career should be appreviated and most of this should be moved in to a new section in the body of the article - any ojections to this from anyone? I can only see wp:mos type objections being credible here Weggie 11:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
This article seemed to imply, incorrectly, that Sir Norman may have had a role in certain killings. It is obvious to those involved (yes not necessarily to all and sundry) that Sir Norman was not mixed up in anything like that. This is what I am attempting to stress, yet user:Vintagekits wishes me to provided a source for this. Suggestions?-- Couter-revolutionary 23:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
(unindent)(edit conflict) This is quite correct per wikipedia policy and the statement "Sir Norman had no connection with those killings" must be removed (this is not to imply that he did have any connection, I must point out). The article does not state he was involved in killings anyway, so there is no need to refute it. The IRA statement followed by Austin Currie's statement provide contrasting attitudes which give the reader sufficient information to make their own judgement. Tyrenius 00:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
This term has been allowed only in the IRA quote to represent accurately their statement on this event. It should not be used elsewhere in the text, unless there is a verifiable reliable source that uses this term, and we've already debated elsewhere what constitutes such a source. Tyrenius 00:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Vk, stop violating WP:POINT. We are not talking about Londonderry. We are not talking about the use of the word terrorist. We are talking about the word assassination to use in a specific place or places in this article. Wikipedia does not work by precedent and it is not consistent. Also per WP:TPG please stop misusing the talk page to express your personal opinions which are irrelevant to the article, which are not substantiated and which are plainly designed to annoy other users, as you know what their reaction will be to such statements. This is the second time in a short time that a needless provocative comment by you has had to be removed. If you carry on doing this, I will block you. I might point out earlier that other users were stopped from making deliberately inflammatory comments about the IRA. It cuts both ways. Tyrenius 14:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
No question he was PC (NI), which is mentioned in the main text. But is it correctly shown in line 1 as Rt Hon or PC (NI) ? - Kittybrewster 21:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
-- Couter-revolutionary 21:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Our style is to use neither for commoners — for some ridiculous reason we're not allowed to use "The Right Honourable", and it'd be misleading to put the post-nominal there when it's not supposed to be used, so we're stuck in a rather absurd limbo. Yet another example of anti-British bias making everything difficult. Proteus (Talk) 21:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be wonderful if we could use "Right Honourable", but I don't think the anti-status people will allow it. -- Ibagli ( Talk) 23:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Can this be removed or explained? - Kittybrewster 00:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Here are some international sources for the use of the word "murder" to describe the death of Sir Norman Stronge. I think this indicates it is a widely held, I would say majority, view. Nevertheless, it may be best to state who has called it murder for the sake of objectivity, as with the use of the word "terrorist" in Al Quaida.
Tyrenius 00:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
[9] . No justification for changing this by amending the quotation. See WP:ATT WP:RS and stop being disruptive. - Kittybrewster 17:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Vintage, out of curiousity - what difference does this make to you?
The sources clearly say the warrant was for a charge of murder. We don't use euphemisms. Follow the source accurately please. Also the source doesn't say the charges were dropped; it says Shannon was acquited. Fidelity to the source is essential in articles. Tyrenius 00:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
That was quite funny. It's not up to me to scour for sources: it's up to you to provide them, if you have a point to make. Many sources, e.g. The New York Times, are perfectly acceptable, and doubtless all or some of these (I'm not greatly familiar with them):
You (and no one else either from what I can see) never cite the Irish press, which I find surprising. Why not? Do they say the same as the British press and the Burning Bush perchance? Tyrenius 03:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
There were too many headings and small sections which prevented any flow. I have created bigger sections and less headings.
I have considered the use of the words "killing" and "murder" attempting only to apply wikipedia policies of WP:ATT and WP:NPOV and their derivative guidelines, including Wikipedia: words to avoid:
The word "murder" falls into this category. As major sources use the term, it must be included. However, it must also be attributed to them. A straightforward solution is to describe the events in neutral terms, i.e. use the word "killing", which is after all what happened. I think in the circumstances of the death, the reader can safely be left to draw whatever conclusions they choose. I have put the labelling of the death as murder into a Reactions section, as it was a reaction to the event after it. It can then be compared with other reactions, and again the reader can make their own judgement. It is fundamental to wikipedia to present information in a neutral and impersonal manner, even though this may go against an editor's natural instincts, though of course these can be opposite in different editors.
All of this does create a disproportionately large section on the death, and I think the answer to this is to expand the previous section on his life and career. The marriage date is missing at the moment.
I have deleted the UDA lines. This is original research. There is no source that connects this to Sir Norman Stronge, only an editor's idea that it is connected.
Some of the details may need to be clarified, revised or more closely referenced, but please do not insert statements which may be contentious which are not supported by appropriate references.
Note also per WP:LEAD that the lead section is not an introduction. It is a summary of the article for those that want a quick overview without necessarily reading the whole text. I have augmented it with this in mind. Ideally the lead section should not be referenced, as it is only an abbreviated version of the main text, where the references should be.
If there are any disputes over the revision, please open talk below, giving each subject its own heading for clarity. Talk related to the article is best stated on this page, not on user talk pages, in order that all editors may have a chance to participate.
Tyrenius 03:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Can I just point out I think the NYT part should be removed? One story on the link does say murdered, but another story does not. One Night In Hackney 303 03:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
In the infobox it says 'Speaker of the Northern Ireland Parliament' at the time of his death this didn't exist either the position or parliament, so the infobox is misleading as it gives one the impression that it is still currently in existance. Shouldn't this be changed to 'Former Speaker of the Former Northern Ireland Parliament.-- padraig3uk 10:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
These appear to have been given by editors who have worked on the article. They are meant to be given by editors who have not! I've reverted to original state. Tyrenius 04:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Moved from a talk page and distilled.
I've just noticed there's 20 years missing, during which he is wearing a long wig (see photo). Tyrenius 04:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Does this quotation actually add anything?
'Tim Pat Coogan stated in The Green Book: I, "Sir Norman Stronge and his son were shot and their home burned because sectarian assassinations were claiming the lives of Catholics"'
This looks to be merely Mr. Coogan's opinion.--
Major Bonkers
(talk)
09:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
This is no other Norman Stronge, therefore per WP:NCNT it should not be at its present location. One Night In Hackney 303 05:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Moved to Norman Stronge in accordance to WP:NCNT.-- padraig3uk 14:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Re. this edit [10]. It is factual to state that a) the IRA were (and are) proscribed in Northern Ireland, Great Britain, where this attack took place and, as a consequence the high velocity weapons and grenades used were illegal. Thus it gives an accurate, factual, representation to be included.-- Counter-revolutionary 19:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Much of this story is re-told in Tynan Abbey, but with a different tone. We should try to make the descriptions of the events in various articles more consistent. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
This does not meet WP:RS. An "fsnet" domain name is free webhosting, so it's just someone with a website. The banner reads "Sinn Fein/IRA where (sic) nothing more..." so it doesn't seem to have "an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight". Removed the unreliable source, and requested citation. One Night In Hackney 303 22:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Surely this is a good article. Everything's referenced, reads very well, nice style, NPoV, &c., &c... -- Counter-revolutionary ( talk) 13:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Disruptive edits are never acceptable. WP:NPOV comments by Republican sympathisers are certainly not acceptable. Sir Norman Stronge and his son were brutally murdered in the most heinous circumstances. The adjective 'killed' does not go anywhere close to describing this barbaric and cowardly crime against humanity. -- De Unionist ( talk) 12:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
To you it would be! Killed is when you get run over crossing a road, murdered is cold-blooded pre-meditated killing, see Murder for description. The term murder is totally appropriate in this context. -- De Unionist ( talk) 09:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you should read murder which is very clear on the distinction with the commonly used 'killed'. Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought), and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide. The killing of Sir Norman Stronge and his son James by the PIRA falls squarely within this definition. Appeasement of a uncivil minority is not an option. -- De Unionist ( talk) 23:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Norman Stronge. 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) 01:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)