![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I believe the flags in the box out are being used incorrectly, and certainly contentiously.
The Union Jack and the Irish Tricolour on the left hand side are fine, as they represent those two countries. However, the repeated use of the tricolour and the use of the flag of Northern Ireland is wrong.
The tricolour is the adopted flag of the country and, although it is often used by both Republicans and Nationalists alike, the ownership 1) does not solely belong to the paramilitary organisations and 2) represents many more people than just paramilitary extremists.
Likewise, the flag of Northern Ireland is the de facto flag of the country and 1) does not solely belong to paramilitary organisations, even though they may use it at times and 2) represents more than just paramilitary extremists.
Better alternatives would perhaps be:
Certainly, the use of the flag of Northern Ireland to represent terrorists is offensive. I assume it may be the same for many people with regard to the tricolour. -- 75.177.79.101 ( talk) 23:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Sincerely; Simon Levchenko ( talk) 19:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry; not immediately relevant to this page. But several Troubles and related pages have had their flag icons removed. The user who did so sees them as in violation of WP:FLAGCRUFT, though has thus far failed to specify how. Any opinions on this matter? Simon Levchenko ( talk) 21:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Ernio48, if you disagree with an edit you should start a discussion on the talk page rather than edit-war and tell somebody else to start it. And Sirlanz, if you want to restore an edit you should discuss it on the talk page and not just say it's "blindingly obvious". So, what do editors think of replacing the map of Ireland with this image in the infobox? Scolaire ( talk) 14:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Off-topic but we need more discussions in one of the sections above, "Ignoble flag usage in infobox". -- Gateshead001 ( talk) 21:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
The lead paragraphs are very populated by sources - 18 in the first one alone. Per WP:LEAD and WP:LEADCITE we should not have any references in the leads (or at least, keep it to a minimum). I might try move the citations to sections below if I can. -- Gateshead001 ( talk) 23:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
My preference would be to remove "(1969–1997)" from "Body part 1", and amend the infobox from 1968 to late 1960s to match the lead and the CAIN source. Any objections? 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:34D6:349F:F6D0:68A3 ( talk) 12:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
As sourced on the groups' pages - their support is broader than was previousuly construed by the infobox. Simon Levchenko ( talk) 21:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Which sources did you check?
-Iran paid millions to fund IRA Adrian Levy and Anna Pukas. The Times , 21 Aug 1994 -Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, The Mitrokhin Archive pp492 - 503 -Mitrokhin, Vasili (2000). The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB. Basic Books. p. 384. ISBN 0-465-00312-5. [KGB SUPPORT] -"Report". U.S. House of Representatives House International Relations Committee. 24 April 2002. Archived from the original on 28 February 2007. Retrieved 17 March 2007. [FARC dealings] -Mallie, Bishop, p. 308 [ETA SUPPORT] -"Inside The Ira - Weapons & Technology - The Ira & Sinn Fein - FRONTLINE - PBS". Retrieved 3 October 2014. [ETA SUPPORT]
-Support from FARC/PLO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTxIPFRv22U
"Inside The Ira - Weapons & Technology - The Ira & Sinn Fein - FRONTLINE - PBS". Retrieved 3 October 2014. [PLO]
NORAID
Bandit Country: Toby Harnden, ISBN 0-340-71737-8. "Decommissioning in the summer - Ahern". BBC News. 1998-04-12. Retrieved 27 September 2008. Duffy, Jonathan (2001-09-26). "Rich friends in New York". BBC News. Retrieved 27 September 2008. "Passing the Hat for the Provos". Time. 1979-11-26. Retrieved 27 September 2008.
McDonald, Henry (2 July 2000). "English fascists to join loyalists at Drumcree". London: The Observer. Retrieved 30 December 2010. - C18
Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas. Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity. NYU Press, 2003. Page 45.LINKS TO COMBAT 18/BNSM
Wood, Ian S. Crimes of Loyalty: A History of the UDA. Edinburgh University Press, 2006. Page 339-40. Other Fascist groups
@
The Banner: Please be more careful in your choice of words: Why are you only focusing on the IRA and not on the Protestant side?
- Considering the IRA are proud to boast of any Protestant member's they had so they don't look sectarian, and the fact there are Catholics who have supported or are loyalists, such a statement is inaccurate and wrong. Rather you mean "on the loyalist side".
On topic, whilst you could argue that they were involved in the conflict by aiding and abetting, they weren't directly involved. Otherwise why didn't the UK take military action against Libya or the such considering it was basically state sponsorship of the IRA by Libya? So I would oppose the addition to the infobox of participants of such entities. Mabuska (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The importation was not known until several shipments were intercepted. Likewise, talks resumed in the early 90s - Maggie was out of office. Simon Levchenko ( talk) 18:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of removing duplicate fields to make things obvious. First is the version as of 06:07, 19 June 2018, secondly is the "new" version. I am sure everyone can see the only supposed difference is the change of "Supported by:" to "Armament supply:" and the removal of "arms shipments". There is no real difference at all, so the objections are still valid. 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:D802:80A1:3B7D:C884 ( talk) 15:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Infobox content is not dictated by the content of infoboxes on other articles. You may wish to familiarise yourself with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, specifically:
When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance
Therefore any inclusion should be based on the significance of the addition to this specific article, not because an article on a vaguely related subject may include information in the infobox because it may be more significant to that article. The additions made to this infobox are not key facts, a single(?) importation of arms from South Africa is hardly a key fact is it? 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:DD5E:EDE:3F38:6174 ( talk) 21:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
References
Does anyone have details on these incidents, and references for the text?
Were the helicopters taking off or landing at the time? Hitting helicopters with mortar fire would seem to be a hard undertaking.
Am not questioning whether these incidents occurred - I'm just interested in the details.
Regards to all Notreallydavid ( talk) 12:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Please see my question regarding whether the Easter Rising falls within a reasonable interpretation of "The Troubles broadly interpreted" (regarding Discretionary Sanctions purposes) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Great Famine (Ireland), Irish nationalism and discretionary sanctions. Thryduulf ( talk) 19:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I definitely saw small discrepancies throughout the article that involved information regarding the Provisional IRA and English. Specifically, the segments regarding the Bloody Sunday event, as well as other operations designated towards the protestants, were lined towards the Provisional IRA. Joeygaig ( talk) 04:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Is there any reason for keeping a small list of further reading in this article. Are any of those titles significant enough to keep in the list given the number of references and the article List of books about the Troubles. -- PBS ( talk) 17:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
March 13, 2019
CHINA NUMBER ONE. ALL HAIL XI JINPING.
is on the top of the post — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:2200:3E50:889D:C4CB:9460:7C17 ( talk) 19:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved per
snowball clause Consensus is clear that the
WP:COMMONNAME is "The Troubles". (
closed by non-admin page mover)
SITH
(talk)
16:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The Troubles →
Northern Ireland conflict – This article's title seems euphemistic and not NPOV. Googling the term "The Troubles" with the word "euphemism" brings a long list of reliable sources that deride this term. Why are we still using this title? Northern Ireland conflict appears to be the preferred term among independent scholars and is neutral and formal. Why default to the colloquial term. ---
Coffeeand
crumbs
01:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following: 1. Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later... 2. Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious.This appears to be a colloquialism and far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious, at least to me. --- Coffeeand crumbs 15:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
@
StraussInTheHouse: Please edit your close.
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names refers only to the names of articles on Ireland i.e.
Ireland,
Republic of Ireland and
Ireland (disambiguation). It has nothing whatsoever to do with the naming of The Troubles article.
Scolaire (
talk)
21:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Copy to
Coffeeandcrumbs, who must really feel like he's in
the Twilight Zone at this stage.
Scolaire (
talk)
21:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The article currently states "one man, one vote – in Northern Ireland, only householders could vote in local elections, while in the rest of the United Kingdom all adults could vote", which implies that "one man one vote" existed in the rest of the UK. I added "In all parts of the United Kingdom, plural voting meant that owners of business premises had an additional vote. [1] [2]" This was reverted for the stated reason that "references don't mention NICRA, so don't see the relevance of the inclusion to NICRA's goals". I had made the edit to show that 'one man one vote' did not exist anywhere for local elections anywhere in the United Kingdom in the mid-1960's. I feel that the article should make this clear, and I propose to reinstate the edit. Alekksandr ( talk) 12:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
References
I added to the lead the fact that members of the public were targeted. That happened frequently, yet it was reverted as needless & superfluous. It's relevant that they were often the targets of bombings, shootings etc. In many attacks they were the only/primary targets, especially in regard to those in the street and in pubs, restaurants & shops. If the objective was only to damage the buildings, they'd have always attacked them when they were closed. Jim Michael ( talk) 08:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that it says the conflict also affected "England, and mainland Europe".
Did the conflict NEVER touch Scotland and Wales? It seems weird it'd hit England and mainland Europe, but not those two.
Is it just a bad wording/misunderstanding of England/Britain? And if so, can it be fixed? 180.17.62.122 ( talk) 13:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Previously briefly discussed at Talk:The Troubles/Archive 3#Ignoble flag usage in infobox. "the flags improve the article's quality, and make the infobox more aesthetically pleasing" is not valid per MOS:ICONDECORATION. While MOS:INFOBOXFLAG does list military conflicts as an acceptable use, it does not make them mandatory and the flags as they were added would appear to fall foul of "Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text" since they don't appear to convey information in addition to the text. If anything they confuse the reader due to the multiple uses of the Tricolor. If Takinginterest01 wishes to make a case for inclusion, they are welcome to do so. FDW777 ( talk) 10:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
File:Fountain (04).JPG was added to the Overview section ten years ago to illustrate "The Ulster Banner flying over a unionist area (foreground), and the Irish Tricolour flying over a nationalist area (background)." The problem with it is that the Ulster Banner dominates the photograph, while the Tricolour is only visible if you know what you are looking for and you study the photograph very, very hard. It is a very nice photograph, but not fit for purpose. For an image to properly portray a clash of symbols, the symbols should be of equal prominence and comparable size. You should not have to play Where's Wally? to see one of them. With a certain amount of regret, I am proposing that the image be deleted. Scolaire ( talk) 10:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm extremely wary of trying to make any changes myself, but the adjacent "Collusion" sections present an almost comical contrast. We have a well-referenced section about "many incidents of collusion" between British forces and loyalists, followed by a single sentence about an unnamed person colluding with the IRA (itself with plenty of citations, to be fair). If other editors think this is appropriate, I'll defer to that, but from the outside, it looks a lot either like either false balance or a badly underdeveloped Gardaí/IRA collusion section. -- BDD ( talk) 17:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
-- Tommy Socialist ( talk) 15:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TommySocialist ( talk • contribs)
Was the Darkley killings the only church attack of the Troubles? If so, was there a policy to avoid targeting churches? Jim Michael ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
During the June 1970 Battle of St Matthew's the Provisional IRA Belfast Brigade defended the church in the Short Strand from Loyalist attack. One Republican & 2 Loyalists were killed in the church grounds during the battle as well as IRA Belfast Brigade Commander Billy McKee being badly injured. Look at Timeline_of_Ulster_Volunteer_Force_actions#1986
*16 September: The "Protestant Action Force" claimed responsibility for shooting dead a Catholic civilian in the grounds of Holy Cross Roman Catholic Church on Crumlin Road, Belfast. This was claimed as retaliation for the killing of UVF member John Bingham two days before.
Also Timeline of Ulster Defence Association actions#1975
*9 February: the UDA opened fire on Catholic civilians leaving St Brigid's church on Derryvolgie Avenue, Belfast; two parishioners were killed.
plus Timeline of Ulster Defence Association actions#1981
*12 October: the UFF claimed responsibility for shooting dead a Catholic civilian at his home on Deerpark Road, Belfast. It also claimed responsibility for bombing Christ the King Roman Catholic church in Limavady. Most of the building was destroyed but there were no injuries
There is other church bombings not included in UVF,RHC or UDA timelines I might add them in to the timelines... like these following Loyalist church bombings I upload to my YT account.
One by the UDA/UFF...
And not a church attack but imo just as bad & sectarian attacking Catholic children's schools.
The online magazine called "The Troubles issuu By Joe Baker" it details things everything to do with The Troubles including less known attacks like attacks on churches & childrens schools. Just look at this issue from January/February 1973, there's over a dozen of attacks on Churches, mostly Catholic ones.
https://issuu.com/glenravel/docs/troubles19/16
User:TommySocialist
User_talk:TommySocialist
23:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Bombs had wrecked the national school and badly damaged a Catholic Church at Desertmartin RUC said that 25 - 30 lb bomb blew the roof of the church after the bomb had been left near the altar.
A British Army bomb disposal expert defused a bomb found on a window of a Catholic Church, in Saintfield, Belfast. It was believed the UVF was behind the attack.
There was an attempt to set fire to a "Church of Ireland" Church at Ballynure, only small damage was done.
"Catholic Church bombed" A bomb which was placed at St Bernadette's Catholic Church on the Upper Knockbreda Road exploded causing damage to the side, porch and rooms immediatley inside the building but the main part was not damaged.
St Brigid's Catholic Church in Derryvolgie Avenue came under attack during the night. A number of shots were fired at the church and the remaning 5 people inside it. No one was injured in the attack.
The Catholic church in Minorca Place, Carrickfergus was slightly damaged when a 2lb device which was placed on the wind sill exploded, some windows were damaged as well.
An explosion caused a lot of damage to a Catholic church in Killyman between Dungannon & Portadown. The device had been planted inside the building.
Two bombs caused sever damage to Catholic churches. The first near Ballymena at Braid Chapel left the building in ruins and the second two hours later another bomb went of at a Church at Crebilly but was only small damage had occured, a number of near by house's were also damaged.
50 people were injured, three very seriously in 600lb car bomb attack, without warning the bomb exploded close to a Roman Catholic Church in Ballycastle, County Antrim. The bomb was planted on the 26 August it was timed to explode as Mass goers left the church. But the service ran late, and the bomb detonated when the congregation were still inside the church, avoiding large-scale loss of life. Three people were seriusly injured in the blast including BBC journalist Mr. Fred Tullen, presently working in Northern Ireland who had to have an amputated. [1]
So, without a doubt there was plenty of attacks on Churches during The Troubles. -- User:TommySocialist User_talk:TommySocialist 22:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
For those who object to the use of "Northern Ireland and England" rather than "Northern Ireland and mainland Britain", here is a recent article that makes it crystal clear that only England was targeted by the IRA: Mackay, Neil (13 October 2019). "Inside story: Why the IRA never attacked Scotland". The Herald Scotland.. 81.17.242.238 ( talk) 11:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I did a little research and found this article and there are others so I have self-reverted but removed the reference. We haven't got references for the other countries so this seems consistent. ----- Snowded TALK 05:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Of course things like this could be avoided if disruptive editors added a source when originally adding material, or added a source when the material was challenged for the first time. Wikipedia:Verifiability is quite clear - "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." A wikilink to another article in an edit summary is not an inline citation is it? FDW777 ( talk) 15:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I've opened an RM on Talk:Remembrance Day bombing for it to be moved to Enniskillen bombing. Jim Michael ( talk) 19:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Without my having to search the archives of this page, does anyone know if the need has ever has been discussed to clarify the origin of the term "The Troubles" for this conflict? Perhaps the expression is familiar and understandable to many, whereas it might also be taken as a somewhat glaring understatement by others? -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 22:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I notice the semi-paramilitary group the Ulster Resistance is in the Loyalist Belligerent forces. I don't think this group carried out a single bombing or a single shooting and maybe not even injured anyone during the conflict. The UPV helped the UVF kill 70-year-old Matilda Gould & they also helped the a joint UPV/UVF unit kill Catholic barman Peter Ward (18) & John Scullion (28), the Ulster Protestant Volunteers (UPV) along with the UVF also carried out a large number of bombings between March & April 1969 to bring down Northern Premier Terence O'Neill which they did successfully. They also probably had a hand in the first Loyalist bombing in Republic of Ireland at all when Loyalists carried out RTE Studio bombing on 5 August 1969 a week before the Battle of the Bogside. On the 19 October 1969 UPV & UVF member Thomas McDowell was planting a large gelignite bomb at Ballyshannon in Donegal, he killed himself when touched 5,600 volts of electricity. There was more UVF/UPV bombings in 1969 like the when they exploded a bomb at the grave of Wolfe Tone in Bodenstown, ruining one of the headstones. They were probably involved in bombings in 1970 as well like when on the 18 February they exploded a bomb at a 240-foot radio mast on Mongary Hill, near Raphoe, County Donegal, Republic of Ireland. The explosion put the transmitter out of action. The mast had allowed Irish Radio programmes to be received over most of Northern Ireland. The UPV were much more active than Ulster Resistance and they should either replace or co-opted on to the Loyalist Belligerents. If UR is included in in the Loyalist groups, then Saor Éire (1967–75) should be included in the Irish Republican groups, they did more than both the CIRA or RIRA between October 1968 - April 1998 TommySocialist 17:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
The article starts with "The Troubles was", yet in the Overview section we see "The Troubles were brought...". Effectively the same sentences appear in Northern Ireland and History of Northern Ireland as well. In the lead of Timeline of the Northern Ireland Troubles and peace process, the term is treated as singular.
Comparing the search results of the troubles were and the troubles was on British and Irish newspapers' websites reveals that the plural is indeed the norm, whereas the latter are mostly matches of "the __ of the Troubles was" etc. or referring to the term. The same is true on JSTOR. On Google Ngram, "The Troubles is/was/has" don't even have enough occurrences to appear on the graph, while "The Troubles are/were/have" do (with both words capitalized and "case-insensitive" unchecked to make sure the conflict is the subject).
So shouldn't it be "The Troubles were"? Or am I missing something? Nardog ( talk) 15:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I realise the current end date is referenced, but CAIN say "It may prove as difficult to agree on a date for the end of 'the Troubles' as it is to agree on the date of beginning of the violent conflict". They are not as explicit as the "A number of dates have been used by different writers" line regarding the start date, instead settling for "There have been a number of significant events and developments". Does anyone think these dates should be incorporated into the sentence in the lead? If yes, I assume there would be no problem removing the "Date" field entirely from the infobox? I tend to think saying "Late 1960s–1997, 1998, 1999, 2005, or 2007" would be best avoided, it's much easier to deal with that in a sentence. FDW777 ( talk) 21:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Anyone? It feels like I'm wasting my time bringing potentially controversial things up in advance. FDW777 ( talk) 17:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
June 11, 1966. John Patrick Scullion, West Belfast. Civilian, Catholic, 28, single, storeman. The first victim of the troubles
The UVF did this by mounting a series of petrol bomb attacks on Catholic homes, schools and shops throughout the spring of 1966. On 7 May the UVF claimed the first life to be lost in the Troubles, that of an elderly Protestant, a Mrs Gould, who had the misfortune to live beside a Catholic pub which the UVF attacked with petrol bombs.
Historically, Mrs Gould was the first victim of the current Troubles
I have again removed this addition by @
Bbx118: as it is insufficiently referenced. It was previously added
here by the same editor, and removed
here by @
Scolaire: as the first ref doesn't have "Irish conflict" anywhere that I can find, and the second is a review of a television programme by a random journalist; that does not make "Irish conflict" a commonly-used term
. The
new reference uses the phrase three times, but they don't come close to establishing it as a commonly-used term for the Troubles especially when you look at the context in which the phrase is used.
FDW777 (
talk)
06:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
This may make sense to those in Northern Ireland itself, but may seem laughable and even revisionist to Wikipedia's global audience with some (poor) knowledge of the events. The (just) 2 sources are academic and arcane and one of them even says "most agree" (that it was more or less solely about politics not really about religion at all) and also says something like "religion can't be the cause because religion can never be a prime cause of conflict". Far better elaboration in the actual article itself is needed over why the organised killing of Protestants by Catholics and vice versa was "not a religious conflict" when ostensibly the rest of the world was witnessing that and will be reading the article from an outside Ireland perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr gobrien ( talk • contribs) 20:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
No further comment in the last three days. There seems to be a broad consensus in favour of Retswerb's wording, so I'm implementing this now. Perhaps Jim Michael could propose a wording for his perspective, citing a reasonably authoritative source? Scolaire ( talk) 12:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
citing a reasonably authoritative source... FDW777 ( talk) 14:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I have reverted the majority of this change, keeping in a couple of changes of wording I think are an improvement. Problems with it are as follows.
the two main ethnic, religious and political traditions in Northern Ireland. We've just been over this at #"Not a religious conflict"
while giving qualified support to the British Armyis unreferenced. In fact the entire sentence is unreferenced, but since the British and nationalists perspectives are in that paragraph (and also unreferenced, sigh) it seems reasonable enough to include the unionist perspective
The Executive has collapsed repeatedly since its inception in 1999 (most recently for three years from January 2017), reflecting the incompatible national aspirations of the two traditions which the Agreement has required to share power. Many of the preconditions for the onset of the Troubles are still in place, including separation of children in school, residential neighbourhoods, political parties, sporting and cultural activities and historical narrativesis unreferenced
As counties Fermanagh and Tyrone and border areas of Londonderry, Armagh, and Down were mainly nationalist, the Irish Boundary Commission could reduce Northern Ireland to four counties or lessThis was deleted without explanation, despite it being referenced. I have restored it.
although historians such as Peter Hart arguewas changed from
although historian Peter Hart argues. Since Peter Hart is the only person cited, I have restored it
This was in response to Eamon de Valera's recognition of the "special position of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church" in southern Ireland. I don't think that image caption needs to get any bigger with an unnecessary sop
The campaign recognised that to make progress it would have to draw in the Labour government at Westminster. The Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, was sympathetic to their objectives and had his own reasons to curtail the power of the Unionist Party, whose MPs at Westminster generally voted with the Conservative opposition. [1] In the 1966 Westminster election, republican socialist Gerry Fitt became the first nationalist MP to actually take his seat. He worked closely with sympathetic Labour MPs to develop the Campaign for Democracy in Ulster, a parliamentary pressure group. [2] Their aim was to overturn the convention that Westminster should not intervene in the affairs of the devolved administration. Paradoxically, this meant that they had an incentive to support the deployment of the British Army in Northern Ireland.This is a completely misplaced addition, and the last sentence is unreferenced. The Gerry Fitt reference is also incomplete, presumably it is the book by Michael A Murphy but with no ISBN, publisher, publication year or author information other than "Murphy" it is difficult to know. This paragraph might belong in the article somewhere, but it doesn't belong where it was added.
The more assertive elements in the campaign defied the ban, and some have subsequently acknowledged that they wanted to provoke police violence in the knowledge that international TV crews would be present. [3] The RUC took the bait, surrounded the marchers and beat many of them. This is a substantial misrepresentation of the Sunday Times article. The closest the article gets is when it says
McCann says the strategy of some local activists was "to provoke the police into over reaction" and this was easily achieved. I note this also removed the wording supported by the CAIN reference, the relevant quotes from which are
As the march approached the front line a number of RUC officers drew their batons and, without provocation, clubbed those at the head of the march, including two Nationalist MPs,
We regret to state that we have no doubt that both Mr. Fitt and Mr. McAtteer were batoned by the police, at a time when no order to draw batons had been given and in circumstances in which the use of batons on these gentlemen was wholly without justification or excuse(from the Cameron Report) and
Even the official report concluded that the police broke ranks at this point and "used their batons indiscriminately on people in Duke Street"(again from the Cameron Report). Even if we accept that some in the crowd did seek to provoke the RUC, smashing their batons of the heads of MPs Eddie McAteer and Gerry Fitt is still an unprovoked attack on them, as the reference states
After this, the movement became more radicalThis is unreferenced
humanitarian interventionwas changed to the WP:EGG like
intervention. Given the sentence says it was the Irish Army who were going to be performing the HUMANITARIAN intervention, it is highly misleading to simply say "intervention" as anyone not checking where the word linked to would assume military intervention
After the riots, the British Labour government set up the Hunt Committee to reform the RUC. It published its report with unusual haste on 12 October, recommending that the RUC become an unarmed force and the B Specials be disbanded. In effect, this meant that the British government was taking over control of security operations from Stormont.That change from the existing wording is not referenced
Despite the British government's attempt to do "nothing that would suggest partiality to one section of the community" and the improvement of the relationship between the Army and the local population following the Army assistance with flood relief in August 1970, the Falls Curfew and a situation...was changed to
In July 1970, the Conservative Party won the Westminster election and Edward Heath replaced Harold Wilson as Prime Minister. Although the Conservatives had traditionally been allied with the Northern Ireland Unionists, the new British government said that it would do "nothing that would suggest partiality to one section of the community". Relationships between the Army and the local population improved slightly when the Army assisted with flood relief in August, but more broadly a situation...Unreferenced, and I fail to see why any mention of the Falls Curfew has been removed given it was a pivotal moment in the relationship between the British Army and the nationalist community in Belfast.
Evidence emerged during the Arms Crisis trial in 1970 that some ministers in the Irish government had supported the emergence of the Provisional IRA with donations of weapons and finance: Taoiseach Jack Lynch sacked Charles Haughey and Neil Blaney from their posts.I don't believe this is a neutral summary of the Arms Crisis, since it doesn't appear it was in the article before I do think it needs to be in there in some form. Discussion on this point especially welcome
Following the introduction of internment there were numerous gun battles between the British army and both the Provisional and Official IRAwas changed to
Following the introduction of internment there were numerous gun battles between the British army and the two wings of the IRA, who also attacked each other. I have not heard the introduction of internment being the catalyst for a feud between the two IRA factions, certainly not to the extent it needs mentioning in that sentence.
In response to the upsurge in violence before and after the introduction of internment, Heath initiated a comprehensive review of British policies towards the conflict. His Cabinet identified a wide range of options, including radical repartitioning and independence, but were unable to agree on a solution. A third event, Bloody Sunday, interrupted their deliberations.is unreferenced
The DUP withdrew from the talks process when Sinn Fein was admitted, refusing to negotiate with the representatives of a terrorist organisation which had not yet laid down its arms. Hopelessly one sided, loyalists were involved too
A feature of Northern Ireland politics since the Agreement has been the eclipse in electoral terms of parties such as the SDLP and Ulster Unionist Party (UUP), by rival parties such as Sinn Féin and the DUPwas changed to
A feature of Northern Ireland politics since the Agreement has been the eclipse in electoral terms of the 'moderate' parties – the SDLP and Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) – by their more assertively sectarian rivals – Sinn Féin and the DUP, "assertively sectarian", really??
Throughout the Troubles, the Irish Constitution provided moral cover for the IRAare clearly problematic as is the mention of Patrick Ryan. What does Patrick Ryan or the Constitution of Ireland have to do with collusion? Nothing at all would be the answer to that question.
At the level of individual police officers, the Smithwick Tribunal has illustrated what could happen in the Republicis highly speculative.
I've tried to keep the improvements where possible, but those changes aren't helpful. FDW777 ( talk) 19:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
References
Jim Michael, you know very well that there is a consensus at Talk:Bobby Sands#Category additions reverted again that paramilitary activity is not categorised as "criminal". Given that, adding the "WikiProject Organized crime" banner to this page is deliberately provocative and a violation of WP:POINT (a behavioral guideline). Organised crime is mentioned in one sentence in an article of 12,000 words! The article cannot possibly be of interest to that WikiProject. Scolaire ( talk) 17:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
a so called concensus on its talk page does not hold weight for the greater scope, which really should be discussed somewhere with a greater audience for greater input from editors who (hopefully) aren't swayed by their political ideology, it's a good job that did happen at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 9#Proposed solution to categorising those imprisoned during The Troubles then isn't it? FDW777 ( talk) 20:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
projects & their banners weren't even mentionedis just another of your trips down Off-Topic Boulevard. Regarding categories, the discussion went on and on at Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive16#POW category added to IRA articles, and Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive16#Yes, POW is correct, and Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive16#Yes, POW is correct (part 2), and Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive16#Compromise suggestions section (part 2), and Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive16#POWs (mk III), and finally it went to Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 9#Proposed solution to categorising those imprisoned during The Troubles. Nobody objected. The proposals were then implemented. Nobody objected. That is consensus, just because certain editors don't like it because it prevents their POV-pushing matters not one iota.
We shouldn't create an exception for 1 or 2 groups, well it's a good job nobody has suggested anything of the kind. Like I said on Talk:Bobby Sands why don't you to go Talk:Nelson Mandela and start a discussion about adding criminal categories to his article, since it doesn't have any. There is no "exception for 1 or 2 groups". The objection is to the categorisation of any politically motivated prisoner as a criminal, not just 1 or 2 groups. FDW777 ( talk) 10:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
you're by a significant margin the most biased long-term WP editor I've ever encountered, in the very same paragraph you accuse me of being incivil. Some self-awareness might be more helpful. FDW777 ( talk) 13:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
propose a wording for his perspective, citing a reasonably authoritative source. You reply with no reference and just repeat your own POV. At Talk:The Troubles/Archive 3#Members of the public as targets you keep replying without references and just repeat your own POV. At Talk:Bobby Sands#Category additions reverted again you keep replying without references and just repeat your own POV. Can anyone else see a common theme here? FDW777 ( talk) 17:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
All of the above is very impassioned and might more usefully be pursued on a message board on some other site, but it's missing the central point: The Troubles was an ethnic/nationalist conflict; it was not an incident of organised crime. The Pol Pot regime is not part of WikiProject Organised crime, nor is the Armenian Genocide. The Troubles doesn't belong either. Adding the banner was just a way of advertising a POV. Scolaire ( talk) 13:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Scolaire ethco/nationalist conflict is such a load a nonsense. It was a sectarian/nationalist conflict no matter how much you try to pretend it was ethnic. So many contradictions to that in the history of Ireland especially the Troubles. But anything to sleep better at night I suppose? In regards to FDW77s statement on the Brita trying to portray republicans more negative. What has that got to do with a convicted criminal being tagged as a criminal? If you are found guilty and convicted then you are a criminal guilty of a crime no matter how you are portrayed. Any excuse I suppose to oppose. Mabuska (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I believe the flags in the box out are being used incorrectly, and certainly contentiously.
The Union Jack and the Irish Tricolour on the left hand side are fine, as they represent those two countries. However, the repeated use of the tricolour and the use of the flag of Northern Ireland is wrong.
The tricolour is the adopted flag of the country and, although it is often used by both Republicans and Nationalists alike, the ownership 1) does not solely belong to the paramilitary organisations and 2) represents many more people than just paramilitary extremists.
Likewise, the flag of Northern Ireland is the de facto flag of the country and 1) does not solely belong to paramilitary organisations, even though they may use it at times and 2) represents more than just paramilitary extremists.
Better alternatives would perhaps be:
Certainly, the use of the flag of Northern Ireland to represent terrorists is offensive. I assume it may be the same for many people with regard to the tricolour. -- 75.177.79.101 ( talk) 23:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Sincerely; Simon Levchenko ( talk) 19:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry; not immediately relevant to this page. But several Troubles and related pages have had their flag icons removed. The user who did so sees them as in violation of WP:FLAGCRUFT, though has thus far failed to specify how. Any opinions on this matter? Simon Levchenko ( talk) 21:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Ernio48, if you disagree with an edit you should start a discussion on the talk page rather than edit-war and tell somebody else to start it. And Sirlanz, if you want to restore an edit you should discuss it on the talk page and not just say it's "blindingly obvious". So, what do editors think of replacing the map of Ireland with this image in the infobox? Scolaire ( talk) 14:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Off-topic but we need more discussions in one of the sections above, "Ignoble flag usage in infobox". -- Gateshead001 ( talk) 21:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
The lead paragraphs are very populated by sources - 18 in the first one alone. Per WP:LEAD and WP:LEADCITE we should not have any references in the leads (or at least, keep it to a minimum). I might try move the citations to sections below if I can. -- Gateshead001 ( talk) 23:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
My preference would be to remove "(1969–1997)" from "Body part 1", and amend the infobox from 1968 to late 1960s to match the lead and the CAIN source. Any objections? 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:34D6:349F:F6D0:68A3 ( talk) 12:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
As sourced on the groups' pages - their support is broader than was previousuly construed by the infobox. Simon Levchenko ( talk) 21:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Which sources did you check?
-Iran paid millions to fund IRA Adrian Levy and Anna Pukas. The Times , 21 Aug 1994 -Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, The Mitrokhin Archive pp492 - 503 -Mitrokhin, Vasili (2000). The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB. Basic Books. p. 384. ISBN 0-465-00312-5. [KGB SUPPORT] -"Report". U.S. House of Representatives House International Relations Committee. 24 April 2002. Archived from the original on 28 February 2007. Retrieved 17 March 2007. [FARC dealings] -Mallie, Bishop, p. 308 [ETA SUPPORT] -"Inside The Ira - Weapons & Technology - The Ira & Sinn Fein - FRONTLINE - PBS". Retrieved 3 October 2014. [ETA SUPPORT]
-Support from FARC/PLO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTxIPFRv22U
"Inside The Ira - Weapons & Technology - The Ira & Sinn Fein - FRONTLINE - PBS". Retrieved 3 October 2014. [PLO]
NORAID
Bandit Country: Toby Harnden, ISBN 0-340-71737-8. "Decommissioning in the summer - Ahern". BBC News. 1998-04-12. Retrieved 27 September 2008. Duffy, Jonathan (2001-09-26). "Rich friends in New York". BBC News. Retrieved 27 September 2008. "Passing the Hat for the Provos". Time. 1979-11-26. Retrieved 27 September 2008.
McDonald, Henry (2 July 2000). "English fascists to join loyalists at Drumcree". London: The Observer. Retrieved 30 December 2010. - C18
Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas. Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity. NYU Press, 2003. Page 45.LINKS TO COMBAT 18/BNSM
Wood, Ian S. Crimes of Loyalty: A History of the UDA. Edinburgh University Press, 2006. Page 339-40. Other Fascist groups
@
The Banner: Please be more careful in your choice of words: Why are you only focusing on the IRA and not on the Protestant side?
- Considering the IRA are proud to boast of any Protestant member's they had so they don't look sectarian, and the fact there are Catholics who have supported or are loyalists, such a statement is inaccurate and wrong. Rather you mean "on the loyalist side".
On topic, whilst you could argue that they were involved in the conflict by aiding and abetting, they weren't directly involved. Otherwise why didn't the UK take military action against Libya or the such considering it was basically state sponsorship of the IRA by Libya? So I would oppose the addition to the infobox of participants of such entities. Mabuska (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The importation was not known until several shipments were intercepted. Likewise, talks resumed in the early 90s - Maggie was out of office. Simon Levchenko ( talk) 18:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of removing duplicate fields to make things obvious. First is the version as of 06:07, 19 June 2018, secondly is the "new" version. I am sure everyone can see the only supposed difference is the change of "Supported by:" to "Armament supply:" and the removal of "arms shipments". There is no real difference at all, so the objections are still valid. 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:D802:80A1:3B7D:C884 ( talk) 15:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
POV-pushing
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Infobox content is not dictated by the content of infoboxes on other articles. You may wish to familiarise yourself with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, specifically:
When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance
Therefore any inclusion should be based on the significance of the addition to this specific article, not because an article on a vaguely related subject may include information in the infobox because it may be more significant to that article. The additions made to this infobox are not key facts, a single(?) importation of arms from South Africa is hardly a key fact is it? 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:DD5E:EDE:3F38:6174 ( talk) 21:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
References
Does anyone have details on these incidents, and references for the text?
Were the helicopters taking off or landing at the time? Hitting helicopters with mortar fire would seem to be a hard undertaking.
Am not questioning whether these incidents occurred - I'm just interested in the details.
Regards to all Notreallydavid ( talk) 12:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Please see my question regarding whether the Easter Rising falls within a reasonable interpretation of "The Troubles broadly interpreted" (regarding Discretionary Sanctions purposes) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Great Famine (Ireland), Irish nationalism and discretionary sanctions. Thryduulf ( talk) 19:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I definitely saw small discrepancies throughout the article that involved information regarding the Provisional IRA and English. Specifically, the segments regarding the Bloody Sunday event, as well as other operations designated towards the protestants, were lined towards the Provisional IRA. Joeygaig ( talk) 04:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Is there any reason for keeping a small list of further reading in this article. Are any of those titles significant enough to keep in the list given the number of references and the article List of books about the Troubles. -- PBS ( talk) 17:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
March 13, 2019
CHINA NUMBER ONE. ALL HAIL XI JINPING.
is on the top of the post — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:2200:3E50:889D:C4CB:9460:7C17 ( talk) 19:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved per
snowball clause Consensus is clear that the
WP:COMMONNAME is "The Troubles". (
closed by non-admin page mover)
SITH
(talk)
16:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The Troubles →
Northern Ireland conflict – This article's title seems euphemistic and not NPOV. Googling the term "The Troubles" with the word "euphemism" brings a long list of reliable sources that deride this term. Why are we still using this title? Northern Ireland conflict appears to be the preferred term among independent scholars and is neutral and formal. Why default to the colloquial term. ---
Coffeeand
crumbs
01:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following: 1. Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later... 2. Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious.This appears to be a colloquialism and far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious, at least to me. --- Coffeeand crumbs 15:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
@
StraussInTheHouse: Please edit your close.
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names refers only to the names of articles on Ireland i.e.
Ireland,
Republic of Ireland and
Ireland (disambiguation). It has nothing whatsoever to do with the naming of The Troubles article.
Scolaire (
talk)
21:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Copy to
Coffeeandcrumbs, who must really feel like he's in
the Twilight Zone at this stage.
Scolaire (
talk)
21:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The article currently states "one man, one vote – in Northern Ireland, only householders could vote in local elections, while in the rest of the United Kingdom all adults could vote", which implies that "one man one vote" existed in the rest of the UK. I added "In all parts of the United Kingdom, plural voting meant that owners of business premises had an additional vote. [1] [2]" This was reverted for the stated reason that "references don't mention NICRA, so don't see the relevance of the inclusion to NICRA's goals". I had made the edit to show that 'one man one vote' did not exist anywhere for local elections anywhere in the United Kingdom in the mid-1960's. I feel that the article should make this clear, and I propose to reinstate the edit. Alekksandr ( talk) 12:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
References
I added to the lead the fact that members of the public were targeted. That happened frequently, yet it was reverted as needless & superfluous. It's relevant that they were often the targets of bombings, shootings etc. In many attacks they were the only/primary targets, especially in regard to those in the street and in pubs, restaurants & shops. If the objective was only to damage the buildings, they'd have always attacked them when they were closed. Jim Michael ( talk) 08:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that it says the conflict also affected "England, and mainland Europe".
Did the conflict NEVER touch Scotland and Wales? It seems weird it'd hit England and mainland Europe, but not those two.
Is it just a bad wording/misunderstanding of England/Britain? And if so, can it be fixed? 180.17.62.122 ( talk) 13:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Previously briefly discussed at Talk:The Troubles/Archive 3#Ignoble flag usage in infobox. "the flags improve the article's quality, and make the infobox more aesthetically pleasing" is not valid per MOS:ICONDECORATION. While MOS:INFOBOXFLAG does list military conflicts as an acceptable use, it does not make them mandatory and the flags as they were added would appear to fall foul of "Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text" since they don't appear to convey information in addition to the text. If anything they confuse the reader due to the multiple uses of the Tricolor. If Takinginterest01 wishes to make a case for inclusion, they are welcome to do so. FDW777 ( talk) 10:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
File:Fountain (04).JPG was added to the Overview section ten years ago to illustrate "The Ulster Banner flying over a unionist area (foreground), and the Irish Tricolour flying over a nationalist area (background)." The problem with it is that the Ulster Banner dominates the photograph, while the Tricolour is only visible if you know what you are looking for and you study the photograph very, very hard. It is a very nice photograph, but not fit for purpose. For an image to properly portray a clash of symbols, the symbols should be of equal prominence and comparable size. You should not have to play Where's Wally? to see one of them. With a certain amount of regret, I am proposing that the image be deleted. Scolaire ( talk) 10:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm extremely wary of trying to make any changes myself, but the adjacent "Collusion" sections present an almost comical contrast. We have a well-referenced section about "many incidents of collusion" between British forces and loyalists, followed by a single sentence about an unnamed person colluding with the IRA (itself with plenty of citations, to be fair). If other editors think this is appropriate, I'll defer to that, but from the outside, it looks a lot either like either false balance or a badly underdeveloped Gardaí/IRA collusion section. -- BDD ( talk) 17:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
-- Tommy Socialist ( talk) 15:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TommySocialist ( talk • contribs)
Was the Darkley killings the only church attack of the Troubles? If so, was there a policy to avoid targeting churches? Jim Michael ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
During the June 1970 Battle of St Matthew's the Provisional IRA Belfast Brigade defended the church in the Short Strand from Loyalist attack. One Republican & 2 Loyalists were killed in the church grounds during the battle as well as IRA Belfast Brigade Commander Billy McKee being badly injured. Look at Timeline_of_Ulster_Volunteer_Force_actions#1986
*16 September: The "Protestant Action Force" claimed responsibility for shooting dead a Catholic civilian in the grounds of Holy Cross Roman Catholic Church on Crumlin Road, Belfast. This was claimed as retaliation for the killing of UVF member John Bingham two days before.
Also Timeline of Ulster Defence Association actions#1975
*9 February: the UDA opened fire on Catholic civilians leaving St Brigid's church on Derryvolgie Avenue, Belfast; two parishioners were killed.
plus Timeline of Ulster Defence Association actions#1981
*12 October: the UFF claimed responsibility for shooting dead a Catholic civilian at his home on Deerpark Road, Belfast. It also claimed responsibility for bombing Christ the King Roman Catholic church in Limavady. Most of the building was destroyed but there were no injuries
There is other church bombings not included in UVF,RHC or UDA timelines I might add them in to the timelines... like these following Loyalist church bombings I upload to my YT account.
One by the UDA/UFF...
And not a church attack but imo just as bad & sectarian attacking Catholic children's schools.
The online magazine called "The Troubles issuu By Joe Baker" it details things everything to do with The Troubles including less known attacks like attacks on churches & childrens schools. Just look at this issue from January/February 1973, there's over a dozen of attacks on Churches, mostly Catholic ones.
https://issuu.com/glenravel/docs/troubles19/16
User:TommySocialist
User_talk:TommySocialist
23:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Bombs had wrecked the national school and badly damaged a Catholic Church at Desertmartin RUC said that 25 - 30 lb bomb blew the roof of the church after the bomb had been left near the altar.
A British Army bomb disposal expert defused a bomb found on a window of a Catholic Church, in Saintfield, Belfast. It was believed the UVF was behind the attack.
There was an attempt to set fire to a "Church of Ireland" Church at Ballynure, only small damage was done.
"Catholic Church bombed" A bomb which was placed at St Bernadette's Catholic Church on the Upper Knockbreda Road exploded causing damage to the side, porch and rooms immediatley inside the building but the main part was not damaged.
St Brigid's Catholic Church in Derryvolgie Avenue came under attack during the night. A number of shots were fired at the church and the remaning 5 people inside it. No one was injured in the attack.
The Catholic church in Minorca Place, Carrickfergus was slightly damaged when a 2lb device which was placed on the wind sill exploded, some windows were damaged as well.
An explosion caused a lot of damage to a Catholic church in Killyman between Dungannon & Portadown. The device had been planted inside the building.
Two bombs caused sever damage to Catholic churches. The first near Ballymena at Braid Chapel left the building in ruins and the second two hours later another bomb went of at a Church at Crebilly but was only small damage had occured, a number of near by house's were also damaged.
50 people were injured, three very seriously in 600lb car bomb attack, without warning the bomb exploded close to a Roman Catholic Church in Ballycastle, County Antrim. The bomb was planted on the 26 August it was timed to explode as Mass goers left the church. But the service ran late, and the bomb detonated when the congregation were still inside the church, avoiding large-scale loss of life. Three people were seriusly injured in the blast including BBC journalist Mr. Fred Tullen, presently working in Northern Ireland who had to have an amputated. [1]
So, without a doubt there was plenty of attacks on Churches during The Troubles. -- User:TommySocialist User_talk:TommySocialist 22:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
For those who object to the use of "Northern Ireland and England" rather than "Northern Ireland and mainland Britain", here is a recent article that makes it crystal clear that only England was targeted by the IRA: Mackay, Neil (13 October 2019). "Inside story: Why the IRA never attacked Scotland". The Herald Scotland.. 81.17.242.238 ( talk) 11:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I did a little research and found this article and there are others so I have self-reverted but removed the reference. We haven't got references for the other countries so this seems consistent. ----- Snowded TALK 05:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Of course things like this could be avoided if disruptive editors added a source when originally adding material, or added a source when the material was challenged for the first time. Wikipedia:Verifiability is quite clear - "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." A wikilink to another article in an edit summary is not an inline citation is it? FDW777 ( talk) 15:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I've opened an RM on Talk:Remembrance Day bombing for it to be moved to Enniskillen bombing. Jim Michael ( talk) 19:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Without my having to search the archives of this page, does anyone know if the need has ever has been discussed to clarify the origin of the term "The Troubles" for this conflict? Perhaps the expression is familiar and understandable to many, whereas it might also be taken as a somewhat glaring understatement by others? -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 22:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I notice the semi-paramilitary group the Ulster Resistance is in the Loyalist Belligerent forces. I don't think this group carried out a single bombing or a single shooting and maybe not even injured anyone during the conflict. The UPV helped the UVF kill 70-year-old Matilda Gould & they also helped the a joint UPV/UVF unit kill Catholic barman Peter Ward (18) & John Scullion (28), the Ulster Protestant Volunteers (UPV) along with the UVF also carried out a large number of bombings between March & April 1969 to bring down Northern Premier Terence O'Neill which they did successfully. They also probably had a hand in the first Loyalist bombing in Republic of Ireland at all when Loyalists carried out RTE Studio bombing on 5 August 1969 a week before the Battle of the Bogside. On the 19 October 1969 UPV & UVF member Thomas McDowell was planting a large gelignite bomb at Ballyshannon in Donegal, he killed himself when touched 5,600 volts of electricity. There was more UVF/UPV bombings in 1969 like the when they exploded a bomb at the grave of Wolfe Tone in Bodenstown, ruining one of the headstones. They were probably involved in bombings in 1970 as well like when on the 18 February they exploded a bomb at a 240-foot radio mast on Mongary Hill, near Raphoe, County Donegal, Republic of Ireland. The explosion put the transmitter out of action. The mast had allowed Irish Radio programmes to be received over most of Northern Ireland. The UPV were much more active than Ulster Resistance and they should either replace or co-opted on to the Loyalist Belligerents. If UR is included in in the Loyalist groups, then Saor Éire (1967–75) should be included in the Irish Republican groups, they did more than both the CIRA or RIRA between October 1968 - April 1998 TommySocialist 17:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
The article starts with "The Troubles was", yet in the Overview section we see "The Troubles were brought...". Effectively the same sentences appear in Northern Ireland and History of Northern Ireland as well. In the lead of Timeline of the Northern Ireland Troubles and peace process, the term is treated as singular.
Comparing the search results of the troubles were and the troubles was on British and Irish newspapers' websites reveals that the plural is indeed the norm, whereas the latter are mostly matches of "the __ of the Troubles was" etc. or referring to the term. The same is true on JSTOR. On Google Ngram, "The Troubles is/was/has" don't even have enough occurrences to appear on the graph, while "The Troubles are/were/have" do (with both words capitalized and "case-insensitive" unchecked to make sure the conflict is the subject).
So shouldn't it be "The Troubles were"? Or am I missing something? Nardog ( talk) 15:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I realise the current end date is referenced, but CAIN say "It may prove as difficult to agree on a date for the end of 'the Troubles' as it is to agree on the date of beginning of the violent conflict". They are not as explicit as the "A number of dates have been used by different writers" line regarding the start date, instead settling for "There have been a number of significant events and developments". Does anyone think these dates should be incorporated into the sentence in the lead? If yes, I assume there would be no problem removing the "Date" field entirely from the infobox? I tend to think saying "Late 1960s–1997, 1998, 1999, 2005, or 2007" would be best avoided, it's much easier to deal with that in a sentence. FDW777 ( talk) 21:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Anyone? It feels like I'm wasting my time bringing potentially controversial things up in advance. FDW777 ( talk) 17:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
June 11, 1966. John Patrick Scullion, West Belfast. Civilian, Catholic, 28, single, storeman. The first victim of the troubles
The UVF did this by mounting a series of petrol bomb attacks on Catholic homes, schools and shops throughout the spring of 1966. On 7 May the UVF claimed the first life to be lost in the Troubles, that of an elderly Protestant, a Mrs Gould, who had the misfortune to live beside a Catholic pub which the UVF attacked with petrol bombs.
Historically, Mrs Gould was the first victim of the current Troubles
I have again removed this addition by @
Bbx118: as it is insufficiently referenced. It was previously added
here by the same editor, and removed
here by @
Scolaire: as the first ref doesn't have "Irish conflict" anywhere that I can find, and the second is a review of a television programme by a random journalist; that does not make "Irish conflict" a commonly-used term
. The
new reference uses the phrase three times, but they don't come close to establishing it as a commonly-used term for the Troubles especially when you look at the context in which the phrase is used.
FDW777 (
talk)
06:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
This may make sense to those in Northern Ireland itself, but may seem laughable and even revisionist to Wikipedia's global audience with some (poor) knowledge of the events. The (just) 2 sources are academic and arcane and one of them even says "most agree" (that it was more or less solely about politics not really about religion at all) and also says something like "religion can't be the cause because religion can never be a prime cause of conflict". Far better elaboration in the actual article itself is needed over why the organised killing of Protestants by Catholics and vice versa was "not a religious conflict" when ostensibly the rest of the world was witnessing that and will be reading the article from an outside Ireland perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr gobrien ( talk • contribs) 20:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
No further comment in the last three days. There seems to be a broad consensus in favour of Retswerb's wording, so I'm implementing this now. Perhaps Jim Michael could propose a wording for his perspective, citing a reasonably authoritative source? Scolaire ( talk) 12:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
citing a reasonably authoritative source... FDW777 ( talk) 14:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I have reverted the majority of this change, keeping in a couple of changes of wording I think are an improvement. Problems with it are as follows.
the two main ethnic, religious and political traditions in Northern Ireland. We've just been over this at #"Not a religious conflict"
while giving qualified support to the British Armyis unreferenced. In fact the entire sentence is unreferenced, but since the British and nationalists perspectives are in that paragraph (and also unreferenced, sigh) it seems reasonable enough to include the unionist perspective
The Executive has collapsed repeatedly since its inception in 1999 (most recently for three years from January 2017), reflecting the incompatible national aspirations of the two traditions which the Agreement has required to share power. Many of the preconditions for the onset of the Troubles are still in place, including separation of children in school, residential neighbourhoods, political parties, sporting and cultural activities and historical narrativesis unreferenced
As counties Fermanagh and Tyrone and border areas of Londonderry, Armagh, and Down were mainly nationalist, the Irish Boundary Commission could reduce Northern Ireland to four counties or lessThis was deleted without explanation, despite it being referenced. I have restored it.
although historians such as Peter Hart arguewas changed from
although historian Peter Hart argues. Since Peter Hart is the only person cited, I have restored it
This was in response to Eamon de Valera's recognition of the "special position of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church" in southern Ireland. I don't think that image caption needs to get any bigger with an unnecessary sop
The campaign recognised that to make progress it would have to draw in the Labour government at Westminster. The Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, was sympathetic to their objectives and had his own reasons to curtail the power of the Unionist Party, whose MPs at Westminster generally voted with the Conservative opposition. [1] In the 1966 Westminster election, republican socialist Gerry Fitt became the first nationalist MP to actually take his seat. He worked closely with sympathetic Labour MPs to develop the Campaign for Democracy in Ulster, a parliamentary pressure group. [2] Their aim was to overturn the convention that Westminster should not intervene in the affairs of the devolved administration. Paradoxically, this meant that they had an incentive to support the deployment of the British Army in Northern Ireland.This is a completely misplaced addition, and the last sentence is unreferenced. The Gerry Fitt reference is also incomplete, presumably it is the book by Michael A Murphy but with no ISBN, publisher, publication year or author information other than "Murphy" it is difficult to know. This paragraph might belong in the article somewhere, but it doesn't belong where it was added.
The more assertive elements in the campaign defied the ban, and some have subsequently acknowledged that they wanted to provoke police violence in the knowledge that international TV crews would be present. [3] The RUC took the bait, surrounded the marchers and beat many of them. This is a substantial misrepresentation of the Sunday Times article. The closest the article gets is when it says
McCann says the strategy of some local activists was "to provoke the police into over reaction" and this was easily achieved. I note this also removed the wording supported by the CAIN reference, the relevant quotes from which are
As the march approached the front line a number of RUC officers drew their batons and, without provocation, clubbed those at the head of the march, including two Nationalist MPs,
We regret to state that we have no doubt that both Mr. Fitt and Mr. McAtteer were batoned by the police, at a time when no order to draw batons had been given and in circumstances in which the use of batons on these gentlemen was wholly without justification or excuse(from the Cameron Report) and
Even the official report concluded that the police broke ranks at this point and "used their batons indiscriminately on people in Duke Street"(again from the Cameron Report). Even if we accept that some in the crowd did seek to provoke the RUC, smashing their batons of the heads of MPs Eddie McAteer and Gerry Fitt is still an unprovoked attack on them, as the reference states
After this, the movement became more radicalThis is unreferenced
humanitarian interventionwas changed to the WP:EGG like
intervention. Given the sentence says it was the Irish Army who were going to be performing the HUMANITARIAN intervention, it is highly misleading to simply say "intervention" as anyone not checking where the word linked to would assume military intervention
After the riots, the British Labour government set up the Hunt Committee to reform the RUC. It published its report with unusual haste on 12 October, recommending that the RUC become an unarmed force and the B Specials be disbanded. In effect, this meant that the British government was taking over control of security operations from Stormont.That change from the existing wording is not referenced
Despite the British government's attempt to do "nothing that would suggest partiality to one section of the community" and the improvement of the relationship between the Army and the local population following the Army assistance with flood relief in August 1970, the Falls Curfew and a situation...was changed to
In July 1970, the Conservative Party won the Westminster election and Edward Heath replaced Harold Wilson as Prime Minister. Although the Conservatives had traditionally been allied with the Northern Ireland Unionists, the new British government said that it would do "nothing that would suggest partiality to one section of the community". Relationships between the Army and the local population improved slightly when the Army assisted with flood relief in August, but more broadly a situation...Unreferenced, and I fail to see why any mention of the Falls Curfew has been removed given it was a pivotal moment in the relationship between the British Army and the nationalist community in Belfast.
Evidence emerged during the Arms Crisis trial in 1970 that some ministers in the Irish government had supported the emergence of the Provisional IRA with donations of weapons and finance: Taoiseach Jack Lynch sacked Charles Haughey and Neil Blaney from their posts.I don't believe this is a neutral summary of the Arms Crisis, since it doesn't appear it was in the article before I do think it needs to be in there in some form. Discussion on this point especially welcome
Following the introduction of internment there were numerous gun battles between the British army and both the Provisional and Official IRAwas changed to
Following the introduction of internment there were numerous gun battles between the British army and the two wings of the IRA, who also attacked each other. I have not heard the introduction of internment being the catalyst for a feud between the two IRA factions, certainly not to the extent it needs mentioning in that sentence.
In response to the upsurge in violence before and after the introduction of internment, Heath initiated a comprehensive review of British policies towards the conflict. His Cabinet identified a wide range of options, including radical repartitioning and independence, but were unable to agree on a solution. A third event, Bloody Sunday, interrupted their deliberations.is unreferenced
The DUP withdrew from the talks process when Sinn Fein was admitted, refusing to negotiate with the representatives of a terrorist organisation which had not yet laid down its arms. Hopelessly one sided, loyalists were involved too
A feature of Northern Ireland politics since the Agreement has been the eclipse in electoral terms of parties such as the SDLP and Ulster Unionist Party (UUP), by rival parties such as Sinn Féin and the DUPwas changed to
A feature of Northern Ireland politics since the Agreement has been the eclipse in electoral terms of the 'moderate' parties – the SDLP and Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) – by their more assertively sectarian rivals – Sinn Féin and the DUP, "assertively sectarian", really??
Throughout the Troubles, the Irish Constitution provided moral cover for the IRAare clearly problematic as is the mention of Patrick Ryan. What does Patrick Ryan or the Constitution of Ireland have to do with collusion? Nothing at all would be the answer to that question.
At the level of individual police officers, the Smithwick Tribunal has illustrated what could happen in the Republicis highly speculative.
I've tried to keep the improvements where possible, but those changes aren't helpful. FDW777 ( talk) 19:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
References
Jim Michael, you know very well that there is a consensus at Talk:Bobby Sands#Category additions reverted again that paramilitary activity is not categorised as "criminal". Given that, adding the "WikiProject Organized crime" banner to this page is deliberately provocative and a violation of WP:POINT (a behavioral guideline). Organised crime is mentioned in one sentence in an article of 12,000 words! The article cannot possibly be of interest to that WikiProject. Scolaire ( talk) 17:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
a so called concensus on its talk page does not hold weight for the greater scope, which really should be discussed somewhere with a greater audience for greater input from editors who (hopefully) aren't swayed by their political ideology, it's a good job that did happen at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 9#Proposed solution to categorising those imprisoned during The Troubles then isn't it? FDW777 ( talk) 20:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
projects & their banners weren't even mentionedis just another of your trips down Off-Topic Boulevard. Regarding categories, the discussion went on and on at Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive16#POW category added to IRA articles, and Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive16#Yes, POW is correct, and Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive16#Yes, POW is correct (part 2), and Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive16#Compromise suggestions section (part 2), and Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive16#POWs (mk III), and finally it went to Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 9#Proposed solution to categorising those imprisoned during The Troubles. Nobody objected. The proposals were then implemented. Nobody objected. That is consensus, just because certain editors don't like it because it prevents their POV-pushing matters not one iota.
We shouldn't create an exception for 1 or 2 groups, well it's a good job nobody has suggested anything of the kind. Like I said on Talk:Bobby Sands why don't you to go Talk:Nelson Mandela and start a discussion about adding criminal categories to his article, since it doesn't have any. There is no "exception for 1 or 2 groups". The objection is to the categorisation of any politically motivated prisoner as a criminal, not just 1 or 2 groups. FDW777 ( talk) 10:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
you're by a significant margin the most biased long-term WP editor I've ever encountered, in the very same paragraph you accuse me of being incivil. Some self-awareness might be more helpful. FDW777 ( talk) 13:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
propose a wording for his perspective, citing a reasonably authoritative source. You reply with no reference and just repeat your own POV. At Talk:The Troubles/Archive 3#Members of the public as targets you keep replying without references and just repeat your own POV. At Talk:Bobby Sands#Category additions reverted again you keep replying without references and just repeat your own POV. Can anyone else see a common theme here? FDW777 ( talk) 17:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
All of the above is very impassioned and might more usefully be pursued on a message board on some other site, but it's missing the central point: The Troubles was an ethnic/nationalist conflict; it was not an incident of organised crime. The Pol Pot regime is not part of WikiProject Organised crime, nor is the Armenian Genocide. The Troubles doesn't belong either. Adding the banner was just a way of advertising a POV. Scolaire ( talk) 13:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Scolaire ethco/nationalist conflict is such a load a nonsense. It was a sectarian/nationalist conflict no matter how much you try to pretend it was ethnic. So many contradictions to that in the history of Ireland especially the Troubles. But anything to sleep better at night I suppose? In regards to FDW77s statement on the Brita trying to portray republicans more negative. What has that got to do with a convicted criminal being tagged as a criminal? If you are found guilty and convicted then you are a criminal guilty of a crime no matter how you are portrayed. Any excuse I suppose to oppose. Mabuska (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)