This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ulster loyalism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Recently, many unionists have stopped describing themselves as loyalist, as this term has become synonymous with militant extremism, violence and terrorism.
This is not a recent phenomenon.
Upon Irish independence in 1921, the six counties of Ulster
Upon Irish independence in 1921, the four counties of Ulster
Both these statements are inaccurate. Ulster had, and still has, nine counties.
They took two other counties with them, as their combined population still had a unionist majority.
This implies that the six counties had left the country they had been part of. In actual fact, it remained in the same country and it was the Free State who had changed their status.
in favour of reuniting with the Republic of Ireland to form one country
This is ambiguous. The implication could be that people desire that the Republic of Ireland re-unite with Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. In fact, Ireland was never united as a single entity except under British rule. "Uniting", on the other hand, implies that the island be united for the first time in its existance as a separate sovereign state.
although the British state has long struggled to convince many of its legitimacy.
It hasn't.
You might date it to the mid-1990's, but it is an older phenomenon than that. I am talking from experience.-- Mal 00:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Now that you have explained your meaning, I understand it. But it is ambiguous and could easily be taken to mean that Ulster had four counties.-- Mal 00:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
It was 26 counties that left. Six counties remain.-- Mal 00:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Nevertheless, your statement is ambiguous. My revision is more easily understood.-- Mal 00:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The United Kingdom, as it stands now and from 1922, is recognised by every country in the world, including the Republic of Ireland. The Republic of Ireland has even amended its constitution to reflect the official and legitimate position. The United Kingdom has never had to "struggle to convince" anyone of its legitimacy.-- Mal 00:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Lapsed Pacifist 03:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
There is no country called Britain. Southern Ireland become independent in 1922. The island of Ireland has never existed as an independent state let alone a republic. For reunification to occur, Southern Ireland would have to rejoin Northern Ireland in the UK. That's real Irish unity as well as British Isles unity which is what is of paramount importance. No sense in 26 counties of the British Isles not being in union with the rest. The United Kingdom does not involve itself in Irish affairs. On the contrary, it is the Irish Republic that keeps sticking its nose in where it is not wanted in the internal affairs of the United Kingdom's Ulster province! Northern "Ireland" ceased being any of Southern Ireland's business the day it left the Union! YourPTR! 14:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I echo the sentiment that terms such as 'Irish reunification' are not accurate. The entire island of Ireland has never existed as a united and politically independent jurisdiction. More accurate to use 'united Ireland' at best. Quinessential quipple ( talk) 07:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I propose moving this page to Ulster loyalism, as per Unionism (Ireland), Irish nationalism and Irish Republicanism. Any takers? Irish Republicanism should be moved to Irish republicanism too, with the redirect page switching. Stu ’Bout ye! 13:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
You will find that throughout the United Kingdom though not just Northern Ireland and its still a small but significant minority. They are republicans only in the sense they would like to see the United Kingdom become a United Republic and not that they want to join the Irish Republic! YourPTR! 14:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The section 'Upon Irish independence in 1921, despite a national majority desiring unity' is written from an Irish republican perspective. It assumes that 'unity' can only refer to the unity of Ireland rather than the unity of The Union which the majority opposed. Please change this to something NPOV. 66.162.71.130 15:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
This article has been tagged since March for lacking references. An article about a controversial topic such as this really needs to have some reliable sources. I don't know enough about the topic to seek out those references, but anyone who adds claims to the article should be able to provide sources to back up those claims. I haven't personally added any new facts or claims to this article, but do recognize when someone is trying to push a point of view, and have attempted to maintain the neutrality and accuracy of the article. Spylab 16:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The word militant is used in the first sentence, surely this isn't necessarily the case? -- Counter-revolutionary 18:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
User: Political Dweeb here wants to ask if there are any representitives or members from the British Ulster Alliance who are Wikipedia users so they can come onto this discussion page where we can discuss/explain to help me understand a political position of theirs. -- Political Dweeb ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I question the use of the flag of the LVF. It is a UVF splinter-group and not representative of the larger groups, both political and paramilitary, that embrace loyalism in Northern Ireland. Billsmith60 ( talk) 09:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC) {update: the "Ulster flag" would be more appropriate, surely " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ulster_banner.svg }
Collusion with the British government has nnnnnn absolutely nothing to do with the concept of Ulster loyalism and it therefore should not be included on this page. Joel Leslie ( talk) 11:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
The article is about Ulster Loyalism though, not loyalist paramilitaries. That is, everything from the Peep O' Day Boys, through UDU, celebrations of The Twelfth, Paisleyism and the DUP, through to the present-day flag protests, etc. Why does that section need to be over 700 words long, larger in fact than the section dealing with paramilitaries, dominating and becoming the focus of the article? What does it do that a couple of sentences in summation with links to Stevens Inquiries and Ulster Defence Regiment: Infiltration by paramilitaries, where the subject is dealt with in detail and at length, won't? Presumably by the same logic Irish Republicanism would benefit from a similar section on the Arms Crisis, or INLA feuds. These two essays, WP:ROC and WP:COATRACK, do a good job of explaining my objections:
Use summary style
Main page: Wikipedia:Summary style
Wikipedia articles should be written in summary style, providing an overview of their subject. This overview may touch upon several related topics or subtopics, but any details not immediately relevant to the primary topic should be moved into other articles, linking to them if appropriate. If coverage of a subtopic grows to the point where it overshadows the main subject (or digresses too far from it), it may be appropriate to spin it off into a sub-article.
Article scope
Articles on very general subjects should serve as an introduction to the entire subject, and avoid going into detail on topics for which more specific articles exist. Articles on very specific subjects can treat their subject in depth.
From WP:COATRACK:
A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coat-rack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats". The existence of a "hook" in a given article is not a good reason to "hang" irrelevant and biased material there. The coats hanging from the rack hide the rack – the nominal subject gets hidden behind the sheer volume of the bias subject. Thus the article, although superficially true, leaves the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject. A coatrack article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject. However, a largely critical article about a subject that really is discredited is not covered by WP:COATRACK; see the policies laid out at WP:FRINGE for more information.
The Flea
This sort of case begins with facts about one main topic (perhaps a specific type of flea), then launches into more sub-topics (still dealing with fleas, but on a much broader scale) about which the writer has prepared way too much information, and may make occasional tangential reconnections (hopefully) to the original main topic (that specific type of flea) in an attempt to hide the coatracking. The "Flea" may be something correct but misplaced as in this example, or nationalistic propaganda, or simply irrelevant trivia about which nobody but the writer cares.
Shipyard Special ( talk) 13:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The point is Ulster loyalism is not defined by loyalist paramilitaries. Loyalist and unionist are synonymous and amoungst this community paramilitries have little support as demonstrated at the ballot box. (The only unionist/loyalist party with links to paramilitaries is the insignificant PUP.) So whilst loyalist paramilitaries should form a section they should only make up a small percentage of the overall article. Quinessential quipple ( talk) 07:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I am going to rework this section to cut it down and make it less POV. It should only assume a small portion of the text here and that's how it's going to finish up. Interested parties can look in at User:SonofSetanta/sandbox. SonofSetanta ( talk) 14:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Ulster loyalism. 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) 20:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ulster loyalism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Recently, many unionists have stopped describing themselves as loyalist, as this term has become synonymous with militant extremism, violence and terrorism.
This is not a recent phenomenon.
Upon Irish independence in 1921, the six counties of Ulster
Upon Irish independence in 1921, the four counties of Ulster
Both these statements are inaccurate. Ulster had, and still has, nine counties.
They took two other counties with them, as their combined population still had a unionist majority.
This implies that the six counties had left the country they had been part of. In actual fact, it remained in the same country and it was the Free State who had changed their status.
in favour of reuniting with the Republic of Ireland to form one country
This is ambiguous. The implication could be that people desire that the Republic of Ireland re-unite with Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. In fact, Ireland was never united as a single entity except under British rule. "Uniting", on the other hand, implies that the island be united for the first time in its existance as a separate sovereign state.
although the British state has long struggled to convince many of its legitimacy.
It hasn't.
You might date it to the mid-1990's, but it is an older phenomenon than that. I am talking from experience.-- Mal 00:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Now that you have explained your meaning, I understand it. But it is ambiguous and could easily be taken to mean that Ulster had four counties.-- Mal 00:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
It was 26 counties that left. Six counties remain.-- Mal 00:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Nevertheless, your statement is ambiguous. My revision is more easily understood.-- Mal 00:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The United Kingdom, as it stands now and from 1922, is recognised by every country in the world, including the Republic of Ireland. The Republic of Ireland has even amended its constitution to reflect the official and legitimate position. The United Kingdom has never had to "struggle to convince" anyone of its legitimacy.-- Mal 00:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Lapsed Pacifist 03:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
There is no country called Britain. Southern Ireland become independent in 1922. The island of Ireland has never existed as an independent state let alone a republic. For reunification to occur, Southern Ireland would have to rejoin Northern Ireland in the UK. That's real Irish unity as well as British Isles unity which is what is of paramount importance. No sense in 26 counties of the British Isles not being in union with the rest. The United Kingdom does not involve itself in Irish affairs. On the contrary, it is the Irish Republic that keeps sticking its nose in where it is not wanted in the internal affairs of the United Kingdom's Ulster province! Northern "Ireland" ceased being any of Southern Ireland's business the day it left the Union! YourPTR! 14:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I echo the sentiment that terms such as 'Irish reunification' are not accurate. The entire island of Ireland has never existed as a united and politically independent jurisdiction. More accurate to use 'united Ireland' at best. Quinessential quipple ( talk) 07:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I propose moving this page to Ulster loyalism, as per Unionism (Ireland), Irish nationalism and Irish Republicanism. Any takers? Irish Republicanism should be moved to Irish republicanism too, with the redirect page switching. Stu ’Bout ye! 13:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
You will find that throughout the United Kingdom though not just Northern Ireland and its still a small but significant minority. They are republicans only in the sense they would like to see the United Kingdom become a United Republic and not that they want to join the Irish Republic! YourPTR! 14:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The section 'Upon Irish independence in 1921, despite a national majority desiring unity' is written from an Irish republican perspective. It assumes that 'unity' can only refer to the unity of Ireland rather than the unity of The Union which the majority opposed. Please change this to something NPOV. 66.162.71.130 15:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
This article has been tagged since March for lacking references. An article about a controversial topic such as this really needs to have some reliable sources. I don't know enough about the topic to seek out those references, but anyone who adds claims to the article should be able to provide sources to back up those claims. I haven't personally added any new facts or claims to this article, but do recognize when someone is trying to push a point of view, and have attempted to maintain the neutrality and accuracy of the article. Spylab 16:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The word militant is used in the first sentence, surely this isn't necessarily the case? -- Counter-revolutionary 18:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
User: Political Dweeb here wants to ask if there are any representitives or members from the British Ulster Alliance who are Wikipedia users so they can come onto this discussion page where we can discuss/explain to help me understand a political position of theirs. -- Political Dweeb ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I question the use of the flag of the LVF. It is a UVF splinter-group and not representative of the larger groups, both political and paramilitary, that embrace loyalism in Northern Ireland. Billsmith60 ( talk) 09:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC) {update: the "Ulster flag" would be more appropriate, surely " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ulster_banner.svg }
Collusion with the British government has nnnnnn absolutely nothing to do with the concept of Ulster loyalism and it therefore should not be included on this page. Joel Leslie ( talk) 11:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
The article is about Ulster Loyalism though, not loyalist paramilitaries. That is, everything from the Peep O' Day Boys, through UDU, celebrations of The Twelfth, Paisleyism and the DUP, through to the present-day flag protests, etc. Why does that section need to be over 700 words long, larger in fact than the section dealing with paramilitaries, dominating and becoming the focus of the article? What does it do that a couple of sentences in summation with links to Stevens Inquiries and Ulster Defence Regiment: Infiltration by paramilitaries, where the subject is dealt with in detail and at length, won't? Presumably by the same logic Irish Republicanism would benefit from a similar section on the Arms Crisis, or INLA feuds. These two essays, WP:ROC and WP:COATRACK, do a good job of explaining my objections:
Use summary style
Main page: Wikipedia:Summary style
Wikipedia articles should be written in summary style, providing an overview of their subject. This overview may touch upon several related topics or subtopics, but any details not immediately relevant to the primary topic should be moved into other articles, linking to them if appropriate. If coverage of a subtopic grows to the point where it overshadows the main subject (or digresses too far from it), it may be appropriate to spin it off into a sub-article.
Article scope
Articles on very general subjects should serve as an introduction to the entire subject, and avoid going into detail on topics for which more specific articles exist. Articles on very specific subjects can treat their subject in depth.
From WP:COATRACK:
A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coat-rack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats". The existence of a "hook" in a given article is not a good reason to "hang" irrelevant and biased material there. The coats hanging from the rack hide the rack – the nominal subject gets hidden behind the sheer volume of the bias subject. Thus the article, although superficially true, leaves the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject. A coatrack article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject. However, a largely critical article about a subject that really is discredited is not covered by WP:COATRACK; see the policies laid out at WP:FRINGE for more information.
The Flea
This sort of case begins with facts about one main topic (perhaps a specific type of flea), then launches into more sub-topics (still dealing with fleas, but on a much broader scale) about which the writer has prepared way too much information, and may make occasional tangential reconnections (hopefully) to the original main topic (that specific type of flea) in an attempt to hide the coatracking. The "Flea" may be something correct but misplaced as in this example, or nationalistic propaganda, or simply irrelevant trivia about which nobody but the writer cares.
Shipyard Special ( talk) 13:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The point is Ulster loyalism is not defined by loyalist paramilitaries. Loyalist and unionist are synonymous and amoungst this community paramilitries have little support as demonstrated at the ballot box. (The only unionist/loyalist party with links to paramilitaries is the insignificant PUP.) So whilst loyalist paramilitaries should form a section they should only make up a small percentage of the overall article. Quinessential quipple ( talk) 07:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I am going to rework this section to cut it down and make it less POV. It should only assume a small portion of the text here and that's how it's going to finish up. Interested parties can look in at User:SonofSetanta/sandbox. SonofSetanta ( talk) 14:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Ulster loyalism. 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) 20:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)