Talk:The Troubles/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Minor edit

Number of fatally wounded changed from 14 to 13. The 14th died 4 1/2 months later, with the wounds he recieved possibly contributing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.67.186 (talk) 10:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Conflict box

Who was it that edited and destroyed the conflict box I made? Please restore it. There was nothing wrong with it in the first place!! - Ireland4Ever

Removed from text

This needs work. The nature of such violence and the relations of the various groups and their motives and tactics needs to be charted in detail. Though violence in whatever form it takes is terrible, there is a difference between defensive military activity and knowingly targeting innocent civilians e.g. the "Real" IRA's killings at Omagh, or Bloody Sunday. -- 20 October 2002 user:DanKeshet

unattributed quote

in Nationalist or Republican political parties, 2/3 through the article, the phrase "insight into the thinking of" is in quotes, but the passive voice of described avoids attributing the quote, which is fairly significant. Although i know very little of Irish politics, i did a little googling and i found a transcript in which the phrase is used by Fraser Agnew. Could this be the source of this quote? If noone objects, i'll attribute it to him in the article. Foobaz·✐ 07:21, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

National/Unionist Northern Ireland - A "Protestant State" 1925–1968

Reading this paragraph seems to me that someone does not have a clear idea of who the Nationalist where, and who the Unionist were. As of 9/14/07 it appears switched in all context. If someone else would like to verify and change this, please do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.178.74.70 (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism

I note that this article does not use the word "terrorist" or "terrorism" once throughout the entire article. Surely this is necessary for an article on the NI troubles! -- 25 April 2005 143.117.143.42

I agree, it is odd that mention of terrorism should be omitted. I have added a balancing note on views of PIRA by other countries, taken from the PIRA article. --Air 15:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In regards to referring to the IRA as a 'terrorist' organization, i think the complexity of the situation and the specific connotation applied to the term as we know it today needs to be taken into account. Certainly the IRA has engaged in dubious and illegal, not to mention immoral behavior. However, with terrorism being associated with the actions of islamo-fascists, it is imperative to recognize the Troubles and its further implications as a different animal. Terrorist aspects of the Irish struggle should not undermine the fundamental difference in the political and social history of the country. Certainly there is more legitimacy in Irish resistance than in Islamic terrorism aimed at destroying Israel and the Western world as we know it -- 16 December 2005 69.161.36.180

I disagree. There is LESS legitimacy in "terrorism" aimed at destroying Northern Ireland than there is at "terrorism" aimed at destroying Israel.The Palestinians have had worse treatment by Israel than Catholics in NI received by far (though both seek(ed) to destroy and undermine the respective states) and the Protestants of Ulster have been there for 400 years, shaped into a unique ethnicity that doesn't belong anywhere else in the world. In contrast most of the Jewish settlement of Israel dates from mere decades ago, from disparate groups in Europe and the Middle East sharing little more than religion. 80.229.27.11 (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Tip: if you want to be heard, don't add your comment in the middle of a section in the top half of a discussion under a post from three years ago. 83.70.254.135 (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

In many places in Ireland, especially parts of the Six Counties, the Provos, or PIRA are not considered to be terrorists: they are freedom fighters, fighting for the freedom of a country that was oppressed by the English for several hundred years, a land which Britain still refuses to grant its freedom. Ireland should be free, the whole of it, not just a part. -- 2 March 2006 68.58.116.87

• The term 'freedom fighter' is generally considered a euphemism for the word 'terrorist'.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

One must consider that Northan Ireland has a Unionist majority"In the 2001 census, 45.5% of the Northern Irish population were Protestant, (Presbyterian, Church of Ireland, Methodist and other Protestant denominations), and 40.3% of the population were Roman Catholic. 13.9% of the population did not specify a religion. While a plurality of the present-day population (38%) define themelves as Unionist, 24% as Nationalist and 35% define themselves as neither, 59% express long term preference of the maintenance of Northern Ireland's membership of the United Kingdom, while 22% express a preference for membership of a united Ireland", that is why partition was carried out originally. If the Northan Irish had wished to join the the Republic of Ireland they had the oppertunity in the 1920's via the will of an elected body (seeIrish Free State), shurly for a minority group to try and overturn the view of the majorty by means of violent acts must make them terrorists.(81.159.56.4 16:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)).

There was no vote,the partion came about through negotiations involving Michael Collins and British representatives,this is what led to the Irish Civil War.It is also well known that for generations many members of the Catholic communities were put into housing that did not entitle then to a vote.This was mostly evident in Derry wher there was a majority of Catholics but unionists were in power.This is surely worse than any percieved terrorism,of which there are several unionist and loyalist groups also, and is ,in fact, similar to a violent dictatorship such as Mugabe in Zimbabwe.

Also the word terrorism was thought up by the Americans before an after the World Trade Centre attacks and was adopted by certain people in Northern Ireland as a biased term which is an extreme POV.This term is not used for one section but is for the other.Either both or none.Also there seems to be no mention of the over spill of violence into the Republic which I feel is an integral part of the story that needs to be told,why is there not much,if any, mention of the dublin monaghan bombings?

First, the article already shows the reasons behind the troubles thus your speech doesn't really mean anything as it is already established. And if you think that the word terrorism was made up by the American's after 911 you are very much misinformed. The term has been used for decades and in Northern Ireland as well as I have referred to the trouble as 'terrorism' for two decades.

The article, IMO should refer to terrorism because that is what it was. Thousands of people died, mainly civilians due to the bombing and killings on both sides. It was all terrorism. Butch-cassidy 18:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly I would like to say that I respect everyone's views on this but The terms "terrorist" and "Freedom fighter" should be used so that this article is unbiased. The use of both terms would point out the views of both sides of the community in Northern Ireland. Also to the above person who said "One must consider that Northan Ireland has a Unionist majority...If the Northan Irish had wished to join the the Republic of Ireland they had the oppertunity in the 1920's via the will of an elected body...shurly for a minority group to try and overturn the view of the majorty by means of violent acts must make them terrorists." First of all the Northern Ireland has a Unionist majority but only in Counties Antrim and Down, the other four Counties of Northern Ireland would have been free if the Boundary Commission had been set up. Secondly in the 1920's and indeed all the way through the 20th Century Catholics had little or no vote, and the elected body was a biased and Unionist ruled Government. Quite obviously the "elected body" was not going to allow a the North to join the Republic. Finally, just because Nationalism/Catholicism in the North is the minority does not mean that they are "terrorists" or does that mean that their wish to join the Republic makes them "terrorists". Surely if you are going to have an unbiased article you must represent the views of both sides of the community, and not meerly overlook the views of the "minority".--Oisinh (talk) 12:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

POV

Lapsed Pacifist has been here again. Conributed much POV, which needs to be drastically cleaned up. Some examples:

"and the anger felt by the Irish because of the occupation and genocide by the British. (It was only in the last 2 years that Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister, made a formal apology on behalf of the United Kingdom for the treatment of the Irish people during the preceeding 400 years.)"

"Except for unionists, all other segments argued that the Northern Ireland of the 1960s needed change"

"while the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the British army and loyalists stepped up their violence to oppose it."

"when the anti-Catholic Orange Order insist on parading through Catholic neighbourhoods"

"the slowness of others has led to Sinn Féin witholding its support fom the Police Service of Northern Ireland for the time being"

-- Jonto 22:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree totally. I had not seen those edits bt they are so POV it beggars belief. We are going to have to keep an eye on LP's edits more thoroughly and cull that sort of tone. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm surprised, Jtd, that you did'nt see fit to check whether or not I actually made those edits. Three to five look factual, I don't see the problem with them. The first definitely does'nt look like anything I've ever written, and I'm also doubtful about the second. But, by all means, keep an eye on my edits. Just make sure they're mine. -- Lapsed Pacifist 23:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Some of the quotes are factual but just need reframing in a more NPOV way. I should of course have checked to make sure you made them and I apologise if you didn't. The first, I agree, is unlike anything I have seen you write. That is why there was a tone of surprise (and disappointment) in what I wrote. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I've tweaked the collusion section slightly for tone; it read a little like editorialising and generalisation of the parties involved. Evilteuf 14:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Irish Problem

It is claimed that "many British commentators" use the term "the Irish Problem". Perhaps this comment should be deleted until someone provides evidence of this use in recent history. If "many" turns out to be relatively few, then the claim should be clarified in this respect, and then it would become a rather meaningless statement not worthy to be in the article anyway. -- 4 August 2005 219.78.68.166

I deleted this claim. I've not heard it used in 10 or 20 years, and the whole remark seemed to add little. -- Stevelinton 20:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Shocking omission

Maybe I didn't read this close enough, but there seems to be a shocking omission of historical context: "What is clear is that its origins lie in the century-long debate over whether Ireland, or part of Ireland, should be part of the United Kingdom"

A single century?!?! Methinks it's a bit older than that! The priming of the pump is a couple of centuries older than that. Some reference must be made to the Irish Plantations. Without the scottish settlements there would of been no controversy post WWI.

Otherwise much credit to the authours for a balanced and short article that links to more meaty articles. -- 9 August 2005 69.23.220.138

Well, the United Kingdom only came into existence in 1801, so at the outbreak of the troubles the debate can't have been much more than two centuries old :) --Ryano 13:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

While the UK only came into being in 1800, the invasion of ireland by the British (Normans) dates back to 1100 ad and the dispute betweeen the Protestants and Catholics in the British Isles is centuries old. -- 2 December 2005 67.80.66.169

during the 1100's, the Pope gave England official claim to rule ireland, but only King James (1600's) actually did anything about it. Officially, say 800 yrs. In practice, try 400. -- 5 December 2005 62.53.32.134

A couple of facts for our anonymous contributors: The UK came into being in 1707. There was no "British invasion". The "British" were the people of the British Isles. The Normans were invited to Ireland by the Irish. The Scottish 'planters' are likely to have been Irish in origin. Protestants didn't come into being until after 1517 - 490 years ago. Ireland is a proper noun and as such deserves a capital letter. --Mal 22:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The Irish did NOT invite the normans, that was the king of Leinster. Thats like saying the English invited the nazis into England because the Duke of York asked adolf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.122.105.151 (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2007

Was the king of Leinster not Irish then..? :o Read up on Irish history - I'm sure you'll find it fascinating. --Mal 20:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

one irish person does not make it"the Irish" User:Shamboss 17:23,23 january 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shambosse (talk • contribs)

Further reading

Surely there are some more neutral and wide-ranging academic/historical studies that could be listed? "Steaknife" is interesting, but is journalism, not history and covers only a tiny fraction of the topic. Stevelinton 20:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

More non-biased background is needed in this article, because it completely fails to focus on the origins and imporant events that led to the headline grabbing incidents of violence. The relocation of Protestants into Ulster in 1607 by the English govt. set the stage for the struggles in later centuries. Also, the expulsion of the Irish elite led the way for the Protestant power grabbing that took place. The failure of O'Neill's attempts at reconciliation with Lemass in 1965 led to the NICRA and the student demonstrations, which in turn led to the Battle at the Bogside in 1969, when Chichester-Clarke called London for troops. I was nearly appalled when the term "genocide" was used in reference to the Unionist actions of the past century. To my knowledge, while the Unionists' deserve blame, it was the PIRA and RIRA that killed more people than all of the Protestant groups combined. Keep it factual. -- 5 December 2005 152.17.56.91

Some FOI records

I've been going through the MoD Freedom of Information releases, and have found some documents that might be useful to fleshing this article, or related ones, out. I'll just link them here in case they're of help - do we have an Army in Northern Ireland page? Shimgray | talk | 15:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Deployment of Troops in NI since 1969
  • Annex A, Annex B
• Information about the Services in Northern Ireland
  • Annex A, Annex B, Annex C, Annex D

210.211.80.5 point of view

More needs to be said about modern times, at least from 2000 onwards. The continuation of this "war", carried out in a 1st world country, which has very high standards of education, health, freedom, not to mention a booming economy, and of course the tight checks and measures on British rule and interference, should be taken into account. Armed struggle may be justifiable in 3rd world countries where there is REAL oppression, but in this case, the agitators (the IRA) should be held accountable for the hell they have put the Irish people through for their own selfish political and financial gain. -- 2 December 2005 210.211.80.5

Sinn Feins Marxist perspective

I would dispute the accuracy of that claim. Provisional Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA involved themselves in the Northern Ireland conflict on explicit republican grounds. Provisional Sinn Fein Splits from Sinn Fein was a rejection of Marxist politics on the grounds that it was alienating traditional supporters of the republican movement, the latter part and marxist group of the party became known as Offical Sinn Fein -- 27 December 2005 83.70.28.240

bloody friday

seemed POV (terms like 'carnage'). had read:"A day of carnage in Northern Ireland when men women and children died as a result of provisional IRA bombs."Mike McGregor (Can) 19:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Not really, carnage is the only word to describe what happened. If you said something like "A day of carnage in Northern Ireland when men women and children died as a result of the actions of the murdering provisional IRA and their bombs. then maybe. -- User: Jasca Ducato as 194.80.20.10, 3 April 2006

To the anonymous user at the University of York

I changed it to Ulster, as sectarian tension is not confined to the six counties. I used the religious rather than the political division, as the trouble is older than the current political divisions. -- Lapsed Pacifist 10:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Article needs work

This article is dreadful considering its importance in many histories (Irish, British, colonial etc). Why all the gaps in information and the history? -- max rspct leave a message 15:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and if its not done, people will just come on and write crap until its changed. Can I propose a reorganisation along these lines:

• very brief ie less than one para, on historical background incl plantations, home rule and foundation of Northern Ireland

• A narrative overview.

-The Civil Rights campaign and its breakdown into violence. -The subsequent communal violence in derry/londonderry and belfast. -The deployment of the British army, the start of the PIRA campaign in earnest (1971). The loyalists response. -Internment and Bloody Sunday - the dissafecti9on of the nationalist community -The fall of Stormont and introduction of Direct Rule -Sunningdale Agreement and the Ulster Workers Council Strike -The Prison issue and Hunger Strikes -The IRA's "long war" late 1970s to early 1990s (main article at PIRA page). -Anglo Irish Agreement 1985 -Loyalist upsurge in killings c. 1986-1994 -Ceasefires 1994 -Agreement 1998

• Analytical perspectives

-Casualty breakdown (leave as now) -motivations (as now) -current status, political and security

Any comments? -- Jdorney 17:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds okay. Read the article and whilst I found some parts really good, not least the fact it provided what felt like a thorough but brief NPOV summary, it certainly could do with more material in places. Or at the least not the feel to be a list of other pages. Surely there was some sort of historical narrative into which the key events can be placed. I don't know enough to write it as I came to the page to learn it. Panlane --82.38.227.22 20:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I've written most of what I talked about above. Editors are welcome to comment/change as they see fit. -- Jdorney 17:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Images Added

• Images added, Cleanup tag removed. Message me with comments/complaints. Skaterblo 22:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Added detail on collusion

Added detail about Ulster Resistance, Force Research Unit and "Death on the Rock"- these werent appearing yet omitting them leaves the section with a POV/one side of the story kind of feel. Hope it helps. Fluffy999 20:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

John Hume

Any objection to replacing one of the 2 Gerry Adams pictures with a picture of someone else? John Hume for example, or even David Trimble. Its not a POV thing, just that Hume perhaps played a big role in the ceasefires etc. Theres also no image of Ian Paisley, who is also a major contributor to events throughout the period. Fluffy999 00:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No Problems here. Or you just might add them w/o replacing. Either way yeah i think a pic of hume or triblme is warrented, though i would like to see something other then their headshot. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

ok will have a look for some action pics Fluffy999 07:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I like this one but its copyrighted :/ Fluffy999 14:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

OK how about remove both the Adams pictures, and replace one with this image of Hume & Adams arguing on TV. Then use this image of Paisley and Trimble arguing on TV. The problem is, unless you create a "rogues gallery" montage of all their headshots you wont get them all appearing together. The pictures are kind of fuzzy but the copyright is released so no issued there. Fluffy999 14:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well i got the Hume/Adams picture to work, the Pasiley/Trimble picture came back as a 404. Would be nice if tey were better quailty though, just my opinion. As for all of them together wrnt their pictures or at least some filing done during the negotations that showed all of them in the same place at the same time, could have sworn i seen a program that showd as such. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes the images are definately low quality. Dont remember the program- afaik Paisley always refused to appear in images with Adams.

• This is the paisley/trimble link http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/95000/images/_98414_trimbeangry.jpg
• paisley adams again http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39543000/jpg/_39543292_adamspaisley-203.jpg
• paisley adams again (unsure copyright) http://gblx.cache.el-mundo.net/1999/07/16/fotos/0716portada.jpg

Hello, I added in some images of all the main politico's. This isnt a POV against Gerry Adams, but they all played a part so seems fair to have more than images of one person in there. Fluffy999 08:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

a "legal" war

First paragraph- "although the conflict does not qualify as a war in any legal sense." Seems POVish. Over at War its stated: "the term "war" is restricted by legal definition to those conflicts where one or both belligerents have formally declared war"

There has at least been a few declarations of "war". Two that spring to mind are the UVF in 1966, and the PIRA's fairly constant insistance it was at "war". The War article also makes the case that there are reasons why wars arent strictly declared- so a war between opposing sides can be waged but remained publicly undeclared for various reasons.

I say its POVish because the british government made the "Criminalisation" of the PIRA an objective of their part in the conflict. So the first paragraph frames the article from the outset with their POV.

The point that was trying to be made could be that the combatents werent strictly speaking standing armies with uniforms, advanced military hardware etc. I prefer the low intensity conflict definition. Fluffy999 10:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Background

Do we really need such a long and slightly confusing background section? The history of Ireland and of Ulster is covered in great detail elsewhere. Isn't it better to concentrate on the immediate roots of the troubles, ie since 1912 or so? Other wise people will keep adding details on things going back as far as the Nine Years War, the Plantation of Ulster, the 1641 rebellion, the Cromwellian conquest, the sige of Derry, the battle of the Boyne etc etc etc. Apart from anything else, it is important to keep the article to managable length. Jdorney 16:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Having clarified this passage, I'm more convinced than ever that it should be cut out entirely and the relevant links given for the main articles. A paragraph can't hope to cover four hundred years of Irish history, while still explaining it properly. Besides, the 1790s etc are not directly relevant to the content of this article. Any comments? Jdorney 16:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello I dont think its confusing, its just boring. You could maybe express the results of all those events in a small paragraph ie. simmering cauldron of hatred which sometime overflows. Where to begin talking about origins is complicated- some say with plantation, some say with original invasion, etc. Some people, like Ken Maginnis, say "kick the pope" bands in 12th july parades were happily being watchedby flag waving 'taigs' before latest in 1969. You would want to avoid glossing over events to that extent as it could give a false impression that everything was fine within NI until the late 1960s.

What is this conflict: native against settler or Catholic against Protestant?

I feel the latter definition distorts the entire conflict claiming it to be religious. The former is the original dynamic and as such is inherently political; the latter and all others are merely additions to that conflict. Can anybody here show how the conflict is religious as opposed to religion being used to justify the conquerers keeping the power? I have yet to meet a nationalist who kills somebody because of their religion. How, pray tell, are people killing each other about a God rather than about controlling power here? Please, those using the labels "Catholic" and "Protestant" here, justify why they are better labels than native/nationalist and settler/unionist, both of which are political labels. El Gringo 02:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Catholic and Protestant is also a political term set in its own time and context. From roughly 1603, when the English first established control over all of Ireland, until the 1820s, the main criterion for belonging to the dominant group in the state was not ethnic origin, but religious conformity. The Protestant Ascendancy meant just that, it was a ruling group of Church of Ireland members. There is no contradiction between highlighting the importance of religion and argueing that hte conflict was always about power. Religion itself was about power.

Now it is true that this was also originally mainly a division between settler and native, but it was never execlusively so. Moreover, by the 1790s it makes no sense to talk about "settlers and natives", all concerned were natives, going back 100 years at least. What's more they didn't describe themselves as British or Irish, as they do now, they used the terms Catholic, Protestant (meaning CoI) and dissenter (meaning Protestants who did not conform to the state church -including presbyterians).

Furthermore, it is not true to say that all Catholics are descended from Gaelic Irish people and that no Protestants are. A quick survey of names in NI and indeed the rest of Ireland, will reveal otherwise. It is true that religion in itself is not currently the major issue in the conflict, but the communal division is marked by religious criteria and not by ethnic ones (ie language, descent etc). For modern divisions, you can use the terms nationalist and unionist, but to suggest that the terms Catholic and Protestant are irrelevant is not accurate.

Jdorney 12:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"Aye," the old Glasgow joke runs, "but are ye a Catholic Jew or a Protestant one?"

In many respects, religion in the sense of theology is irrelevant; it's a strong historical polarisation stemming from many things (religion, ethnicity and politics being high on the list) which is now an excuse for people to kick the shit out of each other. It just so happens that one of the most obvious differences between them - and one which is recognised by all parties - is the religious divide.

Asking about "conquerors keeping the power" or "native/settler" is essentially meaningless. It held water in Ireland, where there was still the issue of a largely absent landowner class, but not in modern Northern Ireland; the population fluctuations over the years in Ulster make it very hard to talk about a "settler" versus a "native". Shimgray | talk | 13:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Native against invader is more accurate,the fact that many protestants were involved in the struggle for emancipation from the British,Wolfetone being one of the more famous examples,it is incorrect to say it is a Catholic versus Protestant struggle.

Speaking of "the conquerers keeping the power" is highly POV. No more of less so than saying that the aim of the IRA was to conquer Northern Ireland, though taken literally both would have an element of truth. At root the present conflict is about national identification and ethnic (in it's widest sense rather than it's bloodline sense) sentiment. It is at base a border dispute between people with differing senses of national identity, not esentially dissimilar to the Basque country, Sri Lanka, various combinations of disputes in the Balkans or even the much more peaceful "troubles" in Belgium from time to time. Arguments about abuse of power in the past or potential abuse of power in the future (e.g. "Rome rule") are secondary justifications and propaganda points but are not the base root of the issue at controversy. Neither side claims a supremacist position, in the sense that they support the denial of civil rights to others. That principle is not a matter being contested and was not really a matter under contention during the the vast majority of "the troubles". It may have been easier to see the conflict as a border dispute if there had been a land bridge between Scotland and Northern Ireland, but at base that is what the conflict is.80.229.27.11 (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Terminology: "Northern Ireland conflict"

Looking for the article "Northern Ireland conflict", I found that there was no such thing, and consequently created it, as a redirect to this page. Now I wonder if this was right, i.e. if "Northern Ireland conflict" and "The Troubles" are synonymous terms, or whether "The Troubles" are just part of the Northern Ireland conflict; in the latter case, Northern Ireland conflict would have to be made into a page of its own right, I assume.--Robin.rueth 13:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, one and the same thing. Jdorney 20:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation

"The roots of the Troubles lie in the failure of Northern Ireland to integrate the Catholic/nationalist population within its borders into its state."

Is this not just stating the obvious? What this sentence means is that, for whatever reason, a significant portion of nationalists in Northern Ireland never accepted the legitimacy of the state, leading in the end to political conflict. It is not a commentary on this fact, or a judgement, or apportioning blame, so I don't see why it would need a citation. Jdorney 20:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

IMO the problem with that statement is that it implies that if the Northern Ireland state had behaved differently then the Catholic/nationalist population would have integrated and accepted the legitimacy of the state. This is a controversial opinion and not NPOV. It may be that nothing the NI government could have done differently would have made nationalists accept the state as legitimate just as hypothetically there may have been no way that a Dublin government could have had an all Ireland state that unionists would have accepted as legitimate if partition had not occurred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.27.11 (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The ceasefires

Something I have noticed in the article is that it states that once the 1994 ceasefires where declared it was the effective end to the troubles. It does make mention to limited violence following this ceasefire however this completely ignores the end of the ceasefire in February 1996 with the Canary Wharf bombings and the other attacks which lead to the return to complete violence by the IRA and other paramilitaries. I feel the article should reflect the fact that peace was not truly declared in Northern Ireland until the 1998 ceasefire. Butch-cassidy 16:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Might someone comment before I begin altering this? Butch-cassidy 11:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Good idea Weggie 11:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I've made the changes, now its upto everyone to polish them. [1] Butch-cassidy 10:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit by 216.194.4.244

There was an edit by IP 216.194.4.244, adding a new figure for the numbers of casualties in the intro; the edit looks a little clumsy to me (and certainly doesn't read very well), and needs looking at. I don't know enough on the subject to correct (don't even remember why I stumbled across the page!). Given that the casualty figures also appear later in the article in the tables, there needs to be some consistency.

In the meantime, I'm about to remove a bit of text from the article around said tables, since the sentences "Most of those killed were civilians or members of the security forces, with smaller groups of victims identified with republican and loyalist paramilitary groups. It is often disputed whether some civilians were members of paramilitary organisations due to their secretive nature." appear in both the Responsibility and the Status sections. I'm leaving the one in the Status section, since that seems more appropriate. Carre 21:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Betrayals and the Future

While much has been made of the situation in later years of the 20th century,it should be remembered this conflict is comprised of betrayals by both sides. Religion has been and will always be the dividing factor in Ireland, North and South. The Unitied Irishmen were betrayed by the Catholics at the behest of the church, the church was bribed with the right to train priests in Ireland. A hundred years earlier a protestant was hired by the Pope to kill the King and take control because Irish priests were threatening his control.

This is where the fallacy lies in Irish history both protestants and Catholics did not want British rule in the 18th,19th and early 20th century.This changed with the referendum after WW1. The northern Irish Protestant developed a siege mentality after the free state passed a series of extremely Draconian Laws which curtailed the Protestant's right to work and live in the free state.

The TROUBLES started over not a percieved injustice to Catholics but an injustice which effected both working class groups equally. The problem is that valid points were subsumed by a religious intolerance,(propagated by both religions)and therefore neither protestant or catholic can hold his head up and look innocent.

While many are looking forward, all I have seen in Northern Ireland is a hardening of the tribalism in the last few years. Before anyone asks I have lived here for over 40 years, I was a child when Bloody Sunday happened and I lament this situation.

The only way forward is the intergration of our schools but this is being fought tooth and claw by the Catholic church and this with the political climate here going to both extremes does not bode well for the future. This has not ended, maybe I am wrong (hopefully) but in all likelihood this is a lull in the problem.

I'm sure your heart's in the right place, but I don't think you know your history very well. The United Irishmen's support base was predominantly Catholic. No Protestant was ever hired by a Pope to kill a king (I don't even know what you're referring to here). Protestants resisted Irish self government since the 1830s repeal movement, got organised in a mass movement in the 1880s to resist Home Rule and threatened civil war to oppose it in 1912-14. There was no referendum after WWI, perhaps you mean the 1918 election? The Free State passed no laws curtailing the right of protestants to live and work there, draconian or otherwise.

Jdorney 12:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Background

Does anyone else feel that we need to ditch, or at least radically cut, the background section? its far too long and confusing for the general reader right now. Perhaps it should be moved to a different article? Jdorney 20:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well maybe some of it could be reduced, but from what I read it seems like a reasonable amount of historical detail for a conflict that does essentially have a starting point some 400 years ago. So I wouldn't really be in favour of getting rid of it, no. --Hibernian 20:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The second two sections should be drastically reduced, since they reduplicate History of Northern Ireland (and are approximately equal in length to the two equivalent sections in that article.) Cut these two down to at least half their current size and insert for more information see... Cripipper 21:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Can someone fill in the releavant information in the infobox? Exiledone 17:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the infobox on military conflicts b/c this is not your typical military conflict. It cannot be distilled down to specific commanders, specific combatants and specific dates and times. Obviously other opinions are welcome, but this just doesn't seem right for an article about The Troubles. Cheers, PaddyM 17:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. No problem.

Exiledone 19:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It was added again today. Might have a go at completing it, but probably should be removed. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 12:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

How about something like this. I stress this is a very rough draft. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 13:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Troubles
Date 1969 - 1998 Location Northern Ireland Result The Belfast Agreement
Belligerents
Irish Republican Army, Irish National Liberation Army	British Army, Royal Ulster Constabulary	Various Loyalist paramilitary groups
Commanders and leaders
IRA Army Council	Various	Various, including CLMC, UAC and ULCCC
Strength
750 active IRA members in the 1980s, INLA unknown	Approximately 17,000 British Army presonnel at peak, 7,000 RUC personnel at peak	Unknown
Casualties and losses
Total of 394 republican paramilitaries	Total of 1,112 British security personnel	Total of 151 loyalist paramilitaries
1857 civilians

Stu, as you know an infobox on this subject is going to be difficult to manage due to the sensitivity of the subject and the complex nature. However, that infobox is a pretty good stab at one.--Vintagekits 13:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it has a nice appearance, but is is necessary? I mean, it implies that the conflict is over and that there was a peaceful resolution. Also, it fails to account for civilian damages and casualties. I am inclined to think that there are simply too many factions and to simply boil it down to an info-box. Cheers, PaddyM 15:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The civilian casualties are listed in the code, but aren't showing for some reason. Think I would have to add a 4th "combatant" column for civilians, which obviouslt isn't appropriate. Take a look at the code and you'll see what I mean. Agreed, not a good idea to add this unless someone improves it dramatically and probably not necessary anyway. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm with the others on this. I can see how an infobox would be a good idea, but it's very difficult to adequately summarise it. Just as a point of pedantry, shouldn't the RUC be in the third column with the other loyalist paramilitaries? ;) One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I was waiting for someone to say that! Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 07:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The infobox is a good idea but would it be worth while created a template like this one about WW2, that could bring together all aspects of the troubles. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 12:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Although I don't support putting in an infobox in this article (or any article as I feel they distract from the main stuff) i did design one anyway. I put casualties in the second part as there's not casualties 4 you can put in and casualities 2 looks more neutral as it's in the midle and there's no line separating. The H-Man2 13:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The Troubles
Date 1969 - 1998 Location Northern Ireland Result Belfast Agreement
Belligerents
Republican Paramilitaries: Provisional IRA Primarily Official IRA until 1973 Irish National Liberation Army	Security Forces: British Army Royal Ulster Constabulary Ulster Defence Regiment Other Security Forces	Loyalist Paramilitaries: Ulster Volunteer Force Ulster Defence Association
Commanders and leaders
IRA Army Council	Various	Various including ULCCC and CLMC
Strength
Provisional IRA:Peak strength c.1,500, current strength c.300 Official IRA:Peak strength unkown INLA:Peak strength unknown, current strength c.30	British Army:c.11,000 RUC:8,500 (1990's) UDR:2,440 (1970)	UVF: c.1,000 (1970's), current strength ?00 UDA c.20,000 (1970) current strength ?00
Casualties and losses
	Republican Paramilitaries 394 Security Forces 1,123 Loyalist Paramilitaries 151 Civilians 1,855 50,000 of any wounded

"Military theory" section

I've taken this out; it was vague, semi-coherent, and contained no actual content beyond a vague implication that torture was in a training manual. If you want to say this, say it, and discuss the allegations appropriately; the section as it stood, though, meandered around the point and was no use to anyone. "Someone says that this book, which we're claiming was a standard handbook, quoted someone else, who had in the past talked about using torture". Really, that's what it boiled down to.

There is useful material that can be written on the military theory of the British Army's role in the troubles - it is, after all, a rare and thus well-studied example of how a Western power has had to deal with this kind of thing "at home" - but that section wasn't it; it was just a vague unsourced bundle of implication, which did not help the reader in the slightest. Shimgray | talk | 18:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This edit I support. The only reason I had the final line in the section was due to the paragraths leading the reader to that conclusion. Butch-cassidy 09:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Reason for Gaelic translation of "The Troubles"

I was wondering why the term "The Troubles" had the Irish equivalent in brackets in the opening paragraph. Is it Wikipedia's intention to teach people Gaelic, or is there genuine usage of the phrase in Irish?

Taken to the extreme, to help illustrate my point: should we also include the translation of Indoor cycling and Internal decapitation? Should the Ulster Lallans be included too? --Mal 07:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Overall there may be too many unnecessary and irrelevant Irish translations, but I think this one is fair enough. If you google it the term is used in Irish quite a lot. On the subject of Ulster Scots, there probably should be uniformity. The WP:IMOS is probably the best place to raise that. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 07:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that as everyone who can read Irish Gaelic and/or Ulster Scots can also read English, then there's no real point in including the translations unless they are some kind of formal title etc, or in the case of place names, etymology is involved... in which case I would actively encourage it. I'm not entirely convinced this is anything more than just a literal translation. OFMDFM and things like that are a different matter, if you follow me. --Mal 23:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Given the fact that this article is about the troubles in Ireland, and that in Ireland it is commonly known under the Irish Gaelic name, it seems appropriate to have the Irish name there. Fionnlaoch (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no actual evidence of that.Traditional unionist (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Categorising prisoners from The Troubles

Further to the numerous discussions, largely on Wikipedia talk:Irish Wikipedians' notice board, a proposal has been made attempt to neutrally categorise individuals imprisoned during The Troubles. Your comments are welcomed at:

• Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Proposed solution to categorising those imprisoned during The Troubles
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 14#Category:People imprisoned for terrorism

Thanks. Rockpocket 00:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

UDA campaign

"In response to this campaign and the perceived erosion of both the British character and unionist domination of Northern Ireland, loyalist paramilitaries such as the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) and Ulster Defence Association (UDA) launched their own campaigns against the nationalist population".

this statement is totally inaccurate, the UDA campaign was launched in 1966 in response to the civil rights association. 3 years before the Troubles officially began. It could be argued that the split in the IRA was in response to this sectarian murder campaign by loyalists and the perceived need by the bationalist communities to defend themselves--MarkyMarkDCU 15:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Your confusing the UVF with the UDA, it was the UVF that emerged in 1966.--padraig 04:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Location - England/Britain

To the best of my knowledge there was never a single casualty outside England. As a matter of policy, the Provos did not attack targets in Scotland or Wales. There was the single attack in the early 80s in the Shetland Islands when the Queen was opening a gas terminal, but there weren't any casualties. It's probably better as England to emphasise the location of the casualties, but I'm open to discussion. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

fine. Is there a source for their policy of not attacking Wales/Scotland? BillMasen 20:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into it now. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[2] says "The IRA has long regarded bombing English targets (there have never been any attacks in Scotland or Wales)". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with using England rather than the UK. Although the IRA may not have actively targeted other parts of the UK in a military sense, the "ethno-polictical conflict" most certainly was (and is) present in Scotland. The sectarianism in Glasgow, for example, was closely linked, often directly, to the troubles. Regardless, I think it's unhelpful to use England when the UK adequately and sufficiently precisely describes the situation, since England and the UK are confused too often. Mccron (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved from comments page

I have written a memoir which I think adds to the understanding of the relationship between the NICRA and the IRA as it then was (1960s, attempting to go political under Goulding). This was published in April 2006 by a Tyndall-Lilliput combination, is publicly available, and is called 'Century of Endeavour'. It goes in some depth to the foundation of the Wolfe Tone Societies and the steps which led to the development of the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s, under influences which included the Connolly Association in London. An overview can be seen via my web-site which is at http://www.iol.ie/~rjtechne/ and an electonic version of the book, with notes and references hotlinked into source material, is accessible by arrangement with me in the short run, and in the long run will be publicly available one way or another.

I could write a revised entry on the origin of the Troubles in NI, but would not want to be seen as simply promoting my book. I would prefer if someone else who knew the period were to write an update, drawing on my book as a referenceable source, and I would co-operate with this process by making available the e-version of the book.

There was an element in the IRA in the 60s which genuinely wanted to go the political road and to prove it would work without violence, and in my time I tried to act as a source of policies for this process.

Perhaps someone like Daltun O Ceallaigh, who is referenced, might be persuaded to take this up? Should I sugggest it to him?

Roy Johnston 11:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Roy Johnston April 3, 2007

this page

This page seems mostly one sided to me, and I'm not even from NI, the page needs to show all details not just ones that involve loyalist paramilitaries and the security forces, the nationalist paramilitaries killed more people then the other two combined (nevermind the disappeared) and yet they are hardly touched upon in this article, they seem to be virtually revered on other pages in this site, also collusion must be looked at in both ways.

I am not saying this out of spite or anything I was doing research for a history essay on the troubles and was looking at wikipedia, as you do, for general information and thought it isn't exactly fair —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.240.229.68 (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your comment unsigned. I would urge you to try and add a bit of balance to this article or any of the others regarding Northern Ireland. You'll soon find your edits are not welcome unless they show the British/unionist side in a bad way or they show the nationalist view in a positive light (this includes the IRA). And to think Wikipedia thinks it should be distibuted to schools and the like.

Recent edits

This sentence seems to be the subject of some dispute:

The RUC in response deployed armoured cars with Browning heavy machine guns and killed a nine year old boy in the nationalist Falls Road area of Belfast.

Before I go into any depth, this is what various sources say:

• Geraghty The Irish War p 22 - "At close range the Shorlands poured heavy bursts into nearby Divis Streets high-rise flats, where Patrick Rooney, aged nine, cowered in his bedroom. A .3 shell from one of the Shorlands blew his head off as it passed through the building."

• Taylor Provos p 52 - "The police opened fire with .30 Browning machine guns mounted on armoured cars capable of firing 500-600 rounds a minute. One of these rounds killed a nine-year-old Catholic boy, Patrick Rooney, in his home in Divis Flats. He was shot through the head whilst asleep in bed. The bullet had come through two walls."

• Dillon 25 Years of Terror p 117 - "The RUC overreacted by deploying Shoreland armoured vehicles against the Catholics. The Shorelands were armed with heavy-calibre .303 Browning machine-guns and were unsuitable for use if a densely populated area. One bullet from a Browning entered the walls of Divis Flats in the Lower Falls road and killed nine-year-old Patrick Rooney in his bed."

There's probably some more as well, but those adequately demonstrate the points I'm about to make. The RUC used heavy machine guns which were unsuitable for use in a densely populated area, and fired them at the flats. Therefore they take the ultimate responsibility for their actions, seemingly reckless as they were. Did they intend to kill Patrick Rooney? Not for us to say, but to try and fix the sentence in question by say adding the word "accidentally" that would be biased. When the IRA (or any other organisation) make mistakes, do we say "accidentally killed" in this article or any other? Of course not! I've nothing against the sentence being clarified or expanded upon, but to claim it was accidental is incorrect and biased. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sentence removed

• "The Provisional IRA claimed to have decommissioned most of its weaponry as of August-September 2005, meaning that, if true, it would no longer have the capacity for large-scale armed actions in the immediate future."

The IRA never claimed to have decommissioned most of its weaponry, the IMC claimed they had. Plus it's all very wishy-washy and speculative, what are "large-scale" armed actions anyway? Unless fertiliser and shovels have been decommissioned, it missed the point somewhat anyway. It's always been minds that needed decommissioning, not weaponry. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• "The last British soldier to die in the Troubles, Lance Bombardier Stephen Restorick, was also killed during this period, on 12 February 1997, by the "South Armagh sniper"."

removed this because it's no longer true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.189.221 (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The Troubles are not ongoing in 2009, thus it is true. O Fenian (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the name

When and where did this conflict first come to be known as "The Troubles", and how did such a mild name come about for such a vicious conflict anyway? 76.123.216.96 (talk) 06:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact "the Troubles" as a political term has a much older history in both Ireland and England, which the article should mention. In the 1960s references to "the troubles" would have been assumed to refer to the post-WWI Black and Tan & Civil War period, and the term pre-dated even that period. My impression is that it did not become a widespread term for the troubles starting in the 60's for some years into them. In the OED meaning 2 "public disturbance, disorder or confusion" goes back to 1378. Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an essential point, and I feel the title of the article still needs modifying on this, to clarify that its focus lies (legitimately) on the period post (say) 1960. See also my next edit in the section "This article" in this talk page. Flying Stag (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The British army technically wasn't on the same side as Ulster Loyalists

Putting the "ulster Loyalists" and the British goverment on the same Combantant sides is historically in accurate. UVF, UDA and others have infact battled with the ex-Royal Ulster Constabalry, Police Service Northern Ireland and The British Army. Please stop changing it back its not historically accurate. If its that nessiary Just add "Ulster Loyalists" in a sepperate combatants box. THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL STANCE, I made this change for the sake of historical accuracy. This is the person who keeps reversing my corrections "172.189.19.107". Thank you.

(Paddy (talk) 16:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC))

That's literally only a technicality. Various Republican groups clashed from time to time - didn't mean they weren't on the same side. Except of course the execrable surrender-monkeys aka The Stickies. (Sarah777 (talk) 02:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC))

But the British goverment claimed uda, uvf and others as terrorist organisations.

(Paddy (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC))

Paddy, there is no such thing as a "terrorist organisation". The word cannot be defined - so it is a political label. (Sarah777 (talk) 06:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

The British Government also claimed it wasn't in talks with the Republican Movement as well prior to the ceasefire, leading to the GFA. As for Loyalist organisations, it has been proven numerous times that they were controlled, armed, trained and provided with information on Nationalists by the British security forces.--Padraig (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Right thats true but the Irish nationalists have also had infomation passed on them from RUC and other British forces in order to kill members of Loyalist paramilitaries for Example Johnnny Adair whos where abouts have been told to nationalists in order to carry out assasinations.. so to be fair there is some bad play from all sides.

A claim made by Adair, I wouldn't regard him as a reliable source.--Padraig (talk) 02:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

(Paddy (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC))

It would indeed be more accurate to say that the IRA (plus fellow travelers) and loyalists were on the same side against the RUC and the Army. The Army and RUC were there to uphold law and order in the face of terrorists from whatever source.Traditional unionist (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It can hardly be accurate, never mind "more accurate" to use words that mean nothing. D'oh! (Sarah777 (talk) 06:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

Sorry but from personal experience I know that is not true, both the RUC/UDR was passing on info to the Loyalists to target innocent nationalists, and British troops did the same they also armed and trained Loyalists.--Padraig (talk) 02:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is I didnt say Adair was the source of the infomation it was a leak from the RUC. Both sides Nationaist and Loyalist have both worked with British forces and fought against them but for the sake of making it clear I have seperated the sides. With saying that the UDA are technically a outlawed terrorist organisation in the United Kingdom along with others like Al-Qaeda.

To show and example of a time when the British Army has gone against the UVF is the Miami Showband killings were two members of the UVF were convicted of the killing and also were members of the UDR heres a direct statment from the page... "During the Troubles it was a common occurrence to be stopped by the British Army on the roads. The unsuspecting members of the band were taken out of the minibus, and told to line up in a ditch by the side of the road.[2] Some of the men at the checkpoint were British soldiers, from the Ulster Defence Regiment. However, they were also members of an illegal paramilitary organisation, the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF)"

IT THEN GOES ON TO SAY.. "Three members of UDR were eventually convicted for their part in the attack. James Somerville, Thomas Crozier and James McDowell all received life sentences".

To also make it clear that Nationalists have worked with the British goverment have you noticed whos the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, its non other then Sinn Feins Martin McGuinness. Lets just leave it as there was unfair play from all sides. (Paddy (talk) 04:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

Paddy, Martin McGuinness just like Ian Paisley were elected by the people of Northern Ireland, they were not appointed by the British, so I fail to see whatpoint your trying to make with that example.--Padraig (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Paddy, a few exceptions only prove the rule as I explained above. BA killers also got convicted (and quickly released, restored to the BA and promoted) - does that mean the British Army wasn't supporting the British? (Sarah777 (talk) 06:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

There arn't just a "few exceptions" to the so called rule. Loyalist paramilitaries as I have stated before have worked with/ against the British army and RUC, Just as the Nationalists have. Even with these slight "so called" exeptions they are still enemys and any unlawful coporating with the terrorists by the British army is ilegal as stated with the fact they are technically a outlawed terrorist organisation in the United Kingdom along with others like Al-Qaeda. There is unfare play in both sides and due to the fact they are a outlawed terrorist organisation in the United Kingdom attempting to place the Ulster Loyalists with the British army under the same side in the infobox because of the views they have previously worked with each other and against, and the fact you stating that they worked together out of your own biast beliefs is a NPOV violation.

(Paddy (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC))

Paddy, the evidence of colusion between the British security forces and the Loyalist parliamilitaries is well documented, the fact that the loyalists occassionly bite the hand that fed it, only highlights the failure of the British to understand the nature of Loyalism, their loyality was only forthcoming as long as it suits their aims, which where not always the same as the British.--Padraig (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You are exaggerating the extent to which collusion happened. If anything the systemic collusion was with the IRA given the way the Army had it riddled with informers. Regardless, it is much more accurate to say there were three "sides" in the troubles.Traditional unionist (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, believe me I get the situation, I get were you both are coming from about Loyalist, Nationalist and British beliefs, but all Im wanting is that the Infobox be left as it is with each side seperated for the fact technically there were "3 sides", the article itself can go into the details that need to be addressed about the problems at hand with Loyalism, Nationalism and even Britishism linking and colliding over the decades the troubles in Ireland have had. So can we please all for the sake of creating noNPOV violations and keep this all historically accurate otherwise theres no point of even having a even ballanced story. This is pointless having this endless arguement about "who was right", when it comes down to it the people of Northern Ireland will decide the future regarless of paramillitaries, the British army and this page!

(Paddy (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC))

Bad call Paddy, The notion of "three sides"; the poor British Tommy separating two warring tribes was at the very core of British propaganda during The Troubles. You propose to endorse that?!! (Sarah777 (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC))

It is the only accurate description.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hardly, when Private Tommy and the State apparatus paying and supporting him worked hand-in-glove with local Unionist so-called "legal" paramilitaries like the RUC and also "illegals" like the UVF. (Sarah777 (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC))

No one won in the troubles lets just hope the future will be bright for Ireland and this waring period be ended (but not fogotten) as I stated before there as good and bad people and we all can agree we can learn from the past whenever its a possitive remembering, or a negitive remembering. I mean this entire depate against me was all started over a infobox I placed, the infobox was placed and edited by others for the sake of showing the differnt divides in the troubles, let the page its self go into the details about the situation. Also Traditional Unionist to let you know and to understand that im not particularly baist about the troubles I am a decendent that comes from a long line from a Protestant, Loyalist, Catholics and even Republicans, I cannot hate my family or there company, I just hope for a bright future for the province and Ireland itself. I only wanted to create a "historical" infobox to this page, for others to understand, lets just avoid a one side story to tell.

(Paddy (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC))

So Paddy, you are suggesting TRUTH should be sacrificed in the name of peace? That might be what politicians do, but Wiki?? (Sarah777 (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC))

WP:TRUTH should never be sacrificed. Rockpocket 04:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you please explain when I ever said that? If anything I want the truth, Why is this debate still going on over the infobox?!

(Paddy (talk) 09:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC))

The troubles has no objective truth. Not in the current climate. Regardless, the most accurate description is that there were three sides.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope. There were Unionists and Nationalists. The British Government was/are Unionists. The acted as Unionists throughout the troubles as per WP:Duck. And Trad Unionist; if you tried "importance=low" it might work better. Ever think The Force is trying to tell you something :) -- Sarah777 (talk)

Your assertions do not stand up to much scrutiny, certainly not the wikipedia tests.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Loyalist and Unionist if you havnt noticed have two differnt pages as they ARE TWO DIFFERNT ideologys. Maybe your one sided views with be accepted by some extremist millitant organisation but not here.

(Paddy (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC))

Tut tut Paddy - that's a tad uncivil. but I can tell you one thing; YOU won't be deciding were my views are acceptable or otherwise! (Sarah777 (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC))

Trad U - yes they do. Paddy; the IRSP and IRA have separate articles; does that mean there were four sides? So, to keep you guys happy, lets have a side for every group of combatants with a page in Wiki - then when it gets unmanageably big we'll distill it down to the two sets of groups that each group was exclusively a part of; Unionist and Nationalist. (Sarah777 (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC))

The infobox is perfectly correct as it.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It is now. (Sarah777 (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC))

Box

I have fixed the box which was added without discussion or consensus. Should OIRA be moved to the British side? (Sarah777 (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC))

you are getting very close to vandalism.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Not even remotely. I altered the box to reflect a better perspective. Whoever first inserted it without consensus is the closest we have to a vandal. And, btw, you have broken your terms of probation per Arbcom so I'd not be issuing inaccurate and uncivil accusations if I were you. (Sarah777 (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC))

By no means is it reflecting a better prespective. By United Kingdom law Loyalist Paramillitaries are illegal terrorist organisations thus ranking them ENEMYS. Plus putting PIRA, RIRA and even INLA on same sides as Republic of Ireland is incorrect as well, seeing as Republic of Ireland has aswell put all those paramillitaries them as well as Illegal terrorist organisations. Just because the ideologies are simmilar, doesn't mean they are on the same sides. Technically, each of those paramillitaries shouldn't be on the same sides, as there has been cases of loyalist and Republican Fueds.

(Paddy (talk) 09:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC))

If there is any third side it is the RoI; definitely not the UK. Abd aren't you aware you cannot use the term "terrorist" in Wiki articles becaused it is regarded as a loaded weasel word? The root problem here is the attempt to squeeze a "battlebox" into a many-sided conflict that spanned 30 years. Like the ugly sisters foot - it can't be squeezed in! Sarah777 (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I disagree with the fact you concider RoI the only third side, but to be honnest the whole idea of a box is pointless as you are right there where many sides which changed over the 30 years. Maybe it would be for the best just to remove it all together.

(Paddy (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC))

Well Paddy, finally an area of agreement. This is def a better Wikiday than yesterday! I have seen numerous "wars" over attempts to add boxes, symbols, flags etc to articles that absolutely don't need them over a whole range of topics. Sarah777 (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah i noticed this isnt the first time this has happened, and best we all just find a practical sollution to the box. Well what would you suggest be done to it? Maybe just keep the main writing and the causalties, and remove the strength and combatants?

(Paddy (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC))

A list of participants; list of deaths - something dignified without flags or symbols; the harsh reality is we still don't agree on anything - from who started it; was it justified (or who was justified); who won; etc. (And obviously as there were many organisations involved - how many sides were there; the RoI and UK were by no means always on the same side; the OIRA swapped sides and some sides appear to be still residually active - waiting for the economic or global developments that will allow a re-match. It is too complex to reduce to a simple "battle-box"; for example you can get numerous British Government statements that both it was, and wasn't a war - depending on the context and what they were trying to defend/justify. And so on. Do you notice that there is something vaguely militaristic about the Wiki boxes generally? (Sarah777 (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC))

Thinking about it, there isn't really anything on the infobox to suggest that these people were on the same side, simply that there were there different types of combatant. Which is the case. It;s grand as it is.Traditional unionist (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"conflict was caused by the disputed status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom and the domination of the minority nationalist community, and discrimination against them, by the unionist majority." this is a pretty bad analysis of the problem, and surely institutional discrimination should be emphasised or at least mentioned. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/recent/troubles/the_troubles_article_01.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.22.123 (talk) 13:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Punishment Beatings

From what my relatives tell me about The Troubles, the threat of and carrying out of punishment beatings were significant, and had a huge effect on the people in NI. However I can't find much about it on Wikipedia. There is a sentence in the article. If there is more, can someone direct me to them, or link it to this page. Thanks. --81.132.243.176 (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC) 'Punishment Beatings'? A beating is a beating whatever title you put before it. I think you may be referring to 'Tarring and Feathering'. A woman would have her hair shaved off, then be smeared with Tar and dusted with Feathers. Not nice. As for folks in Ulster being 'hugely effected' by threats of beatings, you underestimate the folks of Ulster, they are no cowards.Johnwrd (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Questionable sources

Hi everybody, a proposal is being made to ease the current restrictions on questionable sources in the verifiability policy, in response to concerns that an Animal Liberation Front video was being inappropriately excluded from an article. I think editors here might have a useful viewpoint on this proposal. See Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge of Murder triangle

I have closed this AfD as merge to the Troubles. It was suggested in the discussion that the following sentence should be added here:-

"The area comprising East Tyrone, South Londonderry and North Armagh saw such levels of violence that it became known as the 'murder triangle'."

Would someone who know this article better than I please do that? Thanks. --Bduke (talk) 08:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"Disambig"

Nothing of the sort. Using the unclear "Ireland" or "Irish" in this article only serves to confuse the reader and should not be done. Until Republic of Ireland is moved from its current location, that term should be used where there is any possibility of confusion. In this article, there's far too much possbility of confusion. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The article should be accurate. No ambiguiity. Please see Names of the Irish state. Redking7 (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I know full well what the names are. In this article Ireland and Irish are inherently confusing. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, I don't agree with you. I think United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland together with Ireland are even less ambiguous than United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. To avoid edit wars etc. I'll add text in the Box to the effect that Ireland may be described to avoid disambiguity, as RoI. Anything less would not only be inaccurate but also mislead readers about the name of Ireland. Redking7 (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Redking7, you have now created an absurd situation, where you have piped a link to Republic of Ireland so that it displays as "Ireland", and then to explain away the confusion you have added the text "Republic of Ireland" in an explanation afterwards. I will now revert to the situation before you started this.

There have been many long discussions at Talk:Republic of Ireland on renaming that article. The latest one was only last month, and like several previous discussions there was no consensus to rename the article. Please stop this campaign to remove the phrase "Republic of Ireland" from any place where it appears. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that Domer48 has reverted already. Please stop edit-warring on this; you are already in breach of WP:3RR. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

So you're going to block him now, right? Lkike you did Counter revolutionary on the Monday Club?Traditional unionist (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I might be taken as an involved party in this case (particularly since I was a party to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles), so I have instead lodged a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Redking7_reported_by_User:BrownHairedGirl_.28Result:_.29, and noted that this page and its editors are subject to general sanctions per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Remedies.

BTW, on the Monday Club, I blocked both of the two editors who had breached WP:3RR. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Which was a blunt instrument to use in that situation. Two totally different situations, basically the same result, with different judgment calls made by admins who have no regulatory system to fall back on for best practice in use of blocking powers. It's all very whimsical.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

TU, it's fairly simple: per WP:BLOCK, blocks should not be imposed by an admin who might be taken as being an involved party. There is a heck of a lot more work involved for me in filing a 3RR report than in just imposing a block, but I took that course because I was trying to be act properly in accordance with blocking policy. If you have a complaint about the block of Redking7, then raise it at the 3RR report, and if you have a complaint about me then you should take it to WP:ANI or open an WP:RFC/U on me, but stop misusing this article's talk page to moan about enforcement of 3RR. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

In the info. box (and in the info. box only), I am going to add back in the full correct legal and proper names of the two states concerned: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Ireland. I will also add in my additional text explaining that to avoid ambiguity, RoI can be used to describe the Irish state. This has no connection with the location of the RoI article (indeed that article sets out clearly that the name of the Irish state is Ireland - That is not relevant - This is an encyclopedia. The above are the names of the two states. Stating otherwise is inaccurate and misleading. For any one whose not sure about this, please see Names of the Irish state. If you disagree with my edits, please open a discussion - I suggest you call it Names of States involved in Troubles. If most people disagree with my fairly minor (but important) clarification, then I will leave it at that - the article will continue on with a misleading inaccuracy.

As for the discussion re my being blocked. I think User talk:Traditional unionist was indicating that it was unfair. I agree with him but don't want to get involved in 'personal' bickering. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of Ireland on any Troubles article should be avoided due to the risk of confusion. Please see WP:IMOS, which states when that structure can be used. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, any use of Ireland will create confusion in anything related to the Troubles article.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 04:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Problems with this box

The Troubles
Part of the history of Ireland
Map of Ireland at the present.
Date 1968–1998 (sporadic violence continues) Location Northern Ireland. Violence extended to England and the Republic of Ireland, as well as mainland Europe. Result Military Stalemate Ceasefire Good Friday agreement St Andrews Agreement Devolution
Belligerents
Sovereign state security forces United Kingdom Republic of Ireland	Irish Republicans Provisional IRA Official IRA Irish National Liberation Army IPLO Continuity IRA Real IRA	Ulster Loyalists Ulster Volunteer Force Ulster Defence Association Loyalist Volunteer Force Red Hand Commandos Ulster Resistance
Casualties and losses
British Army (excluding NI regiments)499 UDR & R IRISH 204 RUC301 NIPS 24 Territorial Army 7 Non RUC Police Services 6 RAF 4 Royal Navy 2 Garda 9 Irish Army 1 Civilians 1857* Total Dead 3524* [3]	PIRA293 OIRA29 INLA44 IPLO9 CIRAN/A RIRA2	UVF 63 UDA 81 LVF 3 RHC 2 UR N/A

Apart from the simply incorrect (BHG and ONIH pl note) title of free Ireland used, why are the "civilian" casualties listed under "Sovereign state security forces" column? This would seem to imply the "sovereign British state" was at one with the dead civilians when in fact they actually directly or through their Loyalist agencies murdered most of them? Sarah777 (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

And of course BHG is totally correct in not blocking editors where there is a possibility of her being considered involved. This is a particular bugbear of mine and a most egregious example of the genre can bee seen here in the case of Tango v. Mongo (seriously). Sarah777 (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the problem with the infobox here probably lies not so much in the content of the infobox as in the fact that it is being used on this article. {{Infobox Military Conflict}} may work well elsewhere, but it seems to me that editors here are finding the template to be too rigid a straitjacket to accommodate the circumstances of this conflict in an NPOV fashion. One example of this is how to classify the civilian casualties: Sarah777 sets out one view on that, but others would point out that the IRA also killed a goodly number of civilians. An infobox can't accommodate those differences in perspective.

An article does not have to have an infobox. If it's misleading, or if it's just causing edit wars, then it should be removed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think I'm edit warring but I do think that these boxes, designed to cater for military battles are not really suited to prolonged guerrilla wars/insurrections/whatever. Is the invasion of Iraq considered a single war/battle requiring a summary box? What about Israel/Palestine? Both of these are still ongoing, one after 5 years and the other over 60 years. Boxcruft is almost as bad as flagcruft on Wiki. Sarah777 (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Sarah, I wasn't accusing you of edit-warring here; I was just noting that there had been a recent box-related edit war on this page, and I know you were not a party to it.

You're not the only person to object to boxcruft; some projects (Opera and Classical music, I think) have decided to delete all infoboxes. I think that's a bit extreme, because articles can fall within the scope of more than one project and it can create edit wars if a project gives the impression of claiming WP:OWNership, but I mention it to show that there is ample precedent for getting rid of an infobox. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

On many series of articles (I'm thinking of mountains, villages, rivers and lakes, roads etc) boxes are fine if they remain flag-free. On a visual layout basis - isn't that huge map (right) a bit OTT? Sarah777 (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that there are many cases where infoboxes are fine and useful. But where they appear incapable of summarising the article without creating POV problems, I think they should go. And you're right, the map is far too big, but even the size parameter on it was reduced from the silly 300px, we'd still have the other problem of the box misleading readers about the complexity of who was on which "side". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The map isn't even that useful really. Political geography may be of some use, but not of primary use. It strikes me that there is almost a bit of conspiricy hunting going on here. Clearly, finding a space for murdered civillians will be tricky, but imperitative to this infobox. One would assume that a column-less row could be added to the bottom? Also, I assume that the source is Lost Lives? If so that needs to be made clear. If not - well, why not?Traditional unionist (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

TU, I do wish that you would assume good faith. I don't want any info removed, I just don't see that it is helpful to have it squeezed into an infobox when which nobody seems to be able to agree on an NPOV way of displaying it there. As one example, it makes little sense to place the IPLO and INLA in the same column when the two organisations killed so many of each others people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Let she without sin.....I wasn't suggesting in any way that you were wanting anything removed.Traditional unionist (talk) 10:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You'd really need a column on its own for the number of deaths resulting from INLA infighting..... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Names of States in the info box

In the info. box (and in the info. box only), I have added the full correct legal and proper names of the two states involved in the Troubles: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Ireland. I have also added in additional text explaining that to avoid ambiguity, Republic of Ireland can be used to describe the Irish state.

This has no connection with the location of the Republic of Ireland article (indeed that article sets out clearly that the name of the Irish state is Ireland). What is relevant is that this is an encyclopedia. The above are the names of the two states. Stating otherwise is inaccurate and misleading.

For any one whose not sure about this, please see Names of the Irish state. Its a relatively common misconception that Republic of Ireland is the name of the Irish state. I hope this fairly minor but important edit is accepted by all. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not acceptable due to confusion. On Wikipedia the name of the state we use is Republic of Ireland, just as we use Derry not Londonderry. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Redking7, you know perfectly well that this is a contentious issue, and should not have made such a change without seeking a consensus first. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In case people might be confused about what I was proposing, the follwing is the edit I propose:

"Sovereign state security forces:

• United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland;
• Ireland (often described as the Republic of Ireland to distinguish it from the island of Ireland)."

What is wrong with the above edit? Why is it contentious? Does any one disagree with its accuracy? Please give reasons if you agree or disagree. If you disagree, you might also set out your reasons why we should not explain what the correct names of the two States are. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

We use "Republic of Ireland", in the same way we use "Derry" not "Londonderry" We don't have to use correct names, especially when they are ambiguous. We don't explain Derry in every article its used in. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

UDR

The members killed after they left are not accepted. The source cited says 197, and the article must reflect what the source says. The source doesn't include former members, so neither should we. Domer48 (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Then the source should be changed. The Palace Gardens Memorial lists these members as murdered as a direct consequence of UDR membership. Happy to leave it as it is until you can find a more accurate sourceGDD1000 (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

CAIN is *the* source for casualties during the Troubles, and the fact remains only 197 serving members of the UDR were killed. They are includes as civilians, as once they left the UDR they became civilians. The current method is factual and accurate, anything else is POV.--Domer48 (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, since you put it like that then I'll leave it. I don't want to POV push. I'm entirely against that concept. All I want to see is a nicely balanced article with no cruft in favour of ANYONE! If we stick to the facts I'm sure we'll get along fine.GDD1000 (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit

I have removed various information pertaining to 1970 which has been added. Firstly it was a very selective addition, seemingly based solely on information designed to make the IRA look bad. Secondly some of the information (first female to die) is disuputed by other sources, including one I have added. Thirdly there was ample commentary added to what the source had said, and in the case of Short Strand made no attempt to explain the circumstances in which people were shot, instead presenting a very biased viewpoint. We do not tend to have such breakdowns by year for any other year, especially not one-sided (and therefore biased) ones, so I do not see why 1970 should be any different, but would welcome discussion about if and in what format the information could be added back, subject to it being unbiased of course. Also I have added back sections pertaining to the background which should not have been arbitrarily removed without discussion. In addition I have removed various tags added without explanation, ones that are not weasel words as far as I can see, and removed various unsourced information. If there are any questions about this please ask them here. Domer48 (talk) 07:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Victims?

I changed one instance of the word "victim" which covered 800 dead to simply "dead". I then noticed the word is all over this article like an outbreak of measles. "Victim" is a value-laden weasel unless used in a very specific context - should it be used in this article at all? Sarah777 (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the other 40% dead? GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What 'other 40%'? Sarah777 (talk) 01:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I didn't read your full edit. I get it now. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This article

I find the emphasis of this article to be slightly odd. There is an (unnecessarily) long background/history section, and quite detailed coverage of the "peace process", and even the parades issue, but relatively little on the Troubles themselves! There seems to be a bias towards political developments and issues, rather than on the actual violence (with the exception of the collusion issue(!), which is given significant coverage). Surely this article should focus on the violence and the security response to it.Mooretwin (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Why? Sarah777 (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Because the article is entitled "The Troubles" and should therefore emphasise the Troubles, which primarily describes the violence. Political developments are relevant, but this article reads like a political history of Northern Ireland, rather than an article about the Troubles.Mooretwin (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"The Troubles" is just a name. The events were triggered by politics, sustained by politics and ended by politics. The two, the violence and the politics, are inseparable. Sarah777 (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually "The Troubles" describes a period of violence. It does not describe the period before the violence began, for example. Politics are inseparable from it, of course, and I'm not suggesting that the article should not cover the politics. The article, however, does not give sufficient attention to the violence. Mooretwin (talk) 07:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The opening paragraphs of this article need to clarify that its primary focus lies (legitimately) on the period post (say) 1960. The term "The Troubles" was in widespread popular use throughout the UK mainland from at least the 1920s, and was taken to relate to many aspects of Irish/British politics since at least the time of Gladstone and Home Rule. I am sure that a trawl of newspapers since say 1870 would reveal countless references; I am not in a position myself to do this, but offer [4] as a good - if possibly offensive - example. I have recently been reverted on this point as being irrelevant, so would welcome comments before having another go. Flying Stag (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The collapse of Stormont

I've removed the following sentence, because it doesn't make sense: Their government addressed many of the concerns of the civil rights movement: re-drawing electoral boundaries to make them more representative, giving all citizens the vote in local elections, and transferring the power to allocate public housing to an independent Northern Ireland Housing Executive, for example. To what does "their government" refer? The reforms listed were actually carried out by the Unionist Government before Direct Rule. Perhaps this should be included elsewhere?Mooretwin (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't the redrawing of boundaries done in 1973? The substance of your argument is ok, because Faulkner did the leg work on reforming Local Government in 1971, but wan;t the boundary drawing later?Traditional unionist (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the boundaries were redrawn following the Macrory Report of 1970, and were legislated for by Stormont (Local Government Act (NI) 1972). The Act didn't come into force until 1973, but it was Stormont legislation. Stormont also abolished the Londonderry Corporation in 1969 because of gerrymandering, etc. The Housing Executive was established in 1971.Mooretwin (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There was defiantly a local government act in 1973.Traditional unionist (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Defiantly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooretwin (talk • contribs) 22:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The end of the Troubles?

The introduction of this article states categorically that The Troubles "was a period of conflict ... from the late 1960s until the Belfast Agreement of 10 April 1998". Is this correct? Is there a consensus that the Troubles ended then? Loyalist violence continued after this, including several feuds, and "dissident republican" violence continues today.Mooretwin (talk) 14:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've had this argument before. You;re right, but that argument isn't easy here.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The Troubles: 5th October 1968 - Good Friday 1998. R.I.P. Sarah777 (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I accept that it can be argued, perhaps convincingly, that the Troubles ended in April 1998, but it can also be argued otherwise. Shouldn't the into be softened - something like "considered by many to have ended with the Belfast Agreement ..."Mooretwin (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a much stronger argument to be constructed that it ended when the IRA handed over their weapons. That seems to be a much more definitive end. We are saying in this that the Omagh Bomb happened after the troubles ended. That is clearly nonsense.Traditional unionist (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. But it could even considered still to be open-ended as dissident republicans continue to target policemen. The loyalists have also been (very) active psot-1998.Mooretwin (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

They didn't hand over their weapons. Sarah777 (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If it starts again it will be known as "The Troubles II" or somesuch. Like the World Wars. "Troubles I" has ended. Sarah777 (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you possibly mean, for example, "Troubles IV" and "Troubles V". I feel the title of this article needs modifying to clarify that the focus lies on the period post (say) 1960. See my next edit in the section "This article" on this talk pageFlying Stag (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but putting a date on it is troublesome. Are you saying the Omagh Bomb wasn't part of the troubles?Traditional unionist (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You got me there! But I'd say it was post-troubles; WW2 didn't end when they found the last Japanese soldier fighting in the jungles of Burma in the 1970s - so I'd still say Good friday was the "official" end. Sarah777 (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

WWII ended when the Axis powers no longer had the power to fight their war. That occurred in two stages, on VE Day and in August 1945 when Japan surrendered (formally in September). The IRA gave up their power to fight on Monday, September 26, 2005. Surely that is the date.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

They destroyed some weapons then - they didn't sign any surrender that I'm aware of! When they signed the GFA making the ceasefire permanent was the end. I somehow imagine they haven't got rid of all their weapons - where is the Real IRA etc getting their gear?? Sarah777 (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

WWII officially ended on September 2, 1945. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, when the Japanese formally surrendered. They effectively surrendered in August, but the difference is smallTraditional unionist (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

In both Japan and Germany fighting by isolated elements continues beyond the "official" end of the war; WW2 "officially" ended when Japan surrendered; in NI the Troubles ended "officially" at the GFA. The only alternative is to say they haven't ended yet - because various groups still have weapons and are still using them, however ineffectively. I don't think many reliable sources would support the notion that the troubles either (a) haven't yet ended or (b) ended in 2005. Sarah777 (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, here is RS that supplys 8 different dates, the Belfast Agreement isn't even the first one, and taken in tat context, doesn't seem to be the most rational choice.Traditional unionist (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said, you can argue that the Troubles ended with the GFA, but it is just that: an argument. It is certainly not "official". The fact that violence continued afterwards is a strong counter-argument, as, indeed, is the fact that the ceasefires occurred BEFORE the GFA. I'm going to edit the text to make it less definite.Mooretwin (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The P. Process is still ongoing, addressing the causes of conflict. Nationlists were not the cause of the conflict stop pushing your bias onto the article. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If you say that the peace process is still ongoing, then you're contradicting yourself by editing to say that the Troubles ended with the GFA. No-one said nationalists were the cause of the conflict. No-one's pushing bias (except, ironically, perhaps you). If you've any issues you wish to raise with the article, feel free to join the discussion. Mooretwin (talk) 08:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you call the system they use for making marrofats? - The peas process - boom boom!!

Domer, please abide by WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA or you will be reported and blocked. There was no need whatsoever for that outburst.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey! That was me and it was only a silly joke - let's cool down folks! Sarah777 (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think he was referring to the post two before yours :-) Scolaire (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I was indeed.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(de-in) To decide when the Troubles ended you first need to ask: what were the Troubles? If you just take the simplistic view that it was a shooting war between the IRA and the British security forces then Good Friday was not the end because the IRA was not a party to that, but then again 5 October or 12 August are not the right starting dates either because the IRA was not involved in them either. No, clearly the Troubles embraces the wider issues of relations between the community and the police and army, and between the two communities. Are they defined solely by violence and death? If so, then the Omagh bombing itself would be the end date, since that was the last major act of (lethal) violence, but that would hardly be considered appropriate. If not, then they must include things like Drumcree and Holy Cross, which continued after 1998. Is the Peace Process part of the Troubles? Clearly it is, but the Peace Process didn't end with the Good Friday Agreement; that was the climax, but the agreement still needed to be implemented.
I would suggest that an appropriate end date is one year ago today, 31 July 2007, the formal end of Operation Banner. Even from an IRA point of view this makes sense, since it represents the achievement of one of their key demands: the withdrawal of British troops to barracks. Having said that, the period 1998 - 2007 should be given its appropriate weight, which is small in relation to the rest of the article. A catalogue of elections or UUC meetings would not be needed. Allegations of IRA involvement in the Northern Bank robbery would be relevant, since it relates to alleged gearing up for a military campaign, but allegations of IRA invovement in the killing of Robert McCartney would not. The St. Andrews Agreement and the formation of the current Executive are obviously important milestones in the ending of the Troubles. So why not have a short section to deal with all that? Scolaire (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't sound unreasonable, although I still think we should avoid stating an actual end date as fact. It should be recognised that there is no universally-accepted end date (or start date). Mooretwin (talk) 12:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that date is much more reasonable myself.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Northern Irish vs British

Edit summary was "rv, RUC British? RIR British? UDR British? Probably were?"

Home Office police force and two British Army Regiments, so yes, British.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

How many deaths were caused by Irish security forces? In other words is disambiguation necessary at all? What about "10% by security forces" or even "10% by security forces (including Irish security forces)"? If there is to be disambiguation it should be by force, not nation e.g. "10% by security forces: British Army, RUC, UDR and a small number by Irish Army and Garda Síochána." Scolaire (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree - definitely British. And conflating Irish and British "security forces" is a complete non-starter; it serves to confuse and imply the two are essentially the same state. Sarah777 (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't! It serves to imply that British and Irish security forces were different to terrorists! I think there is a better way of putting that, and British and Irish security forces seems the best to me. The rest are a bit verbose.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with "British and Irish", as I said at the beginning, is that it gives the impression it was roughly 5% British and 5% Irish. Is that how is was? Then it's not the best way of putting it. Say or show that the number of deaths caused by Irish security forces was small, or don't mention them at all. And why worry about verbosity, in an article of 90 kilobytes? Scolaire (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The point of the statistic isn't to differentiate between British and Irish, as it is now the point s to differentiate between legitimate forces and terrorists, that is the collective statistic that is clearly intended. Now if we don't want that we need to reword it entirely, but as it is British and Irish seems fine to me.Traditional unionist (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Then you need to reword it entirely, because I've told you why British and Irish isn't fine. Scolaire (talk) 06:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No need to cite the nationality of the security forces. I've removed it just to say "security forces". Mooretwin (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

And I have removed the "the", so now it does just say "security forces". Scolaire (talk) 10:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course if Wiki were really NPOV then a weasel phrase like "security forces" would never be tolerated. Sarah777 (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Beginning of the Troubles

This section begins:

• "The question of when The Troubles began remains a matter of some dispute, linked to some extent to the issue of blame."

Dispute? Since nobody fired a starter's gun and said "the Troubles are on!", various dates are put forward as the beginning; that's hardly a dispute! Some suggested starting dates are (in chronological order):

• the killing of Peter Ward
• the Civil Rights march of 5 October 1968
• the Apprentice Boys parade / Battle of the Bogside, 12 August 1969
• the killing of Constable Arbuckle
• the start of the IRA campaign (whenever that was exactly)

For the 5 October 1968 date, both sides can be and are blamed - the "illegal" marchers, the "indisciplined" RUC; for the 12 August 1969 date, ditto. The opening sentence is wrong on all counts IMO. Can we not reword the whole paragraph just to say: "these things happened, by the end of it the Troubles were well and truly on"? Scolaire (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Since there has been no response in over a week, I've deleted that opening sentence. I've also slimmed down the UVF reference - it is already dealt with at the end of the previous section - and added a [citation needed] to the "widespread rioting and public disorder broke out" sentence. The only "rioting and public disorder" I can recall at civil rights marches in 1968 was that of the police, who were explicitly criticised for just that in the Cameron Report. If a reliable source can be found for "widespread rioting", then fine. Scolaire (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I added a citation, and softened the language. The sources I have seen certainly make it plain that the RUC was less than thrilled with these marches, and reacted violently at times, but I would hardly call it a riot (which is too harsh a term). That would come later. Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

In Peter Taylor's book Loyalists, he talks about the riot in West Belfast which occured in 1964, when the RUC removed a Tricolour displayed in the window of Sinn Fein'selection office. It was described as the worst rioting seen in Belfast since the 1930's. Gerry Adams was an observer of the riot. (Taylor, Loyalists, pages 32-33). Could this event not be seen as the vanguard of the Troubles?--jeanne (talk) 06:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

@Yachtsman1: Nice one! That states the facts a good deal better. You don't fancy having a go at the rest of the article, I suppose? ;-)

I'll give it a go. It's going to take some time. Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

@Jeanne: You have it exactly right - the 1964 riot was in the vanguard of the Troubles. I wonder if it wouldn't be worth creating a new section to deal with that, and also with Easter 1966 (which I don't think is covered here at all), the formation of the UVF and the Peter Ward killing. The "Northern Ireland 1925-1968" section has very few hard facts (and a good few events and quotes that are post-Troubles) so it could just as easily be merged with the previous section. The "Beginning" section could then begin with the Civil Rights marches, which is where most people begin. Scolaire (talk) 07:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Scolaire, good idea!. A new section would be good. Might also mention the disbanding of the B-Specials which also heightened Loyalists fears. It was actually Ian Paisley who prokoked the 1964 riot. He admits it in Taylor's book. The police only moved to take the Tricolour down following Paisley's threats to march into West Belfast.--jeanne (talk) 09:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, on the day Ian Paisley stepped down as First Minister, in paying tribute to him Gerry Adams humorously remarked that it was "Ian Paisley's visit to the Falls in 1964" that began his own interest in politics. Ian Paisley thoroughly enjoyed the joke. Scolaire (talk) 11:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If only they could have shared jokes 30 years ago, eh? But then politicians will be politicians. A race apart. But the article should include this as well, perhaps to point out that the Troubles' principal protagonists can now laugh together instead of shout at one another!--jeanne (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Bit like the Germans and the British today? Sarah777 (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I added some background cites as requested in the article. I think the main thing at this point is to tighten up what we have, then look for balance. I also modified some language regarding the Orange Order. I hope it flows better.Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, I was actually thinking of Italy and Libya.--jeanne (talk) 04:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice work again, Yachtsman. I hate to say this after you've done so much hard work, but I've actually been wondering if we shouldn't radically reduce those sections? They're far more a history of NI/Ireland than a background to the Troubles. GDD1000 attempted this a few months ago but he went at it, shall we say, somewhat recklessly and the result was a blanket revert. Scolaire (talk) 05:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I can try. However, I want to make a few things clear. I have reviewed many of the comments and history on this article, and the acrimony that exists regarding the subject area. This issue is obviously one that causes deep emotional reactions on both sides (myself included as I have family in Derry), and I want to avoid that if possible. I am not refighting the Battle of the Boyne, nor am I calling for the pipes to come togather by the rising of the moon. If I jump into editing this article, it is with the understanding that this subject stay true to sources, as well as to the subject area of Irish history, to which it applies. I will try to make this as neutral as possible, but that must be understood. The background can be cut down, but its essence cannot be lost. If that is acceptable, let me know, and I will see what I can do.Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely! NPOV and verifiability is what I live by, wiki-wise. If the whole of Irish history, pre-1960s, could be reduced to its essence, that would be the ideal :-) Scolaire (talk) 20:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've taken a cut. I have reduced the top two sections, let me know your thoughts.Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

First section: that was just the size of a cut I had in mind. Just one small thing - the first sentence doesn't actually make sense at the moment. I'm not alogether sure how I'd reword it but it need only be a small job.

The next two sections, as I said above, ideally should be amalgamated into a "twentieth century history up to 1964" section, which really should be no longer than the first section is now. That way a reader who wants to know about the Troubles will reach the Troubles before they go into information overload.

Another thing that struck me just now reading the article again: The "Overview" section should be the lead, since according to WP:LEAD the lead is an overview. Not sure if that would be a cut-and-paste job or whether it might need a bit of editing first.

But for sure, the article is looking much better already. Keep up the good work. Scolaire (talk) 07:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment. Let me see what I can do. Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Scolaire: I made the changes you suggested, but from 1912-1966. I think the reader should have a sense of the changes that occurred, but it should be a narrative which defines the positions of nationalists and unionists, and leads up to the UVF's formation and actions, which was the impetus that saw a rise in violence in 1966. I tried to make this as balanced and neutral as possible. Yachtsman1 (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Brighton Bombing

I was surprised that the Brighton bombing in 1984 wasn't mentioned in the article. Surely that was one of the more dramatic episodes in the history of the Troubles when the PIRA attempted to wipe out the British government.--jeanne (talk) 06:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

For you, Jeanne, anything ;-) Scolaire (talk) 07:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

One could also include the Mountbatten killing, Warrenpoint, and the Arms Crisis.--jeanne (talk) 10:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Away you go, then. I've done my bit. Scolaire (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Social Repercussions

The article needs to highlight the backlash on Northern Irish society during the Troubles. For instance, the kids throwing rocks and bottles in the streets, the numerous women left to raise children on their own while their husbands were in prison, the constant military presence, checkpoints, roadblocks, bomb alerts, the lack of nightlife, pubs fortified, searches to go shopping in the city centre, the intimidation, fear of forming friendships with someone of a different religion, the stress and anxiety of parents whenever their kids went outside, the atmosphere of violent murals, etc. These things need to be mentioned.--jeanne (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If you can get sources then go ahead and add it...GiollaUidir (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll need to gather my sources before I add it. I must do a wee bit of research otherwise it'll be original research on my part, and we all know that is not allowed. I think the section should go above the casualty list.--jeanne (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well Scolaire and GiollaUidir, I did my best with the sources I have. If I add anymore it will be OR on my part.Hopefully, someone else can add to this with sources. I hope I haven't messed up the article.--jeanne (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me and def adds enough of the human impact but backed up by facts. Good show. :) GiollaUidir (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, GiollaUidir.--jeanne (talk) 04:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Overview

This section states that The Troubles were caused by three factors:

1. discrimination against Irish Catholics by the unionist majority
2. Catholic nationalist opposition to "British rule"
3. the question of Northern Ireland's status within the United Kingdom.

Could someone explain the difference between 2 and 3. This is the same factor, surely? Mooretwin (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The third would seem to encapsulate each of the first two, but present a more generalized view. Numerous sources utilize any of the three. Perhaps you could find a rewording for "British rule", to remove those quotation marks? I'm not averse to a rewording that does more justice, but I think that your recent addition of quotation marks comes off as a bit smarmy, not to mention POV. DBaba (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I would propose removing the phrase "British rule" altogether, and replacing it with "Catholic nationalist opposition to Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom". Mooretwin (talk) 09:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree it is POV. On the second point I would remove Catholic as it wasn't only Catholics who opposed British Rule. BigDunc^Talk 09:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"British rule" is a more common phrase, and is not POV, and I'd agree that it wasn't only Catholics who opposed British Rule. I could add additional sources if Editors feel it is nessary?--Domer48_'fenian' 09:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Clearly it is POV, as it implies some kind of colonial arrangement, when the reality is that NI is part of a wider Union, not "ruled" by another country. The phrase is used only by nationalists ("end British rule in Ireland, etc.") deliberately for this reason. I'm content to remove Catholic (although essentially it is true) in return for "British rule" being removed. Alternatively, retain British rule, but keep it in quotation marks. Mooretwin (talk) 10:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I remember always seeing the words Brits Out written on walls in Nationalist areas in Northern Ireland, never Northern Ireland Out of the UK, therefore it's historically accurate to state that the Nationalists were opposed to British rule, and should be highlighted in the article.--jeanne (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, quite - hence it's a nationalist POV term, and hence the need at the very least for the quotation marks. Mooretwin (talk) 09:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mooretwin for the suggestions. I would just point out though that its not a barter situation either or if you know what I mean? I have no problem with it kept it in quotation marks, though I don't see the point. Please remove catholic as we all know its incorrect, if you need a reference please let me know thanks. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The point of the quotation marks is to indicate that the phrase is not NPOV and presumably it is attributed to the sourced material (if not, then the phrase should go). Mooretwin (talk) 09:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree "Catholic" should be removed, as it's already been said in the previous sentence that nationalists are predominantly Catholic. I understand Moortwin's opposition to the phrase "British rule", but I can't think of any better way to express it without using weasel words. Perhaps something about nationalist aspirations to a united Ireland entirely independent of Britain might clarify. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The basis for the better way to describe it is already there, and I proposed: "Catholic nationalist opposition to Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom", though I am content to remove "Catholic". Mooretwin (talk) 09:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I ask again - what is the difference between 2 and 3 above. I see no difference and either 2 or 3 ought to go, in my view. Mooretwin (talk) 09:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

And I ask once more. If, as it seems, there is no difference between 2 and 3, then there were, in fact, only two reasons and the article should be edited accordingly. Mooretwin (talk) 12:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah we're back to this again? I have to say I agree with Mooretwin here - what is the difference between 2 and 3? Heck nationalist by definition is going to object to "British Rule" anyway. --Blowdart | ^talk 14:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"British rule" is a more common phrase, and I could add additional sources if Editors feel it is nessary? On the edit summary "includes POV language" could you explain what this means? Just because you don't agree with it dose not make it POV. I'll like editors to explain what their understanding of POV is. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well it was, as I'm sure you'll agree, a banner slogan. Plus, really, during the Stormont years it was more protestant rule, with a nod from the mainland than British rule. However it was a common phrase for protesters so I'm ambivalent, if the quotes remain; however I'm still somewhat bemused about what the perceived difference between points 2 & 3 *is* --Blowdart | ^talk 15:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, understanding and based on my reading it was more than just a banner slogan. I don't subscribe to the notion of divided communities in conflict with each other, and the British Government as some sort of honest broker trying to keep the two sides apart. I’m still interested in the use of POV, and what editors understanding is of the circumstances for using it. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If you read the discussion above, to which you were party, you'll see the explanation as to why "British rule" is POV. Mooretwin (talk)

Now, could someone explain the difference between 2 and 3. We have two reasons for the conflict cited - which is fair enough - but the second reason is listed twice, but explained in different ways. That is stupid. One of them should go. No-one has offered an explanation as to the difference, despite several requests, yet when I removed the superflous reason, it was restored immediately. Why? Mooretwin (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Image removal

The fair use rational for this image is "To illustrate a terrorist-guerrilla action which is the subject of the article. Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because it shows the subject of this article and how the event depicted was very historically significant to the general public."

The first thing I'd say is that this article is not about terrorist-guerrilla actions per se it is much broader. In what way dose the image add "significantly to the article"? It also fails our fair use rational. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well what do the other images add, considering they're not about the content of the article? (Although admittedly they're all free for use - but really a mural illustrating the hunger strikes?). The fair use argument for this page can be limited to a section; it does not have to cover the article as a whole. It illustrates an occurrence within the time period for a section, in the same way that most others do as well (although the picture of a run down Belfast is somewhat stretching a point). --Blowdart | ^talk 20:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Which images?. Images which aren't fair use for the purposes of this policy "non-free content" means all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license. There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article. Such material may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met.--Domer48_'fenian' 21:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Part 7 of Wikipedia:NFCC surely allows for the image's inclusion? I have no real feeling either way about the image but in terms of licensing my belief is its inclusion is permissible.GiollaUidir (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

No; but an non-free reasoning can be added within policy, as I did, rather than simply cull the image. It adds to the article as much as the rest of the images do, and it illustrates that part of history very well. --Blowdart | ^talk 21:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Would the images omission be detrimental, no I don't think it would. Now we are talking here about Non-free content and not about images which aren't fair use, they are public domain.--Domer48_'fenian' 22:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the image increases the understanding by underscoring the nature of that attack. Mind you, I think a bunch of the images free or not could be also be removed without affecting the article; some seem there for decoration rather than any encyclopaedic use. --Blowdart | ^talk 22:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Blowdart for your comment. Could we possibly deal with one issue at a time please and address the Non-free content first? You still have not addressed the issues I've raised above, for example would the images omission be detrimental? Dose the image comply with the Non-free content policy? Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 22:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

OK let me repeat then I'd say the image increases the understanding by underscoring the nature of that attack. so yes, that means I feel it would be detrimental. Is that specific enough? --Blowdart | ^talk 22:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "underscoring the nature of that attack" and you still have not address the Fair Use rational. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 23:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You know what I give up on this (and it's not the first time). I think I've been perfectly clear; and you're misreading it to back up your own side of the argument. --Blowdart | ^talk 23:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

this article is incredibly biased against the british —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.114 (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Terminology in use by the "Consultative Group on the Past"

An edit to the intro section added; "There is significant disagreement regarding the terminology for this period of conflict, as some seek to reduce the validity of some of the participants by referring to it as 'troubles' rather than a war."

The reference given for this was the Report Of The Consultative Group on the Past (page 51). What the report stated was, "A potentially contentious issue for the Group has been the terminology used to describe the past – was it the ‘Troubles’, the ‘Conflict’ or the ‘War’? While acknowledging that there are many different interpretations of the past and what it represented, for the purposes of this Report the Group has chosen to use the phrase ‘the conflict in and about Northern Ireland’4 or simply ‘the conflict’. This is a pragmatic choice, which is not intended to reflect any particular historical or legal interpretation." This doesn't at all sound like it supports what was added above, so I removed it. Alastairward (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent addition

The reference provided does not source the claim. Firstly I doubt the reference due to the claim that it is sourced by page 472, when the book has exactly 472 pages. As different authors date the Troubles from anywhere from 1966 onwards (obviously Coogan included), the title of the book using 1966 does not mean that "the term was used pre-1968 to describe the ongoing political situation in Northern Ireland". I personally prefer the previous lead which has been changed for some reason, it used to read "The duration of the Troubles is conventionally dated from the late 1960s to the late 1990s" and I have restored it as it avoids setting any particular date for the start. O Fenian (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ooops - used "page" instead of "pages" for the citation. But I'm sure you guessed that judging from your amusing comment above. It was only provided to show that the dates for the Troubles aren't set in stone, as you've rightly pointed out - the previous editor removed a comment that stated that the term "The Troubles" was in use before 1968. The original lede was slightly better, I've no problem with restoring it. --HighKing (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem with the version you (and others) had was that the wording implied (or indeed, one version stated) that "the Troubles" was used to describe the political situation in Northern Ireland even before they started. Coogan's book doesn't prove that, he simply dates "the Troubles" to starting in 1966, as do some others. O Fenian (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we agree. The dates are not set in stone (or agreed by everyone), so the older lede is better. --HighKing (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Locations

Cain uses Britain in his table, but the wikipedia transcription has changed this to England. Anyone got any idea why? I'm loath to change the introductory paragraph back whilst the table says England; but if the reference for the table is Cain as indicated then why is England used in the table? --Blowdart | ^talk 21:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The IRA did not attack targets in Scotland or Wales, apart from one attack in the Shetlands. While Britain is technically correct, England is more accurate and now matches the infobox. O Fenian (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Except then you're trying to prove a negative. If you're changing it from the cited data table then you can't use the cite any more, unless you can find something to back it up from something as authoritative as Cain. I'm not saying you're wrong, but citing a work, yet changing the information isn't (to me) the right thing to do without additional proof. --Blowdart | ^talk 21:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

BBC. O Fenian (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This article only makes that statement with regard to bombings only. --HighKing (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

But cain's deaths summary table limited to deaths caused by the IRA, it's everything categorised as Troubles related. So, for example, if the UVF killed someone in Scotland that would be counted in the Britain figure. --Blowdart | ^talk 21:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not aware of the UVF, UDA, or anyone else killing anyone in Scotland. Using the search option for "Scotland" and "Wales" returns no deaths in those countries. O Fenian (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Might it be worth then making a note on the main article page indicating such, explaining the difference between the cited table and the one in the article? Just for clarity, as this will get archived eventually! --Blowdart | ^talk 21:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

While the IRA never killed anyone in Wales or Scotland, they did kill British Army personnel in Germany, and they shot to death two Australian nationals in the Netherlands in 1990, after mistaking them for British soldiers.--jeanne (talk) 07:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That's noted in the table already. Alastairward (talk) 14:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If the citation states "Britain", then that is what should be used in the article. Policy is very clear. If another citation can be found, then great. But until then, the article should agree with the citation. --HighKing (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop being anal. The source cited does not have a single death occurring in Scotland or Wales, so England is more accurate and not disputed by the source cited. O Fenian (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please keep your comments about the content - no personal comments. Believe it or not, I agree with the point you are making, but unfortunately, policy is very clear on how to use citations, and it is strictly forbidden to "interpret" the citations as you are doing. While CAIN is a reputable source and can be cited, you do not enjoy the same WP:V credibility. Readers are not expected to perform the same searches as you to verify your conclusion, so you must use the citation as is or find another. Them's the rules (not mine, Wikipedia's). --HighKing (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing your editing history, I see you do not apply the same standard when removing "British Isles".... It is verifiable that there was not a single death attributed to the Troubles in Scotland or Wales, and it is also verifiable that the IRA did not attack targets in Scotland or Wales. O Fenian (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Great! Please provide the reference so we can change the citation provided. Until then, please follow policy. --HighKing (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I already have done. It is not original research to look at the source already cited and see there is not a single recorded death in Scotland or Wales. O Fenian (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it *is* WP:OR to "interpret" citations, which is what you have done. --HighKing (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Try reading the policy you are talking about, I have. "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia" covers it rather well. No interpretation is taking place, no unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, or ideas are being presented. Now unless you can point out exactly how I am breaching this policy rather than a tedious "you are" then please do not reply. O Fenian (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Alastairward, it was not in the table when I added my comment. The table had just said England, not Europe.--jeanne (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"Armed" conflict

I have reverted an edit which claims the Troubles were an armed conflict, as this is a misleading over-simplification of events. The Troubles included armed conflict, but the conflict was much more than that. Some academics date the start of the Troubles to the formation of NICRA, when there was no armed conflict going on. Many others to the Battle of the Bogside and associated riots, while there were sporadic shots fired it was hardly an "armed conflict". The Troubles was more about the conflict between the two communities on various levels, including armed conflict. To describe it as just an "armed conflict" displays an ignorance of what they were really about. O Fenian (talk) 11:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The description of "armed conflict" suits better for specifics articles about the Troubles (i.e.: Provisional IRA campaign 1969–1997), not for the Troubles seen as a whole. The use of the phrase, however, doesn't imply "ignorance" of the real thing, as claimed; it was just a case of pars pro toto, being the pars here the huge amount of shooting, bombings and riots which took place in the north of Ireland for almost 30 years.--Darius (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Riots surely qualify as armed conflict, given that rioters are armed with weapons. A brick or a petrol bomb are just as much weapons as a gun. Mooretwin (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That is the point. There were a lot of injured people and even deaths during riots in NI.--Darius (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ethno-political

Domer48 and BigDunc are combining to delete "ethno-" from the phrase "ethno-political conflict", giving their personal viewpoints as justification. Consensus should be sought for this change of stable text, so I have reverted them. Let them put their case here. Mooretwin (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well both Domer and yourself have broken 1RR today, so lets stop. Given wikipedia's definition of an Ethnic group it seems to fit well. --Blowdart | ^talk 23:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Quite. Mooretwin (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Blowdart first I did not breech any sanctions, provide diff's to support the accusation or strike the comments. Support your contension that wikipedia's definition of an Ethnic group it seems to fit well. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 10:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I would point out that the Troubles being an "ethno-political conflict" is unsourced, therefore the current inclusion is based solely on "personal viewpoints" unless sources are cited. O Fenian (talk) 11:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

We have to source factual phrases now? That's stretching it rather a lot isn't it? Facts aren't viewpoints. For example a CCRU survey refers to each bloc as an Ethnic group. If you want to start objecting to ever single word in there and asking for facts it's going to be a long slow process. --Blowdart | ^talk 11:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It states: Given the patterns of residential segregation in Belfast. it is only to be expected that the majority of Protestant and Catholic churchgoers come from neighbourhoods composed of members of their own ethnic group. It doesn't mention anything to do with the Troubles, and there are many religious groups in N.I., including Catholic and Protestant, that have nothing to do with the Troubles. And yes, now you get it. You *do* have to source all statements if challenged. I support removing "ethno" also - completely misleading and unsupported viewpoint. --HighKing (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying it says anything about the troubles, but rather classifying both sides as an ethnic grouping is fair. Where do we stop? Political isn't source either. Nor is conflict. etc. etc. --Blowdart | ^talk 13:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

But classifying both sides as an ethnic grouping is not supported by this citation? What bit of "Please support with a citation" don't you understand? And BTW, the text above could be taken to mean that looking at how Polish people settled in Belfast, all the Polish catholics settled in a group, and all the Polish protestants settled in another group. Your interpretation is original research because it simple isn't supported by the citation given. And BTW, your point about "political" and "conflict" is also untrue - a quick look at the references on this article or a look through Google Books through up numerous examples. --HighKing (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

OK so would this satisfy? I obviously don't have the book but the summary clearly states it's treating it as ethnic and the author is the Professor of International Relations & War Studies at The University of Warwick. Then there's QUB's MA in Comparative Ethnic Conflict whose prospectus talks about using examples on their very doorstep. Page 18 of Explaining Northern Ireland By John McGarry, Brendan O'Leary (I don't know how to link to pages from google books) uses "Sectarian or Ethnic warfare has been waged by loyalist paramiliatires against catholic civilians and by catholic paramiliarties against loyalist civilians". Are these enough to satisfy, because if so then I'll put cite tabs right next to ethno. Or are you wanting more? Oh bonus, page 55-59 of Northern Ireland and the Politics of Reconciliation By Dermot Keogh, Michael H. Haltzel. Like you say it's just a matter of quick book search. However you'll have to also cite political if you're playing this silly game. --Blowdart | ^talk 19:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The example you use for QUB's MA actually contradicts the point you are making. It states But it needs to be said that the interpretation of many political conflicts in ethnic terms remains both controversial and contestable for sound reasons, so that there is much to be debated about in the characterisation of any conflict as caused by ethnic divisions. and later The (relative) success of Northern Ireland’s peace process is an outstanding example of the ending of political violence (and, some would say, the achievement of conflict resolution) as a result of negotiations among the parties and external mediation, while also the product of war-weariness of the population at large. While at peace, Northern Ireland remains a deeply divided society and provides on a daily basis examples of how ethnic identity shapes political attitudes. . So it supports the argument for the conflict being political in nature, not ethnic. --HighKing (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Lucky I didn't use that one then. Even then I don't read it that way, I'd read it as the political violence has stopped, but ethnic violence still continues. But then a prospectus is selling itself and attempting to sound attractive to students rather than present an in-depth factual analysis. --Blowdart | ^talk 16:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Funny how it happens every time. Funny how editors who are asked for citations always end up reverting to the tactic of attacking the policy, or the editor who asks, or the world in general. Or all three. At least in this case, a little work and research has turned up a number of references that now support the citation, and clearly classify the conflict as ethnic. So now, there *is* a citation (at least one) that meets WP:V - I see no problem with stating this clearly in the article. --HighKing (talk) 11:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It was not a ethnic conflict, it was political. It was not even a religious conflict! As O Fenian has correctly pointed out, it's unsourced, and not even in the article. If it's not in the article, why is it in the WP:LEAD ?

My point is that using the wikipedia definition of Ethnic both sides "count" as an ethnic group quite clearly. Having to provide citations for a dictionary definition was nitpicking at best. --Blowdart | ^talk 12:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

And my point is that some simple research would have avoided childish arguments along the lines of "Yes it is/No it isn't". Overcoming inherent laziness and knee-jerk name-calling is part of interacting with other human beings. --HighKing (talk) 13:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah you mean like revert wars or ignoring the {{fact}} tag but rather removing the term without discussion? Yup, laziness abounds, on both sides I'm afraid, as well as pettiness. --Blowdart | ^talk 16:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall having ever heard the Troubles referred to as an ethnic conflict. That term was used to decribe the Bosnian conflict, the Rwandan massacres, the war in Kosovo, but never in contemporary descriptions of the Troubles. It was always political/sectarian, never ethnic. Ethnic would imply that the Northern Irish Catholics and Protestants belonged to different ethnic groups, which they do not.--jeanne (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If the strongest principles were philosophical differences and objections in politics, I think it is fair to say, even if it sounds a bit weird to the Northern Irish (or other) person? Know that Jews and Muslims of the Middle East are of the same people and religion, now that sounds weird doesn't it? Only when they are fighting. Hindus have many Gods of different teachings each based around a different place. Look at List of Hindu deities Why don't you name it a Christian political conflict? I think it was more than that. ~ R.T.G 16:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Well it's cited now. I guess it comes down to how you define Ethnic. It's not limited to race or nationality; it's a rather etherial concept. For example the UK National Statistics agency (those annoying people who run the census) have this to say

"membership of any ethnic group is something that is subjectively meaningful to the person concerned, and can be based upon a combination of categories such as:

• country of birth
• nationality
• language spoken at home
• parents' country of birth in conjunction with country of birth
• skin colour
• national/geographical origin
• racial group
• religion"

6 out of 8 in some circumstances *grin* --Blowdart | ^talk 16:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

And in some circumstances 0 out of 8 *grin*. ;) Titch Tucker (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It was never referred to as an ethnic conflict throughout the centuries of strife between Catholics and Protestants, so why should it suddenly be used now. I have never heard of Catholic as an ethnic group, nor Protestant for that matter. If one did a DNA test on the people of Northern Ireland, I'm certain it would be discovered that the people are closer genetically to one another (irregardless of religion and political persuasion), than they are to the British or Southern Irish.--jeanne (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The citations say otherwise. People have described it as an ethnic conflict. You're still limiting your view to ethnicity as race only, genetics is only one part of it. --Blowdart | ^talk 07:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

And two brothers who practice a different religion? Are they ethnicaly different? Citations or not, it is rather silly to categorise it as an ethnic conflict. Titch Tucker (talk) 07:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll point you again to the UK stats office; "ethnic group is something that is subjectively meaningful to the person concerned". If the brothers consider themselves part of a different ethnic group then they are. It is not a simple matter of race or genetics. Ethnic group defined it as "a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on a presumed or real common heritage" (emphasis added) --Blowdart | ^talk 07:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"Ethnic group is something that is subjectively meaningful to the person concerned". Is there any evidence to show that those on one side of the troubles considered themselves to be of different ethnicity to those on the other? Titch Tucker (talk) 08:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean aside from the citations? One would presume that they've done the homework. --Blowdart | ^talk 08:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Why should we assume that? If the citations had sources we would not have to assume anything. Perhaps it could be rephrased as "some commentators refer to the troubles as an ethnic conflict? Titch Tucker (talk) 08:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

So now you're saying that the reliable sources guidelines should be ignored and we need to provide citations for every citation to prove they're true? This is getting silly. The citations are the source justifying the inclusion of the phrase. Will you be wanting sources that prove the word political, and then sources that prove those sources are correct? --Blowdart | ^talk 08:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

We do seem to have a precedent for it here at the British Isles talk page. Titch Tucker (talk) 08:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

How about "a period of conflict in Northern Ireland described by some commentators as political (with cites) and some as ethnic (existing cites)". However this doesn't include commentators who think it's both. Funny how another loaded term with a specific Irish problem also has this semantic debate. --Blowdart | ^talk 08:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy with that. If we set precedents like that on an Irish article it will inevetably carry over onto others. Titch Tucker (talk) 09:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

A clumsy precedent may not be a good thing, and no doubt wikipiere will end up using it in revert wars. However *shrug* Do you want to hunt out cites for "political" and then we can edit? No sense in changing it without matching cites. Maybe we could find cites for people who consider it both. --Blowdart | ^talk 09:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Shall we wait for further input from other editors? I'd rather not go to the trouble (no pun intended) of editing and adding refs only to find the edits are immediately reverted. Titch Tucker (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

By your reckoning, Blowdart, I suppose the English Civil War could also be described as an ethnic conflict.--jeanne (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is this so hard to understand? It is not my reckoning, it's the reckoning of the references cited. That's what citations are there for. --Blowdart | ^talk 09:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to retract my comment on the use of the references on the British Isles page. I haven't had a close look at the talk page for a while and should have done when I made my statement saying it was setting a precedent. The editors involved in the discussion seem to be coming to some kind of consensus on the use of the refs without mention of commentators. Titch Tucker (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah fair enough. I do think we need to mention both, it's just the wording that is the difficulty. and/or would be very clumsy for example. --Blowdart | ^talk 14:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

@Jeanne, If the basis was seen as Royalists vs. Parliamentarians it would be a political conflict. If seen as Scottish vs. English or Catholic vs. Protestant it could be seen as ethnic. I think that one was largely based on changing religion? ~ R.T.G 18:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

But, protestantism was brand new so people wouldn't have been ethnically protestant yet. ~ R.T.G 18:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So to ask the obvious question - what were the ethnic groups involved in the Troubles? --HighKing (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

us and them :) --Blowdart | ^talk 18:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hardly ethnic :-) ... seriously though ... there *are* citations that say it was ethnic (based on protestant vs catholic) but not very many, and I always was under the impression that it was nationalist vs unionist (political, not ethnic). --HighKing (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Could some editor point me to the sentence in any of the sources provided that states that it was an ethnic conflict thanks. BigDunc^Talk 21:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Two reasonable points so can we see the quotes? I also have a question, were in the article is this ethno-political conflict raised. The only place I see it is in the Lead? If its not in the article, why is it in the Lead? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hold on, now we have to show proof beyond a cite? I could say the same thing for anything I don't have on my bookshelf, google books are there for your delectation, but I take your point about it not being in the body, however it's simply a definition. --Blowdart | ^talk 22:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's something completely on-line [5] by John Coakley. Then there's R Weitzer's "Policing Under Fire: Ethnic Conflict and Police-Community Relations in Northern Ireland" (Albany, 1995). Where exactly are you going to draw the line? If I can't read your book citations can I question them? Where exactly is the assumption of Good Faith we're supposed to have?

But who were the different ethnic groups in conflict? I was never aware that one's particular religion or political persuasion also determined their ethnicity--jeanne (talk) 06:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC).

In the English civil war it was largely political (Henry the 8 was a bit of a prick to be mild and people wanted finished of it while others devoted as royalists/nationalists). To rate the divide in Ireland, this article which I have read a lot of now, is probably a pretty good read. I say probably because it is only rated B... Although these peoples ethnicity only parted a little, that may be a good guide to the difference between seperate ethnicity and seperate race. At the end of the day, they are all Christians and speak the same etc. The south is seen as religious and anti-abortion etc. and yet the north is like the Bible Belt and you wont have an abortion up there either. Irish life was about as good as a field working slave at one time and when modern richer times arrived stuff like houses and jobs went to the Protestants first. Perhaps it was that promise that caused the ethnic divide but in a land where lack of spuds could cause you to hunger and die it is more a matter of awaiting invitation I am sure. (I mean, probably the divide was more about who was getting fed under imposed laws because the whole crowd are as notorious for being in solidarity as being divided down the years as well but starving to death might divide a lot of people, yeah? I would add here that all of us see on TV where people are starving in Africa today and these are the places were fighting breaks out and often so.) ~ R.T.G 14:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

What you have just described is not ethnic division, it is social/ religious. How does Henry VIII fit into this discussion about whether or nor the Troubles was an ethnic conflict?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You are still hung up on your definition of ethnic? OK let me ask you this, what do you consider an ethnic group? --Blowdart | ^talk 14:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not hung up on anything, thankyouverymuch. An ethnic group is normally made up of people who are of a particular race or racial-subdivision; or else a group of people who are different in national/cultural origin from the other inhabitants of a given nation, such as ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, Kurds in Iraq, Hungarians in Romania, gypsies in Moldavia, Basques in Spain, or Polish-Americans in the USA-(or any other group for that matter). This is why I do not consider the Protestants and Catholics of Northern Ireland to be of different ethnic groups, hence, the Troubles was not an ethnic conflict. I still fail to see why Henry VIII was dragged out of his tomb at Windsor Castle and tossed onto this talk page.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

And again no. Ethnic is not limited to race, although interestingly your second definition would match the Southern Irish (or those who identify with it) in Northern Ireland, Catholics do have a different cultural and national origin to the Protestants who came during the plantations from (mostly Scotland). I point you again to Ethnic group which has an entirely different definition to you, and to the definition the UK census uses which I included previously. Even then it doesn't matter, as we have academic and published citations where people have described it an ethnic conflict. --Blowdart | ^talk 15:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The article on ethnic conflict does not mention Northern Ireland.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

So I take it with this change of direction you've realised that by your definition and by wikipedia's that the loyalist and republican "sides" can be described as ethnic groups? --Blowdart | ^talk 20:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I had never heard it described as an ethnic conflic until some clever sociologist liked the sound of it and arbitrarily decided that the centuries-old political/religious division in Northern Ireland was caused by ethnic conflict.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I intend to remove ethno conflict from the lede unless the source which states that it is an entnic conflict is provided, with refs that are being used at present I can't find were it is described as an etnic conflict. BigDunc^Talk 20:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying you've checked the books in question and think the citations are wrong? --Blowdart | ^talk 20:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't find it being called an etnic conflict that is why I asked for the sentence which has not being provided. I might have missed it so if any editor has it could they supply it here thanks. BigDunc^Talk 20:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, I can now demand the exact sentence from a book citation or remove it? That is fun. I've added two more references, one completely on-line for you, and one where it's described in the very title of the book. If I wanted to get childish I would point out none of the references use political, so under this silliness I can now simply call it an ethnic conflict. Oh and Dunc, you didn't answer my question. Do you have the books cited? --Blowdart | ^talk 20:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

What I was trying to tell Jeanne is that if she were studying the definition of ethnicity that Ireland would be a good example because the differences are slight but undeniable. For instance, although many studies claim that a large part of British Gaelics cam from Ireland, the best documented ones are a large part of the make-up of settlers from Scotland for the plantations hence the largely overlooked difference between Ulster-Scots and Scots-Irish. They got treated basically them same under the regime and even started some of the more notable republican movements but always retained a degree of seperate culture hence an ethnical difference. Ethnic Albanians are those whose culture is of Albania. Although you can conclude that they are of an Albanian race, as race and ethnicity goes hand in hand, it doesn't say that. It says that their culture is Albanian (i.e. religion, law, Morris dancing etc.) The reason for using the word ethnic instead of racial is because the Albanians would be, most likely, of Arabian, Spanish (Latino?) and African races but that race doesn't describe the unique and ancient culture of Albania (religion, law and dancing). Ethnicity is something that we can say "This culture has these habits". Race is something that we dig up the petrified bones and say "These are probably frozen neandertals". Use of the word racist for ethnic bigotry is adoptive because it probably rolls off the tongue easier than ethnicisist (which probably sounds like a mild mannered physician). ~ R.T.G 22:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I think it's a little silly to continue to argue with citations provided by Blowdart. While I agree with the sentiment that the Troubles had nothing to do with religion, or ethnicity, I'm not going to argue with experts and citations. I suggest that unless there are references to dispute the citations stating the Troubles were an ethnic conflict, that we let it go and move on. Wikipedia is not about truth and light - it's an encyclopedia and relies on citations and references and reliable sources. --HighKing (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If it was mentioned in the article it might help, as it is, it just appears in the Lead and no were else? Why are the sources not been cited in the article, and then we could add sources to dispute the citations? The term "Ethnicity" is been cited but in what context? --Domer48_'fenian' 22:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't need a definition of ethnicity from you RTG, what's more I believe you actually need a lesson in geography. Albania is in the Balkans, they are of the Illyrian race with a lot of Greek blood as well, many are indeed Muslim and have partial Turkish ancestry, but they are not Spanish nor Arabic in origin. We have a large Albanian community where I live. I see them everyday. I agree with Domer and BigDunc that citations need to be provided in the main article, and what's more the citations need to show that it was described as an ethnic conflict during the Troubles, not in retrospect.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

what's more the citations need to show that it was described as an ethnic conflict during the Troubles. Why? This is smelling of agenda pushing. --Blowdart | ^talk 06:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I do not have an agenda at all, apart from maintaining historical accuracy. I have never heard the Troubles described as an ethnic conflict prior to the 1990s, hence ethno has been applied in the lead of this article erronously.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

And what does when it was described have to do with anything? Or are you going to propose a new policy for WP:Cite? That is an utter nonsense argument. --Blowdart | ^talk 07:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

When one reads the entire article, one is struck by the omission of any evidence pointing to it's having been an ethnic conflict. In the article, under the history section, it highlights the Penal Laws which were based upon religion not ethnicity as they equally discriminated against Scots Presbyterians as well as native Irish Catholics. The Battle of the Boyne was neither religious nor ethnic as it was a fight for the throne of England between two members of the Scottish Stuart family, albeit William was born in Holland. Throughout the article the division in the North is seen as social/political/sectarian, nothing points to it being an ethnic conflict such as Kosovo, Cyprus, Rwanda, Cecenia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah you're changing tack again now? I should be keeping score. And you're back to your own definition of ethnic as well. Well done for having some consistency. If, as you say, the Penal laws where based upon religion then they would have applied to either Catholic or Protestant, rather than, as you say, the same equally. As for the Boyne, it, like the rest of the history, has an influence on the troubles, but is not part of the troubles. Let me restate, there are citations. It is a cited phrase. Yes you can argue that it needs fleshed out in the main section, but not that it needs removed. --Blowdart | ^talk 07:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, if the subject were addressed in the article, we would know what "definition of ethnic" is being used and in what context. At present we just don't know. If we don't know, why is it in the Lead, and why is it not "fleshed out" in the article.The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic.

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead.--Domer48_'fenian' 10:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

But again it's almost a dictionary definition. I've provided citations for the use, met WP:Burden and anything else is incidental. Yes, a section of coverage in the main body would be useful but frankly I get the feeling it's going to be just as big a pissing match, for in all likelihood it would be a sentence like "Some commentators have classified The Troubles as an ethnic conflict", with the citations that are already in place used against it. I can see the "A sentence is not fleshing out" argument already. As it stands, if we're going to be this picky there's no citations or justifications for calling it political either in the article. --Blowdart | ^talk 10:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Blowdart, would you agree that material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic. Is it your view that the term is able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. The "pissing match" you described is actually called WP:NPOV, which says all Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hold on, are you now inferring that the citations are POV laden? The pissing match I refer to is the desire to justify the removal of cited text, no matter where it lies in the article. --Blowdart | ^talk 15:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Jeanne, to be honest I mixed Albania for Algeria but just trying to explain that ethnic difference means a different origin of culture. Northern Irish cultures, although mostly similar origin, have differing origins as well. Make sense? What Henry 8 had to do with the English civil war was abusing the religion and imposing it on people in the first place with dubious motives. Not really ethnic at that stage? Debatable I guess. I don't think that use of the word needs to be cited but proof of ethnic differences? Is the "ethno-" abbreviation effective? Looks sort of novel tabloidish or like index shorthand. ~ R.T.G 16:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's say your county teams wears one colour, the next county over wears a different colour. You all gather in thousands to watch them together but you all wear different colours, sing different songs. It is ingrained, old and independant difference. It is not a fight or a marriage. It is an ethnical difference of sorts, no? ~ R.T.G 13:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, here is an interesting part of a study on writing style, meta:Wiki_is_not_paper#Timeliness_and_ease_of_editing ~ R.T.G 23:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Redundant material?

As the long chronological section in The Troubles is duplicated in Chronology of the Northern Ireland Troubles should the material here be deleted as was done in the Great Irish Famine article? In that article Domer and Rockpuppet cogently argued that it was imperative that such duplications in articles on Irish history be avoided. Does the same logic apply here? Colin4C (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no chronology section. Go back to your Famine article, and stop being disruptive here. O Fenian (talk) 10:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Is a Timeline section different from a chronology? I am not being disruptive just asking whether the same logic applies to all articles on Irish history or varies occuring to the whim of editors within different articles. Saying that something is forbidden by the wikipedia in one article must mean that it is forbidden in all similar articles? But if it is just one editor's personal POV then that is a different matter. "This is against wikipedia guidelines" is different to "me and my tag-teaming friends think that in this particular article it should be allowed or not, according to how we feel at the time". I am not in favour of deletions myself but am attacking the logic of those who claim that they are required by wikipedia policy. Colin4C (talk) 10:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not a chronology, it does not duplicate Chronology of the Northern Ireland Troubles, so your argument is specious. The latter presents a bare timeline of events, this article does not. O Fenian (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

So, say in another article....a narrative account of say....a Famine in Ireland had a different format and scope and length to a separate article on the chronology of said Famine...then it would be allowed, even if the same historical events were mentioned in the two articles, in the same order? I.e. as occuring through time from earliest to latest? Some editors were so insistent that this was absolutely forbidden that I was beginning to believe them...Thanks. Colin4C (talk) 11:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no desire to fight your battles for you. O Fenian (talk) 11:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

As a collection of historical data, it is already based upon a chronology. In comparison to the famine, few events of individual ramification occured in the famine. They were told grow spuds, the spuds went bad, people died and others left etc. In the Troubles, chronolgy is a long list of cause and effect, people took various actions at various times, people acted in response equally variously, groups were formed at different times, things changed at different times in an often complex way. It did all occur in a large chronology. (I didn't read the timeline now to give a view on how well it is written) ~ R.T.G 14:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Still no sources

I see editors are still taking it upon themselves to extend the Troubles by ten years. We do not trailblaze, unless sources are claiming the Troubles are still ongoing the 2009 deaths should not be in this article, it is factually incorrect. O Fenian (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd really have to agree with you here O Fenian, any information challanged or likely to be challanged should and must be supported with sources. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no sources, but I think the end of both the IRA campaign and Operation Banner, along with desmilitarisation, the PSNI, power sharing and cross-border institutions are part of a totally new context in NI, very different to that of the "Troubles". I support the view of a 1998 end. I guess many authors agree with this, but I am unable to cite them...for now.--Darius (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There are no sources to say that the Troubles ended in the late 1990s and/or specifically with the GFA, so I've removed it. We used to have an agreed text about this, but someone has obviously changed it recently. If I get time I'll try and find it again. Mooretwin (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I added one source, I will find some others too. O Fenian (talk) 10:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Good work, O Fenian.--Darius (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, O Fenian. Could you advise what Aughey actually says? Not sure that a single author's view necessarily means that it is the conventional view. Mooretwin (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not the view of a single author. You can see the page here. While that source on its own may not be ideal, a couple more sources (which I am in the process of finding) should be enough? O Fenian (talk) 11:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Just found another source. I think this Holland is the same author cited by Aughey in the note posted by O Fenian.--Darius (talk) 12:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

One more added. O Fenian (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those. I'm more comfortable with the text now, although - ironically - the citations actually support a more precise end date (GFA 1998) rather than the vague "late 1990s". Having said that, I still think the text should leave open the possibility that the Troubles are not seen to have ended - also if the Troubles ended in April 1998, the sentence about "low-level violence" now means that the Omagh bomb was considered to have been "low level". Mooretwin (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It actually says "small-scale" in the article at the moment. Perhaps change it to say "sporadic", which obviously refers to the frequency of the violence rather than the intensity? O Fenian (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sporadic would be better. Mooretwin (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The most recent citation added by O Fenian is the best, in my view. It refers to "many would consider the signing of the GFA as marking the end of the Troubles". Could we use this language - I think "many" is preferable to "conventional", as it leaves more open the possibility that there is no great consensus on the matter.Mooretwin (talk) 12:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, it is interesting to note that both Gordon Brown and Gerry Adams - responding to Saturday's murders - referred to "attacks on the peace process", thus implying that the Troubles are not, in fact, over (since - logically, if the peace process is still ongoing, it has not ended: therefore we do not yet have peace, and so the Troubles are not over). Mooretwin (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess they were thinking of keeping the principles and achievements of the agreement reached in 1998 and fulfilled after years of setbacks and progress; hardly they were intimating that the "troubles" are still ongoing, since the major players of that conflict have settled their political differences now.--Darius (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, Martin McGuinness claimed that "the war is over".--Darius (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the Provo "war" may be over, but clearly not the Continuity or "Real" "wars". Mooretwin (talk) 09:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but even if the CIRA and/or RIRA show their ability to wage a consistent "war", we are still talking about a totally new situation, very different to that of the "Troubles".--Darius (talk) 11:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. These acts and these organisations are definitely and clearly connected to the Troubles. They may be the fag end of the Troubles, but they are part of the Troubles no less. There have been many "new" and "different" situations throughout the Troubles - the early phase in the late 1960s was very different to the intense sectarian phase in the early 1970s, and different again to the 1980s, and different again to to the peace-process stage in the 90s. Mooretwin (talk) 11:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Still, as per sources, the troubles ended with the GFA. Following your criteria, the troubles should be seen as a continuation of Operation Harvest. The different phases you mention involved always the same players (ARMY, RUC, PIRA, UDA, etc), but they are now out of the game--Darius (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

SOME sources say the Troubles ended with the GFA. The Army and police are still involved. The UDA "haven't gone away". RIRA and CIRA are splinters from PIRA. Political wing of PIRA still involved. Oh, and I don't consider Operation Harvest to be part of the Troubles! Mooretwin (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

On 9 March you agree that MANY sources say the Troubles ended with the GFA, not some. Well, if you don't consider Operation Harvest to be part of the troubles, I don't consider the latest CIRA/RIRA attacks to be part of the troubles either. And since we must adhere to sources as per Wikipedia rules, as far as no source claims that the troubles are still ongoing, the troubles (for a Wikipedia dimension, at least) are officially over. And we cannot continue this discussion, man, because we are risking to become involved in WP:FORUM. Thank you.--Darius (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well if "many" (and therefore not all) agree that they ended in 1998, by definition there are some who disagree. That leaves open the possibility that some believe the Troubles are still ongoing. In addition, references to the peace process still ongoing logically means that the Troubles must also be ongoing, since the purpose of the peace process is to bring the Troubles to an end.

I don't consider the Troubles to have ended with the signing of the GFA as the Omagh bombing (the deadliest event in Northern Ireland since the Troubles began) occurred four months later; while in 2001, there were the attacks on the schoolgirls of the Holy Cross School. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention a couple of loyalist feuds, loyalist sectarian murders, ongoing dissident nationalist activity, and two recent dissident nationalist murders. Mooretwin (talk) 10:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the endgame is not so clear regarding Omagh and many incidents and killings during the 2000s. From a political point of view, however, I think that the GFA was certainly a major breakthrough and the beginning of the solution of the main issues of the troubles (end of PIRA campaign, Loyalist ceasefire, demilitarisation, police reform, British-Irish cooperation and power sharing). But Wikipedia relies on sources, not on our subjective appreciations.--Darius (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Overall, a poorly balanced article

Too much emphasis on Security Forces misdeeds. The main driver of the conflict, once it had started (or restarted) in 1969, was the PIRA campaign to use violence to unite NI with the South. Does anyone disagree with this statement? If not, then the article should reflect that. The main activity of the security forces was trying to suppress the violence, but again this is poorly reflected in the article. (If you disagree, please look at the (approximate) figures - 20,000 - 30,000 police and troops over 30 years kill 368 people i.e. 1 per 2000 man-years of security force time).

I have made a couple of minor changes. I suggest that everyone involved with editing the article has a think about the overall balance. We should be aiming for content and wording that reflects the facts. Of course, the article should be neutral about e.g. whether the PIRA and wider Irish Republican aims were justified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PRPCunningham (talk • contribs) 20:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Most academics would disagree with your statement that the main drive of the IRA in 1969 was "to use violence to unite NI with the South", or the ones I have read books by. The initial aim of the IRA was to defend Catholic areas, the offensive part of the campaign did not start till much later. O Fenian (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe the Official IRA's policy was to avoid violence and seek a political solution. The PIRA took a more militant route.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ed Moloney "At its first meeting, in January 1970, the MacStiofain-lead Army Council devised a three-stage strategy that initially placed the emphasis on the need to defend the Catholic areas of Belfast". He details the second stage as a mixture of defense and retaliation, and the third stage was an offensive war designed to force Britain to the negotiating table, which was to take place when the IRA was strong enough.

Richard English "What was the thinking, the philosophy of the newly formed Provisional IRA? The issue to start with is defence"

Peter Taylor. "At the beginning of 1970, the Provisional IRA had three aims, agreed at the first meeting of the new Provisional Army Council. First, to make ready for the defence of the nationalist areas in preparation for the loyalists' summer marching season, in order to avoid a repetition of 1969. Second, to retaliate against the army should British tropps harass the nationalist population. Third, to make ready for a final offensive against 'the British occupation system'".

Academics would disagree with the opinions of editors, which is why the opinions of editors do not go in articles. O Fenian (talk) 11:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure of the relevance of those comments. PRP Cunningham's comments do not appear to be restricted to the cause/outbreak of the Troubles, but rather to the whole period. While it may be true that PIRA/OIRA only wished to defend RC areas at the start, it is also true that for most of the Troubles the PIRA engaged in an offensive campaign.

I agree with him that the article is unbalanced - there is less discussion or description of the terror campaigns than there is of the security force response. The emphasis also appears to be on the politics rather than the violence, yet it was the violence which characterised that which is known as the Troubles. Mooretwin (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The original wording was;

The Provisional IRA (or "Provos", as they became known), formed in early 1970, soon established itself as more aggressive and militant in responding to attacks on the nationalist community. It gained much support in the nationalist ghettos in the early 1970s as their "defenders". Despite the increasingly reformist and Marxist politics of the Official IRA, they began their own armed campaign in reaction to the ongoing violence. From 1970 onwards, both the Provisionals and Officials engaged in armed confrontations with the British Army.

This was changed to;

The Provisional IRA (or "Provos", as they became known), formed in early 1970, soon established itself as more aggressive and militant than the Official IRA. It gained much support in the nationalist ghettos in the early 1970s as their "defenders". Despite the increasingly reformist and Marxist politics of the Official IRA, they began their own armed campaign in reaction to the ongoing violence. From 1970 onwards, both the Provisionals and Officials engaged in armed confrontations with the British Army.

It was changed based on an editor's incorrect assumptions about IRA activity during the time the text is referring to. The last sentence is the important one, as it deals with the beginning of the IRA's offensive campaign. Prior to that the IRA's activity was defensive, and also reactive. O Fenian (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

O Fenian, IMO a casual reader (of what is, after all, a rather long article) could interpret the statement as saying that all IRA activity was defensive. It needs rephrased. You are welcome to have a first go at rephrasing, otherwise I will try some wording. But you should not just revert. Agreed? PRPCunningham (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

PRPCunningham while your opinions are welcome, as O Fenian has mentioned above "Academics would disagree with the opinions of editors, which is why the opinions of editors do not go in articles". Your basing this discussion on an opinion, namely yours, could you provide a source to support your views. O Fenian has provided quotes from academics which support the current wording, can you provide quoted sources which challange them? If not, the discussion is going no were in a hurry. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The sentence "From 1970 onwards, both the Provisionals and Officials engaged in armed confrontations with the British Army" which is already in the same paragraph negates the need for any rewording based on editors incorrect opinions. O Fenian (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Domer48, I am not suggesting that my opinions be used as the source of material in the article. Rather, my opinion is that the article is unbalanced and the wording is insufficiently neutral. With regards to this, my opinion needs to be accounted for, as well as the opinions of other editors. I will quotes sources for any new material that I might add to the article.

O Fenian, We are looking for wording that everybody can agree on - that is correct, neutral, balanced etc. The fact that you think the wording is fine is insufficient to establish that everybody thinks it fine. We need to find wording that both you and I can agree is acceptable.

Everyone, Besides the questions of balance etc, the article is too long (in my opinion!). What do you think? Peter Cunningham PRPCunningham (talk) 07:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree completely that the sentence you tried to change needs changing. The sentence does not exist in a vacuum. O Fenian (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is not too long, considering the duration of the Troubles, the international media interest, political ramifications, and the impact the Troubles had on the lives of people not only in Ireland but in Britain as well.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Jeanne, I agree that the Troubles are significant. The length of the article may well be suitable for an Irish/British encyclopedia. But maybe a world-wide encyclopedia such as Wikipedia would be better served by a shorter article. Otherwise, you have the danger that readers skip over parts of the article. Hence, I would suggest that, in line with suggestions made in the article itself, the material be split into several, shorter articles.

O Fenian, I know that you think that the sentence is OK. The point is that I do not. We should aim for wording that suits everyone, unless you wish to claim a privileged position. If, of course, you manage to show that almost everyone else, from all points of view, thinks that the wording is OK, then I could accept that mine is a lone opinion. However, I do not think this is the case. Looking at the wider context, the sentence is in a section entitled "Violence peaks and Stormont collapses", whose first paragraph is "The years 1970–1972 saw an explosion of political violence in Northern Ireland, peaking in 1972, when nearly 500 people lost their lives." As such, the sentence could be interpreted as suggesting that all the IRA activity in this period was defensive (while, as the article says, the activity included setting off 1300 bombs, something which is not really defensive activity).

Everyone, I would like to restate my earlier point that the article does not reflect the fact that the predominant activity of the security forces was trying to prevent acts of violence (by means of patrols, checkpoints etc, etc), while the predominant activity of the paramilitaries was trying to commit acts of violence. This may be obvious to a UK/Irish audience, but not to a world-wide audience, so I would suggest that the article states this, in one form or the other. I am happy to dig up references to support this point, but, if I do so, I would be grateful if I could have some assurances that my changes to the article will not be immediately reverted. Please note that ALL of my changes to the article have been reverted. This suggests, in itself, that there is a lack of balance in the overall editing of the article.

Peter PRPCunningham (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is going round in a circle. The sentence you object to does not exist in a vacuum. Two sentences later in the same paragraph it covers the start of the IRA's offensive campaign. You, for some reason, object to the IRA's role being described as defensive during the time period in which it was exactly that, probably due to you incorrectly thinking the IRA's offensive campaign began in 1969. O Fenian (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

O Fenian you have more than addressed this issue. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

O Fenian, Domer

I am new to Wikipedia. I have been looking at the help material. The second paragraph of Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines reads "Policies and guidelines describe standards that have community consensus, and indeed consensus is itself a core policy and philosophy. Those who adhere to neutral point of view, are civil to and assume good faith in others, seek consensus in discussions, and work towards the goal of creating an increasingly better written and more comprehensive encyclopedia should find a very welcoming environment." Consensus is a core policy. We need to seek consensus about acceptable wording, placement etc for the sentence in question. It is not sufficient for you to state that you think the wording and placement are acceptable. It needs also to be acceptable to me (assuming mine is not an lone or crazed point of view). The sentence in question may well refer to defensive actions, but it is in a section describing 1970-72 and it follows earlier paragraphs that deal with the period 1970-72. As such, I believe it could suggest to a casual reader that the PIRA activity during the peak of the violence was essentially defensive (while, as the article states, the PIRA activity included setting of 1300 bombs) We need to find wording acceptable to all parties. If you restate the fact that you think the wording acceptable, you are missing the point about seeking consensus (and leave open the possibility of a sterile cycle of changes and reverts. So, to reduce the matter to a direct question - do you agree we need to seek consensus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PRPCunningham (talk • contribs) 08:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

PRPCunningham get consensus then on the talk page. At the minute you've not put anything forward to say the current wording is wrong, other than your opinion. Consensus does not mean that it has to be acceptable to you, but that you get other editors to agree with you. Having offered editors nothing to work with, you'll be a long time waiting. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added two references that support the text, not the quotes above but different ones which deal with the reputation the IRA gained in defending the Catholic community during that time. O Fenian (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2009 (

If the article states that the IRA was acting defensively in 1969 (based on the PIRA statements), then it should also state that the security forces were acting to prevent violence (based on Hansard, the courts etc, etc).PRPCunningham (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It does not say that based on the IRA's statements. It says that based on established fact, that the IRA's activity was defensive at that time, confirmed by almost every source that has ever written about the period. I do not know why you cannot accept this. You appear to be objecting to the sentence "The state security forces —the British Army and the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC)— were also involved in the violence", but yet again you place a sentence in a vacuum and fail to read the start of the next paragraph. It reads "The British Government's view was that its forces were neutral in the conflict, trying to uphold law and order in Northern Ireland and the right of the people of Northern Ireland to democratic self-determination. Irish republicans, however, regarded the state forces as forces of occupation and "combatants" in the conflict, noting collusion between the state forces and the loyalist paramilitaries". O Fenian (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

By 1972: inaccurate figures

I've amended the following inaccurate statement in the "Violence peaks and Stormont collapses" section:

By 1972, the Provisional IRA had killed more than 100 soldiers, wounded 500 more and carried out 1,300 bombings

I've checked the Sutton index and this is untrue. My count is that, excluding own goals, by 1972, PIRA had killed "only" 39 soldiers (excluding UDR), 33 civilians, 13 police and 5 UDR. The sentence is therefore wrong, and omits to mention of civilian deaths, which is notable and relevant. How can we improve this? Mooretwin (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have amended it to match the source. O Fenian (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The source is wrong, as I have noted above, and also omits to mention the deaths of non-soldiers. Mooretwin (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No the wording was wrong, which is why I said "I have amended it to match the source". Regarding your other point, the sentence following it covers civilian deaths. O Fenian (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The new wording says "approximately 100 soldiers". In fact, there were "only" 44 killed. Mooretwin (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read the new wording more carefully, you can see the difference here.O Fenian (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see the minor but very significant change now. My objection, then, remains only to the omission of the number of non-soldiers who were killed. Can we add this information in? Mooretwin (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It is in the sentence right after it, one which deals with the circumstances in which most of them died also. I do not see the point in making it into a long run on sentence, as it only makes less grammatical sense and does not move the positioning of the civilian casualties in any tangible way. O Fenian (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The sentence after it reads: The bombing campaign killed many civilians, notably on Bloody Friday on July 21, when 22 bombs were set off in the centre of Belfast killing seven civilians and two soldiers. It does not refer to the numbers of non-soldiers killed by PIRA in 1972: merely those 7 killed in Bloody Friday. Is there any reason not to disclose this figure, and only to report the number of soldiers killed? Mooretwin (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Weren't there more civilians killed in 1972 than in any other year throughout the Troubles history? The Sutton index confirms this as it lists all the deaths of civilians and non-civilians, and 1972 records the highest death toll. Also it was the year of Bloody Sunday, Bloody Friday, and the Springfield Road Massacre all three of which killed civilians (excluding the two soldiers killed at Oxford St. Bus Station on Bloody Friday).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds correct, Jeanne. This surely merits inclusion? Mooretwin (talk) 12:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it should be included in the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Will you go ahead? Mooretwin (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Why stop there? If a summary of the IRA killings with a mention of a notable event from 1972 is insufficient, why is it acceptable for the British Army to have only their notable 1972 event mentioned without giving a full total? Why is there no UDA or UVF total? Why is the beating and torturing of victims restricted to the Shankill Butchers when this was a frequent occurence during the "romper room" killings by loyalists? The problem with civilian casualties is that they are generally disputed and difficult to define to an exact degree, unlike security forces casualties where the perpetrator is not in dispute. O Fenian (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You raise good points. But the focus on the paragraph seems to be PIRA. That being the case, why refer only to soldiers killed by PIRA, and not civilians? Mooretwin (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that paragraph forms a section with several other paragraphs. So if you are proposed to give an "exact" total for the IRA, you need to do the same for the British Army, UDA and UVF. I am sure you would agree it is not fair to give a total for one organisation while being very vague about the totals for others? While the Bloody Sunday killings are widely known, I am sure most people would be very surprised to learn that the British Army killed another 28 civilians in the same year. O Fenian (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I see the paragraph about loyalists, but not about the Army. I've no difficulty with any factual statements about those killed. Perhaps any statements could just give the total killed regardless of classification, in order to avoid long lists? Mooretwin (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

PS. I see there is a reference to "murders" in respect of the loyalists. I thought this wasn't allowed? Mooretwin (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It's important that the article mentions civilian deaths as the majority of those killed in 1972 were civilians.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, O'Fenian, you are right; Bloody Sunday and the Springfield Road Massacre both occurred in 1972. In the latter event, a priest was also one of those shot dead by the Army. Father Noel Fitzgerald was his name.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

UDR

There is an RfC at the Ulster Defence Regiment article. Unfortunately, it is only attracting the usual suspects, and we really need some fresh views. Mooretwin (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is biased

Disruption by sock of banned User:HarveyCarter
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There was no discrimination against Catholics in Northern Ireland. People could not get jobs due to the recession. (2A00:23C4:6384:600:30E6:B0B6:F10E:9F52 (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)) Oooh! It all makes so much sense now! Thanks for clarifying everything! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC) Most IRA terrorists were just unemployed, uneducated people with nothing to do. (2A00:23C4:6384:600:30E6:B0B6:F10E:9F52 (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC))