Talk:The Troubles in Portadown

Improvements

I've included a lot more information on this article but it couldn't half do with some pictures and inline references. Can anyone assist? The Thunderer (talk) 05:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis?

I encountered this article at random. I have no particular interest n the subject matter, and I have no opinion on Irish matters: Please accept my comment here as that of a completely unbiased (and uninformed) observer.

This article appears to be a Synthesis, in violation of the WP:SYNTH policy.

If I understand the policy correctly (admittedly a major assumption) then this article should not exist on Wikipedia unless there are already synthesis articles on this subject in one or more reliable sources. Please note: I neither endorse or object to the policy, and due to ignorance I have no opinion regarding Irish politics or history. I offer this comment in the hope that other editors can link to specific external references that cover the topic as a whole. -Arch dude (talk) 04:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I for one appreciate your input. There did appear to be a synthesis on the article until I started editing it but I have tried to drag it into being more factual and representative. Could you point out where you think the synthesis lies and perhaps we can endeavour to redress the issue? I have a reasonable knowledge of the subject matter but we need to be sure what we include is verifiable and in accordance with ArbCom and other guidelines on the Troubles. The Thunderer (talk) 11:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't Vincent Kearney's book on Drumcree deal with a lot of this?Traditional unionist (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of that but I do have a certain knowledge of the town, if not the actual Drumcree Crisis. I thought my editing was pretty neutral so I'm awaiting comments to see where I've gone wrong.The Thunderer (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the article is POV, and I don't think that there is a lot of specific synthesis (of the form Fact A, Fact B, therefore conclusion C.) I'm asserting that the entire article as a whole is a synthesis: a creation of a new subject from multiple individual referenced facts. It is quite possible that there is no objection to this form of synthesis, or it may be obvious on its face (to others) that this topic is worth of an encyclopedia article. After thinking about it, I withdraw my objection. The article is a sub-article of the Portadown article and is completely justified under the following two policies:

• all placenames deserve an article
• when an article grows too large, create subarticles.

-Arch dude (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit you had me scratching my head. I didn't create the sub page and I can only assume that whoever did was trying to keep the main article "normal" rather than making it look like a war zone. The facts I have included deliberately don't point to any conclusions but if it appears that they do then we'll have to address that. Do you have any observations or suggestions you'd like to share? The Thunderer (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Stub template

As this article is no longer a stub can the template be removed?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)