Talk:Bobby Sands/Archive 2

Graffiti
I'm going to add a mention, with examples, of pro- & anti-Sands graffiti to the 'reactions' section. I'm sure that other editors will have seen other examples, so I'm going to suggest that we all exercise a bit of self-discipline limit this section to 5 pro- & 5 anti-Sands examples max, in order to avoid having the evolution of this article descend into a slanging match. I believe graffiti is verifiable in the sense of being in clear public view & that its existense is indisputably a matter of common knowledge.80.229.9.98 (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This section is of absolute no encyclopedic value whatsoever any fool can put graffiti on a wall and should not be put in to this article. BigDunc (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Material that neatly illustrates the pro- & anti- passions that Sands arouses has the encyclopedic value of illustrating this terrorist's place in history. Pop musicians have no more authority to comment on Sands than Graffiti artists, but you don't seem to object to the list of songs.80.229.9.98 (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless you can demonstrate that there are 3rd party sources that discuss notable graffiti in the context of Sands' life or legacy, then this has no place here. Just because something indisputably exists doesn't make it notable. Verifiability, in this case, would be essential. If you object to the notability of the songs, then query that by asking for 3rd party sources for them. If those are nor provided, then you may remove them. By the way, a bit of advice: while you are welcome to your opinion, referring to Sands as a "this terrorist" is likely to inflame the discussion for obvious reasons. If you wish to foster good faith, its probably a good idea to refer to him simply as Bobby Sands. Rockpock  e  t  22:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, Rockpocket, 'yes', our discussions have had an impact, but I'm still feeling my way & there are bound to be times when I follow a course you wouldn't. For all your advice to me, reverting seems to be the response of first choice for everyone else. I'm not going to re-re-revert for the moment, because I regard your point about notability & the songs as worthwhile & unresolved. My own feeling is that, because notability is so highly subjective, we should err on the side of inclusion of material unless server space ever becomes a problem. I don't so much object to the notability of the songs as note that different standards seem to have been applied regarding them. I could indeed point to discussion of graffiti in the context of Sands's significance, but the only discussions I could reference fully right now have only been published online & I don't want to go off on a tangential argument about what's a serious or worthwhile discussion.80.229.9.98 (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Your own feeling is not that uncommon among contributors, but it completely incompatible with WP:V, the non-negotiable community policy the guides inclusion. It makes no difference whether something undeniably exists or whether you can prove this. I can prove I exist, but it doesn't mean I deserve my own article. Unless it is verifiable by an independent reliable source indicating both its existence and it relevance, then it will be removed. Different standards are not being applied to songs, if these are not sourced they can also be removed (after an appropriate time). Graffiti in itself could well be notable and there could well be some serious discussion regarding its association with the Troubles, but lets see the sources mentioning it, preferably here on the the talk page, and we can have that discussion. Starting off a debate like this with an unsourced addition is not a smart way of doing business, reverting the justified removal is certainly not a smart way of continuing it and commenting on another editor's grammar and punctuation is a home run in how not to be a constructive contributor. Rockpock  e  t  00:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Content should be WP:V and WP:RS please read these 80.229.9.98 (talk) before adding content to an article especially content which you know will be controversal and as Rocket says your POV on Bobby Sands should not be aired one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter and we dont need to get in to a slagging match about that as it is not relevant. BigDunc (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I maintain that graffiti is verifiable by being in plain, public view & that its existence is not in doubt. If I decide to restore this information to the article then I shall reference it with links to proof of its existence. I'm not currently doing so for the reasons given above, but I will say that it seems to me that you are simply looking for excuses to remove the material rather than raising genuine questions about the existence of the Graffiti. As for my POV, I haven't tried to insert the word 'terrorist' into the article & it won't bother me a whit if others refer to Sands as a 'freedom fighter' on talk pages or in edit summaries. Finally, I at least would be more likely to take your comments seriously if you'd punctuate them in accordance with normal English usage. Thanks80.229.9.98 (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What kind of arrogant nonsense is this about being  more likely to take your comments seriously if you'd punctuate them in accordance with normal English usage. It would serve you better to reference what you add to articles than pushing your POV. BigDunc (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It's very simple: the use of basic punctuation, such as commas & question marks, is something that is taught at primary school level. Someone who doesn't punctuate therefore gives the impression of not being educated to this level &, as a result of this, is less likely to be regarded as having anything worthwhile to say. Moreover, the whole reason that punctuation exists is that it makes strings of words' meanings clearer & more precise. Where it is lacking, it is harder for the reader to understand what the author is attempting to convey, so communication is less effective & the author's efforts to make their point are undermined.80.229.9.98 (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So you judge a person on how they say something and not on what they say doesn't say to much for you then does it??? Someones use or missuse of grammer in now way tells you anything of the inteligence of that person. And if you are as intelligent as you think you are surely a missed comma or full stop cant hold back a master linguist like yourself. BigDunc (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mention intelligence, mine or anyone else's, or grammer, only education & punctuation. I freely admit that, the more highly educated someone appears to be, the more predisposed I am to assume that something they say is likely to be worth my attention. For example, if someone suggests that I pay heed to WP:V, which is guidance that uses some long words & some complex English, I am less likely to follow their suggestion if their own use of English has been so poor as to make it seem unlikely that they themselves actually understand the guidance they're recommending. I think this approach makes perfect sense. Also, I am indeed good at working out what shoddy English is actually intended to say (I can cope with bad spelling as well as the rest). It's just tiresome to have to put in extra effort because of someone else's laziness or lack of erudition. If you have anything else to say about the inclusion of graffiti in the article then I'd urge you to concentrate on posting that, because I'd be interested to read it.80.229.9.98 (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I fail to see what your comments on BigDunc's use of 'grammer' (your spelling not mine) have got to do with improving the article, which is what this talkpage is for. Grafitti isn't a reliable third party source so can't go in. I don't see a problem otherwise with pro or anti songs going in provided they're reliably sourced. Valenciano (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If you actually read the postings then you'll see that I've made no criticism whatsoever of his 'grammer' (his spelling, not mine). If people want to address comments to me then I expect them to be civil about it, & I consider posting a garbled, unpunctuated string directed at me to be uncivil, a bit like someone talking to me with their mouth full.80.229.9.98 (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Only way to deal with this is too not feed the troll. BigDunc (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that is why I just ignored it. --Domer48 (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

New definition of a 'Troll': someone who adds factual content that makes uncomfortable reading from the POV of apologists for terrorism.80.229.9.98 (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Too many songs
I'm sure we all agree that this long list is unencyclopedic. Any suggestions on which (if any) we want to keep? --John (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't listing songs is particularly useful, since the notability or context of each is not described. I would suggest turning that section into a paragraph where songs and musical influences are mentioned, as notable, by third party sources. Rockpock  e  t  19:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't really see the value of the lists, a paragraph mentioning that many songs where wrote about the Hunger Strikers and mention of the mains one within that should be sufficient.--Padraig (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah a paragraph would be better than a list of songs some of which are far from notable. BigDunc (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Just so long as there's some mention in the 'Reactions' section of the fact that the majority of Sands's countrymen, both in Northern Ireland & the rest of the UK, had nothing but contempt & loathing for him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.9.98 (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you prove that, many demonstrations where held in England, Sotland and Wales in support of the Hunger strikers and many of the main trade unions supported them as well. As for in the north he was elected an MP, his funeral was one of the largest ever seen.  They also received support worldwide.--Padraig (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Approx 2/3 of the population of Northern Ireland* in 1981 were Protestant Unionists, so only 3/4 of that group would have to regard convicted IRA terrorists with loathing & contempt for the fact I state to be true, & I think that proportion is rather easily reached. Feeling towards convicted IRA terrorists was & is much the same on the mainl

and. It's ridiculous, petty Republican obtuseness to try & deny it. Sooner or later, despite the partisan obstructionism of those with a Republican agenda, information reflecting & indicating the fact that Jimmy Sands will be loathed for as long as he's remembered will make it into this article.
 * (Yes, "Northern Ireland", with a capital 'N' & '-ern' after the 'h', not 'the north of Ireland', which is a vague geographical description covering, e.g., Donegal in what we might call 'Irish-occupied Ulster'.)80.229.9.98 (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That is the problem with a silent majority; they are so bloody quiet.--MJB (talk) 06:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And a problem with some extremists, they take silence as tacit support.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Are the extremists here really convinced Sands & the other twigs had the tacit support of the majority in the UK, or is it just that they see this article as a great opportunity to publicise propaganda via a policy of lying by omission...?80.229.9.98 (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Could I remind editors that the talk page is used to improve the article, and not for rants and for the Troll read WP:TPG--BigDunc (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please be civil Dunc.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How am I being uncivil the troll is just trying to inflame this discussion if you read the posts the troll made you will see that they have not said anything constructive. BigDunc (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The selective application of WP policies & use of reversion & the discussion process as tools of partisan censorship should be matters of concern to any who wish to improve the article.80.229.9.98 (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose a starting point would be removal of songs not directly about Bobby Sands, what do editors think of that? BigDunc (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would support that. Or perhaps create a new article covering all music written to do with the prison protests, the '81 Hungers Strike and then about particular people? GiollaUidir (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would agree with Domers idea to trim the list, then maybe the rest could be converted into a pargraph dealing with the music. GiollaUdir idea of a seperate dealing with the music of the prisons protests is good if anyone is prepared to undertake  the task.--Padraig (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Trim the unrelated songs, and condense the others to one paragraph. This will improve the article. --John (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Trimmed list and moved other to new article (Artistic reactions to the 1981 Irish hunger strike).GiollaUidir (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've further trimmed the list and converted it into a paragraph. I hope you will agree it looks better now. --John (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * People evidently don't want the ballad of the pasty supper posted, however would it be fair to say that there are many sectarian songs both pro and anti-Sands without specifying? Moustan (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Moustan


 * No. There only appears to be one sectarian song about him that mocks him. The subject is already covered in Reactions-United Kingdom.GiollaUidir (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The claim that the prison guards 'brutalzed' the prisoners comes from a POV source
The claim that the hunger strikers were beaten by the guards is not substantiated by a reliable source. The claim that they were 'brutalized' is inherently POV. Reference to a book published by a self-proclaimed partisan publishing house (they label themselves progressive) is not sufficient. Absent a verified statement from the prison guards or a judicial proceedings (neither of which exist) the only possible source for such claims is the prisoners themselves and they are clearly POV. As with many Wikipedia articles, this particular one demonstrates the futility of claiming NPOV, such articles are inevitably going to be edited primarily by supporters or opponents of the terrorists. -- 98.216.70.110 (talk) 02:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please come back when you have read the sources, particularly the one you just removed. If you have read it, I look forward to you telling me what it says. One Night In Hackney  303  02:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Or if you can't find it, try Mallie & Bishop page 351 or Moloney page 205 or Bowyer Bell page 483 or Coogan and English cover it too. Or are they "propagandists"? Sadly for you the facts of the dirty protest are agreed upon by all sources. The claim fact that the hunger strikers were beaten by the guards is not substantiated by a many reliable sources. One Night In Hackney  303  02:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Citing a reference to a partisan source for a factual claim is how you get an article NPOV tagged. If your claim was being made in good faith you would quote the passage here and in particular cite the ultimate source of the claim. Clearly the claim of brutalization is a POV claim and the claim of beatings is based on a claim made by a party claiming to be a political prisoner. -- 98.216.70.110 (talk) 02:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Citing a reference to a partisan source" - which partisan source? Exactly which one?
 * I have no need to cite anything. You just changed text from what a source says, so you must know what the source says? Please enlighten us. If you don't know what the source says, you're adding your own POV.
 * I am acting in good faith, as I know what the sources say. You don't know what the source say, so you're adding your own opinion of what they say. One Night In Hackney  303  03:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence to support your NPOV tag, beyond bald assertions about the partisanship of a source that meets WP:RS? I hope so, or the tag won't be there for very long. Dppowell (talk) 03:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume he's referring to the original source and wording still, not the current ones. I can't see any justification for the tag, I was just waiting for the next reply to dodge the questions before removing it. One Night In Hackney  303  03:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As One Night In Hackney has amply shown, you have utterly failed to demonstrate that any one of the sources quoted is POV or partisan. You removed referenced information without adequate explanation, and what you have offered here is paltry. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  03:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thoskit edits
Please provide the exact text of the article, if you insist it's correct. Thanks, -- Domer48 'fenian'  22:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The original sentence and ref, combined, clearly & unambiguously mean 'The Washington Post reported that the hunger strike was widely regarded as a publicity stunt'. We are supposed to assume good faith and not presuppose that that combination is a twisted version of the truth, just because the twisted version would suit our own political prejudices more. What republican editors have been doing is to change the above combination to a combination of sentence and ref that means 'The Washington Post stated that the hunger strike was a publicity stunt', which has a quite different meaning. This attempted change involves both denying a large section of the general public an opinion that has been properly referenced and attributing a particular POV to the Washington Post. If Republican editors wish to do this then it is up to THEM to justify it with appropriate quotations.Thoskit (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well what, clearly & unambiguously, does the article say exactly? Either interpretation is valid, depending on how the Post phrased it. Rockpock  e  t  00:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A little googling suggests whoever put that in there did so on the basis of the following quote: "The primary aim of the fast is not simply political status, but the international publicity." Washington Post, 3 May 1981, 2-3 . Unless someone can provide more context, that quote does seem to support "The Washington Post reported that the primary aim of the hunger strike was to generate publicity." It does not support "The primary purpose of the exercise, however, was often regarded as an attempt to gain international publicity rather than political prisoner status." (because there is nothing in the quote that mentions often regarded). And it does not support "The Washington Post stated that the hunger strike was a publicity stunt" (because there is nothing in the quote that mentions publicity stunt). Rockpock  e  t  00:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

MP
Query, can he properly be described as an MP as he never took the oath (that I can find) and never took up the position. Yes he was duely elected, but never took it up. Similar to Gerry Adams not being considered an MP until they made the exceptions about taking the oath to the Queen at that time. Canterbury Tail  talk  00:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes he was duely elected! Provide a source that says he can not be described as an MP as he never took the oath? -- Domer48 'fenian'  08:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This source describes Adams and McGuinness as MPs in 1997 before the rule changes that gave them offices. This source describes Sands being elected MP. Sources would definitely be needed for any alternative wording. Valenciano (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The answer is "yes". A person becomes an MP as soon as the returning officer announces his election. Whether or not he actually turns up at Parliament and takes his seat is not relevant. Mooretwin (talk) 10:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, it was just a query. I have no issues with it, just want to be sure it's correct and verifiable. Wasn't sure of the technicalities surrounding it which is why I asked. Canterbury Tail   talk  13:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a reasonable question. Mooretwin (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Strange category
Okay, quick one. I'm having trouble seeing why he is in the Category:Irish-language activists. There is nothing in teh article to suggest he was an activist for the promotion of the Irish language. He was an activist yes, and undoubtedly used the Irish language yes, but not an activist for the Irish language that I can see. Can anyone reference this, or is it an erroneous category that has been added. Canterbury Tail  talk  22:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm going to remove the cat. And there are several other people in that cat that shouldn't be there. Canterbury Tail   talk  17:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Biting At The Grave" by Padraig O'Malley deals with his Irish language activism. While in the Cages at Long Kesh he spent most of his time in a special hut where only Gaelic was spoken, and eventually ended up teaching others and proudly wore a fáinne. O Fenian (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If there is a reference then for him being an activist for the language then fine, though just teaching others doesn't come under the realms of activist. I've taught English and Japanese to others, but doesn't mean I'm an activist for either of them. Canterbury Tail   talk  23:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Of chicken suppers and reliable sources
This is ridiculous. Wikipedia doesn't exist to eulogise anyone, glorious hero or filthy criminal. It is verifiable that songs of the pastie supper ilk were sung by many people. In encyclopaedic terms, thousands of Northern Ireland people opining that Sands was a figure of ridicule is every bit as valid as those of Christy bloody Moore. Yet anytime anyone has added references to this, they've been reverted immediately. Revisionists at work ... Pyams (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Our anonymous friend makes a compelling theoretical point. There are plenty of sources that document that particular favorite. In Memories of the Maze, The Guardian, July 24, 2000,
 * UDA member Billy McQuiston, says: "The IRA hunger strikes were very confusing. You had all these Protestants singing songs like 'Do You Want a Chicken Supper Bobby Sands?' but we supported what he was doing. It would have meant our comrades getting what we wanted them to get, and you had to respect what the Provos went through." 

There are also sources noting it is sung by certain football fans. Rockpock e  t  21:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a sectarian song song by extreme Loyalists and Rangers football fans, if they knew anything about the history of the Hunger strikes both the UVF and UDA supported the Hunger strikers and their demands.--Padraig (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So it is a real song, then, or just "Loyalist POV"? Rockpock  e  t  22:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Its not a song it a football Chant used by Loyalist football fans at rangers matches.--Padraig (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yet three of the four sources describe it as a "song". Verifiability, not truth, remember. Rockpock  e  t  22:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Songs, especially football songs (ie not songs released by notable bands) are inherently unencyclopedic in my view. I'd support mentioning it if it can be sourced, but not quoting the lyric. I'd support the same approach with regard to songs lionising rebels as well. --John (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on whether its encyclopaedic or not. I was just a little disappointed to see an anon editor attempting to make a valid point about verifiability, and being labeled a vandal, troll and then gamed into a 3RR block, simply because his point went against the opinion of established editors. We can do better than that. I have provided evidence of verifiability, now interested parties can discuss its suitability. Rockpock  e  t  22:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It has no encyclopeadic value, just as putting Celtic fan chants about Mountbatton or the Paratroopers killed in Warrenpoint would have any value in those articles. Its not wikipedias place to promote sectarianism.--Padraig (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, we are not censored either. If we can mention on Republican heroes' articles that there are rebel songs celebrating them, we can surely mention this here with references. It is relevant to the subject. I am against quoting the lyric though, in both cases. --John (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * John how would you suggest doing that, in what part of the article would this be relevent, and how would you mention it without quoting it, its not as if there is much more lyric left to quote then the part already quoted above.--Padraig (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware from the title that the song is sectarian per se. I could be wrong, but not being familiar with the whole lyrics its difficult to say. Secondly, I'm not sure where the policy we have that forbids the documenting the existence of sectarian songs or chants. Billy Boys is pretty well established, and that is certainly explicitly sectarian. Finally, songs mocking or criticizing public figures are the flip side of those lionizing them. If mentioning them is "promotion" of "Loyalist POV", then all the lionizing songs are promotional too, of Republican POV. Personally, I tend to agree that listing songs about anyone is pretty trivial unless they have had significant third party sources discuss their importance (I await to be convinced that Bobby Sands by Soldat Louis is significant, notable and relevant). Ironically enough, I bet you would struggle to find a book and three broadsheets sources discuss any of the other songs listed. I'm not particularly keen on quoting the lyric either, though. Rockpock  e  t  23:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Rockpocket, I see you have asked Alison to lift the block of the anon IP to allow him to present his case here, is this a new policy or are you making a special exception here they were blocked for 3RR, and had made no effort to discuss the issue here.--Padraig (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I asked Alison if you should review her block to permit talk space contributions only. Why? Because blocks are not punitive, they are preventative, and an IP with under 60 edits may not have been familiar with WP:3RR. And because I think the editor may be able to contribute to this discussion now, thereby reducing the probability they he will return to edit-warring over the issues in 31 hours time. Rockpock  e  t  23:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * See this edit summary that shows the POVof this anon IP quite clearly.--Padraig (talk) 23:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And this edit clearly shows your POV. *shock* There are people who consider Sands to be a terrorist! People have opinions, it doesn't mean that they are automatically a vandal or a troll. Rockpock  e  t  23:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"gamed into a 3RR block" whats wrong Rock, my edit summary not clear enough. The only one gaming is you, trowing out a little bait, see what you might catch. A little less of the personal, and yes, you were refering to me. I understand your still smarting over the ArbCom, but you did lay it on a bit thick, a bit like your defence of the IP, sounds quite good, and you may have convince yourself, but thats about all. --Domer48 (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Two things. I was not specifically referring to you at all, but now you mention it, your edit summary "RVV", meaning "reverting vandalism" was inappropriate. I suggest you too read WP:VANDALISM. Secondly, I have been having a few off-wiki discussions today about the actions of a certain admin relating to you, after a request for help on your behalf. However, I have little enthusiasm to be spending any more of my time on that, in light of those unprovoked comments.  Alienating everyone because you feel had done by is not going to help you cause.  Rockpock  e  t  23:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure what the fuss is - we all know that the song exists & it is relevant & helps us tend towards NPOV (which is about all that can be hoped for when discussing NI) to acknowledge that not all songs about Sands were supportive of him... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.9.98 (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Its not a song, its a two-line football chant used by sectarian football fans, it has no place in a encyclopeadia.--Padraig (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've heard it sung without ever attending a football match (in company in which took no offence, I might add). I never even attempted to insert more than mention of its existence into the article, yet you seem to object to that. I suggest that mention of its existence is appropriate to an encyclopedia because the loathing and contempt that Sands inspired in some quarters is a fundamental & undeniable aspect of his historical significance.80.229.9.98 (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Instead of just listing the song why don't you draft a sentence, using the sources in support, that notes how some parts of the Protestant community composed songs/chants mocking Sand's hunger strike. I carefully worded, well sourced sentence like that would support the point you are trying to make without requiring the listing of a clearly provocative lyric. Rockpock  e  t  00:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "unprovoked comments" "hard done by" you do mean shafted, don't you. I don't want "a few off-wiki discussions" I want a few on wiki ones. Now, if I'm a bit touchy about blocks, I've good reason! And I will not have swipes made at me and sit on my hands. --Domer48 (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * NPOV certainly means that we include any notable anti-Sands songs, but I'm not convinced about this one. Any song which includes the line "you dirty fenian f*cker" in the chorus isn't worthy of an encyclopedia. I'd support Rockpockets suggestion above that we mention the existence with a ref of anti songs. The whole songs list needs pruned anyway as many of them aren't really about Sands. Invisible Sun by The Police is about the NI troubles in general so only has a tenuous link to Sands. Valenciano (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry if my post has insulted any of our more sensitive republican colleagues, but that said it does meet with the criteria, it's a song written in reaction to the hunger strikes. If you are concerned of the profanity: "You dirty fenian fucker" used change it to "Or maybe some bread and butter". Moustan (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC) Moustan


 * What the lyrics are, and how offensive they might be does not determine the encylopedic worthyness of a song. If it can be verfied that it exists, it should be included, just as the disgusting things Celtic fans chant should be if they can be verified.  There seems to me to be some WP:OWN and WP:NPOV issues with this dispute.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have made an additional edit to Bobby Sands that, in my opinion, covers the taunts sufficiently, according to the sources, and without being deliberately provocative. Rockpock  e  t  01:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The Songs section doesn't specify whether or not the songs are pro or anti Sands. The song: " Could you go a pasty/chicken supper, Bobby Sands?" has been mentioned on several occasions, the book "Cycle of Violence", a published novel by the Irish author Colin Bateman, who has anti-'orange' morals, contains the whole song. It is a song mentioned in various published works, therfore it meets the Songs criteria. Moustan (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Moustan


 * This book im sure does not meet WP:RS-- BigDunc (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The American Media reaction
2 paragraphs of people condemning him followed by some complaining that the media was too Pro-IRA makes no sense. Should be refoactored. Lot  49a talk 02:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

IPs & Troubles related articles
IMHO, all non-registered accounts should be 'barred' from these kinds of articles (or at least restricted). GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you express that opinion at a venue where it can be technically enacted, such as Requests for page protection or Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, or else establish a community consensus for a change in policy. Suggesting it here is not going to serve much of a purpose. Rockpock  e  t  19:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie, I took it to the latter's talk-page. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Category: Irish Politicans who committed suicide
Does this article belong in this category? Irvine22 (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Since he did not commit suicide, the answer is no. O Fenian (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) 100% NO. Sands did not commit suicide. BigDunc  18:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you say he didn't commit suicide? Seems to me he did. Irvine22 (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have any sources that give his officially recorded cause of death, such as what it says on his death certificate or the verdict of a coroner? O Fenian (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if you have a wee gander at the current list of sources for the article you will see that The Boston Globe describes Sands's hunger strike as a "slow suicide attempt". So the s-word is already in the article as it clearly should be.Irvine22 (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A simple "no" would have saved time. O Fenian (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we have sourced information such as coroner's reports or death certificates for the other people presently in the category "Irish Politicians who committed suicide"? Irvine22 (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

NB. Irvine22's userpage indicate a penchant for shit-stirring under different accounts...GiollaUidir (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC
 * "Penchant" - one of my favorite words.Irvine22 (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so I don't really see any arguments above against adding the article to the Category: Irish Politicians who committed suicide. I see bald assertions that Sands didn't commit suicide, which seem to contradict the extensively-sourced and verifiable facts already in the article (including the use of the term "suicide attempt" by a number of newspapers quoted therein). At present, I intend to go ahead and add the article to the proposed category, after a reasonable period to allow for further comment. Cheers! Irvine22 (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Have a read here, it is not going into the article. BigDunc  14:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that source certainly seems to answer O Fenian's question above: the coroner found the cause of death to be "starvation, self-imposed." If a person dies from a "gunshot, self-inflicted" that would be a suicide. How is "starvation, self-imposed" different? Irvine22 (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The coroner didn't find suicide and we don't synthesis here. BigDunc  16:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we have coroner's findings of suicide for the other people in this category? Besides, I'm not sure the question can be reduced to a narrow one of coroner's findings. There has been considerable comment and debate - by moral philosophers and theologians as well as by politicans and religious leaders - centering around whether Sands's death was in fact suicide. There is, to say the least, a substantial body of opinion that thinks it was indeed suicide. Adding the article to the category I have suggested would acknowledge that body of opinion and perhaps help some people find the article who might otherwise miss it.Irvine22 (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I couldn't give a fuck about the other articles if you are concerned about them go edit them, coroner didn't make a finding of suicide so it wasn't suicide. BigDunc  16:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * BigDunc, I think perhaps you should disengage for a while. You seem to be getting angry and your use of profanity isn't helping us move this issue forward. Thanks.Irvine22 (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If it's proven that Sands starved himself to death, that's suicide. If cause of death is undetermined, then it can't be classified. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you trying to say GoodDay? The coroner didn't find the death a suicide so it wasn't a suicide. BigDunc  17:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, according to the source BigDunc kindly provided above, the coroner did indeed find the cause of Sands's death was "starvation, self imposed." Irvine22 (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait a sec, which is it. Did the guy starve himself to death 'or' not? GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * He starved himself to death. Clearly. Irvine22 (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well then it's suicide, IMHO. However, my opinon doesn't stand up to BigDunc's source. A coroner's autopsy has the edge. What you'd need Irvine, is a counter-source (saying it was suicide). GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What from another coroner, because thats all that will refute the original coroners verdict a source from anywhere else is POV. I'm sure there a sources that say he was murdered. BigDunc  18:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, we should respect the source & keep Sands out of the category-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree that the coroner, as a state authority of Northern Ireland, is a highly legitimate and authoritative source. But do we really want to say that only official findings by state authorities of Northern Ireland may be used in reference to Sands? Irvine22 (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Do ya have a 'source' from another coroner's report, to dispute BigDunc's source? Varification decides this issue. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a source from the state authorities of Northern Ireland saying that Sands "took his own life", yes. Irvine22 (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Theoretically speaking, conflicting sources render each other 'un-reliable'. This is a tough case. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've no solution for this dispute, gentlemen. Sorry. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Coroner trumps, both the PIRA and the NI office statements would have lesser authority as the Coroner is applying the law and not engaged in propaganda.  Its also worth noting that other hunger strikers are not listed as attempted suicides.  The religious aspect here should also result in a reasonable level of respect being paid.  If I remember by doctrine aright (and I could be wrong) a hunger strike is not considered suicide and does not prevent burial in consecrated ground-- Snowded  TALK  19:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, Cardinal Basil Hume, Archbishop of Westminster, did express his opinion that Sands's death was a suicide. Irvine22 (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sands was an Irish Catholic, not an English one. O Fenian (talk) 10:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * He also said that it was right for last rites etc. to be administered so it was at best ambiguous (and he was out of area anyway)-- Snowded TALK  19:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The coroner's finding, trumps the archbishop's opinon. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I was citing the Arcbishop's opinion in response to Snowded's separate point about the religious implications of Sands's suicide. Irvine22 (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Except the coroner in NI in 1981 was part of the N.I. courts service, which was in turn under the remit of the N.I.O. Irvine22 (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So the Catholic & Protestant Churchs wouldn't consider Sands demise a suicide. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have proof, the coroner's finding were politically motivated or that he was under political pressure? GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, in fact I don't see any real conflict between the coroner's finding that Sands's died from self-imposed starvation and the N.I.O. statement that he took his own life. Irvine22 (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's irrevelant here. The coroner's finding is the final word. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree that we must give due weight to the findings of the Northern Ireland state authorities re: Sands. But if the coroner's finding is the final word, it's strange it isn;t already in the article, don't you think? Should we perhaps put it in? Irvine22 (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Why are we feeding this troll?--Vintagekits (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point, but he will just move onto another page with another set of POV edits. Mind you I suppose eventually that will lead to a topic ban  -- Snowded  TALK  19:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You've been saying that for a while now, Snowded. Doesn't seem to be working out... Irvine22 (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Either it will or you will change your habits, either will suit me. -- Snowded  TALK  06:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen, it seems the consensus here is to go with 'not suicide'. Recommend we end the discussion on that note. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd say the consensus is not to add Sands to the category, yes. Not sure there's a consensus that he's not a suicide. But sometimes it's enough just to discuss, isn't it? Irvine22 (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The coroner ruled that his death was not a suicide, therefore it wasn't. End of discussion.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should agree that the findings of the Northern Ireland Court service in this matter, as in all others relevant to Sands, are dispositive. Irvine22 (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The coroner did not rule the death as suicide so as far as we here on wikipedia are concerned it wasn't suicide. BigDunc  21:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The coroner did rule the death as self imposed starvation, which is suicide. Everyone knows the truth, whether you censor this perfectly legitimate comment or not BigDunc. Trickyjack (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Deadlinks
I fixed seven, but there are still some outstanding. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

percevd bias
The article on his trial & conviction seem to be hero worship. As if he were totally innocent never commited any violent aact in his life. If that is the truth, it should be clearly stated. Else fairly found guilt of crimws should not be hedged. Neither should a clear cut framing. 11:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.12.127 (talk)
 * After struggling to understand your message, it appears to boil down to the fact you object to Sands being found not guilty on several charges, and only being found guilty of possession of a firearm. Sadly there's nothing we can do about that. 2 lines of K  303  10:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Tomatothrowing in Oslo
A bag of tomatoes was not thrown at the Queen when she visited Norway in 1981, there was thrown A tomato, but the thrower missed and hit a Norwegian newsphotographer instead. I have checked newspapers from the relevant period and the case was covered pretty well in the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten. --Stiangutten (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Parliamentary majority
The article states that Sands' majority when he was elected as a Member of Parliament was 51.22% when, according to this wikipedia article on the April 1981 by-election in Fermanagh, South Tyrone his majority was in fact only 2.4%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermanagh_and_South_Tyrone_by-election,_April_1981 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeSproule (talk • contribs) 11:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Balmoral Furniture Co. bombing
The article does not say anything about the nature of the bombing at Dunmurry. Were there any fatalities or injuries?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC) No, the whole thing seems to have been a bit of a farce with all the perpetrators caught and two of the six wounded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.130.17 (talk) 12:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

GA issues / required edits
How much of this still needs to be done, as it's over a year old? Basket Feudalist (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

good article


 * Writing and formatting:
 * Lead should be longer to meet WP:LEAD
 * Given that this is technically a biography, having a level-2 heading called "Life" seems very strange. Why not just have the subsections of Life be sections in their own right? In general, organization in this article needs work
 * "His parents, John and Rosaleen, had another son, John, in 1962. On leaving school, he became" - John or Bobby became?
 * Many very short paragraphs that should be merged to improve flow
 * West or west Belfast?
 * Needs some general copy-editing for clarity and flow
 * "He was survived by his parents, siblings, and a young son (Gerard) from his marriage to Geraldine Noade" - this reads as if he and Geraldine were no longer married. Is that the case? If so, should be more explicit in the circumstances of her departure earlier
 * Why does the Asia subsection use bulleted points?
 * External links should be the last subsection per WP:LAYOUT
 * Don't repeat links from the article text in See also


 * Accuracy and verifiability:
 * See here for a list of dead/broken links
 * "Frank Maguire...died suddenly of a heart attack" - source?
 * In late 1980 Sands was chosen as Officer Commanding of the IRA prisoners in Long Kesh, succeeding Brendan Hughes who was participating in the first hunger strike. - source?
 * Sands decided that other prisoners should join the strike at staggered intervals in order to maximise publicity with prisoners steadily deteriorating successively over several months. - source?
 * The 1981 British Home Championship football tournament was cancelled following the refusal of teams from England and Wales to travel to Northern Ireland in the aftermath of his death due to security concerns. - source?
 * In the Irish general elections held the same year, two anti H-block candidates won seats on an abstentionist basis. - source?
 * Don't include external links in article text
 * References section needs lots of cleaning up. All book sources should have author, title, date, publisher and page numbers. All web sources should have title, URL, publisher and retrieval date. All newspapers should have either a page number or a URL


 * Broad:
 * "The Americas" - a single non-US sentence does not mean that this section covers the entire hemisphere. Is there more information available on non-US American reaction? If not, might as well make this exclusively about the US
 * "Reaction to death" could stand to be trimmed a bit, as some points seem over-emphasized/trivial


 * Neutrality:
 * "the family were forced to move" - forced by whom/what?

No issues noted
 * Stability:


 * Images:
 * Captions should be grammatically correct
 * File:Bobbyinlongkesh1973.jpg - PD-ineligible does not apply to this image, licensing tag needs replacing

Times articles
It is apparent that for a number of editors Mr. Sands is either damned or deified. I do not have a dog in this fight. I did happen across a series of articles from the Sunday Times of April 2006 dealing with records released under the Freedom of Information Act, which suggest that the IRA rebuffed some efforts at a negotiated settlement for political reasons. (SeeText of Clarke Sunday Times article, April 5, 2009) This would seem to put these men's deaths in a new light. Would anyone care to address this? Mannanan51 (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Removing "Allegiance: Ireland"
(Moved from User talk:Mo ainm)

If you'd read my edit summary you'd have seen that it wasn't the flag I was objecting to. It was the implication that he was serving in the military of the Republic of Ireland. – Smyth\talk 01:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * And as I said also this was discussed previously, and consensus was reached that the flag stays the same as with UVF and the Union Flag, also I would prefer the removal of all flags from infobox but consensus was that they stay for military articles. Mo ainm  ~Talk  10:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I have looked at a number of other pages of IRA and UVF members, and none of them do this. So where is this previous discussion? – Smyth\talk 10:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Here. Murry1975 (talk) 11:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much. – Smyth\talk 11:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Smyth if you look at the Irish Civil War infobox you will see it used for both sides. Murry1975 (talk) 12:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that there are reasonable arguments for using the flag to represent the PIRA. But again, it wasn't the flag I was objecting to. It was the statement that he had allegiance to the Republic of Ireland (implied by the word "Ireland", and made explicit by the wikilink). This is clearly false, given that the PIRA didn't even recognize the RoI's legitimacy. His allegiance was to the PIRA (which styled itself at the time as the de jure government of all Ireland), not the RoI. – Smyth\talk 12:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I've changed the infobox accordingly. It now says "IrishRepublicanFlag.png Provisional IRA", consistent with the article Warrenpoint ambush which was under discussion here. – Smyth\talk 14:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

NPOV = Censorship
It is a disgrace that the words "torture" "abuse" and "beatings" appear nowhere in this article about Bobby Sands. Even if mentioned in the same breath as "an account contested by other sources," the absence of this information from this page incorrectly portrays Bobby Sands' hunger strike protest as a purposeless and unprovoked act of troublemaking.

This article demonstrates the way that interested parties wield Wikipedia's well-intentioned NPOV policies as a cudgel to censor legitimate and important information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmayer (talk • contribs) 01:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Here Here .... the bias in the writing of this article is palpable and clearly not of a standard for encyclopedic content. I have no interest in Mr. Sands one way or the other and stumbled on this entry. Either offer the competing view of the Irish Nationalists or delete the views of the English overlords. For example the quote by Prime Minister Thatcher should be balanced by a Republican leader of stature that would refer to Mr. Sands as a national hero. Similarly the mention of violence by Republicans should be balanced mentioning the violence of the English overlords. Regardless of your political view it is a fact the British soldiers shot and killed innocent women and children in the streets in front of the their homes. Even an inconvenient truth is still the truth.


 * The NPOV policy of Wikipedia is not censorship. Wikipedia is not a platform for your political views and is not obligated to protect your right to free speech. If you feel that the article incorrectly portrays his hunger strike protest, that would clearly be a biased point of view and violate the NPOV guidelines, in which case you should flag this article for review rather than attacking the guidelines themselves. However, you had better be prepared to back these accusations up. --71.116.235.10 (talk) 06:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

'British politician'
Re this, there is a long-standing, unwritten convention that we don't classify Northern Ireland nationalists as "British". I'm aware that arguments can be made based on dictionary definitions, constitutional status etc., but because it's a sensitive area we don't do it. Continuing to revert to that version against consensus would be considered as disruptive editing. I hope we're not going to go down that road. Scolaire (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. Gob Lofa (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The easiest solution in this case will be "Politicians from Northern Ireland convicted of crimes". Valenciano (talk) 01:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Community
Snowded, I don't recall Beresford using the phrase 'nationalist community', can you tell me what page? And if he didn't and this is just your preferred wording, which particular nationalist community are you referring to? Gob Lofa (talk) 08:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * If you have text from a reference then share it here and I will happily look at it. Given the volume of changes you make and time it takes to monitor them for POV changes (such as removing the word 'terrorism' I have a simple policy.   If you change the meaning of the text without supplying a reference I will revert it.  If you can then support the change or other editors engage then I am happy to reconsider  Snowded  TALK 08:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Snowded, you've answered none of my questions. Why do you believe the meaning of the text has been changed? Gob Lofa (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Reference text Gog Lofa Snowded  TALK 08:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Answer questions, Snowded. Here's another one; in the interests of equity, do you mind if I take a trawl through your contributions wielding a similar policy? Gob Lofa (talk) 08:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * See previous comments Snowded  TALK 08:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Snowded, your previous comments didn't answer my questions either. Gob Lofa (talk) 08:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Raising public consciousness
QS, that phrase is a direct quote from the source given. Gob Lofa (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Roibeard Gearóid Ó Seachnasaigh
How is Sands an anglicised form of Ó Seachnasaigh (O'Shaughnessy)? Irish surname experts such as Wolfe, Edward MacLysaght, and Grenham [] all state that Sands, and its variations, is a topographic surname of English origin. Fergananim (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless it has been talked about in WP:reliable sources in relation to Bobby Sands, not the surname in general, then no it shouldn't be put in the article. It would be counted as WP:original research to put in editors own thoughts about what's important after searching around unrelated things.Dmcq (talk) 09:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I was about to ask this... since Ó Seachnasaigh is a Connacht name, it is unusual that it would be that far north. Though I would suppose it would depend if he ever used it for it's inclusion in the article. According, to this article about Bobby Sands' genealogy, the Sands family moved to the North of Ireland from Scotland in the 17th century (having moved to Scotland from England in the 15th century). Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Survived by a young son?
Born in 1973, his son is now 38 years old. Is that really considered young? T-bonham (talk) 09:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. 108.38.35.162 (talk) 08:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bobby Sands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080402034311/http://larkspirit.com/hungerstrikes/diary.html to http://www.irishhungerstrike.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

"...to prevent the other hunger strikers from being elected to the British parliament..."
Earlier, IP user Special:Contributions/86.166.244.157 removed the following text:
 * "This law was introduced to prevent the other hunger strikers from being elected to the British parliament."

They also removed the citation, which was page 122 of "Constitutional and Administrative Law," a legal textbook by Alex Carroll. The law in question is the Representation of the People Act 1981. The IP user's edit summary was cut off by Wikipedia's accursed character limit; what we have reads:
 * "The law to prevent prisoners serving one year or more from standing in elections was indeed passed. The citation supports this. The insinuation that the reason for passing this law was to stop other hunger strikers from standi..."

I hate that it cuts off there because my guess is, the rest of it said something like "standing for Parliament is false." Here's Carroll's relevant text:
 * "Persons sentenced to imprisonment for more than one year or any indefinite sentence are disqualified [from serving in Parliament] during their term of imprisonment. Further, any nomination or election of such person as a candidate is void...If a sitting member is so imprisoned his/her seat is vacated. These provisions were introduced as a response to the election of Bobby Sands in Fermanagh–South Tyrone in 1981."

(I added the bracketed text.) I'm going to simultaneously revert the IP editor and post this message (with a talkback template to their talk) with a caveat: I believe the text was appropriate but I can also see how it could be making an implication, that the law was passed for no reason but to keep the other strikers from Parliament, that might not be true.  City O f  Silver  01:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I too believe that the text is appropriate. As above: . I see it that the content refers to the hunger strikers as this is the topic in question. I understand where the IP may be coming from. Yes, we shouldn't forget that the hunger strikers are not the only people who could have been affected by the law. However, the outline of the law on the page for the Representation of the People Act 1981 quite clearly states how it was in response to the issues regarding Bobby Sands.


 * As it almost immediately followed the death of Sands it was quite obviously, as the citation states, intended so that other prisoners on hunger strike would be unable to stand in the second 1981 by-election in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. I don't see this as speculative, but I'm not sure the IP would agree. Perhaps the text on the page should mention/clarify the fact that it wasn't necessarily introduced for the sole purpose of keeping the other strikers from Parliament, but its intent was to affect them. — Iambic Pentameter (talk / contribs) 02:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "it was quite obviously, as the citation states, intended so that other prisoners on hunger strike would be unable to stand in the second 1981 by-election in Fermanagh and South Tyrone." This is a paradox, where it's obviously true but since it's so contentious, both here and in the real world, I think we either need a source or we just shouldn't flat-out declare it as gospel truth. Because if you read that entire "Prisoners" section, you might notice what's not there: Carroll, a legal expert, never explicitly says that it was specifically a preventive measure.  City O f  Silver  02:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm having a tough time linking to the PDF of Carroll's book. Google everything, including the quotation marks, on the next line
 * filetype:pdf "Alex Carroll" "election of Bobby Sands"
 * and it should be the only result. The mention of Sands is on the book's page 129, the PDF's page 180.  City O f  Silver  02:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As you added above, Carroll wrote "These provisions were introduced as a response to the election of Bobby Sands in Fermanagh–South Tyrone in 1981". The existing text on the page states "This law was introduced to prevent the other hunger strikers from being elected to the British parliament." It does so very explicitly – yes, this is not the same point as Carroll's. Perhaps this should be changed simply to the effect of: The introduction of the law, as a response to the election of Sands, consequently prevented other hunger strikers from being elected to the British parliament. It expands on the existing paragraph in the same way and essentially makes the same point, but without asserting it as the truth or the assumed purpose of the law, instead as a point to consider because of how the law is relevant to the hunger strikers as well as Sands himself. Does this echo more to Carroll's "introduced as a response to the election of Bobby Sands", or should the point really be removed altogether? It is somewhat duplicated on the page of the law, where it is probably more relevant — Iambic Pentameter (talk / contribs) 02:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I still want to wait for the IP editor to weigh in but "The introduction of the law, as a response to the election of Sands, consequently prevented other hunger strikers from being elected to the British parliament" covers pretty much every issue. There's no denying the law was introduced because of Sands's election, and the clause starting "consequently" does a fine job of saying that the law had effects that could still be unintended even though anyone reading this would know they obviously weren't. I tend to think it should get a mention here just because how many people singlehandedly got a law introduced and passed?  City O f  Silver  03:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks – of course, the IP should definitely have a chance to have his/her input. I'm quite aware of the Wikipedia/Arbitration Committee policy towards the Troubles, and I guess trying to stick to WP:NPOV to the most stringent level is the way to go. Having read the section in the book by Alex Carroll, I really can see how easily things can be misinterpreted and potentially blown out of proportion in a sensitive topic such as this. — Iambic Pentameter (talk / contribs) 03:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

– if you don't have any objections, I'll perform the edit discussed here in a couple of days. It's been just over one week (8 days) and there has been no comment from the IP or anyone else. BTW, this still is Iambic Pentameter, I just had a username change. —72 talk / contribs 13:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bobby Sands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080731013648/http://larkspirit.com/hungerstrikes/bios/sands.html to http://www.bobbysandstrust.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080731013648/http://larkspirit.com/hungerstrikes/bios/sands.html to http://www.bobbysandstrust.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bobby Sands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070418101501/http://www.ratm.net/articles_mtv.comchatdec00.html to http://www.ratm.net/articles_mtv.comchatdec00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151121061901/http://www.u.tv/Sport/Celtic-fined-%E2%82%AC50k-for-Bobby-Sands-banner/0aecb2f8-b9cd-48c8-99f4-f84f72c82620 to http://www.u.tv/Sport/Celtic-fined-%E2%82%AC50k-for-Bobby-Sands-banner/0aecb2f8-b9cd-48c8-99f4-f84f72c82620
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080731013648/http://larkspirit.com/hungerstrikes/bios/sands.html to http://www.bobbysandstrust.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Nationality again
Do we really have to do through this again? This article was nice and stable for a while, without any proclamations of Sand' Irishness or Britishness. Why do we have to revisit this every few months? Rockpock e  t  00:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As originally posted on my talk page in reply to you; It is a biographical page therefore it should be accurate. There are rarely edit wars to do with nationality, only the ridiculous Stroke City edit wars. Saying that he was Irish will create no problems whatsoever. Not mentioning it is a diservice to the researchers who use Wikipedia for information on the subjects they are interested in.--Theosony (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick question. Does anyone have a reliable source to show he formally renounced his British citizenship? If not then British should be added as he was born British by virtue of being born in NI to resident parents. Canterbury Tail  talk  00:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"They have nothing in their whole imperial arsenal that can break the spirit of one Irishman who doesn't want to be broken." Bobby Sands. A reliable source to show he formally renounced his British citizenship?-- Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  08:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No that's not a source that says he formally renounced his British citizenship. Did he go through the process of renouncing it to the appropriate authority? The vast number of people do not, they just refuse to recognise their British citizenship and ignore it despite the fact it is there. See this is why it is problematic to bring citizenship into NI people articles. Canterbury Tail   talk  13:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I’m new to this whole edit thing.

Seems to me a fact that Mr. Sands was, although obviously he didn’t like it, British.

If Wiki is about wishful thinking, I’ll set up a page about me that says I’m a millionaire and better looking than George Clooney.

Putting “Irish” as Mr. Sands’s nationality is simply untrue, legally. Would it not be better to say something like “British, but contested it”? Steamy202 (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe Mr Sands had Irish nationality - as I said on your talk page, anyone born in Northern Ireland also has the right to Irish citizenship. Whether he formally renounced British citizenship, I don't know, but in cases like this (and with religion, etc) Wikipedia generally goes with the subject's self-identification. But "Irish" is not legally untrue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Boing is right. Also WP:UKNATIONALS may be of interest. --John (talk) 09:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Not really accurate though, is it? “Self identified as Irish but legally British” would cover it.

I know those who keep Mr. Sands’ flame alive will need to protect this entry from some pretty nasty edits.

This isn’t one of them. Steamy202 (talk) 09:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Legally I think it's uncertain. He would have been entitled to Irish nationality, but I don't know if there's any evidence that he did take it up. If you want to change it, you'll need to get a consensus to support you. My feeling is that this might be a example of the problems we get where infobox entries are too simplistic for controversial/contested information. Anyway, if I can offer a friendly caution: Your comment about "those who keep Mr. Sands’ flame alive" suggests you're here with political motivation, and that tends not to end well. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough about the political thing. If we go with ‘self identified’ that’s a slippery slope. Wiki will never be perfect but wishful thinking is a slippery slope too. Mr Sands was entitled to Irish citizenship. If he didn’t have it the wiki entry shouldn’t say he did. Steamy202 (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

"first time the Catholic community had given their majority vote to an IRA man"
In addition to Bastun's argument that the religion of those voting is unknown (although let's face facts, I doubt many Protestants voted for Bobby Sands) the claim is in fact incorrect, as Tom Mitchell (politician), Philip Clarke (politician) and Liam Kelly (Irish republican) were all elected as MPs in Northern Ireland. FDW777 (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Not everyone in Ireland is a Protestant or a Catholic. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Each country of Europe in its own paragraph
In the chapter Bobby_Sands the reactions of many countries are compressed into one chapter. I opt for separate chapters. Please ping me. Steue (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * No. We don't need separate sections for single sentence, or even multiple sentence, reactions from different countries. The bullet points need combining into a paragraph or two of prose. FDW777 (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * @FDW777: To me, the separation by country is much more important than the amount which is written about the reaction in this country. -- Steue (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * See MOS:PROSE. FDW777 (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks FDW777, but the example in this Help shows that "use prose" is only better, if this prose delivers MORE information than a simple list. In our case: an additional separation of the already existing information into a list adds information in the way that it makes the reactions more easily separable by country. And, we all, probably, agree, that the people in the countries of Europe are quite different, and "deserve" separate paragraphs. Steue (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * No, that's not that MOS:PROSE says.
 * Prefer prose where a passage is understood easily as regular text. Prose is preferred in articles because it allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context in a way that a simple list may not. It is best suited to articles because their purpose is to explain.
 * Many stub articles can be improved by converting unnecessary lists into encyclopedic prose.
 * Generally single sentence bullet points need to be converted into prose, so changing a paragraph into bullet points is lowering the quality of the article. FDW777 (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * See also Talk:Bobby Sands/GA1, where it was asked Why does the Asia subsection use bulleted points? That's because the good article reviewer knows bullet pointed lists for things of that nature are not correct. Also at Talk:Bobby Sands/Archive 1 a different reviewer stated Per criterion 1(c), the lists in the sections Reactions and Published works should be changed to text. FDW777 (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Obviously, FDW777, our opinions differ in this case.
 * For me the addition of list points would be an improvement, because it would ADD separation by country.
 * It would NOT REDUCE any information already given.
 * What the example in MOS:PROSE implies is:
 * "Convert a simple list into encyclopedic prose by ADDING MORE information to a simple list."
 * And: A switch from list form to prose is only an improvement if, at the same time, it ADDS information.
 * But in our case changing the list form (back) to "prose" does NOT ADD any information, but DELETES information.
 * I would appreciate if some others would utter their opinion about this case.
 * Steue (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I've given you the opinions of two GA reviewers, who both specifically say not to do what you're proposing. So you've had the opinion of some others. FDW777 (Ytalk) 17:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, FDW777, you have, and I have read their comments, but they are only two - of millions of readers.

Citation: This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Please ping me. Steue (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Furthermore: In the example of this: Manual_of_Style/Lists I would definitely say that the list-style is much more appropriate.
 * And, to me, Manual_of_Style/Lists rather tends to support my opinion.
 * Please ping me. Steue (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * See WP:IDHT. In addition to me, two editors have said the lists of reactions shouldn't be bullet pointed, specifically when performing reviews to see if this should be classed as a good article. Since doing so would prevent it being a good article, the change will not be happening. Now see WP:STICK. FDW777 (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)