Talk:Free Derry

POV
I think this article is highly POV. To say "equal voting rights did not exist" is technically inaccurate, although the system was generally considered to have been weighted in favour of the Protestant majority. I don't believe any of the civil rights associations were ever 'banned' by anyone, nor do I believe 'beaten on the streets' is reflective of the situation, not to mention that it is highly emotive language.

The first half of the article needs a rewrite that is more balanced... --Breadandcheese 17:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The issue mentioned above no longer appears to be present in the article, so I removed the NPOV banner. -- Hux 21:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Massively Important
This is a massively important event in irish history, it needs to be expanded greatly (Gnevin 22:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC))

Irish history? Northern Ireland is part of Britain! I'm sick of reading "British this and British that" on this page such as British Home Secretary, British Army, British troops, this wasn't a foreign country that they were involved in, it was and is a part of Britain. Adding British is entirely inappropriate and NPOV and i'm removing the propaganda. YourPTR! 20:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Adding British is indeed entirely NPOV (although I suspect you meant to say POV). At the time we are talking about Northern Ireland was essentially self-governing and had its own Home Secretary and its own security forces, the (armed) Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Ulster Special Constabulary (B-Specials). The deployment of troops from the regular British Army, and the visit of Jim Callaghan, were the result of a decision by the British Government to get involved in Northern Ireland, which it had not done in the 40-odd years since the creation of the state. Also, in the case of the army, regardless of your POV it is essential for clarity to distinguish it from the Irish Republican Army. Scolaire 07:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we should talk about Ireland, and not The Republic of Ireland - Northern Ireland is part of Ireland, hence the name- it's also part of the UK, but it's not strictly British in that it's not part of Great Britain. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry 19:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Samuel Devenny
I have edited and expanded the paragraph on the Samuel Devenny attack as the original text was written with a political slant and not in an encyclopedic way. In editeing and expanding it I have added the official documented statements of the reason why RUC officers decided to try and enter the property and what is alledged to have caused the resultant attack on the family. It is also wise to point out that officially Mr Devenny's death remains by natural causes and the statement in the article which used the term murder, while highly emotive, is not officially accurate. As an article wiki Free Derry is not supposed to present opinions on what happened as seems to have been the case in the Mr Devenny paragraph. Instead it can only present encyclopedic fact. While appreciating that the deaths of victims in the Northern Ireland troubles is, as stated before, highly emotive and often tinted by political opinion, within wiki it should remain purely factual. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.202.136.227 (talk • contribs).
 * It's a well-written paragraph but, to be honest, I think there is way too much detail for this particular article. The death of Samuel Devenny, while it may have been one contributory factor in the building of barricades, was not in any way related to Free Derry per se. Scolaire 14:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. That much detail would be good for an article about Mr. Devenny, or an article about that incident (especially in relation to the NICRA and the Civil Rights movement in general), but not in the Free Derry article.  In general, this article is in need of a great deal of work. ---  Theoldanarchist  Comhrá  16:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The work has begun :-) Scolaire 18:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Protestants in the Foyle Road
I am moving the following paragraph to here. I have been unable to find any mention of the story elsewhere. It can be restored if a verifiable source is cited:

One major issue of the time was the inclusion of the Foyle Road area, which was considered to be approximately 25% Protestant. Some simply packed their bags and abandoned their homes in the hope of being given housing in the Waterside of the city but others, who owned their homes or held mortgages, were either unwilling or unable to leave. The action came to a head in January 1970 when members of the Provisional IRA burst into the dwellings of the remaining Protestants and issued them with a warning that if they did not leave within twelve hours they would be shot. The attacks infuriated the members of the Official IRA, many of whom had regarded the Protestants of the Foyle Road as neighbours and friends before the troubles. During the next day members of the Oficial IRA visited those who were still in their homes and assured them that no harm would come to them but that wider events had made their staying in Foyle Road impossible. Despite the dwindling power of the Official IRA the residents were protected from attack during a protracted negotiation with the council who between 1970 and 1976 compulsarily purchased the properties, for a fraction of their value, and rehoused the residents in the Waterside.

Scolaire 18:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look in Tim Pat Coogan's book, and see if he mentions this. It sounds awfully damn speculative to me.  Good call, Scolaire. ---  Theoldanarchist  Comhrá  16:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Gay Pride
The Gay Pride story is now eight months old. I'm moving it from its current place to a footnote, including the link to the BBC story. It's definitely time that the pink wall pic was removed; it gives the impression that the article is about Gay Pride. Scolaire (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've moved the footnote as part of a copyedit, but it's still there. Scolaire (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Very quick review
More to follow... Perhaps include the death of the fourteenth somehow? I'm aware he was killed before 1 Para moved in. (Done. Scolaire (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)) Undoubtedly true, possibly add a direct quote from someone about how it was increased? I've seen plenty in books, I'll try and find one myself. (Done. Scolaire (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)) Although "local boy" is pretty much common usage, there's probably a slightly more formal and encyclopedic alternative? (Done. Scolaire (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)) Official SF? Probably best to clarify that. (Done. Scolaire (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)) A bit about the scale of the operation wouldn't go amiss, it was the biggest Army operation since the Suez crisis. Possibly expand "the IRA took the decision not to resist it" to add slightly more context. Possibly expand that slightly. "incident in Belfast" is vague, and only invites the reader to wonder what sort of incident but doesn't tell them. (Done. Scolaire (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC))
 * Troops from 1 Para then moved into Free Derry and opened fire, killing thirteen people, all of whom were subsequently found to be unarmed
 * Like the killing of Cusack and Beattie the previous year, Bloody Sunday had the effect of hugely increasing recruitment to the IRA
 * Best was a local boy...
 * The following day 500 women marched to the Official headquarters in protest.
 * Motorman
 * "The talks were not resumed after the ending of the truce following an incident in Belfast"

I'll take a look at the rest later, but it's certainly a huge improvement and an easy B class. One Night In Hackney 303  19:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Few more thoughts...

Merge the "Name and location" section. The name can probably go in the background section, less sure about whether that's an appropriate place to merge the location, but I'm never keen on tiny sections when you've got much bigger ones if they can be avoided. (Done. Scolaire (talk) 10:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC))

Possibly a bit more about gerrymandering. From memory the Catholic wards returned less councillors that the Protestant ward(s?), despite being numerically larger, thereby ensuring permanent control. It's got some good detail already, but doesn't explain it well enough. As it's talking about waiting lists in that section, I seem to remember a famous example (was it Michelle Gildernew's mother?) of a Catholic being refused a council house/flat that was given to the secretary of a Unionist councillor? Details may be slightly off on that, so correct me if I'm wrong. Think that would be a good example to add. (Done, but I left out Gildernew's family because they weren't in Derry. Scolaire (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC))

Apprentice Boys march. Perhaps a bit about them deliberately organising the march for the same day to force the issue? It's referenced in the NICRA article, I remember referencing it. (Done. Scolaire (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC))

Burntollet. "anti-civil rights counter-demonstrators" is a bit vague, let's call a spade a spade and include Loyalist, plus the "off-duty" RUC and B-Specials that were there too. One Night In Hackney 303  21:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Scolaire (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Automated peer review
There is an automated peer review at Talk:Free Derry/Automated peer review. Scolaire (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The statement "It has always had a majority nationalist population" contained within this article is blatantly incorrect.
Londonderry has not always had a majority Nationalist population. This is easily verified by the various census reports now available on-line such as this one from 1659. 1659 Census --78.33.101.58 (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately that reference provides no evidence that it had, or did not have, a majority nationalist population or anything else. All it states is how many Irish or English and Scotts people were living in the area. It gives no indication as to their political affiliations, views, support or opinions on way or another. Canterbury Tail   talk  03:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The point in all of this is that the Scots and English settlers referred to in the census were certainly not nationalists and you can assume that the Irish were. It doesn't take much working out to establish that the so-called Nationalists were not in the majority. On another point,do you honestly think that the gates of Londonderry would have been closed against the Catholic King James II in 1689 if the majority of the population were Irish Catholics? Siege of Derry I submit that the offending sentence is far too broad in its assumptions and should be immediately removed from the article and replaced by text reflective of the actual population divide over the centuries. --78.33.101.58 (talk) 12:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you cannot assume someone's political leanings based upon the nationality of their birth. If that were the case then Derry could be considered to have a majority Unionist population since people born in NI are considered British, but to make such an assumption would be ludicrous and incorrect. For all we know those Scotts and English referred to in the census of that time were all 100% Nationalist, but we don't know and we certainly don't put words and ideologies into other people's mouths. Canterbury Tail   talk  21:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Derry has been a settlement since the 6th century, saying its population has always been mostly nationalist surely can't be correct. Better to say "since ... its population has been..." (with sources). Nev1 (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * And were there Irish nationalists and unionists in the 6th century? O Fenian (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, Derry was a monastic settlement (Waterside or east side of the Foyle) from the early 6th Century. It was not until the arrival of the settlers from England and Scotland however in the 1600's that the city of Londonderry was commenced on the west side of the Foyle. You then had two settlements split by the river Foyle. The ever growing city of Londonderry eventually encompassed the smaller settlement of Doire or Derry on the east bank and today we have one city still with two traditions. Derry died, swamped by the vast resources and financial might of London, the English city that gave Londonderry its name and its great wealth and history.


 * To call Londonderry Doire or Derry is to deny it its birthright simply because of political expediency! --78.33.101.58 (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly agree with this, the city was conceived and constructed as Londonderry and to give it the name of the adjacent hamlet of Derry is incorrect. Just because incomers from Donegal called it Doire and later Derry (lack of proper English) doesn't make it correct. The city Council may change their name but the city is properly and legally called Londonderry and Wikipedia should reflect this if it wants to be taken seriously as a genuine encylopedia.--87.115.13.130 (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You agree with yourself? O Fenian (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth&mdash;that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies.-- Domer48 'fenian'  19:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church in Londonderry
Does anyone hold a particular view on this matter and can point to appropriate links one way or the other? --78.33.101.58 (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well if it's well known and documented then finding references should be simple. Feel free to put the text in with the appropriate supporting references. Canterbury Tail   talk  03:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That is not what you tried adding to the article. You tried adding "It is well documented that the Roman Catholic church encouraged Catholics to have large families in order that the Nationalists could eventually outnumber and outvote the Unionists" which is not the same at all. O Fenian (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Original content deleted but now reinstated!--78.33.101.58 (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This bigoted sectarian soapboxing should be removed. O Fenian (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What? don't you like the truth or do you only like the version which pampers your Republican allegiances? I am neither bigoted or sectarian thank you very much having no less than two Roman Catholic priests in my own family!  --78.33.101.58 (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you do not provide neutral and reliable sources for your assertions they won't be allowed in the article, it's that simple. Nev1 (talk) 13:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I certainly intend to because this is a very important part of life in Ireland which certain parties would rather be forgotten!
 * The truth does hurt!--78.33.101.58 (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

What are you on about, with your "The truth does hurt"? Your "Original content" was removed per WP:SOAP and WP:TPG, and will continue to be removed. Now provide sources per WP:V and WP:RS to support your assertions. -- Domer48 'fenian'  14:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur with Domer, Nev1 and O Fenian above. BigDunc  Talk 16:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The 1961 census taken in Londonderry revealed that the birth rate in the South Ward, at 21.2 per 000 was almost double that of the Northern average, 40% of the population there were under 15 and that 80% of births in Derry were to Catholic mothers.The Museum of Free Derry


 * How does that source anything you have tried to add? O Fenian (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly the source doesn't prove that the CC had a policy of overpopulation all it proves is the Derry people are a little horny. No offence to any Derry editors. ;) BigDunc  Talk 17:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There are several factors that affect the birth rate, which is why you need a third party source which analyses the info. Drawing conclusions yourself from raw data is synthesis and is against policy as it could be wrong. Nev1 (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The source does not support the statement "Due to the influx of settlers from Donegal and surrounding areas and the high birth rate, it has maintained a majority Catholic population since the 19th century" as it makes no such argument as to why there is a majority Catholic population. With regard to another edit made, I have looked at the Widgery report and can find no part of it that sources the Paras "opened fire after coming under fire themselves from Provisional IRA snipers", and who fired first (apart from the isolated sniper shot that occurred before the Paras moved into Free Derry) is very controversial, so it definitely should not be stated as fact. Due to edits such as this I am no longer prepared to assume good faith with this editor, and any controversial edits that are not 100% properly sourced will be reverted. O Fenian (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * To quote from the Museum of Free Derry...." Many of the houses were increasingly inhabited by unskilled labourers from the mountain districts of Donegal"..seems to give corroboration to the statement that Derry was increasingly having to support incomers from Donegal. --87.115.13.130 (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it is a bare fact presented without any conclusion being drawn. You are not permitted to draw your own conclusion from that fact, it is against policy. Also it is that the Catholic majority was caused by the influx that is not sourced, not that there were migrants from Donegal. O Fenian (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * One can only but draw the conclusion, based on the facts provided by the Museum Of Free Derry that the population of Londonderry was swollen over the centuries by the impoverished population from Donegal moving into the city and taking up valuable housing resources. This taken with the very high RC birth rate led to only one result.--87.115.13.130 (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You are not permitted to draw your own conclusions according to no original research, it is that simple. O Fenian (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Find a reliable source that states that. Otherwise, this is an encyclopedia for reporting facts, and editors should not draw their own conclusions. Nev1 (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected
I've semi-protected this article due to the roving IPs that are causing edit wars on non-consensus, non-referenced changes. Canterbury Tail  talk  23:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, a good decision considering the editor's first edit after a 55 hour block was to make the same edit that got them blocked to begin with. Given this edit included "The regular dole queues outside the Crown Buildings at Asylum Road however were testament to the willingness of these same people to take the British Pound irrespective of their political beliefs" which is unsourced and grossly point of view, it seems the editor is unwilling to make their edits conform to policy despite warnings and blocks. O Fenian (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The FACTS speak VOLUMES!...watch this space!! --78.33.101.58 (talk) 09:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Some comments on recent edits
Obviously, "It has always had a majority nationalist population" was wrong, and needed to be corrected. I have some issues, though, with the current version. Firstly, and most importantly, "nationalist majority" has been changed to "Catholic majority". This article has consistently made the point that communal strife in Derry was based on the opposition of nationalist residents to the unionist system and was not religious in nature, and of course one of the key figures in the 1969 Free Derry was a Protestant, Ivan Cooper. Secondly, the insertion of details about the 1920 election and Hugh O'Doherty's election as mayor breaks the connection between the nationalist majority among the population and the unionist majority on the corporation, making the paragraph difficult to follow. I propose to edit the paragraph as follows: Any objections? Scolaire (talk) 10:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Derry City lies on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. It has a majority nationalist population, and nationalists won a majority of seats in the 1920 local elections.  Despite this, the Ulster Unionist Party had a  majority on the local council, Londonderry Corporation, from 1923 onwards.[1] The Unionists maintained their majority...
 * I only changed it to "Catholic majority" to match the source I added. O Fenian (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I realise that. That's why I would rather not cite that source, nor make reference to the 19th century, since it is not directly relevant to the point being made.  BTW, my reference [1] is to the Museum of Free Derry website cited by Valenciano.  Scolaire (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say that "the Ulster Unionist Party won a majority of seats" would be more accurate. Few would dispute the fact that gerrymandering led to the Unionist majority on the council for most of the period. Valenciano (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair point. But can you think of a wording that would avoid using the identical phrase "won a majority of seats" in successive sentences?  How about "the Ulster Unionist Party controlled the local council, Londonderry Corporation, from 1923 onwards"?  Scolaire (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments on these edits. The term "gerrymandering" is used by many people, so to try and portray it as a nationalist term without any evidence to support that is incorrect. Secondly what Whyte has to say about the Parliament of Northern Ireland electoral boundaries is wholly irrelevant to Derry's council election boundaries. Indeed, Whyte's conclusion is "Charges that parliamentary constituencies were gerrymandered against the nationalists have only slight validity, whatever other criticisms might be made of the effects of abolishing PR. The peculiarities of local government franchise were also of little effect. But when it comes to gerrymandering of local government boundaries, criticism is much more firmly based. Nationalists were manipulated out of control in a number of councils where they had a majority of electors. This is one of the clearest areas of discrimination in the whole field of controversy." So Whyte does not disagree at all! O Fenian (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

'Free Derry was an illegal entity......
Lets consider my edit to...Free Derry was an illegal self-declared autonomous nationalist area of Derry, County Londonderry, Northern Ireland, between 1969 and 1972.

Free Derry was an illegal entity. Civil disobedience, street violence towards the legitimate autorities, threats, intimidation and evictions for anyone who opposed the situation was the order of the day. This was a no-go zone for the Police and British Army for much time because of the level of violence being generated by those whose wishes they wanted to impose on everyone else regardless of their religion and creed.

The city lies in the County Londonderry, it is quite correct to add this label. Please discuss if you can. --The Maiden City (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Prove it. O Fenian (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Watch and learn...FREE Derry footage --The Maiden City (talk) 13:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Everyone knows that it was an illegal blockade. This so-called self-proclaimed entity drew its funds from the British Government on one hand yet defied its authority on the other by the use of the gun and the petrol bomb. Free Derry was nothing but a pro-Republican ghetto run by Martin McGuiness and his hencemen of the Provisional IRA. The ordinary people suffered greatly as aresult of this blockade and many chose to leave the Bogside and Creggan ghetto's. Oh yes, it was illegal. Had it been legal it would have retained proper Law and Order and not the law of the paramilitary. --The Maiden City (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Prove it. O Fenian (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Watch and learn, you might even see yourself! Free Derry..not so free! --The Maiden City (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That does not support your assertions, and is not a reliable source. O Fenian (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh so now the video camera lies? Hooded Paramilitaries parading around Free Derry like the local milkman....yea that's really legal and instills much confidence. --The Maiden City (talk) 13:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That does not prove Free Derry was itself illegal. O Fenian (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Prove it then because the video and many others speak for themself? Where were its Laws registered, where were its borders, where did it get its finances.....must I go on. An illegal entity within the British State run and controlled by terrorist thugs. --The Maiden City (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to add the word illegal, the burden of evidence is on you to prove it. Do you have reliable sources that prove it? I will not reply to any further messages regarding this unless you provide reliable sources. O Fenian (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Currently has a majority Nationalist population
Lets consider my edit.....It currently has a majority nationalist population. The nationalists first won a majority of seats in the 1920 local elections. Despite this, the Ulster Unionist Party regained control of the local council, Londonderry Corporation, from 1923 onwards.

This is fact, the city did not always have a majority Nationalist population, we have already had this argument apparently. The rest of the edit is proper English paragraphing wit no content changes. Please discuss if you can. --The Maiden City (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:DATED. O Fenian (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Not applicable as I am sure you and BigYin will keep these pages updated. --The Maiden City (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. O Fenian (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You can disgree all you like but it is the Wikipedia rules that count. Currently stays as far as I am concerned unless someone can show otherwise according to WIKIPEDIA rules. --The Maiden City (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Controversial terminology
Lets consider my edit.....1. legally redrawing the constituency boundaries, refered to by Nationalists as gerrymandering, ensuring that the South Ward, with a nationalist majority, returned eight councillors while the much smaller North Ward and Waterside Ward, with unionist majorities, returned twelve councillors between them. '''The term gerrymandering is commonly used by Republicans and Nationalists to support their views on Northern Ireland election results. Many noted geographers and historians including Professor John H. Whyte have disagreed. They have argued that the electoral boundaries for the Parliament of Northern Ireland were not gerrymandered to a greater level than that produced by any single-winner election system, and that the actual number of Nationalist MPs barely changed under the revised system.'''

The term legally has been inserted to show to the reader that this was not some illegal method used by the Unionist Authorities. They were entitled to use any legal means at their disposal and did so.

The phrase refered to by Nationalists as gerrymandering has been inserted to show the reader that this term is unique to Catholics and Nationalists in Northern Ireland. No self-respecting Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist would ever refer to such a term or accept that it ever applied to them.

The phrase The term gerrymandering is commonly used by Republicans and Nationalists to support their views on Northern Ireland election results has been added to show the reader that only Republicans/Nationalists complain of such activity. Maybe they should consider the fact that the Catholic vote was split between the SDLP and Sinn Féin which accounted for some lost seats in the elections.

The comment '''Many noted geographers and historians including Professor John H. Whyte have disagreed. They have argued that the electoral boundaries for the Parliament of Northern Ireland were not gerrymandered to a greater level than that produced by any single-winner election system, and that the actual number of Nationalist MPs barely changed under the revised system''' gives the reader confirmation that the so-called gerrymander effect wasn't all that it was supposed to be. --The Maiden City (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That Unionists would not use the term to describe what they did is irrelevant, the term is used by countless independent sources from Paul Bew to Conor Cruise O'Brien to Marc Mulholland to Ruth Dudley Edwards to name several who are not nationalists or republicans. That is was legal is not relevant, there is no need for the word to be inserted in every article any time something controversial is mentioned, the absence of the word "illegal" is sufficient.

Oh but there is because your edit implies that it was an illegal act intended to disenfranchise the Catholics. Any stramnger to NI politics would not necessarily know that it was a legal act. --The Maiden City (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I ask the same question I asked earlier. What has Whyte's analysis of Northern Ireland Parliament electoral boundaries got to do with the Derry council electoral electoral boundaries, especially when his conclusions regarding the two are different? This article is not about gerrymandering in general but about Derry, so irrelevant information about other electoral boundaries does not belong here. O Fenian (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It does no harm to let the uninformed reader know the broader picture. So-called gerrymandering or the redrawing of the political boundaries as I prefer to call it effected the city both at local and at Parliamentary level thus it is appropriate and proper to include this edit. --The Maiden City (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Except that the bigger picture is not relevant to this particular incidence of gerrymandering, and Whyte does not disagree at all. He says "But when it comes to gerrymandering of local government boundaries, criticism is much more firmly based. Nationalists were manipulated out of control in a number of councils where they had a majority of electors. This is one of the clearest areas of discrimination in the whole field of controversy" and "Yet unionists won back control under the ward division imposed in 1923, and when, after some years, it looked as if the nationalists might capture one of the unionist wards, the boundaries were redrawn so as to perpetuate unionist rule". Also, who are the "Many noted geographers and historians"? Name them please, if you assert that sentence is true. O Fenian (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

December 2011 edits
I see there have been multiple attempts by an editor to claim the sentence "Both IRA's were asked, and agreed, to suspend operations on that day to ensure the march passed off peacefully" is contradicted by Saville, this is not the case. Saville found the British Army fired first, contradicting the long-held belief that the first shot was fired by an Official IRA sniper acting against orders, someone who was immediately told to stop firing from memory. That one or both IRAs opened fire *after* the British Army started stooting people has no bearing on the sentence in question. They were asked to suspend operations so the match could pass off peacefully, they agreed to do so, and when the British Army started shooting people (ie - when the chance of the march passing off peacefully had vanished) they returned fire. No contradiction there, although I will say the article could possibly benefit from a sentence explaining that the IRA did open fire after the British Army.... 2 lines of K 303  11:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Former country infobox
I don't know when those "former country" and "states and territories" categories were added. They didn't do any great harm, but the former country infobox is inappropriate. Free Derry wasn't a country. It didn't have a declaration of independence, it didn't have a government and it didn't have a capital (how could a section of a city have a city for a capital?). I am removing the infobox, and I don't think it needs to be replaced with anything. I am replacing the cats with "establishments" and "disestablishments" for the moment. If anybody knows of an appropriate cat for no-go areas, that would be better. Scolaire (talk) 07:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It truly never was a "country" but I used the infobox because I believed it was the best for the job. The capital thing was useless but was unfortunately required by the infobox. It did have a quasi government that mainly consisted of a council and patrols. I would recommend this page having an infobox of some sort. The purpose of an infobox is to have a quick summary of an article and I believe this lengthy article could use an infobox. Perhaps instead of a "former country" infobox we could use Template:Infobox former subdivision, or Template:Infobox UK place? Mangokeylime (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * As I said, I don't believe this article would benefit from an infobox. A proper country article, United States for example, has sections for geography, demographics (including languages), government etc. An infobox summarises this information from the article. This article doesn't have this kind of information. There is no infobox designed to summarise an article like this, because the article is essentially a chronology. Looking for an infobox to shoehorn into it is not the right way to go. Not all articles need infoboxes. For what it's worth, I think this also applies to articles such as Revolutionary Catalonia. However, I'm not going to meddle in articles I'm not already involved in. Scolaire (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * My final idea for an infobox would perhaps be the Template:Infobox military conflict. As you said this article mainly defines the events of Free Derry, not the actual territory, the conflict box is better fit for that. This article incredibly resembles the Paris Commune article, both are about the events of a rebel area, and the Commune article uses the Template:Infobox military conflict infobox. If you don't like that idea then lets just leave out the infobox. Also, if you want you could bring this issue up in the Revolutionary Catalonia article, you do have a case that should be heard.Mangokeylime (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I remember looking at the Paris Commune article before, thinking it would be similar, and being disappointed that I couldn't use any of the cats. I'd say I ruled out the infobox at the same time. Again, unlike the Paris Commune where battalions of French Army and National Guard fought military engagements, Free Derry was initially ordinary citizens holding barricades against a civil police force, and the British Army, when it came to Derry, took no action against the enclave until the very last day, when it launched Operation Motorman (I wouldn't count Bloody Sunday). Even the third manifestation of Free Derry (1971-2), when the two IRAs were involved, doesn't fit the bill. I just don't think this is an article that lends itself to an infobox. Thank you for trying, though, and for a useful talk page discussion. Scolaire (talk) 08:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Free Derry. 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/20100325074037/http://www.museumoffreederry.org:80/history-bogside01.html to http://www.museumoffreederry.org/history-bogside01.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150731031114/http://www.museumoffreederry.org:80/history-battle01.html to http://www.museumoffreederry.org/history-battle01.html

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) 07:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Free Derry. 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/20070630143958/http://www.museumoffreederry.org/introduction.html to http://www.museumoffreederry.org/introduction.html

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) 12:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Irish name
The Irish translation appears to fail WP:IMOS. No evidence it's the common name or well known. Source doesn't prove it's a valid translation, only a phrase that's used in this particular source. Needs a source that proves the Irish translation is actually commonly used, which doesn't appear to be the case. Canterbury Tail talk 17:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comhar "is a prominent literary journal in the Irish language...It was founded in 1942, and has published work by some of the most notable writers in Irish, including...Brendan Behan." The citation is an article in Comhar about Free Derry, written only a year after it came to an end. It's not an article about nothing in particular that happens to use a phrase.
 * The article begins, "Cuireadh tús le ré Saor Dhoire ar oíche an chúigiú lá de Dheireadh Fómhar, 1968", meaning "The Free Derry period began on the night of the fifth of October, 1968." It does not say "Saor Dhoire (Free Derry)" in the way that it later says "Leath an Uisce (Waterside)" or "Leath an Móna (Bogside)". On later pages it refers to "Brandywell" and "peace women" without any Irish version. All of which shows that Saor Dhoire was a common name, well known to the readers of this prominent journal, unlike Leath an Uisce and Leath an Móna, which were less well known, and "Brandywell" and "peace women", which had no common or well known Irish equivalent. The translation therefore conforms to that section of IMOS, which was written specifically to cover this sort of use of a word or phrase in Irish. Scolaire (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. My Irish is pretty poor, classes were minimal, so I can't read it. However my reading of it is not required. I was mostly concerned because another editor changed that reading of Free Derry to another term and that didn't appear to be used, or by what you say above even accurate. So thanks for finding the source and patiently explaining it me, Google Translate doesn't suffice here. Canterbury Tail talk 17:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * For your further information, in almost every case, the adjective follows the noun in Irish. That would mean that Doire Saor would be the correct word order, except that saor is one of the very rare exceptions to that rule. The editor's username translates as "[speak] Irish please", so I initially thought he/she was some kind of expert. I was actually discussing the question on the editor's talk page at the very moment that you were removing the Irish from the first sentence, which is why my correction/citation came so quickly after. Scolaire (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)