Talk:Loyalism

Compensation
Uh? Are there really people out there expecting to be compensated? -- Zoe


 * Not "expecting", in the ordinary sense, just asserting a right. It has repercussions; during the 1940s the then Duke of Westminster was approached to sell the site of the US Embassy in London, and he raised a question about some old defaults dating back to that era - so the pressure to sell was dropped. Now I come to think of it, it's a useful rebuttal to people who claim the USA has "never" defaulted on debts and has some exceptional claim to financial integrity (along with all sorts of other US exceptionalism). PML.


 * The land claims of the loyalists were extremely well documented. Here is an example I found:

[]


 * The source of this dispute come from the Jay Treaty which was a weak attempt to resolve this issue. Here is a quote from a geneologist that I found on the web from Loyalist Claims by Brenda Dougall Merriman:


 * When peace treaty negotiations were taking place in 1782-1783, the property and possessions that had belonged to loyal supporters were uppermost in their own minds, naturally, and to the British government, to a perhaps lesser degree. It became clear that there was little spirit of reconciliation in America for the Loyalists. At British insistence, the final agreement held that the American Congress would recommend to each state "... that they restore seized property, redress grievances, and permit loyalists to return home to live under the new jurisdiction."(2) Christopher Moore reminds us that the newly triumphant Americans would interpret that word "recommend" quite differently from British tradition. Tradition in an America with proud new states had abandoned the old parliamentary system where recommendations or advice to a sovereign were a matter of obligation.


 * -- http://globalgenealogy.com/globalgazette/gazbm/gazbm055.htm


 * There was a Commission for Claims and Losses that the British government created if loyalists would reliquish their claims to their government but only about 2000 claims were made -- the rest were unresolved. I put this in here as one of those things that IMHO would make this an NPOV article and not overly American in tone, however I must admit that it does have the ring of some kind of Posse Comitatus or militia group conspiracy or revisionist touch to it. I do not consider myself anything more than a mainstream colonial historian. Alex756

The preceeding section was moved to clean up the talk page Tgeairn (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Move from disambig?
Would it not make sense to make this into a disambiguation page, and move for example the section on British North American Loyalists to Loyalist (American Revolution)? QuartierLatin1968 08:55, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Okay, having heard no objections, I'm doing it. I think we should have one page on Loyalists in British North America, another on Loyalists in Ireland and Scotland (these are closely related movements in any case), and perhaps in addition a disambiguation page. (Perhaps we can achieve this effect by creating a new page Loyalist (disambiguation) and/or moving this page to Loyalist (United Kingdom).) QuartierLatin1968 22:26, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

used of
Hang on - "used of" is right. I was about to correct the first incorrect "used by"; perhaps the fuller version "a term used of..." would be clearer? The thing is "loyalist" is not only used by these groups themselves to describe themselves, but also of them by others.

Oh, have a look at JTDIRL's work too. PML.

Used of seems vague IMHO is this some kind of Irish usage?


 * Standard British English - PML.


 * a term used by and to describe the Union Ulsterists would be better for those of use not used to such a turn of phrase (which is quite elegant I might add).


 * Sorry - we are getting into a technical area. Unionism was a British political movement of around a century ago, and the term Unionist was in fact the specific official name of the Conservative Party until only a generation ago; the term remains in use of those for whom the matter remains relevant - those in Ulster (the noun "Ulster" is working as an adjective in "Ulster Unionist"). PML.


 * I think even just putting in See also: Union Ulsterists works as it gets people to link there. Alex756

I found the use of the term Unionist from your friend JTDIRL's pages on Unionists. If you have problems with that terminology why don't you just edit that page be bold in updating pages. Obviously Union Ulsterist is a typo I meant Unionists. If you had fixed your link that would have been obvious to me, but since I had to go searching for Unionists not Ulster Unionists it took me a while to figure that out. Ah, such is the beauty of Wikipedia!

disambiguation
what about loyalists in the Spanish Civil War?
 * Yes, the International Brigades are sometimes referred to as Loyalists. Nobs01 21:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed. There should be a section Spanish Civil War loyalists. Any takers? Joel Bastedo 23:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Kincora etc
Removed reference to the Kincora scandal. Yes, it was a big deal, but it's only one incident in the history of the Ulster conflict, and people that claim that it influenced goverment policy also claim that both the loyalist and republican communities were heavily involved in devil-worshpip and human-sacrifice. In the absence of decent information, too much conspiracy theory has grown around it, and any reference to is will inevitably be a POV. --Farry 14:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I intend to re-insert it when the page becomes unprotected.

Lapsed Pacifist 20:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree that "people that claim that it influenced goverment policy also claim that both the loyalist and republican communities were heavily involved in devil-worshpip and human-sacrifice." Martin Dillon covered the extent of the Kincora operation in his book, The Dirty War. The Satanism allegations were part of a "dirty tricks" campaign by British intelligence, also covered by Dillon.

Lapsed Pacifist 17:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Protection
The article is now protected in the pre-edit war version. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 00:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Progressive Unionist Party
I am so sick of hearing the PUP being called a loyalist party.Although,unfortunetly,it still has a 'special relationship' with the UVF,the PUP were important in having them declare a ceasefire.As well as that the PUP are pro-agreemnt and are strongly against sectarianism.A better term woulb be 'moderate unionist'.I am removing the bit in this article where they are called a Loyalsit party.Dermo69

Has it occured to anyone that loyalists can be from ANY cause that concerns nostalgia or support for a past power in ANY nation? You are all arguing over PROPER NOUNS. File them in their OWN entries about loyalists. Say "Progressive Unionist Part" as upose to arguing about it on the page for the NORMAL noun "loyalist". Bon? Bon. 209.161.234.248 02:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Erik

Hello - I'm unsure about Wikipedia's policies and such, but I've found something in this article that I disagree with: the statement that 'the majority of the [Canadian] population no longer identifies the British crown as being a Canadian institution or symbol.' I am a Canadian and I feel this is untrue; at a minimum, it's unsubstantiated. It's not a big deal and I'm not sure it's worth fighting over, but I do feel I'd like the article to reflect the fact that this a disputed claim.

If I don't receive any guidance, I'm going to try and figure out the proper means of drawing the reader's attention to this. 24.224.190.164 16:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Current Events
Hi. I was wondering if the current situations in Libya, Ivory Coast, and other Arab nations undergoing mass protests and regime change deserve a section for the loyalists there. There are loyalists in the Libyan Civil War and Ivorian Coast 2nd civil war and I thought they would fit in this page nicely. Thanks! Mainbasher (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup needed
The article needs significant cleanup and citation. I have started with flagging obvious needs and removing or rewording text as needed. I will continue to work on the article, but I would definitely appreciate some commentary - particularly with editors familiar with the subject. Thanks! Tgeairn (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * stop using the tag--simply add the cites yourself if you insist that they are needed. Drop the OR tag--there is no OR in the article. Rjensen (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks... I'm working my way through them now.  I've dropped or reworded most of the obvious OR, but it's either unsourced or OR for some of the remaining.  Back to reading sources... Tgeairn (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Usage
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the term loyalist is capitalized when used to describe the group of people in the North American colonies, but is lowercase when referring to the group in Ireland, right? Freebirdthemonk (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)