Talk:Orange walk

The Orange Walk in Scotland.
The walk is about HATE. Is an annual public display of hate towards non Protestants in general, and to the Catholics in particular. But the Catholics don´t do any kind of display like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.151.134.254 (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It is incorrect to say that only Catholics or "nationalist" find the parades offensive. The Orange Walk is not well received in Glasgow, as the marchers are often abusive and disrespectful of the areas they march through.
 * Find a reputable source for this (ie an article in a mainstream media outlet) and I'll add something on it. --Helenalex (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/display.var.2378907.0.warning_to_bigots_over_orange_walk_behaviour.php

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20050626/ai_n14696967/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.221.164 (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorted. --Helenalex (talk) 09:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I'm proposing we merge and redirect this article to either The Twelfth or Orange Institution. Most of its content is replicated on those articles and at Parades in Northern Ireland. I see no reason to have four articles covering the same topic. Thoughts? ~Asarlaí 23:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * They don't cover the same topic, they cover overlapping topics. The Orange Institution is much more than a parading group (although the parades do get most of the attention), and the Twelfth is a major event which deserves its own page even though it is a subset of 'Orange Walk'. There might be a case for merging Orange Walk into Parades in Northern Ireland, but the danger would be that 'parades' would be dominated by Orange Order stuff. If there is strong support for a merge, that's where it should be, but I don't think a merge is needed. --Helenalex (talk) 06:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * agree with helenalex --sfs (talk) 09:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sectarian Bias
There appears to be a problem in the editing of this page. Any attempt to introduce material that is at odds with official Orange policy is instantly removed. However the requirement for balance as a Wikipedia article should and must override that.

With respect to comments about the Orange Walks in Glasgow, whilst lacking documented sources, there is, nevertheless a significant body of opinion that supports the view that these are both divisive and can lead to abuse or violence (in either direction). Editors from within the Orange community need to bear in mind that their perception of what is fair and balanced is not necessarily shared by the rest of the world.

In the past month alone (May 2012), there have been three Orange Walks along the Maryhill Road in Glasgow - for reasons that are neither transparent nor connected to the 12 July. The costs of the disruption they cause (noise, policing, traffic hold-ups etc) do not seem commensurate with the rights of the wider community to go about their business uninterrupted. Therefore this article should allow insight into this alternative viewpoint, especially if posted by non-Orange sources. One might ask why Orange Walks feel the necessity to operate so much more frequently than public displays by any other organisation? That is an open question that encourages the reader to consider the context of the OW and the resulting impacts they do or do not incur. An encyclopedic article should be able to pose open questions to which (at present) there may not be conclusive evidence in either direction.

What is posted as representing free speech in itself constitutes opinion (either of the Orange Order or the individual editor) and is not independently verifiable. There is no solid documentary evidence to support those views yet they have (generally) been allowed to stay on the page. Other comments that give insight need also to be allowed otherwise the casual reader will (likely) take the view that what is being put forward is in fact propaganda.

In the 21st Century - an organisation that purports to be activist against established (pre-Reformation) church seems markedly at odds with a pluralist society. To allow a reader to understand why that is and to come to a reasoned judgment about the pros and cons, requires that this and similar articles allow some fresh air into the thinking. Simply repressing alternate views (even where those openly acknowledge that they are opinion) is not free speech in any form. Synaptic peach (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * A recurrent problem with pages on this topic is that people make edits with out a clear understanding of the subject. For example a lack of understanding of the difference between the Orange Order, Apprentice Boys of Derry, and the Royal Black Preceptory and their respective traditions. Or a lack of understanding of the various reasons for parades. In the case of the Orange Order, processions overwhelmingly fall into three categories: lodge/district anniversaries; church parades; 12th July celebrations.


 * It is not an easy organisation to research, but that is not excuse for making comments and judgements in what is meant to be an Encyclopedia based on assumptions or guesses rather than concrete facts.


 * In the case of Glasgow, with almost 200 individual Orange Lodges, never mind ABOD clubs or RBP chapters, each wanting to celebrate their own 5 and 10 year anniversaries with a procession in addition to district church parades, the city is extraordinarily busy.


 * Information on the Order is available, but in my experience you physically have to go to the district halls and ask for information or records in person rather than pick them up on the internet or academic libraries. --Furious Andrew


 * While it may be a difficult organistion to research - that does NOT preclude common attitudes being reported in an article to bring some balance. You appear to want to use every justification for refusing anyone else to edit this page.  That will result in an arbitration request if you don't step back.  I happen to live close to Maryhill Road in Glasgow.  I understand the local politics a lot better than most.  I also have plenty of conversations with people from across the city and without exception they find the Orange Walks a mystery that is at odds with the behaviour of other groups.  These are people from all walks of life, culture and educational background.  Foreigners are completely mystified and regard them as ridiculous (and that includes nationalities such as Germans, Eastern Europeans, Malaysians, Americans and others) - all of whom have observed Orange Walks whilst staying with me.  Our local asian store owner (a relatively young man of Pakistani origin) on hearing a walk marching by, openly ridicules them as bigots.


 * Other editors have apprently come across similar views. That these views have not been subject to a formal research paper does not make them invalid.  It IS the case that people in Scotland more generally find the Orange Walks strange - especially their frequency.  I cannot think of any other organisation that is on the streets so often.  That begs the question to be posed - openly and without bias - as to why is this the case?  What is it about Orange activities that sets them apart from the general behaviour of other groups.  Few religious groups parade openly in the UK.  In Glasgow the asian communities have their summer festival - and that is it.  The vast majority of other organisations don't find it necessary to celebrate 5- and 10-year anniversaries, although your post seems to indicate that would be a reasonable excuse for being on the streets.


 * Therefore, the page would be better it if allowed this matter to be open and included. It is not a criticism without foundation, it is a viewpoint that helps the observer to understand that there is something unusual about this topic.  Whether they agree that it should be so is up to them, YOU should not continually stand in the way of other editors bringing something to the page.


 * You cannot hide everything behind "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" when it is clearly the case that confusion exists in the minds of large numbers of people as to the WHYs and WHEREFOREs of these walks. It is not denying the walks existence nor their genesis.  There are a number of comments throughout the existing page that appear to have been placed there from an Orange perspective but which are not encyclopedic in their nature.  The opening paragraph under CONTROVERSY is unsubstantiated although clearly true in large part.  Therefore failing to allow similar introductions/commentary is evidence of bias - something which I (and apparently others) are trying to address.Synaptic peach (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 18:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There is plenty in what you have written that opens up legitimate question, however I would argue that an encyclopedia is about answers rather than questions. If you don't know about the Orange Order you shouldn't be writing about them. I used to stay across from the Sikh Temple in Anderston. I don't have any knowledge of the Sikh religion besides what I observed occurring at the temple and street in front of it. The significance of the regalia they carried and music they played during their celebrations and processions are a mystery to me. For that reason I haven't made any contributions to any of the pages regarding their culture and faith.


 * I would welcome a request for arbitration because the controversy and opinions of the Orange Order are already covered in the article, and because I genuinely think that what you have written is primarily reflective of your own opinion rather than being a suitable contribution to information on the topic covered. --Furious Andrew —Preceding undated comment added 23:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * My whole point has been and is that whilst the technical information around the Orange Order and their walks may well be sourced from experts - there remains in the coverage of the controversy a requirement for balance. That has not been the case until recently and opinion reflects the controversy.  You appear to have a very narrow view of encyclopedic articles and yet seem happy that the same page contains opinion - as long as it is your opinion.  Don't make the mistake of saying that what I have written merely represents my own opinion - it doesn't.  Moreover in my academic capacity I am used to challenging people to bring balance to an argument.


 * Having met and discussed with senior members of the Orange Order over the years (including the late Brian Faulkner) it is patently clear that their resistance to third-party criticism is endemic. That neither makes the understanding of Orange Walks and their place in society easier to put across nor helps those who think they understand the topic get insight into aspects that are working against it.  If you have a closed mind to the idea that a large chunk of the population believes that OW's are an irrelevance or confrontational or something else, then how are you educating young Orange enthusiasts who go to Wikipedia for information?  Exposing this as part of the Controversy Section does add balance and allows a reader to understand more of the forces at work.  That is educational and fits perfectly well with the site.  If I were to follow your lead there would be a redaction of large chunks of the existing material.  Do you want that?  Whoever wrote the opening paragraph under Controversy did so without allowing some contrary views and without any verifiable sources and it is clear to me that their viewpoint was both narrow and misinterpreted non-Orange attitudes.  There are similar instances elsewhere on the page.  Synaptic peach (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 01:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Biased language
The article should mention Protestant condemnation of this practice... and also when it talks about marching in Ulster, it is nearly all in Northern Ireland, plus one in Donegal I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.89.24.213 (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected?
In the past few days, one anonymous editor changed 'considered controversial' to 'considered sectarian' and another editor changed that to 'considered non sectarian'. The former, while awkward, was arguably supported by the references, which were unchanged. The latter definitely wasn't. I reverted it to the original. I have neither the subject matter expertise nor the knowledge of Wikipedia to contribute to or babysit this article, but it may be appropriate for semiprotected status.