Talk:RUC Special Branch

OR
The source YOU provide states: "Because the RUC Special Branch was perceived to be contaminated by Orangemen, it was not entirely trusted by either MI5 or the army."

So which matches the source better? Or
 * "Infiltration of the Special Branch by members of the Orange Order meant it wasn't entirely trusted by MI5 or the British Army"
 * "It was perceived that Special Branch contained members of the Orange Order meaning that it wasn't entirely trusted by MI5 or the British Army."

Your edit is flawed and controversial because it ignores the fact the source states "perceived", so your presenting speculation as fact and pushing a baseless POV. Also your choice of word "infiltration" is a weasel POV loaded word that implies Orangemen purposely set about joining to further the Orange Orders aims. The source's use of "contaminated" is also quite POV-laden, hence my use of "contained members" as a NPOV term that isn't controversial.

So how is yours better? Keep in mind I will be opening a RfC after your predictable response. Infact I will invite views from the WikiProject's first. Mabuska (talk) 11:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * That's actually a fair point. We should do this more often. Gob Lofa (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Do what? Put your POV up for all to see forcing you to climb down and accept reality? Mabuska (talk) 11:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You're the one who favours POV terms when there are neutral alternatives, not me. Accept reality. Gob Lofa (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Both versions are too close to the original text. It should be paraphrased, something like: "X" should ideally be less loaded than "infiltrated" or "contaminated", but closer to the source than merely "presence of members of". Scolaire (talk) 12:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "British military and intelligence bodies also distrusted the Special Branch, because of perceived X by the Orange Order."
 * There is a difference between "distrusted" and "wasn't entirely trusted" with the first one being an absolute that the source doesn't state. Also saying intelligence bodies also implies more than one, when only one intelligence body is mentioned. How about:
 * "The British military and MI5 didn't fully trust Special Branch because of suspected Orange Order links."?
 * Or is that still too far away for you? Reason why I used "member" is because that is what they are and is uncontroversial. Unfortunate that the source used a poor term.
 * Also Scolaire the .pl links do not work on my end, that is why I changed them to .co.uk because then they show, we will need a bigger demograph to see what actually works more for other editors. Mabuska (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Your sentence is fine, at least the first half. I would be inclined to change the second half to "because they saw them as linked to the Orange Order." There is a difference between "perceived" and "suspected". Scolaire (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * They saw them as Orangemen, men who were actually in the Order, and didn't just have links to it. Gob Lofa (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gob on that point. There is a minor difference between perceived and suspected, but you say perceived is too close to what the source states, which is true as it states that very word. Mabuska (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a good point, Mabuska. Gob Lofa (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Looking up synonyms for perceived, I found a couple that might work but would require the right wording: adjudged and regarded. Mabuska (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with "saw them as"? Scolaire (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hold on a second, Mabuska. Haven't you argued elsewhere that we must follow the source's wording (i.e. terrorism, contaminate) rather than use alternative neutral terms? Gob Lofa (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * He definitely argued against "contaminate" in the first post, where he said, The source's use of "contaminated" is also quite POV-laden, hence my use of "members" as a NPOV term that isn't controversial. Scolaire (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with "saw them as". The issue is the "linked to" bit as the source implies the issue was Orangement in Special Branch, whereas links to means you could know someone in the OO without being an Orangeman yourself. Mabuska (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I notice this discussion hasn't properly concluded and that the article still says "infiltration", which is not backed up by the source and is a contentious term to use if not backed by the source. My amendment was in the end agreed to by Gob Lofa with Scolaire's objection based on the closeness to the source, however it isn't contentious as the source backs it up. If a suitable synonym can be found for "perceived" then even better. But until then I propose the amendment i put into the article be used. Mabuska (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If the amendment is "The British military and MI5 didn't fully trust Special Branch because of suspected Orange Order links", I don't see Gob Lofa agreeing to it. On the contrary, I see you twice agreeing with Gob Lofa that "links" is not an accurate reflection of the source. How about "The British military and MI5 didn't fully trust Special Branch, as there was a perception that it contained members of the Orange Order"? Scolaire (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It almost certainly contained OO members; being in the Order wasn't a bar on working in SB. The English fear was that the OO members would have conflicted loyalties. Gob Lofa (talk) 09:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously it did but we are basing the statement on the source, which takes precedence over what we personally think. I have no problems with that suggestion Scolaire. Mabuska (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I've put that in. --Scolaire (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * So even though we disagree with the use of the word 'contaminated', you say we're obliged to use it? Gob Lofa (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd stop with the attempts at gaming and twisting Gob Lofa. We are lucky Callanecc has not yet decided to impose a IBAN/TBAN on one or both of us. If you wish to encourage such a decision then by all means, though I will not be party to it. Mabuska (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting characterisation of my question. I'm happy we seem to have established agreement that POV terms, even when sourced, are best paraphrased. Gob Lofa (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Believe what you want, goodbye. Mabuska (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)