Talk:Special Category Status

Requested move

 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This article should be called "Special category status". There is no need for the phrase to be written with capitals. Ironically, the three references in the article all support this:


 * "In 1976, the British government also removed the 'special category' status of paramilitary prisoners" - http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/recent/troubles/the_troubles_article_07.shtml
 * "The introduction of special category status for convicted prisoners was a serious mistake." - http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/hmso/gardiner.htm#1
 * "It should be made absolutely clear that special category prisoners can expect no amnesty and will have to serve their sentences." - http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/hmso/gardiner.htm#1
 * "The earliest practicable opportunity should be taken to bring special category status to an end." - http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/hmso/gardiner.htm#1
 * "In 1972, following a hunger strike and a major campaign by both republican and loyalist prisoners, the then Government granted special category status to prisoners convicted of offences connected to the civil disturbances" - http://www.niprisonservice.gov.uk/index.cfm/area/information/page/The1970

Plus


 * Flackes & Elliott (1994) Northern Ireland: A Political Directory, p.310 - "At the time there were 545 male special category prisoners. ... The Gardiner committee, in 1975, came out against special category status", et.c.
 * Bew & Gillespie (1993) Northern Ireland: A Chronology of the Troubles, p. 53 - "Whitelaw conceded 'special category' status".

Mooretwin (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In 1976, the British government also removed the 'special category' status of paramilitary prisoners. It was therefore a given name. It was a category, and therefore belongs in capitals. I'm not alone in thinking this, there are three editors who disagree with you, and I did seek the advice of an admin here, and I think you will agree it was created and removed by law. -- Domer48 'fenian'  20:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of sources I will provide to prove capitals is correct, this article should not be moved without a proper discussion. O Fenian (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologise O Fenian for the move, but it was done without discussion. Please put forward the sources, and we can then discuss it further. Thanks, -- Domer48 'fenian'  20:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I will collate them in the next 24 hours. O Fenian (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Wise up with your capitalisation obsession. It's unnecessary. It's wrong. It was a government designation, and the Government report does not use capitals. This is turning into a vendetta. Mooretwin (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking around there appears to be every combination of caps, no caps, caps on Special and Category, and caps on Special only, in the literature. The BBC seems to switch between caps and no caps:


 * "Whitelaw introduced Special Category Status for those sentenced for crimes relating to the civil violence."
 * "In 1976, the British government also removed the 'special category' status of paramilitary prisoners"
 * What a mess. I's suggest going back to the primary source if it is available, and seeing how Whitelaw referred to it, or else simply coming to an agreement on one style, and sticking with it.  Rockpock  e  t  00:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In grammatical terms, there's no need for capitals. But the most authoritative source is the Gardiner Report (on CAIN) which doesn't use capitals. Ditto the Prison Service (which actually implemented the status). Mooretwin (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking into this further, Hansard documentation appears to ( largely, but not almost exclusively) favor the no caps version. Since they document written answers by the Government (i.e. they document how Ministers refer to scs/SCS on paper in response to MP's questions ), its probably fair to take the no caps version as the "official" terminology.  Rockpock  e  t  00:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Thanks for that bit of research. Mooretwin (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Lets see what O Fenian can come up with before we decide one way or the other. He says he can prove caps are correct, so perhaps he has the primary source. Rockpock  e  t  01:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt it. If he does, I'll accept it, but I'm quite sure that (a) he doesn't have the primary source and (b) the primary source won't use capitals. Mooretwin (talk) 01:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support following the sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a well-established capitalisation scheme and this move is just disruption as can be seen with simmilar move requsets at (Special Protection Area, Area of Conservation, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Site of Special Scientific Interest, and Special Area of Conservation) Special Category Status was a designation applied to certain prisoners. BigDunc  Talk 15:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Dunc, the discussion above does not seem to support your assertion that it is a "well-established capitalisation scheme". Quite the opposite, in fact. The sources are all over the place, though the ones from the British Government appear to favor no caps. Rockpock  e  t  17:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant well established on wiki. BigDunc  Talk 17:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Dunc this is what I've been saying. It is a proper noun. The fact that Rock was willing to wait till O Fenian got back with additional sources, and this move request was still started is in my opinion indicative of a disruption and confrontational approach which should not be condoned. -- Domer48 'fenian'  17:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I am presently dealing with a family emergency which may last a day or so, but the sources will be presented in due course. I request no action is taken until I have had time to make my case. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose It is a proper noun referring to a specific legal status. It is not descriptive. Proper nouns are capitalized in English. --Bejnar (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is a specific legal status and it is a proper noun. The sources presented by Mooretwin are only those which support his disruptive and incorrect campaign against capitals in a wide number of articles. For example these sources are not mentioned:
 * Formations of Violence: The Narrative of the Body and Political Terror in Northern Ireland - Allen Feldman (ISBN 978-0226240718)
 * The Cost of Counterterrorism: Power, Politics, and Liberty - Laura K. Donohue (ISBN 978-0521844444)
 * The Troubles: Ireland's Ordeal and the Search for Peace - Tim Pat Coogan (ISBN 978-0312294182)
 * The Shankill Butchers - Martin Dillon (ISBN 978-0415922319)
 * Paramilitary Imprisonment in Northern Ireland: Resistance, Management and Release (Clarendon Studies in Criminology) - Kieran McEvoy (ISBN 978-0198299073)


 * There are dozens more which also use capitals. While Hansard prefers the non-capitalised version, as established in parallel discussions (Area of Oustanding Natural Beauty, Special Protection Area, Site of Special Scientific Interest and so on) this is their standard form, whereas academics use the correct capitalised version to signify a legal status. This can be demonstrated with other terms, such as Category A prisoners, whereas academic sources usually correctly capitalise "Category". Special Category Status was part of the same system of categorising prisoners as Category A, Category B and so on. Similarly with Special Protection Area and other parallel discussions relating to official legal statuses, Hansard does not favour capitalisation whereas virtually all the independent sources do and consensus is overwhelmingly against the moving of that article in the ongoing discussion. Academic sources should be preferred, we should not sacrifice academic integrity based on the style used by typists in the British civil service. This move request is designed solely to allow Mooretwin to "win" the edit war he has engaged in for weeks and weeks now, and serves no other real purpose than to disrupt Wikipedia and to waste time. O Fenian (talk) 11:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Disappointing that this was closed while I was banned. I note that O Fenian failed to provide any primary source, but merely a list of sources to support his view - something which I was accused of! It is clear that there are many variations used for this term, but that the most authoritative sources - government reports and Hansard, i.e. those closest to the primary source - do not use capitals. Mooretwin (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"scheduled terrorist crimes?"
I do not believe these legally existed in July 1972, I have tagged the sentence as dubious. O Fenian (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reference added, although doesn't use the term scheduled, so I'll remove that. Mooretwin (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As usual, you are not listening. There were no such thing as "terrorist crimes" prior to 1974, it was only with the introduction of the Prevention of Terrorism Act in 1974 that the word "terrorism" even existed in British law. O Fenian (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)