Talk:The Troubles

Undue Weight to Independent NI Proposal
I find it very strange that the "Proposal of an independent Northern Ireland" section is twice as long as the entire "Political process" section, while not even the Agreement has its own section. The section is almost entirely an analysis of PM Wilson's unimplemented ideas. Also, the section also seems, to me, to promote a unionist view of the situation (e.g the UK couldn't possibly leave Northern Ireland). As discussed elsewhere on this talk page there is not enough information about diplomacy— I think this section should be dramatically reduced to make room for more impactful diplomacy topics. Placeholderer (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. This could largely be done with copyediting, I think. But some of the narrative is extremely unencyclopedic ("The British so wanted to leave Northern Ireland in 1975, however, that only the catastrophic consequences of doing so prevented it" -- what the hell is that). Yr Enw (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I would say Remove the entire section, and replace it with two or three short sentences, suitably sourced. Scolaire (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Infobox photo
Couldn't we get something a bit more informative/context-setting than the present map? The collages at Iraq War, Vietnam War, Malayan Emergency are all pretty good I think. Perhaps something put together using the below pictures. I couldn't find a good PD/CC photo of Irish Republicans (not re-enactors) to add to this but perhaps someone here knows of one? I see this was last discussed in 2018 with a rough consensus that the infobox image wasn't great but no replacement put forward. FOARP (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The replacement of the map would be an excellent idea. However I don't believe any of those images are any good, other than possibly the Free Derry one. The problem is the important part of the image is in each case very small (but still generally in need of the rest of the image to provide important context), and once displayed in the infobox would not really look that good I don't think. Kathleen&#39;s bike (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * A collage would perhaps be a good replacement but care must be taken that the chosen picture are balanced. Just an idea:
 * a row with a picture of a bonfire and an H-block monument.
 * a row with a picture of bishop Edward Daly and a picture of Ian Paisley
 * a row with road blocks and peace walls
 * The Banner talk 20:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Do we have these pictures in Wiki-Commons, or otherwise public domain/CC-licence? FOARP (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Infobox
I have reversed, for the third time, an attempt by the same editor to add a nuanced point to the infobox. It is not an appropriate place for claims such as "sometimes" or "covertly", and I note that the sources provided don't support the precise claim being made anyway, since "Members of the RUC and UDR" and "senior Royal Ulster Constabulary and Ulster Defence Regiment officers were aware and in some cases approved of collusion" is not the same as "United Kingdom (covertly)". Kathleen&#39;s bike (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree. British Armed Forces and RUC are already in the infobox as belligerents. It's not appropriate to have them in the Ulster Loyalist column as well, with or without qualifiers. Scolaire (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The infobox on Years of Lead lists the CIA under both the first and third infoboxes. Why can't the same be done here?--Bill3602 (talk) 07:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * In that infobox the CIA falls under "supported by" in both the first and third columns. In this one British Armed Forces and RUC are in the first column as belligerents. Listing them also under "supported by" in the third column is not appropriate. Scolaire (talk) 11:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There is also difficulty regarding the level of collusion. Depending on who you ask, collusion was authorised at a high level or was simply the result of a few "rotten apples" within the ranks of the RUC and UDR, or somewhere inbetween. Therefore it's inappropriate to simply list the organisation even with a qualifier such as "sometimes" or "covertly" which fails to explain the complexity of the issue. The infobox simply isn't an appropriate place to deal with conplex nuances. Kathleen&#39;s bike (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree The Troubles are far more complex then an infobox can reflect. And there are a lot of shades between white and black. The Banner  talk 17:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Would it be appropriate to include them under a qualifier like "Alleged"? I don't fully understand why inclusion as a belligerent makes it inappropriate to do something along those lines— is there a policy page to clarify? (Still learning this stuff!) Placeholderer (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to remove "supported by" or similar from infobox
This has been deprecated at the infobox, see the request for comment at Template talk:Infobox military conflict. Obviously that consensus takes precedence over any local consensus here, but thought it prudent to at least give some notice of its pending removal. Kathleen&#39;s bike (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Partially Agree While I acknowledge the consensus and agree that, following the consensus, it is probably best to remove Libya, South Africa, etc., I do think that the issue of alleged RUC/BAF support for the loyalists is pretty important to the Troubles and could be worth including in a summary infobox (and it's rightfully mentioned in the intro). I admit this could be because I'm still used to seeing the "support" field, but I think that not including that in the infobox could be seen to promote the not-universally-agreed-upon idea of British neutrality in the conflict. Placeholderer (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree, for all the reasons given in that RfC. If it's deprecated, it should go. With respect, it makes no sense whatever to remove "South Africa (arms shipments)", which is at least specific, and then add "United Kingdom (sometimes)" or "United Kingdom (covertly)", which is vague and confusing. Collusion is dealt with in the lead, and has its own section. If you think that the article generally promotes the idea of British neutrality in the conflict, you can raise it here on the talk page, or boldly fix it.  Scolaire (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Also with respect, I think that "(alleged)" would communicate the issue pretty effectively and specifically. I just think that it's not ideal for the only infobox options to be either to have the British as a completely independent belligerent, or have them fully supporting the loyalists (not to say that's your suggestion). From glancing at the article I think that the nuance is covered reasonably within the article, but I think it would be helpful to communicate that nuance in the infobox as well. That's compared to South African arms shipments, which weren't at all a defining component of the loyalist/republican conflict. I'll go peacefully if I'm outvoted on this— but I think as per the template discussion this would be a "rare" situation where making an exception to include a reference to alleged British support is more beneficial than bad. Placeholderer (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is if you allow one exception, people will want other exceptions to be made. There's a definite case to be made that the arms supplied by Irish Americans and Libya to the Provisionals played a huge role in the conflict. And once you add those, people will say that the South African supply of arms to loyalists should be added too, since that was definitely a factor (along with collusion) in the increase in loyalist killings in the early 1990s. And once that's added, we're right back with the infobox as it is at the moment (with the exception of the Soviet arms supply to the Sticks not being mentioned). Kathleen&#39;s bike (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue of British support for loyalists is very different from Libyan, South African, NORAID, or USSR support, particularly because the British are listed as a belligerent. To exclude their support entirely passively promotes unionist POV, while to include them entirely as supportive of unionists promotes nationalist POV. It's not a major source of Troubles-relevant contention for anyone I know of that South Africa supported the loyalists, while the allegation of British support for the loyalists was a very major issue to nationalist politicians (especially in Sinn Fein) at the time.
 * Under the template discussion I don't think the other sources of support are relevant enough to include. Placeholderer (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * To be blunt, "United Kingdom (alleged)" would not communicate the issue either effectively or specifically, or at all. It wasn't needed for the last 20 years and it's not needed now. Scolaire (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it'd be effective, but to be precise I should've said "precise" instead of specific (since you're right, it's definitely not specific).
 * I'm clearly in the minority here and am going a bit beyond my comfort zone by perpetuating this discussion, so I'll step away unless stuff gets stirred up, but I'm not really convinced. I acknowledge the current consensus! Not to grab for the last word, and I know you don't mean for the 20 years comment to be taken too literally, but infoboxes are newer than that and the "Support" stuff even newer. The summary of my argument is that I think properly referencing alleged British support in the infobox could be good for NPOV, and I think that NPOV should take precedence over an admittedly strongly suggested convention. Thanks for being polite, all! Placeholderer (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with complete removal. We already have the section "Support outside Northern Ireland" where the nuances in more detail can be discussed. Plus we have the section "Collusion between security forces and paramilitaries". The Banner  talk 15:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)