Talk:The Troubles/Archive 4

Members or volunteers?
Should we describe people of the IRA, UVF etc. as members or volunteers? Is there a policy/guideline/consensus on this matter? Jim Michael (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Irish Volunteers, Volunteer (Irish republican) with regard to the IRA-family of groups. The Banner  talk 12:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:EGG. FDW777 (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Where does it say to always use volunteer for republicans & loyalists? We don't usually do so for other VNSA groups. Jim Michael (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Where does it say the moon isn't made of green cheese? That's not how policies and guidelines work. They rarely, if ever, give that level of explicit instruction. FDW777 (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether to use member or volunteer isn't anything like as absurd as that - it's a reasonable question & isn't obvious. Jim Michael (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The guideline is at WP:EGG as stated. You ignored it when making this edit adding member to an article. FDW777 (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not limiting it to when it's in a piped link, which most uses of member & volunteer aren't. Many WP articles use member, many use volunteer & many use both. Jim Michael (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02 IRA 'Volunteer' usage --Scolaire (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC) The relevant section is at Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02_IRA_%27Volunteer%27_usage. Member first and foremost in an article and then volunteer afterwards. Quite an old buried case, consensus changes over time. Maybe time to discuss it again. Mabuska (talk) 08:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Result
Other armed conflicts in which an attempt to take territory failed are stated in the ibox to have been government victories - including the Basque conflict, the insurgency in Punjab & the Sri Lankan Civil War. Why is the result of this classified instead as ending in a stalemate? Jim Michael (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please stop this disruption. FDW777 (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's nothing like disruption. Stop assuming bad faith & being uncivil by talking down to editors (including me). It's a genuine, serious question about the ibox, which appears to be wrong. Why is this classified as a stalemate, whereas the other conflicts I mentioned, which had similar endings, are classified as government victories? Jim Michael (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's disruption. Please stop, or I will ask for discretionary sanctions to be applied since you are a time sink. FDW777 (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support this one has been done to death -Snowded TALK 17:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This was an interesting question, though the infobox says "Military stalemate" and lists various agreements and things that complicate the situation. The stalemate status seems to be supported by citations, and I assume the ability of military forces to keep fighting was different at the ends of these various conflicts. If this has been discussed at length before, though, I couldn't find anything mentioned in the talk archives for this article. It might be helpful to add an FAQ section at the top of this talk page. -- Beland (talk) 09:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The question was by definition synthesis, since it asked "conflict A's outcome was B, and as this is similar to conflict A surely this result should also be B?" Whereas the result of this conflict is determined by what references say it was, not by an editor comparing it to supposedly similar conflicts. FDW777 (talk) 09:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Though avoiding synthesis is important, in pulling in judgements from sources it is necessary to consider whether the sources used carry a bias. Given that these labels are used across many conflicts, it is also worth considering whether they carry a consistent meaning, or if choosing conflict-specific sources has resulted in inconsistent standards being applied to the various conflicts. That would not be helpful to readers. Potential fixes without synthesis would be to either find a source that looks at outcomes across a variety of conflicts, or drop these somewhat judgemental labels and just report the more-detailed outcomes. Personally, I think the labels look at least superficially consistent and unbiased, though if that is true we should be able to explain why sources label this a stalemate and the other conflicts one-sided victories. My guess would be that it is because the Republican paramilitary forces were able to negotiate a peace agreement while still willing and able to fight. The conflicts that have been declared one-sided victories seem to involve one side either surrendering before negotiating a peace agreement (like World War II) or no peace agreement being negotiated because one side was either killed off or gave up without successfully negotiating concessions from the other side. -- Beland (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussions relating to this article taking place
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland which has the potential to result in significant changes to this article. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

A move discussion is on Talk:Springhill Massacre. The large majority of WP articles which include massacre, bombing, attack, ambush etc. have that word in lower case. In this case, it's capitalised. We should be consistent; such words in article titles should either all be capitalised or all be lower case. There's also the issue of whether or not it was part of the Battle of Lenadoon. Jim Michael (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

French TV crew
This is not a reliable reference. Even if it was, it does not reference the sentence When a French TV crew filmed the IRA at a training camp in Donegal, a representative of the General Headquarters Staff of the IRA was interviewed. He said the IRA would "[E]ventually sap the political will of the British government to remain in Ireland". What page 13 does say is The IRA's goal was to "eventually sap the political will of the British government to remain in Ireland", which is a different thing entirely since it doesn't mention French TV crews, Donegal or a member of the GHQ staff. Even more importantly, the citation given for that quote (Tonge, Johnathan, "Northern Ireland:Conflict and Change"p. 27") is completely bogus anyway, since that page is solely about discrimination. On page 66 of the same book there is a mention of the core idea about the IRA's thinking, During the Troubles, the use of force was designed to render Northern Ireland ungovernable, sapping the British will to remain. However that's not a quote from the IRA but simply their broad thinking, which probably belongs in this article somewhere more obviously than being presented as a quote from a French TV show. FDW777 (talk) 13:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Planters
There have been a varity of IPs (presumably the same editor, I haven't bothered to check geolocations or anything) changing Scottish and English settlers to simply English settlers. I think it's beyond any reasonable dispute there were Scots as well. FDW777 (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * See Ulster Scots people, Plantations of Ireland, and Plantation of Ulster for example. The IP edits are obvious vandalism. DuncanHill (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * True, but potentially helpful to document the nature of the problem here than explain it at AIV. FDW777 (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Trouble with The Troubles on the Belfast page
Would those interested in Wikipedia's discussion of the Troubles please help with management of the subject on the Belfast page.

In the three of four paragraphs devoted to the subject, we are having acute difficulty in agreeing on wording.

Please see the Belfast Talk page and recent edits.

Thanks ManfredHugh (talk)

Split into subsections?
Should this section be split into subsections?

Libyan donations
The 1980s section misleads readers into thinking Muammar Gaddafi started donating weapons to the IRA in response to the 1986 United States bombing of Libya, when in fact he started doing that over a decade beforehand. This article should say that MG started the donations in the first half of the 70s. My edit was reverted because the Long War started in 77, after the first donations. However, the section needs to be reworded so that it no longer reads as though the Libyan weapons donation began in the second half of the 80s. Jim Michael (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Gadaffi broke off contact in the 1970s, and it was re-established in the 1980s. Other than the arms intercepted on the Claudia, the Libyan arms supplied in the 1970s amounted to a single shipment in 1972 of an unknown quantity of RPG launchers and rockets. The existing text of The IRA's "Long War" was boosted by large donations of arms from Libya in the 1980s is not misleading, in exactly the same way the text later in the same paragraph saying Additionally, it received funding from supporters in the United States and elsewhere throughout the Irish diaspora is not misleading either. FDW777 (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The earlier donation should be mentioned in the article. Without that, it makes readers believe that the 1986 bombing of Libya was the motive to begin donating weapons.
 * The second part is also inadequate due to being unspecified & unsourced. Jim Michael (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The effect of the 1980s Libyan arms shipments on the IRA's campaign is well documented. The effect of the 1972 shipment, not so much. FDW777 (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 May 2019 and 1 July 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kndorule.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Page protection
I feel as if this page should be protected. It is a controversial subject that many could vandalise. Timis189 (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree, I'm actually surprised that it isn't already considering the subject matter/wiki's sanction policy regarding articles on the subject matter. OgamD218 (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Since Timis189’s comment, this article was indefinitely semi-protected. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Why are flag icons banned from this page?
Dronebogus (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * MOS:ICON and WP:CONSENSUS. FDW777 (talk) 08:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s vague. What was the exact consensus? Doesn’t the MOS say using flags for military units is acceptable? Dronebogus (talk) 08:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not to include flags. What information do they convey? All they do is add additional clutter to an already cluttered infobox. FDW777 (talk) 09:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel like they add visual distinctions between the parties in conflict and maintain some consistency with the rest of the wiki. Dronebogus (talk) 11:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Had you added all the flags, you would have found they don't add visual distinction at all since the IRA's verifiable flag is exactly the same as the 26 county state's flag. FDW777 (talk) 13:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. Stupid IRA, get an original flag. Dronebogus (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2022
The Troubles "was" not "were." Though perhaps it shouldn't be, The Troubles is a proper and singular noun. 45.64.240.135 (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Political dimension
This article really falls short in acknowledging the political dimension of The Troubles and in that sense the reader is left with a large gap in their understanding of the conflict. For example, the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement isn't even mentioned. Nor is the 1982-1986 Assembly, the Hume-Adams talks, the Brooke Talks or the Downing Street Declaration. These seem like huge omissions. What's left is a catalogue of violence with sometimes little context. Now, to be fair it is already a fairly lengthy and detailed article. But I think this does need to be addressed. NelsonEdit2 (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Third line: "... is usually deemed to have ended with the Good Friday Agreement of 1998..." and again in the relevant "Political process" section lower down. I agree there should be more on the Northern Ireland peace process. Johnbod (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Some of the info in the NI peace process article could be added to this one. Jim Michael (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Just off the top of my head: the eclipse of the old Nationalist party with the election of John Hume and Ivan Cooper to the NI parliament, the intra-Unionist party politics that led to the resignations of O'Neill and Chichester-Clark, the formation of the SDLP, the unionist split with "official unionists" and "unofficial unionists" swapping names after the latter gained a majority, the formation of Vanguard, the Convention of 1975, The Assembly of 1982 (as mentioned by ), the New Ireland Forum, and the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Just book-ending the article with the civil rights movement at the beginning and the peace process at the end doesn't address the lack of coverage of political developments in the article. Scolaire (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Irish car bomb (cocktail)
Removal of (cocktail) proposed. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2023
The ISBN for reference # 60 is incorrect. The correct full citation is:



Please make this correction. Thank you. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ small jars 19:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)