User talk:Belfastorbust

July 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. O Fenian (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sands was recognised world wide as a 'terrorist' The organiseation he was part of (PIRA) were a terrorist group, Supporters of the Republican Movement use the word 'Volunteer' The PIRA (Including Sands) bombed Balmoral Furniture in Dunmurry, Like the majority of bombings of independent buisness's they picked on ones owned by Protestants. This was a Sectarian bombing. --Belfastorbust (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If that is the case it should be very easy for you to provide references stating first hand by authorities that he is a terrorist. If not then we cannot use that term on Wikipedia due to it's negative connotations as Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopaedia, not a soapbox or a place to push one's own point of view. Canterbury Tail   talk  17:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher labeled Sands as a Terrorist, He was Officer Commanding of the IRA prisoners in The Maze, The IRA were a proscribed group and recognised as 'Terrorists' by The British, Irish, American Governments and practically all Democratic Nations worldwide. The word 'Volunteer' is used mostly by people sympathetic with the Irish Republican cause, using this word to describe Sands is biast and contrary to the ethics of Wikipedia. Calling Sands a Terrorist may not go down well with some readers but facts are facts. If my conclusion is still to be objected to then may I suggest that the word 'Volunteer' be dropped also and replaced with 'member' --Belfastorbust (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, as said before, then it should be relatively easy for you to produce a reference stating that the UK government states that he is a terrorist. See WP:Terrorist. Canterbury Tail   talk  15:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As I stated before, Sands was not only a member of The PIRA but Officer Commanding of The PIRA prisoners in The Maze Prison, This is the same PIRA which was (and still is) Proscribed as a Terrorist Group by The British Authorities, This is all matter of fact and by using the word 'Volunteer' could be construed as misleading. As for a reference, this is an answer to a question put to Margaret Thatcher on the 5th May 1981 in the House Of Commons. I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. In a democracy people can pursue their objectives by peaceful means. Only those people who reject democracy pursue their objectives by terrorist means. Terrorism is a crime and always will be a crime. [] Thatcher is refering to a question about Political Status for those Prisoners including Sands in The Maze Prison. --Belfastorbust (talk) 12:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And what you are doing is synthesis, Thatcher doesn't call Sands a terrorist and you a drawing an inference from what she was saying. BigDunc  15:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am drawing a conclusion to what Thatcher said, Thatcher was clearly aiming her use of the words terrorist and terrorism at Sands and the other men who were seeking political staus, Surely common sense should prevail, If someone is an active member of a terrorist group and have been convicted of terrorist crimes then one would imagine that said person is a terrorist. If Wikipedia is to follow it's nonpartisan rules then the use of the word volunteer should not be used as a factual description, this word is generally used by people sympathetic to the various Irish Terrorist groups be it Republican or Loyalist ones. --Belfastorbust (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes you are drawing a conclusion, that is original research. The policy WP:Terrorist is quite clear, to label someone as a terrorist you need to get a clear authoritative source, from a governmental body, that explicitly labels the person in question as a terrorist. You say this has been done, so all you need to do is provide the reference and we can go from there. Canterbury Tail   talk  11:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This just looks like a sop to me, The fact that Sands was a actively involved in Terrorism labels him a Terrorist, The fact that he was a leading member of a Terrorist group labels him a Terrorist, The fact he was a convicted Terrorist labels him a Terrorist, The fact that The British Prime Minister referred (maybe not in name) to Sands and his fellow inmates as Terrorists labels him a Terrorist. It looks to me that Wikipedia are using a loophole to avoid using the word Terrorist to describe certain convicted Terrorists. I don't think I've ever heard Sands being described as a 'Volunteer' by any British Governmental body, again I state that using that word in a factual context could be construed as sympathetic to his actions.


 * We have no issues with being factually accurate, however like all facts it needs a reliable reference. With the word terrorist it is a very pejorative term, and a term that depends greatly on your point of view. If he has been directly labelled as a terrorist then provide a reference, an authoritative reference, not some bog or newspaper article. Currently all we have is your original research, and your personal opinion, that he was a terrorist. Same could be said of George W Bush or Tony Blair from certain points of view, but that is a point of view and anyone could be construed as anything if you spin it enough. Some could say Hitler was a great humanitarian from a certain point of view. Canterbury Tail   talk  13:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not a personal opinion, It is factually accurate that Sands belonged to a group that was proscribed by the British and Irish Authorities as a Terrorist Organisation, He was also tried and convicted of Terrorist Offences, The same can't be said as fact about Bush and Blair, they were legally instated Leaders of two Sovereign Nations none of which were members of Terrorist Organisations or convicted in a court of law for Terrorist Offences. --Belfastorbust (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Verify, verify, verify. All original research and opinion unless you can verify with a reliable authoritative source that states he was a terrorist. Member of a terrorist organisation <> terrorist. Someone works for the police force <> policeman. Someone works for government <> politician. You need a source, read WP:Terrorist and WP:Verify. Canterbury Tail   talk  15:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This is all sounding a bit pedantic, surely the fact that he was convicted in a court of law for Terrorist offences verifies he was a Terrorist, How much more of an authoritative source is needed bar listing the transcript of the Diplock Court that convicted him or trawling through the archives to find a Government Minister who stated Bobby Sands was a Terrorist. The use of the word volunteer also tends to view him in a more sympathetic light like in Republican and Loyalist extremist circles where the use of the word is used to describe 'their' individual activists. Surely this all comes down to common sense, This really dissapoints me as I always thought Wikipedia was a source of rational information. --Belfastorbust (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a source of verified information. Not verified, shouldn't be here. Have you a source that says he was charged with being a terrorist and convicted of being a terrorist? Canterbury Tail   talk  17:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Grandmaster Flowers
I have nominated Grandmaster Flowers, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Grandmaster Flowers. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ipatrol (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)