User talk:KingQueenPrince/Archive 6

Message from Cosand
I have indeed had "bad experiences" with other editors, namely those who judge content not on accuracy or notability, but on personal bias and brain numbing nit picking over semantics, and those who believe a "consensus' consists of two vocal editors as opposed to the 50 who worked on a page, but arrant at that moment checking on it's status. I could go on about my issues with Wikipedia but that is neither here nor there.(Although I wish there was a forum somewhere to discuss them...IMHO as a researcher, activist and writer....wikipedia, particularly the English language version, is becoming a clearing house for the LOWEST common denominator for information and content, dumbed down to a standard as to avoid offending the least intelligent among us..I would be happy to discuss this with you some time ) As to my current issue with getting the controversy listed at LEAST on the Bureau county page ( confess putting on every towns page was a bit much) I can NOW,TODAY solve the Notability issue, this has been covered in publications from the NY times to local 3 day a week paper so that is not an issue. One can find HUNDREDS of examples of pages on cities, towns, counties and States where a controversy like this is covered in a wikipedia page. Thus there should be NO issue with"verifiable, reliable sources, and notable" I will ask for a consensus on the talk page and if I may assume silence is acceptance and if you feel a need to correct me, please do. Fair enough I hope — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosand (talk • contribs) 18:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Since asking for a consensus I have re posted the information with additional citations. ONE editor who clearly has ties to the opposition has objected AFTER the fact so I continue to seek a consensus. Thank you for your help King of Nothing Cosand (talk) 04:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Bias to the Republicans
Superscript text Hello i was trying to edit the PIRA page to give a more balanced view of the conflict all of the pages here seem to be pro republican. I quoted from an IRA commander of his experince in the IRA sean o'callaghan

his was, in reality, a war against Protestants. There was a deep, ugly hatred, centuries old, behind all of this. The prods had the better farms, the better jobs that belonged by right to the Catholics, and they wanted them. If I wanted to attack a British army patrol or barracks, the local Provos wanted to shoot a part-time UDR or police reservist. They wanted to murder their neighbours. They wanted to drive the Protestants off the land and reclaim what they believed was their birthright. Gradually the reality was getting through to me. This was no romantic struggle against British imperialism but a squalid sectarian war directed against the Protestant people of Northern Ireland

it also never mention anything of attacks on protestants except for reprisal attacks. We all know the IRA was behind kingsmill and the darkley church massacre, they just wont admit it. The number of killings of protestant civilians in publish on cain as well as their attacks on security forces, the police and UDR as you know are all protestant

also on the age Plantation of Ulster it says The harsh reality is regardless of loyalty, habitants of Ireland will always be seen as Irish by the English, making unionist loyalty somewhat pointless in terms of returned loyalty.

how can that statement not be biased, it is absurd how they can assume we have no national identity in northern ireland and someone can comment on behalf of the whole English people.

That is just a few instances but i have found many more 19carson90 (talk) 08:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. I reverted your edit solely because it was an unsourced addition to a controversial and heavily edited Article. If you would like to correct any bias you perceive in that article (or any Article even slightly related to The Troubles) I suggest the following:
 * 1. Be Bold: Add, remove, or change the content to the Article that you think should be in there to balance the Article, make sure it is properly sourced and adheres to the neutral point of view policy (as well as all other Wikipedia policies).
 * 2. If your addition gets reverted or removed do not add it back in, as all articles relating in any way to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.
 * 3. Start a Section on the articles talk page and bring the bias to the attention of other editors and a community consensus will form to fix the article.
 * If you have any questions or need any more help, let me know. As Always, With Thanks, King of Nothing (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response — Preceding unsigned comment added by 19carson90 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)