Talk:Orange Order

Archives

Archiving a talk page

How do editors feel about archiving some of this talk page. Here is a link on different methods. Any suggestions welcome. --Domer48 (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This was long overdue. --Helenalex (talk) 10:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV check

This article raises serious NPOV issues.

1. The further down one goes, the less NPOV the text and the more pro-Orange Order (or more correctly, the more 'isn't it a wonderful organisation') the tone gets. In particular, the article's repeat use of 'brethren' to describe the Order implies a relationship between author, reader and topic that breaches NPOV. 'In house' terms used by any organisation should be used sparingly or in quotes, not in general language throughout the article.
2. Its coverage of the alleged negatives of the order, though strongish in some areas, is not sustained.
3. The list of charitable work by the Order again adds to the 'aren't they great!' tone. Most organisations are involved in charity work but Wikipedia doesn't list the work in detail. It warrants no more than 1 or 2 paragraphs here, not a big chunk of the page.

Furthermore the article needs extensive wikifying and major editing, to conform to encyclopædic standards. FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 29 June 2005 23:44 (UTC)

In relation to point 1 here, I would suggest that the same argument could easily be applied to the recent 'adopted policy' with regard to IRA members (now most articles about IRA members read "volunteer" in place of "member", don't they?). I just checked the article and, as of the time of my writing this, the word brethren doesn't appear once - quite a change from the "repeat use of". Perhaps the change that has apparently been made to this article in regard to "in house terms" should be applied to articles about IRA members.

With regard to point 2, it is surely not in the remit of Wikipedia to strengthen negatives about organisations or people. Which neatly leads me on to point 3...

While I haven't read the whole article in many moons, perhaps noting the charitable work of the OO is necessary in presenting a certain amount of balance. Besides that, I think that charity is a often reasonably important aspect of Christian organisations - including the Orange Institution. --Setanta 09:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think most of the NPOV problems have been sorted, thanks to long and tortuous debating and the occasional edit war over the last three and a half years. --Helenalex (talk) 10:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure that's the case Helenalex? As I suggested in my comments above, perhaps the article has merely been tipped to the other side, if it had been full of POV in the first instance. While I haven't read the article in full for ages now, I am fully aware of an increase in editing of Irish- and British-related articles since before the creation of the IRA WikiProject. I have no doubt that many articles have been created or revised from the particular viewpoint of the most active editors of that project due to the editing impetus which led to the creation of that WikiProject.

Again, although the members of the Orange Institution are referred to as "brethren" and although the article apparently contained more than one mention of that term in the past (note Jtdirl's "repeat use" above), the article now does not mention the term even once. I did a page search before posting my comment on Monday, our of curiosity.

I do not know Wikipedia's policy, should any exist, on the usage of what Jtdirl described above as "in house terms", but this clearly may have implications for the insistence on the use of, for example, the word "volunteer" instead of simply "member" in regard to members/volunteers of the various IRAs etc. --Setanta 07:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt edit wars and tortuous debating have cleared up anything in regard to the naming of the Republic of Ireland, the flag of Northern Ireland the article on Northern Ireland and various other outstanding matters on Wikipedia, yet those matters have probably attracted edit warring and debate for a longer period of time than this one article. --Setanta 07:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

What specific things are you concerned about, in regards to this article? --Helenalex (talk) 09:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought I was quite specific above - and not just in regard to this article. --Setanta 17:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to change 'members' to 'brethren' I don't have a problem with that, although others might. --Helenalex (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The post you are answering Setanta is from 2005 of course it is going to have a different version now and the points raised are long gone. So I see no need to try and stir up trouble re Volunteers based on a 3 and a half year post. BigDunc^Talk 21:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree Helenalex, no problem with 'brethren' and its hard to make out what the other things are Setanta's concerned about? "it is surely not in the remit of Wikipedia to strengthen negatives about organisations or people?" We should not include negative information on the OO? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

removing referenced information

Please do not remove referenced information, or alter the content of same. --Domer48 (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"Not alter content of same"? Is that also a prohibition on correcting your standard mistakes and lack of punctuation? It's 'does', not 'dose', and 'Coogan', not 'coogan'.

There are no bans on Wikipedia on editing content.--Damac (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please be civil Damac (talk) and look at WP:SKILL--BigDunc (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's not be tiresome. The source describes it as overtly political. The new wording demonstrates that. The substance has not been altered.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been altered it was overtly political according to the source not just described as political implying that maybe it wasn't. BigDunc (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

One non neutral authors opinion does not a statement of fact make. There is a case to be made that "maybe" it wasn't political from the start, your opinion together with Coogan's does not alter that. Stop edit warring.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

My opinion of the OO is not relevant but a reliable and verifiable ref should not be changed to suit a POV. BigDunc (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

TU I've been down this road with you already. Now do not distort referenced information. If you wish to challange this information, please provide a referenced source. Now there are three references on this, and none of them are Coogan's, if you like I can add one from him as well. Now do not distort this information. --Domer48 (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It has not been changed to any extent, other than to improve the quality of the reporting. One source of a non neutral author is not a statement of fact. He calls it political from its inception, that is said in the article. Job done.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The pair of you are edit warring,. Stop it, you are breaking wikipedia policies.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is a non neutral author TU? And please do not edit war by putting your own slant on a ref. BigDunc (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

TU, there are three references to back it up, I should know I added it. Now please do not alter the referenced information. --Domer48 (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There is one reference.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There is 3 here

1 For the Cause of Liberty, Terry Golway, Touchstone, 2000, ISBN 0-684-85556-9;
2. Ireland: A History, Robert Kee, Abacus, First published 1982 Revised edition published 2003, 2004 and 2005, ISBN 0-349-11676-8;
3.Ireland History of a Nation, David Ross, Geddes & Grosset, Scotland, First published 2002, Reprinted 2005 & 2006, ISBN 10: 1 84205 164 4 BigDunc (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

For these purposes quotations would be handy. You also need to get into the habit of including page numbers in your references, reader's can't be expected to readt the entire book for one reference.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok folks, I'm glad that the discussion has gone towards source verifiability rather then the psuedo-attack stuff I was seeing previously. Domer: Can you provide page #'s and that? I would agree with TU that it would be helpful, that we can verify the information (as well as the context that it was placed in).. it's also more useful for the average reader, if they pick up these books to see where the info is coming from. Let's AGF and Assume AGF of others, and move forward instead of squabbling. (BTW, spare a thought for us poor frozen SOB's here in the Northeast US.. we had a windchill of -23 Celsius yesterday. Yuck! ;) ) SirFozzie (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have friends from MS here now, they're amazed to see a foot of snow!Traditional unionist (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Page numbers now provided. --Domer48 (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And the quotations? Just in the talk page would be great.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• The Protestant only Orange Order, established in the 1790s to carry out sectarian warfare against the Catholic Defenders in the countryside, functioned as a shadow government that enforced the rules of Ulster’s religious caste system. For the Cause of Liberty, Terry Golway, Touchstone, 2000, ISBN 0-684-85556-9 p.179

• The ruthless way in which the army now conducted its search for arms and information was remarkably successful and by the end of 1797 the conspiracy in that part of Ireland was virtually broken. A not inconsiderable factor in the breaking of it was a reversion on the part of many Protestants to their old sectarian ways under the auspices of the recently founded Orange Society.Ireland: A History, Robert Kee, Abacus, First published 1982 Revised edition published 2003, 2004 and 2005, ISBN 0-349-11676-8 p.61

• In Armagh, there was a pitched battle in September 1795 between Protestant and Catholic groups. The Defenders were overwhelmed. Following this fight, a new extra-parliamentary body was founded, the Orange Society, which later changed its name to the Orange Order. The aim of the Society was to maintain what its members no longer trusted the parliament to do, and it defined its loyalty in a distinctly conditional way: ‘to support and defend the King and his heirs as long as he or they support the Protestant Ascendancy’. Many Catholics living in mainly Protestant districts were forcibly driven out, most of them finding refuge in Connacht.Ireland History of a Nation, David Ross, Geddes & Grosset, Scotland, First published 2002, Reprinted 2005 & 2006, ISBN 10: 1 84205 164 4 p.195

Now TU, even you would agree I was reserved in my edit. That I could add another couple of references is enough to suggest I have been restrained. Now would you like to have some of the quotes put in, or have I been correct in my edit --Domer48 (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you really have found three bigots. It is still not verifird that the Order is political. There are some historical inaccuracies in those quotes, and they are written in very POV language, not very good academic works if this is indicitive of what is in the rest of them! I'll do some reading after work tomorrow to get at some truth here, but you can take it as read that I'm not happy with this bile being presented as fact.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You call Robert Kee a bigot thats rich. Do you even know who the authors are before you spew your bile about bigots BigDunc (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Have just done a little research on these books. One is so obscure Amazon doesn't have a new copy(and has been referenced by academics so little that google doesn't know about it), one you haven't given the full name of (the bit you left out is quite important for checking realibality - A thousand years of Irish heros), and in the other you're stretching the quote a bit. Not brilliant sources. You appear to be calling me a bigot. You will withdraw that remarkTraditional unionist (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I was a bit hasty about Kee, I ment two bigots. You've stretched Kee's works a little bit to suit .Traditional unionist (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

TU please, now there is no need for that. I have went to a little effort here for you, a simple thanks would have been enough. --Domer48 (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

except that there are major deficiencies in your sources and use of sources.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Terry Golway is City Editor and columnist at The New York Observer. He is also a frequent contributor to the Irish Echo, America, American Heritage, The Boston Globe, The New York Times, and other national publications. He is the author of Irish Rebel: John Devoy and America’s Fight for Ireland freedom and co-author of The Irish in America, a companion book to the award-winning PBS documentary series. Now what book is not correctly titled?--Domer48 (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for showing up where Mr Galloway's POV is. The Irish Echo is not exactly a neutral source, and one wouldn't expect it's writers to be either. You left off the end of the title of his book, which shows the POV of the book.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

TU, I can see were this is going, and I'm not going to get into it with you. On Golway, you ommit The New York Observer, The Boston Globe, The New York Times, American Heritage. Now I have tried to be helpful. The discussion is over. --Domer48 (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Alas squire; it isn't. You can't project opinion as fact.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, one of two things, I can pile a number of quotes onto that article which are supported by WP:V and WP:RS, in addition to the ones here, or I can walk away. Now I will walk away, because you have nothing left to offer this discussion. --Domer48 (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

So to surmise your ultimatum, either I drop this debate or you will swamp the article with POV that meets the rules but is opinion dressed up as fact? That's not very nice young man. Not in the spirit of any policy either.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You only here what you want to here. What I'm saying is, that I can reference everything that I add. I could references this over and over just to prove a point, but why should I. Your blinkers are never going to be of, so it makes no difference what I do. Now, go off and get yourself a couple of books, and add as much referenced text as you wish, but just don't edit war anymore. --Domer48 (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You really don't understand what you're doing wrong here do you? Two of these three authors, are Irish nationalists. We can see this from a very basic look at their histories. More to the point, what they write is written in pajoritive terms from a nationalist POV. That does not make these statements fact. It means they exists, but it does not make them fact. therefore saying that the Order always was political because these people say so is not adequate. Saying thet these people think x, is adequate.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Time to step back

Ok, as requested by the checkuser I was talking to, I have submitted a formal Check User request at RfCU. I would suggest that both sides take the next 24-48 hours off from any OI page edits (I don't want to block anyone from edit warring, and I don't want to lock out other editors from possibly improving the article), while that works, and also to try to determine whether the sources satisfy NPOV (I can't say either way to it at the moment, I need a hell of a lot more free time then what I have right now to check the sources). So let's all step back, no one has to protect pages, no one has to be blocked, and we improve the article. K? SirFozzie (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

How many times must I be the subject of a Requests for checkuser? What is this now, the third or fourth time. I was checked during the Famine ArbCom, the Troubles ArbCom, one by Markthomas? This is a form of intimidation, as is the accusation of edit warring. A statement with three references, is altered to suite one editors known bias. The references are verifiable and reliably sourced, and rather than put forward an alternative view, I get "Wow, you really have found three bigots," "I'm not happy with this bile being presented as fact," and "Two of these three authors, are Irish nationalists." So, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF are out the window. And this dispite the fact that I said I'd walk away from the discussion. A yeh, Domer48 edit warring again. --Domer48 (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Domer, EVERYONE is edit warring. That's why I'm asking everyone to step back. I'm not singling you out, or anyone out. I just want the edit warring to stop. Period. SirFozzie (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is being Requests for checkusered AGAIN. TU asked for it before, and it showed I was not Dunc or Breen or Pappin. Now I have no problem with it, but an editor who deliberatly changes a referenced statement, can request one. So the advice is: If an editor changes text to push their known bias, the best thing you can do is leave it! --Domer48 (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I missed that (the previous request), but not only did TU request it but Dunc went along with it (now admittedly, that's not an actual reason to DO it..) Domer... Let's put it this way. I understand the depth of feelings between the two groups here (Note: the depth of feelings here, not the depth of feelings to the people who actually live the situation). I have done my best to bend over backwards for everyone who seemed to be willing to at least listen to what I had to say. There have been numerous times where I would have been justified in locking down articles, and blocking all of you. But I haven't, because I believed that just about everyone had more to contribute to the encyclopedia by working on it, rather then take away from it by constant arguments. It's beginning to look more and more like some folks are willing to take advantage of that and of me. SirFozzie (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have never taken advantage of anyone. I have listened to the advice, and tried to go along with it, and all I got was shafted. Were are the admins when I’m getting messed about? Now I’m not crying about it, I even gave you the opportunity to step in and pull me up if you thought I was out of line. Told you to be a hard nosed fucker about it. And I was left swinging. I have every POV merchant on my case, and I know now, all I have to do is put one foot wrong and I’m over a barrel. That is just the way it is! The only reason I understand the policies here, is because I had everyone of them used on me, but I have yet to see them used to protect an editor who plays by the rules. The Checkuser was wrong! --Domer48 (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

New Zealand Section

Please do not remove referenced material from article and dont edit war. BigDunc (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I am removing your UNSOUCRED claim. SF have asked for this to be removed as he was an Orangeman. They have not denied this, both facts are reported by the BBC.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It was because of his "anti-Catholic speeches". BigDunc (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no source to back up your claim that they dispute the assertion. They don't.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a second hand account and not an appropriate source.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You put it in not me I just read it all and didn't select what I wanted from it see WP:SYNTHESIS--BigDunc (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Dunc this is not the first time TU has attempted this. In this discussion WP:SYNTHESIS was also used. On that occasion TU said "I was not attempting to synthesis, if i advertantly did." Maybe this is a similer situation? Maybe you should give them the benifit of the doubt again? Though I do see your point about the reference, TU uses the reference, but when you use the same reference they then say that is a second hand account and not an appropriate source? I don't understand that one myself? --Domer48 (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"mostly (but not exclusively) Unionist or Protestant symbols"? Let's just have a look what's on the list shall we?

• The statue - fits the description, I guess....
• three pictures, one a present from a British Army regiment. Not really "Unionist or Protestant symbols" are they?
• a Royal British Legion certificate. Not really a "Unionist or Protestant symbol", definitely stretching it a bit.
• artwork presented to council by the 8th Infantry Brigade. As above...
• a Charles and Diana mug. Please....
• a little dragon from the 1st Battalion Welsh Guards. What sort of dragon? A cuddly fluffy one? A regimental mascot type one? Definitely stretching it a bit....
• a Royal Engineers paper weight. Definitely stretching it a bit....
• a 22nd Regiment Cheshire plate. Definitely stretching it a bit....
• Plus the Kevin Lynch dedication that's suspiciously missing from that list

Now I don't know about anyone else, but other than the statue of Massey I wouldn't look at any of them and think "Protestant symbol" or "Unionist symbol". The source says "symbols of Protestant and British culture", which I think is more apt. Royal British Legion and Charles and Diana mug most definitely say "British culture" more than "Unionist". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think your point ONiH is a little semantic and doesn't alter the substance of what this is about. As far as the minor alteration goes, it is however, probably right. Also, you seem to understand, unlike Dunc/Domer what the source says. Nowhere do SF refute the claim that they are removing a statue of a son of the town simplky because he was an orangeman. I would however dispute the way it is protrayed here. I haven't read the sources today, but memory tells me that the BBC report this as fact, and the subsequent utterings from the provos in no way refutes the claim, and to my reading actually backs it up.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My reading of the sources you provided are that it was not exclusively because he was an orangeman but also his anti catholic speeches. And none of the sources here give any indication of what the Provos think on this matter. They as far as I am aware did not even comment on the removal of the statue. BigDunc (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to be silly then you should stay quiet. On your first point, that is reported to have come from an outside second hand source, the BBC report, from memory, states as fact that the provos objected to his membership of the Order, with no mention of anti-catholicism. Yet you, without a source, from the bowels of your own POV, chose to add to the article that SF deny this. Why?Traditional unionist (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If your not going to remain civil there is not much point carrying on. In all my discourse with you I treat you with respect and do not personally attack you no matter how much I disagree with what you say.BigDunc (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

TU as far as this discussion is concerned, all I have said was, that you should be given the benifit of the doubt on thesynthesis of information, and that I can not understand how you can object to a reference that you yourself introduced. Now you are raising the provos in the discussion, dispite the fact that they are not mentioned at all? Please stick to the point at hand, and try remaine civil. --Domer48 (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"According to Sinn Fein he was first and foremost an Orangeman and he made anti-Catholic speeches." and that "There was an inventory of 10 items, one of them a republican dedication to hunger striker Kevin Lynch, which may cause offence to the republican side of the community if it was removed," and also "His track-record was substantially representative of just one side of the community, you cannot cherry-pick neutrality - it's either neutral or not." And the only second hand source I can find in YOUR refs is from Edwin Stevenson a UUP member hardly the most impartial person. Also I cant find any refs to say what the IRA say on this subject BigDunc (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm struck by two things with the references provided above. The Belfast Newsletter dose not mention the Kevin Lynch dedication which is also to be removed. In addition, one sources says the "The statue" is a tourist attraction, and another says they get asked a lot who was he? As Dunc has also mentioned above the IRA are not mentioned as having an opinion on the subject. --Domer48 (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Simply because someone has failed to deny a claim someone else has made about them does not mean it can be stated as fact. If that was the case, I would draw your attention to this. Brian Mulroney, Bob Hope, George Bush, George Bush Jr, Ted Heath, the Rothschild family, Boxcar Willie, the Queen of England, the Queen Mother, Prince Philip, Kris Kristofferson, Al Gore and others were accused of being reptilian, child-sacrificing paedophiles, yet I don't see them denying it?! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That is quite correct - my point however is that it has been reported as fact by the BBC, which is at the top of the reliability scale! The fact that a DUP MLA says they refute it doesn't mean they do.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for improving this article

Now before you even think about replying, just pretend the person that said this is someone you've never dealt with before, and you know nothing about them:

• New Zealand section - get rid of the coatrack. The statue issue isn't directly related to the New Zealand section, and it certainly isn't directly related to the Orange Institution. If we're going to include new stories every time there's a passing connection, this article is going to get very large. Look at the section right now, how much of it is about New Zealand?
• Republic of Ireland section - similarly, the coatrack about David Armstrong can go. Yes I'm well aware I expanded that, but only because it was difficult to explain the full situation in the existing sentence. It's enough to include that someone spoke out against it, without going into too much detail.
• Countries sections in general - either expand the smaller ones (Wales, New Zealand after possible removal of coatrack, Ghana, USA to an extent) or merge them into one "Other countries" section.
• External links - lose some of the links to individual lodges. Let's face it, there's plenty of lodges who'll have websites so unless there's some particular reason why a particular lodge should be linked to then don't. Link to some of the major ones possibly.
• Orange Flag section - merge it into another section if possible. Right now it's just ugly with one sentence that mostly describes what the flag looks like, when people can see the flag right next to the description.
• England section - merge the two sub-sections into it.
• Drumcree - needs to be in the article. I would suggest any attempt to add it is done in the form of a sandbox and discussed before adding it, as we all know what will happen otherwise.

There's plenty more needs to be done, but that's more than enough to be going on with. So, do you want to argue about one or two sentences, or do you want to actually create a decent article? Over to you..... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to any of that.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there must be more that can go in the New Zealand section surely? Right now it just starts with Massey being a member. When did they start in New Zealand etc etc? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I come from a long line of Orangemen, but haven't joined myself. The Orange is not my forte at all in terms of history!Traditional unionist (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Google is your friend. Looks like we could do with a few other countries being mentioned too..... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As presumably the only NZer involved here, I'll take over the New Zealand section. I know there's an article on the Order in NZ somewhere, so I'll dig that out and reduce it to a paragraph or so. I don't think I'll be able to provide a lot of info on the NZ Order in the 20th century, since as far as I'm aware no one has researched that. I have newspaper reports of them parading in 1920 and I know that at some point between then and now they stopped, and are pretty much invisible, but that's about it. I'm not even sure if they even still exist in any meaningful form.

I have to agree with the people who are calling for the 'coatrack' to be removed, since it has little to do with New Zealand. It would be more appropriate on the Limavady or William Massey pages (or both), but I think that unless they actually remove the statue the issue is only temporarily notable - if they decide to keep it, will anyone actually care in a year's time?

For the record, Massey is not known in this country as anti-Catholic. I think he might have capitalised on some sectarianism in the 1920s, but during WWI he was in coalition with a party led by an Irish Catholic (Joseph Ward). In NZ he is known primarily for crushing a wharf workers' strike. --Helenalex (talk) 09:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Other suggestions:

• Move the 'military contributions' section to the History of the Orange Institution page, except for the war memorials subsection, which should go into the new 'historiography' section of this page.
• Reorganise or just remove altogether the 'controversy' section. Practically this entire page could go under the heading of 'controversy' and what's in there now is mostly just a jumble of random stuff. Most of it would be more appropriate under parades or history.
• There needs to be something on the women's order. I would put this in myself, but I haven't been able to find out what it's officially called, since they don't have much of an internet presence and no one has researched them in detail, as far as I can tell. I think someone who is currently in Northern Ireland needs to ring up and ask.
• I agree with ONiH about the flag, but I'm damned if I know where it should go instead.

Everyone's being so constructive... This isn't quite up there with the Paisley/McGuiness lovefest in terms of unlikeliness, but it makes a nice change. Let's try and keep it up. :) --Helenalex (talk) 09:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ladies Orange Benevolent Association by any chance? I moved the flag. I suggest any removal of any criticism is discussed here. Some of might need to go, but it's a contentious part so.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be the name in Canada, the very few references to it in Ireland seem to refer to a charity organisation rather than the women's order as such. You could still be right, but I think we need something a bit more concrete. I like what you've done with the flag, and I've been thinking for a while that wasn't the best place for the Scottish pic.

I wasn't planning on deleting anything in the controversy section, just moving it to a more appropriate place. The parades stuff can go into the parades section, the Craigavon/de Valera stuff can go into history, the last paragraph into the appropriate parts of 'throughout the world', and the first sentence is basically a repitition of what's in the article's opening paragraph. Any objections? --Helenalex (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

12th as a public holiday

I see there is a reference for this, but I'm almost certain it is wrong. The 12th is a de facto public holiday, but it isn't actually. Most employers offer staff either St Patricks day or the 12th off as a publ;ic holiday, but I don't think either are. St Patricks day might be, but like I say, am almost certain the 12th isn't. I'll check it out.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Source, source, source, source etc etc. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

George Galloway

Has anyone suggestions as to do with comments by Galloway in the England section as TU says it is not certain that he was refering to the OO in England if anything I would assume he was talking about the OO in Scotland as he was refering to Adam Ingram who was a member of a lodge in Glasgow. BigDunc (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Was it me? I don't remember saying anything about this.Traditional unionist (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it wasn't I seen clarify in the edit summary beside your name so assumed (which in my experience is always a bad move) but I feel doesn't belong in that section any thoughts. BigDunc (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I added the hidden comment about it. As I wrote, it could probably do with moving somewhere if anyone has any ideas? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose at the very least it should be removed from the England and possibly inserted in the Scotland section. BigDunc (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes it is about Adam "Kick The Pope" Ingram, see here. And of course "Kick George Galloway" is relevant as well, see here. I think it definitely belongs in the article somewhere, especially as a judge has ruled that many of the observations made about the OO are "fair comment". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent addition to the lead

"however some demoninations of Protestants are also ineligible for membership" is sourced by this. Am I missing something, as I don't see anything that says "some demoninations of Protestants are also ineligible for membership" on the page? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't see it either. I vaguely recall reading that Unitarians aren't eligible because they don't believe in the Trinity, but whether that's actually a requirement I don't know. As far as I can see there's nothing about the trinity or non-eligible Protestants anywhere in that source. --Helenalex (talk) 09:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(having just read TU's most recent edit) Ah, I thought it was the Unitarians. However, showing that they're not eligible to join the Royal Black doesn't mean that they're not eligible for the Orange Institution. I've returned my copy of Edwards to the library so I can't comment on the other source. --Helenalex (talk) 09:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit reverted

This one to be precise. According to this Rossnowlagh is the only parade to be held in the Republic. If there's a source saying otherwise please cite it and amend the text accordingly. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

there is certainly a Lodge in Dublin, I'd say there is a source for this from the time the citezry of Dublin were so offended by the Orange they tore up their own city.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

offended by the Orange, they tore up their own city? When was this? --Domer48 (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Everything I've read on the subject says the Rossnowlagh parade is the only one in the Republic, but I suppose there could be a few little ones that aren't widely known. We would need evidence though. In terms of lodges, this source says there are lodges in 9 counties of the Republic, so I will amend the section accordingly. --Helenalex (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge from James Sloan (Orangeman) and Daniel Winter

I have proposed merging James Sloan (Orangeman) into this article. If nothing is known about him other than the bare fact that he founded the Orange institution, then per WP:BIO1E there is no need for a separate article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If there's no other information, seems reasonable. I recently performed a similar merger on Stan Yapp and Gordon Morgan (note, none of the external links verifiably refer to the same person), to West Midlands County Council. One sentence stubs are a bit worthless if the same information is in (or can be placed in) the target article. Aren't there a couple of other founder members to merge too? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Added Daniel Winter, the other one seems ok as it is. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, the Daniel Winter article looks mergeworthy too: another factoid masquerading as an article. I agree, though, that James Wilson (Orangeman) is a real article and should not be merged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Historically Dan Winter deserves an article more than the other two. I'd say leave the other two and merge (de facto delete) sloan. Someone will come along and make articles out of them, not doing any harm.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Substub "articles" such as this do indeed do harm, because they misleadingly promise the reader that by following the link they will learn more about the topic ... and then, having waited for the page to load, all they find is a factoid no bigger than in the text surrounding the link they followed.

The proposal is merge Winter, not delete; if someone has the sources to write a proper article, they can, but waiting-for-Godot is no reason to keep this one-liner in the meantime. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Navigation template

Would it be possible for someone to produce a navigation template for this article and its related content? --Jza84 |  Talk  16:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that necessary? I mean, what would go in it?Traditional unionist (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I invisaged something that organises various lodges, key figures, localities, events, customs, affiliations and so on. Not strictly necessary (like all such templates), but I though it would help with the navigation to and from articles in this series. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted nonsense

I just removed this from the article, but I thought its inventiveness (particularly the bit about the tuba) deserved preservation on the talk page. --Helenalex (talk) 04:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"The biggest highlight is said to be The Ian Paisley Wife March, in which leader of the Free Presbyterian Church Ian Paisley rides a Llama from the beginning of the parade to the finish whilst playing a Tuba. This Symbolizes the love, trust and compassion between dedicated Orange men to their wives. Orange men also refer to wives as the following; 'sisters, mothers and daughters.' Another popular highlight of the Orange parade is The great Panda Hunt in which Ian Paisley must hunt 60 Panda bears that have been strapped to skateboards and sent down a steep hill. On July 12th, 2006, 58 Loyalists were accidentally killed by Ian Paisley who mistook them for the Panda bears. Due to Ian Paisley's failing eyesight and hearing he was unable to tell the difference. Only after the Loyalists had been shot, strung from a tree and skinned (some alive) did Ian Paisley realize what he had done. The Great Panda Hunt was therefore banned from the parade so such an incident would never occur again. The Panda's are still believed to be somewhere in Belfast, 1 was caught and interrogated by the British army for 3 days but no information was given from the Panda to the British army as to the whereabouts of the other Panda Bear's."

I'm guessing it's found its way to uncyclopedia, if it didn't come from there in the first place. Gamerunknown (talk) 10:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Freemasonry

I have once again removed the additions that are either unsourced, unreliably sourced, and/or a complete misrepresentation of what a source says. O Fenian (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

TO HAMTECHPERSON

You are so one sided and biggoted to protestants, there is no connection to orange order and the KKK. the orange order have NEVER and I repeat NEVER hung a black man. the orange order has lodges in ghana! its unnacceptable that u should have this narrow minded control over an article and not allowed it to be changed when its clearly WRONG.