Talk:Bobby Sands

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=

There is a clear guideline on Wikipedia about the use of the word Terrorism. Please read it before editing.

Parliamentary majority

The article states that Sands' majority when he was elected as a Member of Parliament was 51.22% when, according to this wikipedia article on the April 1981 by-election in Fermanagh, South Tyrone his majority was in fact only 2.4%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermanagh_and_South_Tyrone_by-election,_April_1981 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeSproule (talk • contribs) 11:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Survived by a young son?

Born in 1973, his son is now 38 years old. Is that really considered young? T-bonham (talk) 09:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

• Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Extremist, terrorist and freedom fighter

Of chicken suppers and reliable sources

This is ridiculous. Wikipedia doesn't exist to eulogise anyone, glorious hero or filthy criminal. It is verifiable that songs of the pastie supper ilk were sung by many people. In encyclopaedic terms, thousands of Northern Ireland people opining that Sands was a figure of ridicule is every bit as valid as those of Christy bloody Moore. Yet anytime anyone has added references to this, they've been reverted immediately. Revisionists at work ... Pyams (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Our anonymous friend makes a compelling theoretical point. There are plenty of sources that document that particular favorite. In Memories of the Maze, The Guardian, July 24, 2000,

UDA member Billy McQuiston, says: "The IRA hunger strikes were very confusing. You had all these Protestants singing songs like 'Do You Want a Chicken Supper Bobby Sands?' but we supported what he was doing. It would have meant our comrades getting what we wanted them to get, and you had to respect what the Provos went through." [1]

There are also sources noting it is sung by certain football fans. [2] [3] [4] Rockpocket 21:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a sectarian song song by extreme Loyalists and Rangers football fans, if they knew anything about the history of the Hunger strikes both the UVF and UDA supported the Hunger strikers and their demands.--Padraig (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

So it is a real song, then, or just "Loyalist POV"? Rockpocket 22:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Its not a song it a football Chant used by Loyalist football fans at rangers matches.--Padraig (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yet three of the four sources describe it as a "song". Verifiability, not truth, remember. Rockpocket 22:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Songs, especially football songs (ie not songs released by notable bands) are inherently unencyclopedic in my view. I'd support mentioning it if it can be sourced, but not quoting the lyric. I'd support the same approach with regard to songs lionising rebels as well. --John (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether its encyclopaedic or not. I was just a little disappointed to see an anon editor attempting to make a valid point about verifiability, and being labeled a vandal, troll and then gamed into a 3RR block, simply because his point went against the opinion of established editors. We can do better than that. I have provided evidence of verifiability, now interested parties can discuss its suitability. Rockpocket 22:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It has no encyclopeadic value, just as putting Celtic fan chants about Mountbatton or the Paratroopers killed in Warrenpoint would have any value in those articles. Its not wikipedias place to promote sectarianism.--Padraig (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, we are not censored either. If we can mention on Republican heroes' articles that there are rebel songs celebrating them, we can surely mention this here with references. It is relevant to the subject. I am against quoting the lyric though, in both cases. --John (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

John how would you suggest doing that, in what part of the article would this be relevent, and how would you mention it without quoting it, its not as if there is much more lyric left to quote then the part already quoted above.--Padraig (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware from the title that the song is sectarian per se. I could be wrong, but not being familiar with the whole lyrics its difficult to say. Secondly, I'm not sure where the policy we have that forbids the documenting the existence of sectarian songs or chants. Billy Boys is pretty well established, and that is certainly explicitly sectarian. Finally, songs mocking or criticizing public figures are the flip side of those lionizing them. If mentioning them is "promotion" of "Loyalist POV", then all the lionizing songs are promotional too, of Republican POV. Personally, I tend to agree that listing songs about anyone is pretty trivial unless they have had significant third party sources discuss their importance (I await to be convinced that Bobby Sands by Soldat Louis is significant, notable and relevant). Ironically enough, I bet you would struggle to find a book and three broadsheets sources discuss any of the other songs listed. I'm not particularly keen on quoting the lyric either, though. Rockpocket 23:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Rockpocket, I see you have asked Alison to lift the block of the anon IP to allow him to present his case here, is this a new policy or are you making a special exception here they were blocked for 3RR, and had made no effort to discuss the issue here.--Padraig (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I asked Alison if you should review her block to permit talk space contributions only. Why? Because blocks are not punitive, they are preventative, and an IP with under 60 edits may not have been familiar with WP:3RR. And because I think the editor may be able to contribute to this discussion now, thereby reducing the probability they he will return to edit-warring over the issues in 31 hours time. Rockpocket 23:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

See this edit summary that shows the POVof this anon IP quite clearly.--Padraig (talk) 23:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

And this edit clearly shows your POV. *shock* There are people who consider Sands to be a terrorist! People have opinions, it doesn't mean that they are automatically a vandal or a troll. Rockpocket 23:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"gamed into a 3RR block" whats wrong Rock, my edit summary not clear enough. The only one gaming is you, trowing out a little bait, see what you might catch. A little less of the personal, and yes, you were refering to me. I understand your still smarting over the ArbCom, but you did lay it on a bit thick, a bit like your defence of the IP, sounds quite good, and you may have convince yourself, but thats about all. --Domer48 (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Two things. I was not specifically referring to you at all, but now you mention it, your edit summary "RVV", meaning "reverting vandalism" was inappropriate. I suggest you too read WP:VANDALISM#NOT. Secondly, I have been having a few off-wiki discussions today about the actions of a certain admin relating to you, after a request for help on your behalf. However, I have little enthusiasm to be spending any more of my time on that, in light of those unprovoked comments. Alienating everyone because you feel had done by is not going to help you cause. Rockpocket 23:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure what the fuss is - we all know that the song exists & it is relevant & helps us tend towards NPOV (which is about all that can be hoped for when discussing NI) to acknowledge that not all songs about Sands were supportive of him... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.9.98 (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Its not a song, its a two-line football chant used by sectarian football fans, it has no place in a encyclopeadia.--Padraig (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've heard it sung without ever attending a football match (in company in which took no offence, I might add). I never even attempted to insert more than mention of its existence into the article, yet you seem to object to that. I suggest that mention of its existence is appropriate to an encyclopedia because the loathing and contempt that Sands inspired in some quarters is a fundamental & undeniable aspect of his historical significance.80.229.9.98 (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Instead of just listing the song why don't you draft a sentence, using the sources in support, that notes how some parts of the Protestant community composed songs/chants mocking Sand's hunger strike. I carefully worded, well sourced sentence like that would support the point you are trying to make without requiring the listing of a clearly provocative lyric. Rockpocket 00:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"unprovoked comments" "hard done by" you do mean shafted, don't you. I don't want "a few off-wiki discussions" I want a few on wiki ones. Now, if I'm a bit touchy about blocks, I've good reason! And I will not have swipes made at me and sit on my hands. --Domer48 (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV certainly means that we include any notable anti-Sands songs, but I'm not convinced about this one. Any song which includes the line "you dirty fenian f*cker" in the chorus isn't worthy of an encyclopedia. I'd support Rockpockets suggestion above that we mention the existence with a ref of anti songs. The whole songs list needs pruned anyway as many of them aren't really about Sands. Invisible Sun by The Police is about the NI troubles in general so only has a tenuous link to Sands. Valenciano (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry if my post has insulted any of our more sensitive republican colleagues, but that said it does meet with the criteria, it's a song written in reaction to the hunger strikes. If you are concerned of the profanity: "You dirty fenian fucker" used change it to "Or maybe some bread and butter". Moustan (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC) Moustan

What the lyrics are, and how offensive they might be does not determine the encylopedic worthyness of a song. If it can be verfied that it exists, it should be included, just as the disgusting things Celtic fans chant should be if they can be verified. There seems to me to be some WP:OWN and WP:NPOV issues with this dispute.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I have made an additional edit to Bobby Sands#United Kingdom that, in my opinion, covers the taunts sufficiently, according to the sources, and without being deliberately provocative. Rockpocket 01:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Songs section doesn't specify whether or not the songs are pro or anti Sands. The song: " Could you go a pasty/chicken supper, Bobby Sands?" has been mentioned on several occasions, the book "Cycle of Violence", a published novel by the Irish author Colin Bateman, who has anti-'orange' morals, contains the whole song. It is a song mentioned in various published works, therfore it meets the Songs criteria. Moustan (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Moustan

This book im sure does not meet WP:RS-- BigDunc (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Graffiti

I'm going to add a mention, with examples, of pro- & anti-Sands graffiti to the 'reactions' section. I'm sure that other editors will have seen other examples, so I'm going to suggest that we all exercise a bit of self-discipline limit this section to 5 pro- & 5 anti-Sands examples max, in order to avoid having the evolution of this article descend into a slanging match. I believe graffiti is verifiable in the sense of being in clear public view & that its existense is indisputably a matter of common knowledge.80.229.9.98 (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This section is of absolute no encyclopedic value whatsoever any fool can put graffiti on a wall and should not be put in to this article. BigDunc (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Material that neatly illustrates the pro- & anti- passions that Sands arouses has the encyclopedic value of illustrating this terrorist's place in history. Pop musicians have no more authority to comment on Sands than Graffiti artists, but you don't seem to object to the list of songs.80.229.9.98 (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless you can demonstrate that there are 3rd party sources that discuss notable graffiti in the context of Sands' life or legacy, then this has no place here. Just because something indisputably exists doesn't make it notable. Verifiability, in this case, would be essential. If you object to the notability of the songs, then query that by asking for 3rd party sources for them. If those are nor provided, then you may remove them. By the way, a bit of advice: while you are welcome to your opinion, referring to Sands as a "this terrorist" is likely to inflame the discussion for obvious reasons. If you wish to foster good faith, its probably a good idea to refer to him simply as Bobby Sands. Rockpocket 22:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, Rockpocket, 'yes', our discussions have had an impact, but I'm still feeling my way & there are bound to be times when I follow a course you wouldn't. For all your advice to me, reverting seems to be the response of first choice for everyone else. I'm not going to re-re-revert for the moment, because I regard your point about notability & the songs as worthwhile & unresolved. My own feeling is that, because notability is so highly subjective, we should err on the side of inclusion of material unless server space ever becomes a problem. I don't so much object to the notability of the songs as note that different standards seem to have been applied regarding them. I could indeed point to discussion of graffiti in the context of Sands's significance, but the only discussions I could reference fully right now have only been published online & I don't want to go off on a tangential argument about what's a serious or worthwhile discussion.80.229.9.98 (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Your own feeling is not that uncommon among contributors, but it completely incompatible with WP:V, the non-negotiable community policy the guides inclusion. It makes no difference whether something undeniably exists or whether you can prove this. I can prove I exist, but it doesn't mean I deserve my own article. Unless it is verifiable by an independent reliable source indicating both its existence and it relevance, then it will be removed. Different standards are not being applied to songs, if these are not sourced they can also be removed (after an appropriate time). Graffiti in itself could well be notable and there could well be some serious discussion regarding its association with the Troubles, but lets see the sources mentioning it, preferably here on the the talk page, and we can have that discussion. Starting off a debate like this with an unsourced addition is not a smart way of doing business, reverting the justified removal is certainly not a smart way of continuing it and commenting on another editor's grammar and punctuation is a home run in how not to be a constructive contributor. Rockpocket 00:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Content should be WP:V and WP:RS please read these 80.229.9.98 (talk) before adding content to an article especially content which you know will be controversal and as Rocket says your POV on Bobby Sands should not be aired one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter and we dont need to get in to a slagging match about that as it is not relevant. BigDunc (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I maintain that graffiti is verifiable by being in plain, public view & that its existence is not in doubt. If I decide to restore this information to the article then I shall reference it with links to proof of its existence. I'm not currently doing so for the reasons given above, but I will say that it seems to me that you are simply looking for excuses to remove the material rather than raising genuine questions about the existence of the Graffiti. As for my POV, I haven't tried to insert the word 'terrorist' into the article & it won't bother me a whit if others refer to Sands as a 'freedom fighter' on talk pages or in edit summaries. Finally, I at least would be more likely to take your comments seriously if you'd punctuate them in accordance with normal English usage. Thanks80.229.9.98 (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What kind of arrogant nonsense is this about being more likely to take your comments seriously if you'd punctuate them in accordance with normal English usage. It would serve you better to reference what you add to articles than pushing your POV. BigDunc (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It's very simple: the use of basic punctuation, such as commas & question marks, is something that is taught at primary school level. Someone who doesn't punctuate therefore gives the impression of not being educated to this level &, as a result of this, is less likely to be regarded as having anything worthwhile to say. Moreover, the whole reason that punctuation exists is that it makes strings of words' meanings clearer & more precise. Where it is lacking, it is harder for the reader to understand what the author is attempting to convey, so communication is less effective & the author's efforts to make their point are undermined.80.229.9.98 (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

So you judge a person on how they say something and not on what they say doesn't say to much for you then does it??? Someones use or missuse of grammer in now way tells you anything of the inteligence of that person. And if you are as intelligent as you think you are surely a missed comma or full stop cant hold back a master linguist like yourself. BigDunc (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mention intelligence, mine or anyone else's, or grammer, only education & punctuation. I freely admit that, the more highly educated someone appears to be, the more predisposed I am to assume that something they say is likely to be worth my attention. For example, if someone suggests that I pay heed to WP:V, which is guidance that uses some long words & some complex English, I am less likely to follow their suggestion if their own use of English has been so poor as to make it seem unlikely that they themselves actually understand the guidance they're recommending. I think this approach makes perfect sense. Also, I am indeed good at working out what shoddy English is actually intended to say (I can cope with bad spelling as well as the rest). It's just tiresome to have to put in extra effort because of someone else's laziness or lack of erudition. If you have anything else to say about the inclusion of graffiti in the article then I'd urge you to concentrate on posting that, because I'd be interested to read it.80.229.9.98 (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see what your comments on BigDunc's use of 'grammer' (your spelling not mine) have got to do with improving the article, which is what this talkpage is for. Grafitti isn't a reliable third party source so can't go in. I don't see a problem otherwise with pro or anti songs going in provided they're reliably sourced. Valenciano (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If you actually read the postings then you'll see that I've made no criticism whatsoever of his 'grammer' (his spelling, not mine). If people want to address comments to me then I expect them to be civil about it, & I consider posting a garbled, unpunctuated string directed at me to be uncivil, a bit like someone talking to me with their mouth full.80.229.9.98 (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Only way to deal with this is too not feed the troll. BigDunc (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that is why I just ignored it. --Domer48 (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

New definition of a 'Troll': someone who adds factual content that makes uncomfortable reading from the POV of apologists for terrorism.80.229.9.98 (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Too many songs

I'm sure we all agree that this long list is unencyclopedic. Any suggestions on which (if any) we want to keep? --John (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't listing songs is particularly useful, since the notability or context of each is not described. I would suggest turning that section into a paragraph where songs and musical influences are mentioned, as notable, by third party sources. Rockpocket 19:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see the value of the lists, a paragraph mentioning that many songs where wrote about the Hunger Strikers and mention of the mains one within that should be sufficient.--Padraig (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah a paragraph would be better than a list of songs some of which are far from notable. BigDunc (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Just so long as there's some mention in the 'Reactions' section of the fact that the majority of Sands's countrymen, both in Northern Ireland & the rest of the UK, had nothing but contempt & loathing for him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.9.98 (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you prove that, many demonstrations where held in England, Sotland and Wales in support of the Hunger strikers and many of the main trade unions supported them as well. As for in the north he was elected an MP, his funeral was one of the largest ever seen. They also received support worldwide.--Padraig (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Approx 2/3 of the population of Northern Ireland* in 1981 were Protestant Unionists, so only 3/4 of that group would have to regard convicted IRA terrorists with loathing & contempt for the fact I state to be true, & I think that proportion is rather easily reached. Feeling towards convicted IRA terrorists was & is much the same on the mainl

and. It's ridiculous, petty Republican obtuseness to try & deny it. Sooner or later, despite the partisan obstructionism of those with a Republican agenda, information reflecting & indicating the fact that Jimmy Sands will be loathed for as long as he's remembered will make it into this article.

• (Yes, "Northern Ireland", with a capital 'N' & '-ern' after the 'h', not 'the north of Ireland', which is a vague geographical description covering, e.g., Donegal in what we might call 'Irish-occupied Ulster'.)80.229.9.98 (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That is the problem with a silent majority; they are so bloody quiet.--MJB (talk) 06:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And a problem with some extremists, they take silence as tacit support.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Are the extremists here really convinced Sands & the other twigs had the tacit support of the majority in the UK, or is it just that they see this article as a great opportunity to publicise propaganda via a policy of lying by omission...?80.229.9.98 (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Could I remind editors that the talk page is used to improve the article, and not for rants and for the Troll read WP:TPG--BigDunc (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil Dunc.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

How am I being uncivil the troll is just trying to inflame this discussion if you read the posts the troll made you will see that they have not said anything constructive. BigDunc (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The selective application of WP policies & use of reversion & the discussion process as tools of partisan censorship should be matters of concern to any who wish to improve the article.80.229.9.98 (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose a starting point would be removal of songs not directly about Bobby Sands, what do editors think of that? BigDunc (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I would support that. Or perhaps create a new article covering all music written to do with the prison protests, the '81 Hungers Strike and then about particular people? GiollaUidir (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Domers idea to trim the list, then maybe the rest could be converted into a pargraph dealing with the music. GiollaUdir idea of a seperate dealing with the music of the prisons protests is good if anyone is prepared to undertake the task.--Padraig (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Trim the unrelated songs, and condense the others to one paragraph. This will improve the article. --John (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Trimmed list and moved other to new article (Artistic reactions to the 1981 Irish hunger strike).GiollaUidir (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've further trimmed the list and converted it into a paragraph. I hope you will agree it looks better now. --John (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

People evidently don't want the ballad of the pasty supper posted, however would it be fair to say that there are many sectarian songs both pro and anti-Sands without specifying? Moustan (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Moustan

No. There only appears to be one sectarian song about him that mocks him. The subject is already covered in Reactions-United Kingdom.GiollaUidir (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The claim that the prison guards 'brutalzed' the prisoners comes from a POV source

The claim that the hunger strikers were beaten by the guards is not substantiated by a reliable source. The claim that they were 'brutalized' is inherently POV. Reference to a book published by a self-proclaimed partisan publishing house (they label themselves progressive) is not sufficient. Absent a verified statement from the prison guards or a judicial proceedings (neither of which exist) the only possible source for such claims is the prisoners themselves and they are clearly POV. As with many Wikipedia articles, this particular one demonstrates the futility of claiming NPOV, such articles are inevitably going to be edited primarily by supporters or opponents of the terrorists. -- 98.216.70.110 (talk) 02:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Please come back when you have read the sources, particularly the one you just removed. If you have read it, I look forward to you telling me what it says. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Or if you can't find it, try Mallie & Bishop page 351 or Moloney page 205 or Bowyer Bell page 483 or Coogan and English cover it too. Or are they "propagandists"? Sadly for you the facts of the dirty protest are agreed upon by all sources. The claim fact that the hunger strikers were beaten by the guards is not substantiated by a many reliable sources. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Citing a reference to a partisan source for a factual claim is how you get an article NPOV tagged. If your claim was being made in good faith you would quote the passage here and in particular cite the ultimate source of the claim. Clearly the claim of brutalization is a POV claim and the claim of beatings is based on a claim made by a party claiming to be a political prisoner. -- 98.216.70.110 (talk) 02:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"Citing a reference to a partisan source" - which partisan source? Exactly which one?

I have no need to cite anything. You just changed text from what a source says, so you must know what the source says? Please enlighten us. If you don't know what the source says, you're adding your own POV.

I am acting in good faith, as I know what the sources say. You don't know what the source say, so you're adding your own opinion of what they say. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to support your NPOV tag, beyond bald assertions about the partisanship of a source that meets WP:RS? I hope so, or the tag won't be there for very long. Dppowell (talk) 03:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I assume he's referring to the original source and wording still, not the current ones. I can't see any justification for the tag, I was just waiting for the next reply to dodge the questions before removing it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As One Night In Hackney has amply shown, you have utterly failed to demonstrate that any one of the sources quoted is POV or partisan. You removed referenced information without adequate explanation, and what you have offered here is paltry. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thoskit edits

Please provide the exact text of the article, if you insist it's correct. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 22:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The original sentence and ref, combined, clearly & unambiguously mean 'The Washington Post reported that the hunger strike was widely regarded as a publicity stunt'. We are supposed to assume good faith and not presuppose that that combination is a twisted version of the truth, just because the twisted version would suit our own political prejudices more. What republican editors have been doing is to change the above combination to a combination of sentence and ref that means 'The Washington Post stated that the hunger strike was a publicity stunt', which has a quite different meaning. This attempted change involves both denying a large section of the general public an opinion that has been properly referenced and attributing a particular POV to the Washington Post. If Republican editors wish to do this then it is up to THEM to justify it with appropriate quotations.Thoskit (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Well what, clearly & unambiguously, does the article say exactly? Either interpretation is valid, depending on how the Post phrased it. Rockpocket 00:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

A little googling suggests whoever put that in there did so on the basis of the following quote: "The primary aim of the fast is not simply political status, but the international publicity." Washington Post, 3 May 1981, 2-3 [5]. Unless someone can provide more context, that quote does seem to support "The Washington Post reported that the primary aim of the hunger strike was to generate publicity." It does not support "The primary purpose of the exercise, however, was often regarded as an attempt to gain international publicity rather than political prisoner status." (because there is nothing in the quote that mentions often regarded). And it does not support "The Washington Post stated that the hunger strike was a publicity stunt" (because there is nothing in the quote that mentions publicity stunt). Rockpocket 00:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Nationality again

Do we really have to do through this again? [6] This article was nice and stable for a while, without any proclamations of Sand' Irishness or Britishness. Why do we have to revisit this every few months? Rockpocket 00:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

As originally posted on my talk page in reply to you; It is a biographical page therefore it should be accurate. There are rarely edit wars to do with nationality, only the ridiculous Derry/Londonderry edit wars. Saying that he was Irish will create no problems whatsoever. Not mentioning it is a diservice to the researchers who use Wikipedia for information on the subjects they are interested in.--Theosony (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick question. Does anyone have a reliable source to show he formally renounced his British citizenship? If not then British should be added as he was born British by virtue of being born in NI to resident parents. Canterbury Tail talk 00:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"They have nothing in their whole imperial arsenal that can break the spirit of one Irishman who doesn't want to be broken." Bobby Sands. A reliable source to show he formally renounced his British citizenship?--Domer48_'fenian' 08:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No that's not a source that says he formally renounced his British citizenship. Did he go through the process of renouncing it to the appropriate authority? The vast number of people do not, they just refuse to recognise their British citizenship and ignore it despite the fact it is there. See this is why it is problematic to bring citizenship into NI people articles. Canterbury Tail talk 13:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

MP

Query, can he properly be described as an MP as he never took the oath (that I can find) and never took up the position. Yes he was duely elected, but never took it up. Similar to Gerry Adams not being considered an MP until they made the exceptions about taking the oath to the Queen at that time. Canterbury Tail talk 00:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes he was duely elected! Provide a source that says he can not be described as an MP as he never took the oath? --Domer48_'fenian' 08:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This source describes Adams and McGuinness as MPs in 1997 before the rule changes that gave them offices. This source describes Sands being elected MP. Sources would definitely be needed for any alternative wording. Valenciano (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The answer is "yes". A person becomes an MP as soon as the returning officer announces his election. Whether or not he actually turns up at Parliament and takes his seat is not relevant. Mooretwin (talk) 10:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, it was just a query. I have no issues with it, just want to be sure it's correct and verifiable. Wasn't sure of the technicalities surrounding it which is why I asked. Canterbury Tail talk 13:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It was a reasonable question. Mooretwin (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Strange category

Okay, quick one. I'm having trouble seeing why he is in the Category:Irish-language activists. There is nothing in teh article to suggest he was an activist for the promotion of the Irish language. He was an activist yes, and undoubtedly used the Irish language yes, but not an activist for the Irish language that I can see. Can anyone reference this, or is it an erroneous category that has been added. Canterbury Tail talk 22:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to remove the cat. And there are several other people in that cat that shouldn't be there. Canterbury Tail talk 17:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Biting At The Grave" by Padraig O'Malley deals with his Irish language activism. While in the Cages at Long Kesh he spent most of his time in a special hut where only Gaelic was spoken, and eventually ended up teaching others and proudly wore a fáinne. O Fenian (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is a reference then for him being an activist for the language then fine, though just teaching others doesn't come under the realms of activist. I've taught English and Japanese to others, but doesn't mean I'm an activist for either of them. Canterbury Tail talk 23:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The American Media reaction

2 paragraphs of people condemning him followed by some complaining that the media was too Pro-IRA makes no sense. Should be refoactored. Lot 49a^talk 02:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Category: Irish Politicans who committed suicide

Resolved

 – No matter what people's opinions of what "self imposed starvation" or similar mean, Wikipedia does not include those opinions. As such, this discussion is now pointless so I am boldly attempting to close it. O Fenian (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Does this article belong in this category? Irvine22 (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Since he did not commit suicide, the answer is no. O Fenian (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) 100% NO. Sands did not commit suicide. BigDunc 18:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do you say he didn't commit suicide? Seems to me he did. Irvine22 (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that give his officially recorded cause of death, such as what it says on his death certificate or the verdict of a coroner? O Fenian (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you have a wee gander at the current list of sources for the article you will see that The Boston Globe describes Sands's hunger strike as a "slow suicide attempt". So the s-word is already in the article as it clearly should be.Irvine22 (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A simple "no" would have saved time. O Fenian (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Do we have sourced information such as coroner's reports or death certificates for the other people presently in the category "Irish Politicians who committed suicide"? Irvine22 (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

NB. Irvine22's userpage indicate a penchant for shit-stirring under different accounts...GiollaUidir (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC

"Penchant" - one of my favorite words.Irvine22 (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so I don't really see any arguments above against adding the article to the Category: Irish Politicians who committed suicide. I see bald assertions that Sands didn't commit suicide, which seem to contradict the extensively-sourced and verifiable facts already in the article (including the use of the term "suicide attempt" by a number of newspapers quoted therein). At present, I intend to go ahead and add the article to the proposed category, after a reasonable period to allow for further comment. Cheers! Irvine22 (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Have a read here, it is not going into the article. BigDunc 14:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that source certainly seems to answer O Fenian's question above: the coroner found the cause of death to be "starvation, self-imposed." If a person dies from a "gunshot, self-inflicted" that would be a suicide. How is "starvation, self-imposed" different? Irvine22 (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The coroner didn't find suicide and we don't synthesis here. BigDunc 16:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Do we have coroner's findings of suicide for the other people in this category? Besides, I'm not sure the question can be reduced to a narrow one of coroner's findings. There has been considerable comment and debate - by moral philosophers and theologians as well as by politicans and religious leaders - centering around whether Sands's death was in fact suicide. There is, to say the least, a substantial body of opinion that thinks it was indeed suicide. Adding the article to the category I have suggested would acknowledge that body of opinion and perhaps help some people find the article who might otherwise miss it.Irvine22 (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't give a fuck about the other articles if you are concerned about them go edit them, coroner didn't make a finding of suicide so it wasn't suicide. BigDunc 16:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

BigDunc, I think perhaps you should disengage for a while. You seem to be getting angry and your use of profanity isn't helping us move this issue forward. Thanks.Irvine22 (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If it's proven that Sands starved himself to death, that's suicide. If cause of death is undetermined, then it can't be classified. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What are you trying to say GoodDay? The coroner didn't find the death a suicide so it wasn't a suicide. BigDunc 17:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, according to the source BigDunc kindly provided above, the coroner did indeed find the cause of Sands's death was "starvation, self imposed." Irvine22 (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Wait a sec, which is it. Did the guy starve himself to death 'or' not? GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

He starved himself to death. Clearly. Irvine22 (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well then it's suicide, IMHO. However, my opinon doesn't stand up to BigDunc's source. A coroner's autopsy has the edge. What you'd need Irvine, is a counter-source (saying it was suicide). GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What from another coroner, because thats all that will refute the original coroners verdict a source from anywhere else is POV. I'm sure there a sources that say he was murdered. BigDunc 18:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, we should respect the source & keep Sands out of the category-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the coroner, as a state authority of Northern Ireland, is a highly legitimate and authoritative source. But do we really want to say that only official findings by state authorities of Northern Ireland may be used in reference to Sands? Irvine22 (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Do ya have a 'source' from another coroner's report, to dispute BigDunc's source? Varification decides this issue. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a source from the state authorities of Northern Ireland saying that Sands "took his own life", yes. Irvine22 (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Theoretically speaking, conflicting sources render each other 'un-reliable'. This is a tough case. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I've no solution for this dispute, gentlemen. Sorry. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Coroner trumps, both the PIRA and the NI office statements would have lesser authority as the Coroner is applying the law and not engaged in propaganda. Its also worth noting that other hunger strikers are not listed as attempted suicides. The religious aspect here should also result in a reasonable level of respect being paid. If I remember by doctrine aright (and I could be wrong) a hunger strike is not considered suicide and does not prevent burial in consecrated ground--Snowded ^TALK 19:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Cardinal Basil Hume, Archbishop of Westminster, did express his opinion that Sands's death was a suicide. Irvine22 (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sands was an Irish Catholic, not an English one. O Fenian (talk) 10:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

He also said that it was right for last rites etc. to be administered so it was at best ambiguous (and he was out of area anyway)--Snowded ^TALK 19:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The coroner's finding, trumps the archbishop's opinon. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I was citing the Arcbishop's opinion in response to Snowded's separate point about the religious implications of Sands's suicide. Irvine22 (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Except the coroner in NI in 1981 was part of the N.I. courts service, which was in turn under the remit of the N.I.O. Irvine22 (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

So the Catholic & Protestant Churchs wouldn't consider Sands demise a suicide. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have proof, the coroner's finding were politically motivated or that he was under political pressure? GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

No, in fact I don't see any real conflict between the coroner's finding that Sands's died from self-imposed starvation and the N.I.O. statement that he took his own life. Irvine22 (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That's irrevelant here. The coroner's finding is the final word. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree that we must give due weight to the findings of the Northern Ireland state authorities re: Sands. But if the coroner's finding is the final word, it's strange it isn;t already in the article, don't you think? Should we perhaps put it in? Irvine22 (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Why are we feeding this troll?--Vintagekits (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point, but he will just move onto another page with another set of POV edits. Mind you I suppose eventually that will lead to a topic ban --Snowded ^TALK 19:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You've been saying that for a while now, Snowded. Doesn't seem to be working out... Irvine22 (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Either it will or you will change your habits, either will suit me. --Snowded ^TALK 06:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen, it seems the consensus here is to go with 'not suicide'. Recommend we end the discussion on that note. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the consensus is not to add Sands to the category, yes. Not sure there's a consensus that he's not a suicide. But sometimes it's enough just to discuss, isn't it? Irvine22 (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The coroner ruled that his death was not a suicide, therefore it wasn't. End of discussion.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we should agree that the findings of the Northern Ireland Court service in this matter, as in all others relevant to Sands, are dispositive. Irvine22 (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The coroner did not rule the death as suicide so as far as we here on wikipedia are concerned it wasn't suicide. BigDunc 21:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The coroner did rule the death as self imposed starvation, which is suicide. Everyone knows the truth, whether you censor this perfectly legitimate comment or not BigDunc. Trickyjack (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IPs & Troubles related articles

IMHO, all non-registered accounts should be 'barred' from these kinds of articles (or at least restricted). GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you express that opinion at a venue where it can be technically enacted, such as Wikipedia:Requests for page protection or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, or else establish a community consensus for a change in policy. Suggesting it here is not going to serve much of a purpose. Rockpocket 19:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, I took it to the latter's talk-page. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bobby Sands/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be evaluating this article for possible GA status. My review should be posted shortly. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't feel this article meets the GA criteria at this time. I would encourage you to work to address the below concerns. Feel free to renominate once you feel they've been addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Writing and formatting

• Lead should be longer to meet WP:LEAD
• Given that this is technically a biography, having a level-2 heading called "Life" seems very strange. Why not just have the subsections of Life be sections in their own right? In general, organization in this article needs work
• "His parents, John and Rosaleen, had another son, John, in 1962. On leaving school, he became" - John or Bobby became?
• Many very short paragraphs that should be merged to improve flow
• West or west Belfast?
• Needs some general copy-editing for clarity and flow
• "He was survived by his parents, siblings, and a young son (Gerard) from his marriage to Geraldine Noade" - this reads as if he and Geraldine were no longer married. Is that the case? If so, should be more explicit in the circumstances of her departure earlier
• Why does the Asia subsection use bulleted points?
• External links should be the last subsection per WP:LAYOUT
• Don't repeat links from the article text in See also

Accuracy and verifiability

• See here for a list of dead/broken links
• "Frank Maguire...died suddenly of a heart attack" - source?
• In late 1980 Sands was chosen as Officer Commanding of the IRA prisoners in Long Kesh, succeeding Brendan Hughes who was participating in the first hunger strike. - source?
• Sands decided that other prisoners should join the strike at staggered intervals in order to maximise publicity with prisoners steadily deteriorating successively over several months. - source?
• The 1981 British Home Championship football tournament was cancelled following the refusal of teams from England and Wales to travel to Northern Ireland in the aftermath of his death due to security concerns. - source?
• In the Irish general elections held the same year, two anti H-block candidates won seats on an abstentionist basis. - source?
• Don't include external links in article text
• References section needs lots of cleaning up. All book sources should have author, title, date, publisher and page numbers. All web sources should have title, URL, publisher and retrieval date. All newspapers should have either a page number or a URL

Broad

• "The Americas" - a single non-US sentence does not mean that this section covers the entire hemisphere. Is there more information available on non-US American reaction? If not, might as well make this exclusively about the US
• "Reaction to death" could stand to be trimmed a bit, as some points seem over-emphasized/trivial

Neutrality

• "the family were forced to move" - forced by whom/what?

Stability

No issues noted

Images

• Captions should be grammatically correct
• File:Bobbyinlongkesh1973.jpg - PD-ineligible does not apply to this image, licensing tag needs replacing

Deadlinks

I fixed seven, but there are still some outstanding. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

percevd bias

The article on his trial & conviction seem to be hero worship. As if he were totally innocent never commited any violent aact in his life. If that is the truth, it should be clearly stated. Else fairly found guilt of crimws should not be hedged. Neither should a clear cut framing. 11:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.12.127 (talk)

After struggling to understand your message, it appears to boil down to the fact you object to Sands being found not guilty on several charges, and only being found guilty of possession of a firearm. Sadly there's nothing we can do about that. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Balmoral Furniture Co. bombing

The article does not say anything about the nature of the bombing at Dunmurry. Were there any fatalities or injuries?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC) No, the whole thing seems to have been a bit of a farce with all the perpetrators caught and two of the six wounded.

Roibeard Gearóid Ó Seachnasaigh

How is Sands an anglicised form of Ó Seachnasaigh (O'Shaughnessy)? Irish surname experts such as Wolfe, Edward MacLysaght, and Grenham [[7]] all state that Sands, and its variations, is a topographic surname of English origin. Fergananim (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless it has been talked about in WP:reliable sources in relation to Bobby Sands, not the surname in general, then no it shouldn't be put in the article. It would be counted as WP:original research to put in editors own thoughts about what's important after searching around unrelated things.Dmcq (talk) 09:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Tomatothrowing in Oslo

A bag of tomatoes was not thrown at the Queen when she visited Norway in 1981, there was thrown A tomato, but the thrower missed and hit a Norwegian newsphotographer instead. I have checked newspapers from the relevant period and the case was covered pretty well in the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten. --Stiangutten (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)