Talk:The Troubles

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Image

Ernio48, if you disagree with an edit you should start a discussion on the talk page rather than edit-war and tell somebody else to start it. And Sirlanz, if you want to restore an edit you should discuss it on the talk page and not just say it's "blindingly obvious". So, what do editors think of replacing the map of Ireland with this image in the infobox? Scolaire (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• Agree. An image of a bombing is much more illustrative of a conflict than a bare map. Scolaire (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Editors who do not deign to provide edit summaries (as a matter of their general practice and custom) and ask supercilious questions in lieu do not garner the most patient of responses, particularly when the edit is an unexplained Undo which in itself is extremely disruptive editing behaviour. Hence, I do not think this was an appropriate case to dither in the Talk universe; action in the real world was both appropriate and necessary to support a well-intentioned, well-conceived contribution. But I do support the principle entirely, as a general rule. Thanks. sirlanz 15:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

That map had been there for a long time and it was changed only recently. And frankly, someone seeking to replace something that had been there for a long time has to turn to the talk page. The map was replaced without consensus. Placing pictures of bombings, etc. perpetrated by one party of the conflict violates the neutrality of this article.Ernio48 (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

That bombing doesn't obviously show who did it so I see no neutrality issue there. But exactly why would showing only the damage caused by one side or the other fail neutrality? Do you think there should be a balance or pictures or none at all? Dmcq (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Precisely. The perpetrator is not identified. No threat to POV whatsoever. If an editor thinks it would contribute to balance, he/she can put forward an image of something committed by the other side but, frankly, given this one does not provide such identity, little would be achieved. sirlanz 23:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

It is however not anywhere near specific enough to the Troubles. Bombed houses occur in all sorts of conflicts. Dmcq (talk) 08:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

To reiterate, neither of you had the right to edit-war without starting a discussion on the talk page. Now let's discuss. Scolaire (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Just reiterating is not adequate. If anything is said on WP it ought to be said with reasoning. If you insist a Talk shop was required in the circumstances, then you must insist with a response to the substantive points made by me, particularly that the so-called "war" began with the editor undoing a contribution with no substantive reason at all and with the absurd suggestion that editors require permission before editing. Those are pertinent circumstances to be taken into account when considering the appropriateness of reversion. If every disruptive, rude and belligerent edit requires a discussion before reversion, time for WP to close up shop - and I mean that genuinely, because it would simple grind to a halt. sirlanz 23:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Bold edits are fine. A reversion is fine but it should say why one prefers the old version rather than just that it has been there for a long time. Edit warring is bad. As to the edit I think the bomb picture is better than the map but it isn't all that specific. I think possibly a mural showing a paramilitary would be better. Dmcq (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• 

  Terrorist incidents map of the United Kingdom 1970-2015

  The previous map is not a great infobox image - if you want a map this one (which could be cropped) gives a very telling overview (though it's a pity the date range is too long) as well as showing north & south for those who don't know. The bombing image is low res but better than the plain map. Johnbod (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it would have to be more specific. That shows terrorism in the UK unrelated to the Troubles and it gives the impression that there was no terrorist activity in the Republic. Never mind some stuff elsewhere. Plus the causes of it all mattered as well as all the killing. That's why I thought a mural would be more informative showing how it was a general conflict and not just terrorist organizations. Dmcq (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

An image of the peace walls might be an alternative, but the current edit warring needs to stop -----Snowded ^TALK 06:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd be happy with a peace wall picture. Dmcq (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't see any in commons that looked like anything but walls. How about something dreary or there's also a map specific to the troubles. . Dmcq (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• 
  graffiti from the troubles
• 
  RUC watch tower
• 
  Deaths in the troubles

This one would work -----Snowded ^TALK 09:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Support Dmcq's map. Snowded's would be a dismal climb down by WP. It's vital that any illustration is not just an outright avoidance of the significance of the period of intense conflict, i.e. violence. That's what made it newsworthy and the source of enormous concern worldwide throughout all those decades. If it were not for all the bombings, it simply would never have been anything like it was on the world stage. So, yes, I support a map such as the one now suggested. If we shy away from depicting the dismal horror of the subject, we utterly betray Wikipedia's commitment to truth. sirlanz 10:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I think you are trying to make a point here rather than satisfy our obligations as a encyclopaedia. The article more than adequately covers the violence and we are now in the post Good Friday period so something a little more neutral is order. You still haven't self-reverted your latest edit which breaks Arbcom sanctions on Troubles articles by the way. The fact you haven't indicates the point making again -----Snowded ^TALK 10:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

A few observations:

1. Slagging those who disagree with you, or questioning their motivation, is not conducive to a productive discussion.
2. Unfortunately, I have had to nominate this image for deletion, as it turns out it was not a free image.
3. The Troubles were a terrible period in Irish history. Images of a wall containing paintings of happy people, or generic graffiti, does not illustrate them very well. This image of a peace line might work better. On the other hand, it or the watch tower image might look strange to the first time reader. We have to bear in mind that the purpose of the image is to to give an immediate impression of the article topic.
4. The "Deaths in the Troubles" map is extremely ugly. It's okay where it is, down in the Casualties section, but I wouldn't like to see it at the top. Sorry to be so negative.
5. At least we have a consensus that the blank map of Ireland should be replaced. Let's keep thinking about the best thing to replace it with.

Scolaire (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm OK with that image - the one I picked up was from the article on Peace Lines but comfortable with any -----Snowded ^TALK 11:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Any updates yet? There still isn't an image on the article.--Gateshead001 (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic but we need more discussions in one of the sections above, "Ignoble flag usage in infobox". --Gateshead001 (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead section sources

The lead paragraphs are very populated by sources - 18 in the first one alone. Per WP:LEAD and WP:LEADCITE we should not have any references in the leads (or at least, keep it to a minimum). I might try move the citations to sections below if I can. --Gateshead001 (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Adding additional supporters of the Paramilitaries

As sourced on the groups' pages - their support is broader than was previousuly construed by the infobox. Simon Levchenko (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Not a valid source - please read WP:RS -----Snowded ^TALK 21:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The source does not back up what you claim. Nor the Winter Hill Gang, nor NORAID/Irish Northern Aid Committee, nor the Norwegian Criminal Gang are mentioned in the source. The Banner talk 21:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Which sources did you check?

-Iran paid millions to fund IRA Adrian Levy and Anna Pukas. The Times , 21 Aug 1994 -Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, The Mitrokhin Archive pp492 - 503 -Mitrokhin, Vasili (2000). The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB. Basic Books. p. 384. ISBN 0-465-00312-5. [KGB SUPPORT] -"Report". U.S. House of Representatives House International Relations Committee. 24 April 2002. Archived from the original on 28 February 2007. Retrieved 17 March 2007. [FARC dealings] -Mallie, Bishop, p. 308 [ETA SUPPORT] -"Inside The Ira - Weapons & Technology - The Ira & Sinn Fein - FRONTLINE - PBS". Retrieved 3 October 2014. [ETA SUPPORT]

-Support from FARC/PLO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTxIPFRv22U

"Inside The Ira - Weapons & Technology - The Ira & Sinn Fein - FRONTLINE - PBS". Retrieved 3 October 2014. [PLO]

NORAID

Bandit Country: Toby Harnden, ISBN 0-340-71737-8.
"Decommissioning in the summer - Ahern". BBC News. 1998-04-12. Retrieved 27 September 2008.
Duffy, Jonathan (2001-09-26). "Rich friends in New York". BBC News. Retrieved 27 September 2008.
"Passing the Hat for the Provos". Time. 1979-11-26. Retrieved 27 September 2008.

McDonald, Henry (2 July 2000). "English fascists to join loyalists at Drumcree". London: The Observer. Retrieved 30 December 2010. - C18

Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas. Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity. NYU Press, 2003. Page 45.LINKS TO COMBAT 18/BNSM

Wood, Ian S. Crimes of Loyalty: A History of the UDA. Edinburgh University Press, 2006. Page 339-40. Other Fascist groups

So every group that delivered or tried to deliver weapons is now suddenly a real, active participant in The Troubles? What about the companies that supplied weapons to the British Army? Why are you only focusing on the IRA and not on the Protestant side? Did you read WP:RS? Why do you keep coming back with that PBS source, while that is not backing up your claims? The Banner talk 17:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

How am I only focusing on the IRA? I clearly added supporters and references for both. Who are not active combatants, they are under the support column. Under your logic - both Libya and Apartheid South Africa should be removed from the infobox. PBS is a reliable source - their articles on the subject and others are written by local and international experts. The reporter who wrote the list about PIRA decommissioning has a track record of reporting on terror cells in Ireland. They likewise source the work of Jane's Intelligence Review. Simon Levchenko (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm with The Banner here, you seem to be adding in anything with any remote link regardless of weight -----Snowded ^TALK 19:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Then why mention any supporting parties in the first place.Simon Levchenko (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

See Years of Lead (Italy). Simon Levchenko (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Every article is judged on its own merits. So that link has no relevance at all. The Banner talk 20:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Point in case; why mention some supporters only to obscure others? Simon Levchenko (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Why mention groups that had no serious influence on the fighting? The Banner talk 22:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Around half of all firearms used by the PIRA were imported from the United States via NORAID, the Harrison Network, and the Irish Mafia (through James Bulger). I would consider that significant support. Likewise, IRA members were trained in bomb making and other "specialties" by Libya and the PLO. The Unionists had only 1 shipment come from South Africa - their support came from elsewhere, too. This could be added to an expandable list.Simon Levchenko (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

You need clear sources that establish significance -----Snowded ^TALK 23:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

https://books.google.com/books?id=ommRmaG8Q4wC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false Page 247 Simon Levchenko (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Page 247 is not available on line so you will have to provide a full quote for us to assess -----Snowded ^TALK 06:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

"George Harrison, a leading IRA operative in the United States who worked with local Mafioso, procured perhaps 2,500 guns while active, as well as a million rounds of ammunition." Simon Levchenko (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

And? The Banner talk 20:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

And this proves the significance of their support to the PIRA. Which received only around 1,000-1,100 firearms from Libya. Which - was listed as a supporter. Simon Levchenko (talk) 00:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

It still doe s not make him a belligerent or participant. Or can you prove that he went over to Northern Ireland and joined the fight? The Banner talk 02:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

He worked with several accomplices- e.g., the Harrison Network. So, you are saying if they played no role in combat they should not be mentioned? Per that logic then, the page shall stay as it is; not listing any material supporters. Simon Levchenko (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• Neither Libya nor S.A. were belligerents or participants in The Troubles and the sources don't support inclusion. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I think Libya should definitely be counted as a supporter, especially after the 1986 bombing of Libya. NORAID also should be there as raising money. Neither were actual belligerents. I don't think the PLO, Basque or FARC were of any consequence though they expressed support for each other. The rest of them were either directly working for the IRA or were just criminals working as gun runners for money, they weren't public organisations. The stuff under the Loyalist column is equally silly. So yes overall I agree with Banner. I think the whole supported by stuff should just be removed from the infobox as too remote from the actual happenings and only covered in the text. Dmcq (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@The Banner: Please be more careful in your choice of words: Why are you only focusing on the IRA and not on the Protestant side? - Considering the IRA are proud to boast of any Protestant member's they had so they don't look sectarian, and the fact there are Catholics who have supported or are loyalists, such a statement is inaccurate and wrong. Rather you mean "on the loyalist side".

On topic, whilst you could argue that they were involved in the conflict by aiding and abetting, they weren't directly involved. Otherwise why didn't the UK take military action against Libya or the such considering it was basically state sponsorship of the IRA by Libya? So I would oppose the addition to the infobox of participants of such entities. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The importation was not known until several shipments were intercepted. Likewise, talks resumed in the early 90s - Maggie was out of office. Simon Levchenko (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

No real difference between the new version and the previous version

I have taken the liberty of removing duplicate fields to make things obvious. First is the version as of 06:07, 19 June 2018, secondly is the "new" version. I am sure everyone can see the only supposed difference is the change of "Supported by:" to "Armament supply:" and the removal of "arms shipments". There is no real difference at all, so the objections are still valid. 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:D802:80A1:3B7D:C884 (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Why is this place such a kindergarten? Did those entities supply weapons or not? As is practice in e.g. List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War, there is an obvious distinction between the label 'Allied armed groups' covering heavy military commitment, versus the label 'Armament supply' strangely enough covering non-involvement except for arms supply. Substantiating such drivel as there being "no real difference" between aforementioned revisions with "everyone can see it" is invalid. There needs to be some level of consistency between related articles to prevent ownership sentiment among certain users, as is the case here. --131.164.141.250 (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

POV-pushing

The Troubles Location {{{place}}} Belligerents State security forces British Armed Forces Royal Ulster Constabulary Irish Defence Forces Gardaí Irish republican paramilitaries Provisional IRA Official IRA (1969–1972) Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) (1974–1998) Irish People's Liberation Organisation (IPLO) (1986–1992) Continuity IRA (1994–) Real IRA (1997–) Supported by: Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (arms shipments) Ulster loyalist paramilitaries Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) Ulster Defence Association (UDA) Red Hand Commando (RHC) Ulster Resistance (UR) (1986–1989) Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF) (1996–1999) Supported by: South Africa (arms shipments) The Troubles Location {{{place}}} Belligerents State security forces British Armed Forces Royal Ulster Constabulary Irish Defence Forces Gardaí Irish republican paramilitaries Provisional IRA Official IRA (1969–1972) Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) (1974–1998) Irish People's Liberation Organisation (IPLO) (1986–1992) Continuity IRA (1994–) Real IRA (1997–) Armament supply: Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Ulster loyalist paramilitaries Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) Ulster Defence Association (UDA) Red Hand Commando (RHC) Ulster Resistance (UR) (1986–1989) Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF) (1996–1999) Armament supply: South Africa

Could you please stop your POV-pushing? The Banner talk 18:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I have no intention to promote any side of the conflict. An expression of desire for an 'Armament supply' section - in line with various conflict infoboxes - is not in any way "POV-pushing". Are you done with your name calling and care to stay on topic? --131.164.141.250 (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Quite funny to see you complain about "name calling" when that is exactly what you are doing. The Banner talk 19:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Tu quoque fallacy. I now recognize your aversion to discuss substance over form. Moving on.

You claim in your user page that you're "not afraid of being wrong" and yap yap. Fuck you for possessing the audacity to hijack my dear time with your rubbish. You're despicable human scum, worse than a dog. You filthy heap of canine dung. You're worth less than a tick and rectal itch. --131.164.141.250 (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Wow - seriously? Props to The Banner for template notifying the IP user of incivility, but this is a pattern of behavior which needs to be mentioned at ANI. Edaham (talk) 05:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Infobox content is not dictated by the content of infoboxes on other articles. You may wish to familiarise yourself with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, specifically:

When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance

Therefore any inclusion should be based on the significance of the addition to this specific article, not because an article on a vaguely related subject may include information in the infobox because it may be more significant to that article. The additions made to this infobox are not key facts, a single(?) importation of arms from South Africa is hardly a key fact is it? 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:DD5E:EDE:3F38:6174 (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Determining what are 'key' facts is subjective and thus requires consensus. For an IMO careful inclusion barrier, I would at least consider Libya-IRA arms shipments politically significant enough to pass, but I don't imagine making agreement with such a bunch of dumbasses. Other articles have less strict inclusion criteria than being proposed here, but let's not widen the scope because .. um .. guidelines. --131.164.141.250 (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Talking about dogs I get a whiff of sockpuppetry from the very long IP of very limited contributions to this site. Maybe I'm wrong but there's something fishy going on here. Also the shorter IP should be reported for that outburst. Mabuska ^(talk) 08:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Contradictions in lead, infobox and article body

• Lead - The conflict began in the late 1960s and is usually deemed to have ended with the Good Friday Agreement of 1998
• Infobox - 1968–1998
• Body part 1 - "The Troubles" refers to the three-decade (1969–1997)
• Body part 2 - There is little agreement on the exact date of the start of the Troubles. Different writers have suggested different dates. These include the formation of the modern Ulster Volunteer Force in 1966, the civil rights march in Derry on 5 October 1968, the beginning of the 'Battle of the Bogside' on 12 August 1969 or the deployment of British troops on 14 August 1969

My preference would be to remove "(1969–1997)" from "Body part 1", and amend the infobox from 1968 to late 1960s to match the lead and the CAIN source. Any objections? 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:34D6:349F:F6D0:68A3 (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)