Talk:Basil Brooke, 1st Viscount Brookeborough

Untitled

I had intended to edit the page to indicate that it was Brooke who used the phrase "...not have a roman catholic about the place" as this term has been referred to relatively recently in the context of the contentious issue of relative levels of unemployment and disposable income in northern ireland. My source for his having made the remark is the Sunday Tribune and that is not suitable for wikipedia. Does anyone have a source for this remark? 159.134.228.127 18:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

What about an evaluation? northern Ireland under Brooke was ecnonomically stagnant, he was aggressively sectarian. Surely as a consequence he is the father of the troubles.

159.134.228.127 18:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Without a shadow of a doubt he was. At least Craigavon wasn't as blatant a bigot as Brookeborough was.

I disagree. There was the IRA campaign of the 1950s to start with.

As far as economics is concerned, the IRA campaign cost Northern Ireland £500,000 per year, with damages estimated at £700,000.

While unemployment was high (7%) 1950s, Northern Ireland's population also, in fact, enjoyed "the most sustained improvement in living standards since the setting up of the regional administration in 1921." Between 1950 and 1960, industrial production increased by 40%, in comparison the 35% for the UK as a whole. Forty-two thousand jobs were created in new industries between the end of the war and Brooke's resignation in 1963. GDP rose by 2.6% per year in the 1950s. Volume of output per head of industrial workers increased by 23% between 1958 and 1963.

The phrase mentioned above was actually "... as he had not a Roman Catholic about his place...". Brooke was talking about others it seems. He was quoted in the Fermanagh Times.

It is not the job of Wikipedia to balance out matters and come to conclusions -- Setanta —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.80.97 (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Really? Seen Derry? --Counter-revolutionary 10:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You mean with regard to Wikipedia's 'policy' regarding the name of the city? --Setanta 10:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

There are two quotes. Although there is some confusion on dates, they are July 12 1933 (addressing an Orange rally) and March 1934 (addressing the Londonderry Unionist Association). The books that don't cite their sources give differing years, however the ones that do cite their sources cite a Fermanagh newspaper (July 13 1933 I think, might be a few days later but definitely July 1933) for the first speech and the 20 March 1934 issue of the Londonderry Sentinel for the second one). I've found the text of the first speech in the first person, and it is as follows:

• Many in this audience employ Catholics, but I have not one about my place. Catholics are out to destroy Ulster...If we in Ulster allow Roman Catholics to work on our farms we are traitors to Ulster...I would appeal to loyalists, therefore, wherever possible, to employ good Protestant lads and lassies

Technically there's more text, for example Making Sense of the Troubles by McKittrick etc gives this:

• Many in this audience employ Catholics, but I have not one about my place. Catholics are out to destroy Ulster with all their might and power. They want to nullify the Protestant vote and take all they can out of Ulster,and then see it go to hell

However it doesn't include anything after that, not even the "good Protestant lads and lassies" part.

The second speech is variously reported, for example:

• I recommend those people who are Loyalists not to employ RCs, 99% of whom are disloyal; I want you to remember one point in regard to the employment of people who are disloyal...You are disenfranchising yourselves in that way...You people who are employers have the ball at your feet. If you don't act properly now, before we know where we are we shall find ourselves in the minority instead of the majority. I want you to realise that, having done your bit, you have got your Prime Minister behind you.

Or there's a slightly more comprehensive version, but without the final sentence.

• Thinking out the whole question carefully, I recommend those people who are Loyalists not to employ Roman Catholics, ninety-nine per cent of whom are disloyal. I want you to remember one point in regard to the employment of people who are disloyal. There are often difficulties in the way, but usually there are plenty of good men and women available, and the employers don't bother to employ them. You are disenfranchising yourselves in that way. You people who are employers have the ball at your feet. If you don't act properly now, before we know where we are we shall find ourselves in the minority instead of the majority.

Given the difficulty in getting the actual transcript of either speech from one source, I think we'd probably be best losing the quote template and using the commonly agreed excerpts ("good Protestant lads and lassies", "I recommend those people who are Loyalists not to employ Roman Catholics, ninety-nine per cent of whom are disloyal" and anything else that someone wants to suggest) from each quote inline? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The quote I give was from (according to the book) an address to a Orange audience in 1932, this is from 'A history of Northern Ireland 1920-1996 by Tomas Hennessey 1997 edition ISBN 0-333-73162-X, so it seems this is a issue he addressed on an number of occasions, giving the quotes and dates ONIH has given above.--Padraig 01:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The quote you added is the Fermanagh newspaper's version of the speech (as it's not in the first person), it's repeated in quite a lot of sources. The Fermanagh newspaper is fully cited and it's 1933. I've seen plenty of sources on both Google Books and Amazon's online reader, and while there is some variation in dates (I've seen anything from between 1931 and 1934 for the first speech) the ones that cite their sources say 1933. I won't bother with Amazon links, but if you look here, here, here and in particular here. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That looks like the same incident, the book I have must have the year wrong as they all have it as being in 1933.--Padraig 01:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I found another source for it in 'Divided Ulster by Liam de Paor 1977 edition p105/6 ISBN 0-1402-1369-4 which has it dated to 13th July 1933:

There are a great number of Protestants and Orangemen who employ Roman Catholics. I feel I can speak freely on this subject as I have not a Roman Catholic about my own place.... I would appeal to Loyalists, therefore, whenever possible to employ good Protestant Lads and Lassies

Refering back to this statement in March 1934, he said:

Thinking out the whole question carefully...I recommend those people who are Loyalists not to employ Roman Catholics, ninety-nine per cent of whom are disloyal...I want you to remember one point in regard to the employment of people who are disloyal. There are often difficulties in the way, but usually there are plenty of good men and women available and the employers don't bother to employ them. You are disfranchising yourselfs in that way. You people who are employers have the ball at your feet. If you don't act properly now, before we know where we are we shall find ourselves in the minority instead of the majority.

The first quote was cited as the Fermanagh Times, 13th July 1933, and the second one to the Londonderry Sentinel, 20th March 1934.--Padraig 12:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There is refererence in 'The Protestants of Ulster by Geoffrey Bell, 1976. ISBN 0-904383-08-3 p.40' to another speech he made in the 1930's:

Many in the audience employ Catholics, but I have not one about the house...In Northern Ireland the Catholic population is increasing to a great extent. Ninety-seven percent of Roman Catholics in Ireland are disloyal and disruptive...If we in Ulster allow Roman Catholics to work on our farms we are traitors to Ulster.

This is cited in the notes to 'Northern Ireland Hansard, vol.16, col 1070.'--Padraig 13:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What you're looking for is actually at Column 1073 and 1074, and is not a direct quote, but a Nationalist MP quoting Brooke.Traditional unionist 13:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Padraig are they typos above or is that the way quote was??? BigDunc 13:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Opps that was me fixed it.--Padraig 13:31, 22 October 2007

It was quoted by a Nationalist MP here [1] and later the same year there was further debate over the remarks beginning here [2] with Brooke eventually elaborating by saying "any loyalist who employs a disloyalist runs a grave risk of having his house burned. Whether the man wants to do it or is forced to do it by disloyalists is a question I cannot answer. But what I anticipated might happen, namely, that there is grave danger in employing these men, or rather the employment of these men might create a serious danger to loyalists in Ulster... These gentlemen have been questioning the employment of Roman Catholics, or rather my urging that Roman Catholics - political Roman Catholics - should not be employed.... There are three reasons to my mind why disloyalists should not be employed. Those who support the constitution, whether they agree with the policy of the present Government or not, should have the benefit of that constitution. Secondly, every disloyalist allowed to come in is a potential voter for destruction of this country. And, further, there is grave danger in employing men who at the first opportunity will betray those who employ them." [3] However Brooke did attempt to justify his comments by alleging that discrimination in employment was a two way thing stating "that out of a population of 3,000 Protestants in Enniskillen only three are employed by Roman Catholics." Valenciano 14:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at fixing everything, including the removal of weasel wording and interpretation of the third quote. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Article unbalanced

This article is unbalanced. The article is not entitled "Basil Brooke's negative opinions on Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland", yet half the article, as it now stands, contains quotations specifically set into the article to create an impression of the man. I will remove the majority of the quotations shortly. --Setanta 10:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Why remove sourced material, if you wish add other material to counterbalance what you regard as negative opinions do so, but I fail to see how you can regards quotes of what he said as negative opinion.--Padraig 10:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Didn't take you long today to find something 'wrong' with something I edited, did it Padraig?

If you can't see how the quotes, and particularly an excessive amount of them, appear to show the man in a negative light, I'm afraid you'll have to learn as much as you can about Northern Irish history.

The onus is not for me to provide "counterbalance". I have measured the article and I have determined that the quotes are excessive. They didn't even have any kind of context to begin with.

If you wish to add other material to provide "counterbalance", then feel free to do so. But then again, you can't see what is particularly negative, can you? So why revert my edit in the first place..?

I am re-instating my edit. Please do not revert again without due consideration, discussion and without good reason. Also a little tip: when you revert in the future, please try not to do it wholesale. Try instead to consider all of the changes and don't just revert a person's edits just because you don't like it. Cheers. --Setanta 10:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You are the one claiming that the article is unbalanced, therefore its up to you to provide additional sourced, but in either case you shouldn't remove sourced material because you disagree with it.--Padraig 11:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to provide 'additional' information. I am removing basically repeated information which lends the article undue bias. Wikipedia articles are not a collection of quotations geared to show a person in a negative light with regard to any particular subject. With my edit, the subject has been referenced and that is enough. There is no need to labour any point by providing a list of quotes.

The fact that the material I'm removing is sourced is neither here nor there. If you have such an interest in this particular aspect of the man, why not explore it?

I don't believe I disagree with any thing in the article, by the way - not that I've noticed. So what are you talking about? --Setanta 11:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you're right in that the quotes are quite long. --Counter-revolutionary 11:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed OR and POV - "Critics of Brooke sometimes cite part of a speech he made". That speech is cited frequently and not just by critics. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As it stands, the quote has no context. It merely suddenly appears in the article, there having been no apparent reason for its existence. --Setanta 00:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Full title

I have in my possession an official document with Brooke's full title printed on it. It reads as follows (caps as written):

“ THE RT. HON. THE VISCOUNT BROOKEBOROUGH, K.G., C.B.E., H.M.L., M.P. ”

Punctuation here is as presented on the document. Shouldn't the article reflect that? The document is dated 26th January, 1967.

Does anyone know what H.M.L. stands for? --Setanta 10:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

HM Lieutenant of County Fermanagh - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Kitty. Should that be something we should include in the article, or is it somehow a time-dependent thing..? --Setanta 10:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I also note that he didn't have "Bt" after his name, though the Wikipedia article does. --Setanta 10:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't cross-post. - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Do what..? --Setanta 12:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Referenced material

The recent edit removed ref material claiming more balanced with it out which i feel is an editors POV. BigDunc 10:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

He succeeded to the title of 5th Baronet Brooke, of Colebrooke, co. Fermanagh [U.K., 1822] on 27 November 1907.2 He was educated at Royal Military College, Sandhurst, Berkshire, England.1 He gained the rank of Captain in the service of the 10th Hussars.2 He fought in the First World War, where he was mentioned in despatches.2 He was decorated with the Croix de Guerre.2 He was invested as a Commander, Order of the British Empire (C.B.E.) in 1921.2 He was invested as a Privy Counsellor (P.C.) [Northern Ireland] in 1933.2 He held the office of Member of Parliament (M.P.) for Lisnaskea [Northern Ireland] in 1933.2 He held the office of Assistant Parliamentary Secretary, Minister of Finance.2 He held the office of Minister of Commerce and Production between 1941 and 1945.2 He held the office of Prime Minister of Northern Ireland between 1943 and 1963.2 He was created 1st Viscount Brookeborough, of Colebrooke, co. Fermanagh [U.K.] on 1 July 1952.1 He was invested as a Knight, Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem (K.St.J.).2 He was Air Commodore of the Ulster Maritime Support Unit, Royal Auxiliary Air Force between 1960 and 1973.2 He was decorated with the Military Cross (M.C.) in 1961.2 He held the office of Vice-Admiral of Ulster between 1961 and 1973.2 He held the office of HM Lieutenant of County Fermanagh between 1963 and 1969.2 He held the office of Custos Rotulorum of County Fermanagh between 1963 and 1969.2 He was invested as a Knight, Order of the Garter (K.G.) in 1965.2 He was awarded the honorary degree of Doctor of Law (LL.D.) by Queen's University, Belfast, County Antrim, Ireland.2 He has an extensive biographical entry in the Dictionary of National Biography. - Kittybrewster ☎ 10:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Basilbrookeborough.jpg

Image:Basilbrookeborough.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

New addition

This is sure to be fun. 1)The addition is full of POV and weasly. 2)It is a direct repetition and is covered adequately in the body.Traditional unionist (talk) 10:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Point taken and self reverted. BigDunc^Talk 10:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That was fun!Traditional unionist (talk) 10:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Enjoyed it myself ;) BigDunc^Talk 10:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Concensus has been established here for the lead. Some users seem to ignore that. "He has been described as hundreds as things. This is adequatly addressed in the article." was my edit summary, i stand by that.Traditional unionist (talk) 10:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It is far from his claim to fame and would be WP:UNDUE to have it in the lead as it is covered in the article. BigDunc^Talk 02:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I just say that the constant reversions by the user Traditional Unionist are simply there to make Brooke seem more stateman like than he really is. Brooke was fundamentally sectarian and this should be right up front on the article and not buried away as Traditional Unionist would like it to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.81.92 (talk) 09:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have undone Traditional Unionists reverts for the sake of balance in the article. 79.69.81.92 (talk) 09:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You are in breech of concensus. This article is subject to sanctions. If you do not self revert you will be reported and blocked.Traditional unionist (talk) 10:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Knighthood

Does anyone know when Brooke was knighted? It doesn't say in the article. Mooretwin (talk) 08:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, just realised that he would have been styled "sir" by virtue of being a baronet. Mooretwin (talk) 08:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Brookeborough 1963 UUC Yearbook.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)