Talk:Bobby Sands/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

When was the speculation added?

The article several months ago was short, but reasonably NPOV, now its full of speculation presented as fact, I'm gonna make some of the nessicary changes, but this article needs a huge cleanup. SCVirus 03:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Reactions section (UK)

I think this section of the article only reiterates the bigotry each side has for each other and is very much distasteful.

This section has become little more than a respository for the addition of sneering chants and anal grafitti together with a few obscure items of little relevance. If such content stays I take it anyone can go to any article about an individual and insert whatever grafitti or football chants concerning the individual? --Damnbutter 16:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

For reasons best known to themselves but reeking of sectarianism the following irrelevant, repeated and sectarian content keeps reappearing and one of it's apologists has alleged that I am guity of vandalism so for the slow learners I will point out why each section has been removed;

  • At Old Firm football matches in Glasgow, Scotland, some Rangers F.C. fans have been known to sing songs mocking Bobby Sands to taunt fans of Celtic F.C. Rangers fans are more likely to be sympathetic to the Unionist community and see Sands as a Republican terrorist; Celtic fans are more likely to support the Republican community and thus view him as a hero and martyr.[1]

Moved to "Trivia"

-Already covered in film section

Already in music section

  • The graffiti "Bobby Sands - Slimmer of the year" appeared. [4]

Sectarian and irrelevant

Isn't this what Wikipedia call a POV edit?
If praise for Bobby Sands isn't irrelevant or sectarian then neither is contempt. The Grot 08:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"Praise for Bobby Sands" where exactly? do you understand the POV concept- I suspect you regard any objective comment not condemning Sands as a murdering terrorist as "praise" . By your logic it's okay to make an entry on any wikipedia page alluding to puerile and ignorant grafitti as long as theres some link somewhere? --Damnbutter 12:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • In 2006, The Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) published an article commemorating the life of Bobby Sands and the impact of the Irish republican Hunger Strikes, 20 years on. Bobby Sands, Irish liberation hero.

Of minimal interest but is already in external links

PS Surely Sands died in the "UK" anyway and do fan(s) of this section know of the alphabet or why does it always crop up at the top of the section?--Damnbutter 14:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

These sections aren't in alphabetical order in the first place, Asia and Oceania should be before USA and Cuba.
What made you think they were, Damnbutter? The Grot 08:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Is that your only defence of your thinly disguised sectarianism "Grot"? All the above are reasons for deleting your weasel bias - which you have made no attempt at answering. --Damnbutter 12:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


Since he was born in NI, surely the opening line should read 'British', not 'Irish...' etc.? He was British, not Irish, and this should be made clear.

He was Irish not British as is perfectly clear to almost everyone apart from extreme loyalist pedants.

He was born in Britain, as were his parents. Hmm...I think that would suggest he was British.Archibald99 03:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm hmmm - well anyone born on the island of Ireland is Irish and that anyone who has a parent or grandparent born on the island of Ireland is Irish too. I can't remeber if Margret Thatcher ever put through this Bill but there wasd talk of completely rem,oving British citizenship from the 'Undesirables' ie. those in Northern Ireland who took up Irish citizenship not British citizneship. Anyway Nationalist tended to (and still do) register there children's birth with the Irish Government so most nationalist children dont even have a British Birth Certificate - I don't - so hmm hmmm is he still British?

Archibad99: I think you know that this is not straight forward. Similarly as those from Scotland may call themselves Scottish, those from Wales, Welsh, etc, those from Northern Ireland, particularly depending on their religion, may call themselves, and be perfectly entitled to call themselves Irish (see Indeed, The Republic of Ireland had a constitutional territorial claim to the island of Ireland. ( indeed, today, the citizens of Ireland still include all those born on the island, including the North. See reference 7 in also. Or relating to the belfast agreement. For what it's worth, Bobby Sands himself certainly did not consider himself British: "We refuse to lie here in dishonor! We are not criminals, but Irishmen! This is the crime of which we stand accused.". --Wmcnamara 09:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

His parents took a house from the British state, he claimed benefit from the British state and was a british citizen. He was therefore British in legal terms 10:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Accepting benefits or social housing from the British state doesn't make you British (see Abu Hamza al-Masri). Since he didn't self-identify as British, and it's extremely unlikely that he held a British passport given his republican beliefs, I see no reason why the article should refer to him as British. This seems to be nothing more than an attempt to provoke the "other side" by labelling one of their "heroes" as British, an approach which is unfortunately quite common on Northern-Ireland-related articles (with nationalists as well as unionists -- just look at the history of County Londonderry). Wikipedia is not a battleground. Demiurge 10:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weggie (talkcontribs)

  • The same thing also applies to the Belfast-born Mary McAleese — surely you're not suggesting that we should label the President of the Republic of Ireland as "British"? Demiurge 13:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely 'Northern Irish' would be most appropriate, given that although the status and ownership of Northern Ireland is disputed, its existence is not. Lots of Love, Tim

He was born in the United Kingdom, but he wasn't born in Britain, as Archibald99 said. Great Britain is the island containing England, Scotland and Wales. Northern Ireland is part of the UK but not Britain. Irish people can be UK citizens while still being Irish. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 01:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Bobby Sands was an Irish Citizen, those living in Northern Ireland are born citizens of Northern Ireland, and have the birth right of either Irish or British citizenship and nationality, or both if they so choose, which has been the case since the partition of Ireland, and can be read up on clearly in both the Anglo-Irish agreement and the most recent, Good Friday Agreement.

On a side note, Northern Ireland is not apart of Great Britain. It is (currently) apart of the United Kindgom, along with Great Britian, and is the only section of the U.K with joint nationality in place.

The nationality of over-seas British Territory be it NI or the British Virgin Islands, is British.
Only as of 2005 can someone in NI claim dual nationality or Irish. This has not been since 1922.
Whether people like it or not, Bobby Sands was born into a political region of the United Kingdom, by British parents. Be it in Newtownabbey or just off the Portrush coast on a wooden boat, it still technically makes him a British citizen. He may wish to, if he pleases, claim to be Irish. But whether he likes it or not, as with every Northern Irish born citizen, they are politically British.
It's about time Irish Republicans faced the facts, and that is, they are fighting a losing battle. Ireland V Britain, yea? c'mon now. Claim to be Irish and you can now as of 2005 receive an Irish passport, so everyone's a winner. But born on Northern Irish land will make you a British citizen. Please do not see this as a side-hate, but as stated previously, opinions aside, whether I like it or you like it, if you're born in Northern Ireland you are British by default.
Political correctness, please, chaps.
-- Dom0803 00:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Eh... no. I don't know what law you're referring to about 2005 and nationalities, but I've lived in South Derry my whole life, and got an Irish passport in about 1999/2000. Although you may be under British jurisdiction if you're born in Northern Ireland, you're still from Ireland, and therefore Irish as well, no? Pauric 00:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe if you claim to be from Northern Ireland, you are claiming to be British. Whether people like it or not, it's under rule from Britain and it likely will be for a very long time. However. If one should claim to be from Ulster, it is a more proper and certainly a lot more neutral decision, as Ulster is a province of Ireland. I see your point, bud, but I think now we all have to be a lot more precise. There is no Ireland anymore, it's more Northern Ireland or The Republic of Ireland. Because of the division there isn't such an Ireland anymore. However as far as my opinion stretches, Ireland is the Republic. I do accept however that I live on The land of Ireland.

I think we all, as Northern Irish patrons, must come to terms with facts.

1) We are born British, whether we like it or not, unless both our parents hold Irish passports.

2) We may live in a British political state of the UK, but we are still on the land of Ireland. If people are too stupid to see this, then a quick link to the Irish Grid System would certainly put a wobble in their chin.

3) We are under direct rule from London, and the only time this will change, is if devolution is restored. We wont be merging with Ireland anytime soon.

We all have our opinions, and we all have our desires to swing whichever way our wind blows. But essentially, Bobby Sands was born British. Perhaps include it that Bobby was born British, although didn't acknowledge this; or something along those lines.

-- Dom0803 07:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Legally, all people born in Northern Ireland are dual nationals whether they like it or not. The territory is claimed by both the UK and Ireland and both countries claim all the people there as citizens, whether they like it or not. When a person born in Northern Ireland applies for an Irish passport, under Irish law they are considered an Irish citizen from birth, not from the time they apply. And even if a Northern Irish person doesn't apply, they are still considered an Irish citizen. Even Ian Paisley is an Irish citizen whether he likes it or not. A foreigner who has been resident in Northern Ireland for 5 years can choose whether to be nationalised as an Irish Citizen or a UK Citizen. See Irish nationality law and British nationality law and the Republic of Ireland. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 09:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

== I have included Mr. Sands' nationality on his profile. The entry above is only correct for people born/alive after 1998: He died before the Belfast Agreement 1998, and therefore was not entitled to joint citizenship automatically. Being born in Northern Ireland, he was therefore born a subject of Her Majesty the Queen. Before the Single European Act 1992 there was no such thing as British "citizenship", you were a subject not a citizen. Therefore, unless evidence can be given to show that Mr. Sands had been granted Irish citizenship, then his nationality can only be "British subject". This is a matter for fact and not one of perception. Ulster_Vanguard (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No one has offered any rebuttal of this before reverting the edit. Why?Traditional unionist (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Purely on a minor point, there was indeed such thing as British citizenship and British citizens at the time. It's explicitly mentioned in section 2 of the Immigration Act 1971. [1] Certainly a citation for Irish citizenship would be useful if that is claimed in the article. Valenciano (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
My mistake, I can't see a revert. Nonetheless, we know he was born in the UK, and thus we know he was a British Citizen. We may know that he was also an Irish citizen, I just can't remember the outcome of the discussion we had on this issue elsewhere.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Reading the above debate is inconclusive. I'd broadly agree with Demiurge's point that labelling him as a British citizen/subject seems provocative. Better to leave out mention of citizenship altogether to avoid needless edit wars. Valenciano (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The test shouldn't be editors POV, it should be relevence. I'm unconvinced that it is notable though.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I just want to point out edit warring over a field that doesn't even display in the infobox is officially WP:LAME, IMHO. BigDuncTalk 16:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
TU, the test should be: does it help editors to understand the subject better and is it unambiguous? In the case of NI with its complex identity issues the answer to both questions is no. It's no more useful than describing footballer Jimmy Nichol as Canadian or Billy Wright as English (even though both were born there.) Also since it doesn't appear in the infobox, what's the point anyway? Valenciano (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Legality of Internment

I take issue with the term convicted militant. He was never convicted when illegally interred and was sentenced to 14 years for being in a car with two others when a gun was in the vehicle.

I agree, it doesn't need the word militant anyway... changing it.SCVirus 07:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Sands wasn't "illegally" interned - due to the special circumstances, internment was introduced legally. How successful it was, and how much the system was abused, is another matter. -

Mal 23:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Just because the internment was passed by the government it does not make it morally justified. The internment of people of Japanese heritage was likewise approved by the US government during WWII but was just as shameful. If internment was aimed at eliminating violence on both sides of the dispute in the North why is it that 90% of those interred were Catholic ? (RH)

I never mentioned the phrase "morally justified". We were talking about whether they were legally interned or "illegally" interned. As for why 90% (your figures, not mine) of internees were, as you claim, Roman Catholic - you'll have to ask the government that question. --Mal 23:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for making the change I requested. (Rich H.) Slainte

Beat Bobby Sands Ora Pro Nobis!

Grow up - idiots!

Will the Holy Roman Catholic Church make him a saint or a blessed, so people can pray for his help in convincing God to expel the anglo-saxton heretics?

I don't think he'll be made a saint. The Church, not least Mgr. Denis Faul, was against the hunger strikes. As for "anglo-saxton", I'm not sure what you mean. If you're talking about the British, well, by no means all of them are "Anglo-Saxon", and in any event we now have devolution from Westminster. As for the northern Protestants, the majority of them are (Presbyterian) Ulster Scots, and can hardly qualify as Anglo-Saxon, or saxton. If you use the word "heretics" to describe Protestants, then you are fuelling the fire of the fundamentalists in their ranks, who, sadly, are more than capable of replying in kind. Millbanks 09:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Last I heard, suicide was a sin.

No but he will doubtless be continually looked in such a way by Protestant Loyalists subscribing to such a 17th Century view of Ireland.

--Damnbutter 17:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

"Expel" from what.. from where exactly? Considering the subject of this discussion - Bobby Sands - perhaps you mean "expel from Northern Ireland". In that case, I'm sorry to have to inform you that the Anglo-Saxon population even of England has been shown to be a very low percentage. The number of people from England who settled in Ireland during the Plantation years was quite low in comparison to the population. The number of those who were also descended from Anglo-Saxons would propably be miniscule. However, should you wish to go from door-to-door requesting samples from people in Northern Ireland for DNA testing, and then engage in ethnic cleansing, be my guest. You won't get very far.
I hope the Roman Catholic Church never considers canonising any members of terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland.
I don't know what you're talking about when you mention "Protestant Loyalists subscribing to such a 17th Century view of Ireland". This is the 21st Century ... welcome. - Mal 23:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

From what I remember, suicide is a mortal sin in the catholic church. So, I strongly doubt that they will cannonize someone who has committed an act which damned themselves to hell as defined by catholic doctrine. 21:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Didn't Jesus have the power to remove himself from the cross as the Son of God. He did not because he knew he had to sacrafice his life so that others could gain entrance into heaven. Surely that is not suicide.
Bobby also surrendered his life so that the cause of those persecuted in Northern Ireland could be known around the world. He may not have died for our sins but he did die so that others could live in Peace and Freedom. (Rich H.)

Are you saying that the others for whom Mr Sands died included the majority community in the north? Did he die so that they could live in peace and freedom? I think you've got to be careful here. I can remember over 30 years ago watching some televised discussion forum on Northern Ireland and the prospects for a United Ireland. Not once were the Protestants/Loyalists ever mentioned. That would be highly unlikely to happen now, and one of the reasons for this is the way they have raised their profile, often by quite unacceptable means (eg rioting in Sept 2005). It is most unfortunate that both sides had to resort to various very high profile acts of desparate behaviour. Thank God we now have devolution, and, please God, the Troubles have ended. 23:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Bobby Sands committed suicide so that prisoners convicted of terrorist offences would gain 'political status' within the prison system. He had also joined a group which was committed to destabilising life for the people of Northern Ireland through violence and anarchism, and which had murdered more Roman Catholics than any other single organisation single the Troubles began.--Mal 22:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The raising of the political status issue was to publicize the brutality that exisited in the North. He was not convicted of terrorism. He did not have a trial and was sentenced to 14 years for being one person in a car that contained a gun. I'm not annointing him for sainthood but I don't believe he should be condemn to hell. (RH)
I don't believe Sands should be condemned to hell either - that is a matter for God I would think. However, Sands was a terrorist. Whether he was convicted, in his last incarceration, specifically under terrorist charges or not, he was still campaigning for 'political status' of Republican prisoners. --Mal 22:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Ian Paisley the UVF & DUP are still to this day the biggest destabilizing organizations in the North. I do not condone the violence of the IRA but if I put myself in their shoes I can't say I would not have reacted the same way. If I was spat on while going to school, burned out of my home because of my religion and forced out of my job at gun point I could see where viloence would be seen as my last resort. (RH)
I'm not sure where you get your idea that Ian Paisley and the DUP are the "biggest destabalising" organisation in Northern Ireland. Paisley has certainly said some inciteful things in the past, in a sectarian sense. But the DUP continue to respect democracy.
Did you read Paisley's recent comments about Mary McAleese ? (RH)
Did you read Mary McAleese's comments about Protestants? --Mal 23:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The UVF, on the other hand, do not.
You go on to say that you would "not condone the violence of the IRA", but that if you put yourself "in their shoes I can't say I would not have reacted the same way." Equally true for any of the organisations involved in the Troubles in Northern Ireland - including the British Army, the police and the government, I'm sure you would agree. --Mal 00:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I do agree that British soldiers are put in a dangerous situation much in the same way that US troops find themselves in the Middle East now.
My contention is that those in control of the government escalated the situation by not policing the terrorists in the UVF. This errupted in Bloody Sunday which is what caused the soldiers to be sent thereby further increasing the tensions. (RH)
You have made a couple of errors in your last paragraph. Perhaps you haven't explained yourself very well though. The errors are:
1) Your inferance that the government's lack of control of the UVF led to ("errupted in") Bloody Sunday .. is simply not true.
2) Bloody Sunday isn't what "caused the soldiers to be sent". The police and army were reinforced in Northern Ireland to protect the smaller Roman Catholic communities from larger, surrounding Protestant communities, on the 14th of August, 1969. --Mal 23:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
You say: "If I was spat on while going to school, burned out of my home because of my religion and forced out of my job at gun point I could see where viloence would be seen as my last resort."
Again, this could equally be applied to the likes of the UVF, or the UDA etc. Or perhaps you are blindly assuming that being spat on while going to school, being forced out of your job at gunpoint or being burned out of your own house because of your religion was solely a phenomenon that was restricted to Roman Catholic victims... --Mal 22:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Not restricted to but certainly they were the overwhelming victims of this abuse. The Catholic Church throughout its own history is not exempt from criticism. The problem arises when one group in power forces its will with violence to remain in power. "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." (RH)
I'm not sure this is true at all. In fact, I'm not sure one could measure it. By the way, the group in power, namely the Unionist Party, did not "force its will" with violence. --Mal 23:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
In the end I want to see peace reign with freedon for all regardless of religios beliefs. If that is what the end goal is whether it be for us in this forum in or the North I pray that everyone involved does not lose site of that goal. (RH)

Would it be worth pointing out at this point that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Discussion on article talk pages is supposed to be about how to improve the article, or resolve disputes about artcile content. No doubt this discussion is interesting, but non of it actually appears to be directed towards improving the article. -- Solipsist 15:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It might be. It might also be woth pointing out that discussion about an article can help to increase researchers' knowledge on that particular article. Some people, when they look up entries in Wikipedia, also look to the discussion section for further insight. --Mal 23:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Mal, Out of respect for the Wikipedia rules and because, despite trying, we can not find a common ground on the issue I will not be posting any more discussions on this subject. I do want to respond to your comment on "my numbers" regarding internment. Between Aug. 1971 and Dec. 1975 1,981 people were interred and of these 1,874 were Catholic (95%) (RHSlainte 02:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)) RHSlainte

RH, I wasn't disputing your figures as such - I was merely making it known that the percentage you stated was from your research, and not my own. As for your figures as presented here, regarding the number of internees, they look familiar enough and I have no reason to doubt them.
On the point of "common ground", I don't think I was trying to reach common ground - I was just correcting your misinformation. The common ground lies in the facts - not necessarily in opinions.
As for Wikipedia rules - I've not read anywhere (yet) that suggested it was against the rules to discuss articles on the article discussion pages(!) --Mal 05:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Talk_page#Usage "Wikipedians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject." I don't think the above argument about Mary McAleese, Ian Paisley and internment has much to do with improving the actual article. This is not the place to argue about how great or how evil Bobby Sands was. Demiurge 10:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The page you refer to also goes on to state: "It's entirely natural that partisan disputes take place on talk pages."
Having said that, I have only ever answered points raised on this talk page. For example:
  • the comment suggesting ethnic cleansing was mentioned by the first and anonymous contribution at the top of this section: "help in convincig God to expel the anglo-saxon heretics".
  • the suggestion that Bobby Sands gave his life so that people "could live in Peace and Freedom", ignoring the fact that Sands was involved in an organisation which, for many years, was specifically involved in removing life from people was mentioned by Rich H.
  • RH also mentions Ian Paisley, the DUP and the UVF as havig been, in his opinion, the biggest "destabilizing" components in "the North".
  • It was the anonymous user who had first introduced the topic of internment to this page.
In conclusion, instead of directing your comments to me, perhaps you should have directed your comments to the people who originally brought the topics up on this page. --Mal 11:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Great idea. Oh wait, he's a convicted terrorist and he topped himself. Whoops. Archibald99 23:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Memorials in Other Countries Section

I think this should be renamed as many events it refers to were not commemorations as such but more political "fall out" resulting from the Hunger Strike. Not sure what to rename the section so thought I'd seek other views. GiollaUidir 18:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Having looked through my thesaurus, nothing else comes close other than, perhaps, 'Memorials'. Alternatives of 'celebration' or 'honouring' both seem a bit crass. --Major Bonkers 11:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Whereas the posting of sectarian grafitti under the "Reactions" section obviously strikes you as perfectly acceptable. --Damnbutter 16:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about.--Major Bonkers 14:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


Error in the paragraph under the header "Prisoner", viz "In the late 1980s" should read "In the late 1970s"


This article does not seem to place Sands' life in context. There needs to be a slightly fuller description of the Troubles between 1974 and 1976 to explain (a) what was going on, and (b) why it was treated so seriously by the government. His 'Demands' whilst as a prisoner (which I have added to the main page) are ridiculously petty, but led to his death and those of a number of his comrades; and subsequently breathed life back into the terrorist campaign and led to an upsurge in the Troubles.

Whether his death actually achieved anything worthwhile is another matter entirely. The web-page suggests that a number of streets around the world have been named after him: an heroic memorial to a man who starved himself to death for his 'right' to wear his own clothes in prison? In Shakespeare's words, 'nothing so became his life as the leaving it': his post-mortem status arises as a touchstone as an extreme republican 'martyr', or bigot, depending on your point of view. It is at least arguable that his death, by continuing the Troubles, precluded any immediate political settlement.

Incidentally, all the links seem to be to be to POV web-sites.

Finally, one of the contemporary Rangers football chants went (to the tune of 'She'll be coming round the mountain when she comes'):

Would you like a chicken supper, Bobby Sands; Would you like a chicken supper, Bobby Sands; Would you like a chicken supper, You filthy Fenian ------, Would you like a chicken supper, Bobby Sands?

--Major Bonkers 11:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

--Re "Sands as Catholic zealot below- Who appointed me as "arbiter of what goes on this page."? What are you on about, do you understand what a talk page is? I note your attempt to turn the whole POV issue back on to me for my observations i.e by pointing out that O'Brien is an anti-republican commentator I am guilty of POV? This is a simple undisputable fact, aside from his membership of the UK Unionist party, and long career predicting IRA coups and civil wars how can you accept a pay-per-view link to an article as valid proof of anything? You seem to have a lot of blind faith.

The writings of Bobby Sands are widely available, feel free to write a section on them yourself if you're really interested.

And what exactly does filthy sectarian grafitti got to do with anything?

--Damnbutter 16:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


What is the justification for ga:Roibeard Gearóid Ó Seachnasaigh, which is hardly gaellic for Bobby Sands? Not to mention which, nobody would look him up under such a name. - 09:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't remember which book its in but I think it might be Ten Men Dead that the author points out that of all the hunger strikers Sands was the only one without a Gaelic translation for his name. The one will have to do till someone gets a better translation. GiollaUidir 15:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Better to translate wrongly than leave it out? - Kittybrewster 06:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Well you can easily translate Robert and Gerard and I know Sands is not an easily translatable name (it's probably Viking in origin), but like most words and can translate them. Also as far as I'm aware "Ó Seachnasaigh" is the translaion provided on the Bobby Sands mural on the gable of Sinn Féin's Falls Road office. Therefore I see no reason why Roibeard Gearóid Ó Seachnasaigh cannot be used. (Derry Boi 21:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC))


I removed the succession boxes and changed the note about his being "Baby of the House." As he was never actually an MP, he was never "Baby of the House." Notwithstanding the fact that he never took his seat (being in prison), and the fact that he died almost immediately after election, Sands did not and would not have taken the required oath of loyalty to the Queen. This disqualifies him from sitting as an MP, acting as one or claiming status as one, and disqualifies us from doing the same. Wally 03:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the first time I have heard the claim made that he was not an MP. Even the Speaker of the House of Commons, when he announced his death, described him as "member of this house for Fermanagh and South Tyrone". Him and subsequent abstentionist MPs (there are four at present) are generally described as MPs, see lots of reference works, including official parliamentary references. PatGallacher 08:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted Wally's changes. Elected representatives from Sinn Féin are still MPs. Even though they do not take their seats. It is misleading to suggest otherwise. Stu ’Bout ye! 08:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
And even the "elected representatives" page on the Sinn Féin website calls them "Westminster MPs". Timrollpickering 09:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
You cannot be an MP without taking an oath to the Queen, yes? Just because Sinn Fein calls them MPs does not make it so. They are elected, but they are never representatives as they decline (for perfectly legitimate reasons) to take said oath and thus sit in the Commons. It is misleading, indeed, to suggest something contrary to that. Wally 17:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
No taking the oath allows one to speak and vote. But the clincher is the Returning Officer's statement - roughly "I do formally declare that the above mentioned is duly elected Member of Parliament for this constituency". i.e. They become the MP there and then. Current Sinn Féin MPs are entitled to Commons resources (and indeed some have been better "attenders" of the Commons than some former Unionist MPs!) because they have been elected. Taking the oath isn't the crucial point. Timrollpickering 18:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... I stand corrected, then. Sorry for the inconvenience, all. Wally 02:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I hate to spoil your fun but Bobby Sands was not a Sinn Féin MP. He was elected on an anti-H Block ticket and supported by the broader nationalist community, not just Republicans.

As for being 'baby of the house'... if people want to claim those who don't even recognize the said parliament as being lawful then it shows how sad they actually are :)(Irish Republican 17:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC))

Sands as Catholic "zealot"

According to the writer and politician Conor Cruise O'Brien (who was a strong supporter of Irish unionism and opponent of Irish republicanism), Sands became increasingly zealous in his Catholic faith and received, while on hunger strike, from a "priest in Kerry who had given him an icon of the Virigin Mary and encouraged him to take arms for his oppressed people" (in Northern Ireland) [1].

A. O'Brien is a political chameleon who has adopted a blinkered anti-republican stance since the 1970's. His opinions are not neutral and the man has been predicting civil wars and military coup for years - the external link is proof of nothing and is merely spam for one of O'Briens commercially-available-only diatribes. I suspect his "proof" if examined comes from "unnamed sources".

B. A visit from a priest is proof of nothing, I suspect the intention here is to paint Sands as a religious bigot which is mere wishful thinking. Sands grew up under the Stormont regime and his experience of ethnic cleansing was more incentive to resist British rule than a visit from a southern priest, be he armed with an "icon of the Virigin Mary" or not.

If someone wants to allege Sands was a zealot, provide proof not fabrications, his own writings show that he was a moderate Catholic and often critical of the church. He was a socialist after all. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Damnbutter (talkcontribs) 17:41, 27 June 2006.

Damnbutter - your personal views on Sands are irrelevent. Wiki merely records the debate. Please do not remove referenced material 09:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)~~

Mr/Ms. Anonymous - Are you deliberately missing the point - this was not referenced material, to reiterate, the link attached (your "referenced material") was to a pay-per-view article of one POV commentators personal views. Provide real proof that Sands was a Catholic zealot and the allegation can stay. Until then as you said my personal views on Sands are irrelevant, but that doesn't mean I have to turn a blind eye to sweeping, personalized highly POV generalizations masquerading as fact. --Damnbutter 12:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with Damnbutter. Sands can hardly be held responsible for what gift a third party chose to give him -- if some crank had sent him a swastika, would that make him a nazi? There's nothing in the reference to show that Sands himself shared the opinions of the Kerry priest. Demiurge 12:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Except that it's a different matter if he chooses to receive a prison visitor. At its simplest, Northern Irish politics breaks down into Catholic Republican/ Protestant Unionist; although the IRA/ Sinn Fein campaigns on a socialist ticket, it is united with elements of the Catholic church who support the main aim of complete independence. Sean O'Callaghan has alleged that IRA members were helped by priests with safe houses and that members were sometimes blessed before going on missions.
I'm also not sure who appointed Damnbutter arbiter of what goes on this page. I suggest: (1) that the O'Brien quotation is restored - incidentally, your description of his views, above, is grossly POV, Damnbutter; and, (2) if you are still unsatisfied you can post a 'The neutrality of this article is disputed' box on the page. Better still, you can look at my comments above under 'Context' and try to put the differing views of Sands' legacy on the page. O'Brien's comments are valid because they inform Sands' legacy; that you disagree with them is neither here nor there.
As you seem to have read Sands' writings, why not also include a section on them?--Major Bonkers 13:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

See my repy under "Context" above --Damnbutter 14:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


I've removed The Undertones It's gonna happen because there is nothing in its lyrics to indicate that the song is about Bobby Sands:

Happens all the time
Its going to happen - happen - till your change your mind
Its going to happen - happen - happens all the time
Its going to happen - happen - till your change your mind
Best story I ever heard
The truth about fat Mr X and the young girl
See how far he'll let you go
Before he persuades you when you're walking home
Happens all the time ...
Watching your friends passing by
Going to sleep without blinking a blue eye
Too slow to notice what's wrong
Two faced to you when you're taking them on
Happens all the time ...
Everything goes when you're dead
Everything empties from what was in your head
No point in waiting today
Stupid revenge is what's making you stay
Its going to happen - happen - till your change your mind

Barnaby Wild 13:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well it was - See [2], so it's going back in.--Damnbutter 16:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Disgusting hagiography

This article is repugnant. It is nothing more than an apology, a canonization for a convicted terrorist.

Whatever the crimes of the British government against the Irish from 12th century on--and there were many--elevating a terrorist to a saint is simply revolting.

This man was a leader of an organization which is responsible for more than 2,000 murders. An organization that, at its height, was considered to be the most effective terrorist organization in the world.

Worse than that, they made common cause with the enemies of freedom and democracy, especially Libya which supplied many of the weapons which the IRA still refuses to surrender.

As an American of both Irish and Scots-Irish descent I also find it reprehensible that so much of the IRA's money came from Americans of Irish descent.

This article screams for a complete rewriting by a truly impartial scholar/editor. Until then, it will remain a stain on wikipedia's efforts to be a true encyclopedia. PainMan 23:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you suggest which parts are untrue? Frelke 08:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC):And who exactly is elevating Sands to a saint? --Damnbutter 16:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
No, sir, this comment is disgusting. You offer not one scintilla of evidence for the claims you make, nor do you site one example of factual error in the article. All you have to offer are your recycled opinions about the Irish Republican movement. You have nothing new, or even interesting, to say. I always love it when armchair opponents of the I.R.A. jump up on their high horse and begin pontificating, because, almost without exception, they say something like this: "Whatever the crimes of the British government...", as though it is reasonable and proper to dismiss 800 years of oppression, murder, starvation, and constant meddling on the part of the Brits so that one may then attack the excesses of the Republicans, who have been fighting to kick the Brits out. Let's see, 800 years of oppression on the part of the Brits, vs. the just over 80 years that the I.R.A. has existed, and you, in all of your wisdom decide that the 'R.A. is worse. Go pound your chest elsewhere. ---Charles 17:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I support the view that this is a biased article. For a start, the begining of the article makes reference to his act of hunger strike while in prison - but fails to state why he was in prison - that he was a convicted terrorist. The start of the article is entirely positive, and sets the tone for the rest of it. Moreover, grafiti on a wall and songs at a football match are hardly evidence of the "loyalist reaction". Still further, all of the "external links" (except the BBC link that doesn't work - I will remove it) paint Bobby Sands in a positive light, ignoring the fact that he was in prison for a reason. I hope we can get some neutral reviewers in here soon to take a look at it. I'll see what I can do. Logica 02:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Logica's asked me to look at this, and I've also suggested the possibility of a request for comment if you can't get anywhere. In theory, the article should not be painting anyone in a positive or negative light, just saying what they did.
To that end, then, I think it would be worth mentioning in the lead that he was in prison on a charge of possesion of firearms. It may also be worth rewording it - 'was a member of the IRA' rather than was 'an Irish republican'. I'll make these changes now because I think they're important --Robdurbar 09:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
As for the rest of the article - I mean it seems fairly reasonable. Here are a few comments:
  • "Attempts to break the protest by brutalisation of prisoners" is a fairly confusing sentence -what on earth is meant by 'brutalisation'? Its far too vague and as such is a bit unjustified. It could mean Abu graib style torture, or it could be something far less serious; at the moment its an unsupported allegation
  • The reactions section needs sourcing
  • Some of the 'citation needed' tags under the 'Political status protests' are a bit spurious
  • There is a clear difference between the IRA activites section and the political protest section, in that all of Sands' actions in the former are 'claimed' whilst all the UK's negative actions in the latter are presented as facts. Now this may well reflect the reality; I'm just pointing it out.
Generally I think that after Logica's slight tidy earlier, the main section that needs working on is that intro. The other comments are something to think about. If anything, I think this article would be improved by expansion. --Robdurbar 09:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

To Charles:

You do the same thing you accuse me of doing! YOU offer "not one scintilla" of evidence that Sands and the IRA were anything but terrorists.

How can whatever the British did whenever they did it justify walking up to a British soldier and shooting him in the head in front of his wife and children?

How can it justify the bombing of a bunch of old pensioners as happened in 1988* (Bono went on an impassioned, heart-felt, deeply moving denunciation of the IRA in a Joshua Tree concert I saw, he concluded with the statement, "Fuck the revolution!")

  • The name of the place where that atrocity occurred slips my mind.

The point is nothing can justify the IRA's violence against not only the British military or Protestants but Catholics--the very people they laughably claim to "represent."

They are vicious killers and should have been executed.

To Rodurbar:

There is no evidence that "torture" occurred at Abu Ghraib. What occurred was little more than Fraternity-style hazing. Unaceptable, of course, and the soldiers responsible should have been and were punished (albeit out of proportion to the offenses). But to equate frat-house hazing with the actual torture that occurred when Saddam's thugs ran the place is completely ridiculous.

The interrogation methods that were used, the "Conveyor" system, sensory deprivation, loud music, etc, are all perfectly acceptable. We are talking about saving lives by making terrorist scum a little uncomfortable, not torture!

Having said that, I applaud your effort to make this hagiographic article neither "positive" or "negative" but informative. Sands and his co-horts were swine and the world is far better place for their having gone to Hell. Kudos to Baroness Thatcher for hanging tough. (Would that Reynaldus Magnus had hung tough against the Islamofacsists in Lebanon in '82.)

So I hope's it's understood that my objection isn't to you personally but to false characterization that what happened at Abu Ghraib was torture.

To Logica:

Thanks for taking the time to defend my criticisms of the article. I don't have the time to respond to everything.

PainMan 02:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence of torture at Abu Ghraib-perhaps you'd also like to deny the Holocaust while you're at it?? Anyway, your POV comments on this talk page will ensure that your edits to the main page are treated with the disdain they deserve.GiollaUidir 12:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed Vintagekits 13:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
"Worse than that, they made common cause with the enemies of freedom and democracy, especially Libya which supplied many of the weapons which the IRA still refuses to surrender."

I think that tells us all we need to know about our friend. Btw, the issue of IRA decommissioning was completed in September 2005. Get with the times buddy. (Irish Republican 17:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC))

Hey pain man (or woman) what the hell is up your noes..? The true repugnant nature of this topic is your blind view of the bare facts..Your own country men supplied libya-iraq and iran not to mention the saudies and the mother of all antineutrals..Isreal...with weapons and cash to do what the hell they wanted for the utter most gain for the ruthless persuit of oil and oil based products..did you not know the facts..?Bobby Sands and the two thousand dead you talk about are a grain of sand compared to the unforseen terror and captiol greed for which your country stands for...shoulder to shoulder with your so called coalition buddies that is..wake up and smell your own hypocrisy..your partasian to your own views and imoral in your condimnation of one man (bobby sands) compered to your own selective judgement..Breen32 23:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Breen 32. Your views appear to be as well considered and accurate as your spelling. --MJB 08:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Commenting on an editors spelling? I think there is a policy somewhere about that? On the bright side Breen 32 must have really got your attention, since you paid that must attention to detail. --Domer48 09:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about my spelling painman-i didnt have my dictionary handy that what do you say is inaccurate about my views..? Or are you hideing behind the world flag of truth democracy and the "lets get rid of the axis of evil boys" try show some decorum with your detailed facts in your response to my faults..and no delusions please..Breen32 20:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


This is getting ridiculous. Why don't we just mark the article as needing references, rather than so many different sections each having the

template? One example of exuberant markings was that the [citation needed] template was used right beside a citation (in the slimmer of the year part). Granted that was probably a mistake, but it's ridiculous having the unreferenced template several times in so many paragraphs, very few other biographies are like this. Please give me your thoughts on this, as imo it's making the article look terrible. Pauric 17:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree, and I appreciate you pointing this out. My guess is that the placing of so many fact tags was ideologically motivated, but I have no proof of that. Regardless, you are correct that one template at the top of the article would serve the purpose, and would improve the look of the article. ---Charles 19:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Music removals

The list of songs is turning into an exhaustive list of every song ever writtent that might of had some vague connection to Bobby Sands/The Hunger Strike. IE. Easterhouse, Kretens and Crimson Spectre. I propose we keep the Irish Republican ones, the ones by major artists at the time and any notable current artist who has a song that demonstrates a clear link to Bobby Sands.GiollaUidir 20:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Bobby Sands

I nominated this because it shows the irish struggle against the british and the only way they can try and beat the irish is by letting a man starve to death-the-muffin-man- 23:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not how featured articles work I'm afraid. This article is argued upon, and to nominate this article for political reasons goes against WP:NPOV. If you want to help make the article comply to the featured article standard whilst being non-biased you're encouraged to do so however. It still has a long way to go, and probably wont get there because of the controversy surrounding Bobby Sands, Irish Republicanism and associated topics. -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 23:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

House of Commons announcement of death

I actually added the mention of the unusual terseness of the announcement in the House of Commons under the misapprehension that I had earlier removed it. The announcement of the death of a Member is normally done in a very summary fashion, unless they are a particularly prominent member. However, in the case of Bobby Sands there was an even more terse announcement. The phrasing at the time was normally:

I regret to have to inform the House of the death of A. B., the Member for X, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.

For Bobby Sands, the sense of loss and the expression of sympathy with relatives were omitted. This was a unique occurrence and attention was drawn to it at the time by both British and Irish newspapers. It is also mentioned in "Ten Men Dead", the story of the hunger strike: The Speaker "pointedly failed to extend condolences to the family, which are traditionally offered by the Speaker on the death of a Member." This book on NORAID's site also mentions it. For that reason I think it is notable and should be mentioned. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 21:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself." If you can provide evidence of these works, then I think it should be included. Otherwise, it smacks of sectarianism. Please see: Wikipedia:Notability. Logica 22:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I've just given you two sources, plus there's the Times link which was in the text. Even Whitaker's Almanack for 1982 (page 357) notes how formally the Speaker notified the House. I think anything more by way of source would be de trop; in any case Wikipedia:Notability generally applies to independent articles rather than to significant facts within an article (we include lots of detail which is insignificant in itself but gives articles a certain 'colour').
Can't see how it's sectarianism. The omission of sympathy with the family was supported by Unionists in Great Britain; there would have been a row if the Speaker had mentioned it. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 22:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
If I were to accept that there is enough references out there for it to be classed as notable, it would need some clarification. In the context of the article it is quite vague to someone not up on the matter: it could imply that the British government did it out of spite of Sands. This is particularly likely given the general bias in favour of anti-British republicanism that has been present in the article. I would be willing to keep the point if you could expand it to clarify why the action was taken, rather than risk giving the wrong impression.
Also, I'm not sure I understand you when you talk about Wikipedia:Notability, please rephrase (and is "de trop" really necessary to use instead of plain English? I had to look it up! Language on Wikipedia is supposed to be accessible...). Logica 23:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The Speaker of the House of Commons is not part of the British government. As I am a British citizen and a loyal monarchist I don't accept the "anti-British republicanism" description; it is simply telling the story of one man in neutral terms. As far as Notability goes, the guidelines on notability apply to whether a topic is notable enough for an article to be written about it, and should not be applied strictly to every individual concept within the article. For example, let's suppose that Tony Blair didn't get selected for Sedgefield in 1983 and therefore stayed as a Barrister. If this were the case he would not be notable for an article (there are lots of Barristers out there; only the well-known ones are worthy of an article). However, given that he is notable for other reasons, his biography article includes his legal career. Incidentally "de trop" is in List of French phrases used by English speakers.
Given that the unusual terseness of the Speaker's announcement of the death of Bobby Sands is verifiable and mentioned in numerous sources, I propose that it goes back in to the article. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 14:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to have gotten my point - the sentance is vague and gives the IMPRESSION to someone without a wider knowledge that it was British spite. I was pointing out that the particular pro-Republicanism that has been present in the article would thus make it more likely that this statement would be interpretted in an anti-British way, because of the very anti-British nature of this kind of Republicanism. I did not imply the statement you added was like this. Thus, repeating myself again from above, I would prefer it if you could expand the point to remove the vagueness that is attached to it, and which may give rise to an inerpretation that this occured due to British spite for Sands. Logica 17:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

British Embassy in Teheran.

The article states that "The name remains despite pressure from the British foreign secretary to change it" implying that the British Embassy is still located on 'Bobby Sands St.' According the the British Embassy website, [3], the embassy is actually on 'Ferdowsi Avenue.' Was the embassy moved to a different street, does anyone know? In any case, this statement needs revision. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psidogretro (talkcontribs) 00:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

  • I believe they list the address as Ferdowsi Avenue, so people post mail, etc to there. Then they move the mail themselves to the embassy on Bobby Sands Street. This is becasue they are embarrassed by the fact that their embassy is located on a street named after Volunteer Bobby Sands. Derry Boi 18:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Can you provide any sources for this, Derry Boi? If so, I think it should be included in the article that the Foreign office set up a proxy post box. Psidogretro (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Sands was a terrorist

I can't believe an article about a terrorist doens't mention the t word once. Bobby Sands planted bombs, bombs terrorise people therefore a terrorist. Its political correctness gone mad that you can't call a spade a spade -- 17:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Terror/terrorism are mentioned three times in the article, as well as a link to the PIRA article. It's nothing to do with being PC. Terrorist is a POV term, one could just as easily accuse the "security forces" of being terrorists. -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 18:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I would also add that to label Bobby Sands a terrorist does not so much damage his own credibility as to legitimise the attrocities of others. It is dangerous than to see The Troubles in terms of 'goodies' versus 'baddies'.--Fergie 09:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Terorism is not a POV; it is an objective judgment. Approval or celebration of the terrorist is a POV. A terrorist uses terror to destablise a political system. PIRA and Mr Sands were terorists. The British Army may have caused terror - e.g. Op MOTORMAN - but that was not their overiding purpose. --MJB 21:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It's a subjective judgement, not an objective one. A fact clearly demonstrated by Sands' election victory. One Night In Hackney303 21:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
No it does not. It merely confirms that a Terrorist (objective judgment) was elected by people who made a subjective judgment as to his worth. Election to parliament is irrelevant. Menachem Begin was a terrorist who became a Prime Minister. I may or may not adore or abhor either or both but Terrorists they remain.
I am not making a judgment. That said I am not afraid of using clearly understood terms. If you use terror as a tactic, ipso facto you are a terrorist.--MJB 21:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It is my "objective judgment" that the British Army and inparticular Ould Maggie are terrorists. Stick that in their articles and then come back here and we can discuss this issue.--Vintagekits 21:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but you don't appear to understand the terms you are using to make your observation. There is not a single universally agreed definition of terrorism, therefore to take any particular definition and apply it to any given group or person is by definition subjective. Even if you take the UN definition of terrorism, you would need to provide evidence that Sands deliberately targeted civilians in order to describe him as a terrorist, something you would find rather difficult to do. One Night In Hackney303 21:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
While agreeing that Sands was involved in terrorism and strongly disagreeing that the British Army let alone Lady Thatcher were ever involved in terrorism (as states have a legitimate right to use force in defence of their territory) terrorism is a contentious word that we shouldnt use in cases like this in wikipedia, SqueakBox 21:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

VintageKits. Your emotive and juvenile language reveals an obvious political position. You may diagree with the British Army and the RUC's actions but they were legitimate and not intended to sow terror. Sands was a member of an organisation that deliberately targetted civilians. He was, at least, a member of a Terrorist Organisation. If yiou are in a golf club you are a golfer; if you are in PIRA you are a terrorist. I agree with SqueakBox. To avoid undermining neutrality I am content to limit Terrorist to this discussion rather than the article. One Night In Hackney. I am a Solicitor with a postgraduate education. I fully understand the meaning of the words I employ. Terrorist has a clear meaning. The only confusion arises when we concern ourselves with motivation. --MJB 22:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sands was a member of an organisation that deliberately targetted civilians - incorrect. Terrorist has a clear meaning - incorrect, it has many different meanings. One Night In Hackney303 22:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This evening I walked past the Yard of Ale in Birmingham; that was "One Night in Birmingham". There was also "One Night in Guildford". I assure you PIRA targetted civilians. --MJB 22:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

621 civilians according to us Provisional IRA campaign 1969–1997#Casualties and the UK and ROI govs still sees the IRA as a terrorist organisation. Thanks for the explanation of the One night in..., Max, SqueakBox 23:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Guildford targeted soldiers, as for the civilians that were there if you lie down with dogs you'll get up with fleas. The Americans would call them collateral damage anyway, do the American Army deliberately target civilians? I think you'll find no IRA members have ever been convicted of the Birmingham bombing, perhaps if the English police hadn't been so eager to frame the first Irish people they could find the crimes might have been solved? Anyway I digress, this page is for discussing the article not for discussing your incorrect assumptions, so I will not indulge you any further. As for the usual pro-Brit propagandist, the number of casulties in no way confirms they were directly targetted does it? My latter comment applies to you in equal measure. One Night In Hackney303 23:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Drinking in a pub with soldiers in it isnt a crime and I am sure the IRA knew there would be civilian ie innocent targets there, SqueakBox 23:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sir, you are a troubled man. I trust that one day you will recognise how foolish and immoral your comments are. You proudly state on your user page that your political views are your own - no longer. If someone presumes to challenge your views, you respond with bile.

The maltreatment of the Irish minority in Brum is shameful although an understandable human response to difficult times. Perhaps you would consider their suffering was collateral damage.

Some more "fleas" or some more "Collateral damage" - a 3 year old boy and a 12 year old boy Warrington Bomb Attacks

You are morally deficient and I will contribute no more to a worthless exchange. --MJB 23:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Harrods bombing, being outside Harrods is hardly to put oneself in the firing line either, SqueakBox 23:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not going to get into a debate with those who get their information on Irish history from the cartoon section of the Daily Sport it suffices to say that 1. civilians were not the targets of the Warrington or Harrods bombs 2. Phoned warnings were given for both both and 3. Getting back to the article are hand instead of feeding the troll what exactly are you saying Bobby did that makes him a terrorist.--Vintagekits 23:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Cartoon section of the Daily Sport? Never even seen it and if I want to know more about Irish history I go to wikipedia, and wikipedia makes it clear that the IRA is considered a terrorist organisation but I think we should oppose its inclusion as a word here on the weasel word policy, not because Bobby sands was in any sense innocent, SqueakBox 00:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Either discuss what actions Roibeard untook to make him a terrorist or else you are simply assisting to feed a troll. Which I am not going to do from now one.--Vintagekits 00:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I certainly wouldnt call MJB a troll (and hes done some nice edits including to an old favourite of mine, Berry Pomeroy Castle, but this discussion should now close, SqueakBox 00:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Irish name

This is ridiculous, why do we need a citation for a translation? I don't know exactly what you want to prove or provoke by saying the translation is uncited, but IMHO it just looks rather.. silly for lack of a better term. The Irish wikipedia Sands article calls him Roibeard Gearóid Ó Seachnasaigh, murals call him Roibeard Gearóid Ó Seachnasaigh. I can't really see where you want to further draw evidence of this from. -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 21:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

First, let me say that I think the article is well-written, and it's obvious a lot of good work has gone into it already. However, it does not meet the GA criteria at this time. Specific concerns:

  • Per criterion 1(c), the lead needs expansion.
  • Per criterion 1(c), the lists in the sections Reactions and Published works should be changed to text.
  • Per criteria 2(a) and (b), I'd suggest that as a rule of thumb, there should be at least one citation per section and subsection, most importantly in the Prisoner section. Also, please cite or clear the remaining citation needed tag.
  • Per criteria 3(a), though this is not absolutely essential, the article could use a little more context on the troubles, to place his life within an historical context.

Please re-nominate the article once these concerns have been addressed. - Mocko13 23:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


Can anyone please clarify why Image:Flag of Northern Ireland (bordered).svg is in the infobox please? Before any comments of "it's the flag of Northern Ireland" are used, I suggest you look at which articles actually use the image. Out of the plethora of Unionist politicans we have articles for barely any (if any at all) actually use the flag in their infoboxes, therefore I consider the use of it in this article to be politically motivated and suggest it be removed immediately. One Night In Hackney303 23:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In a similar vein to John Duddy it should be the Irish tricolour. His birthplace was NI but his nationality was Irish therefore it should have the tricolour.--Vintagekits 23:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't see a reason for there being a flag in this infobox at all. Stu ’Bout ye! 08:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree with you Stu - it could possibly just become a "another" point of conflict. I think the flag was recently added by an IP editor and he also add the Greenland, Palastinian and Vatican flags!! hhhmmmm!--Vintagekits 09:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Removed it. Stu ’Bout ye! 10:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Irish claims

Bobby Sands was born in Country Antrim in NI, that makes him British and not Irish and the text should at the least make clear he was Northern Irish and not opostualte the fallacy that he was Irish. An edit summary like this "Prove he was Northern Irish if you want to push your flighty bigoted POV on here, you obviously know hey-haw about Irish and British citizenship law!" is a personal attack and wont help have a meaningful discussuionmj on this subjkect as assuming another editor doesnt know what they are talking about is bad faith and violates WP:AGF so please desist your attacks Vintagekits and remain civil, SqueakBox 20:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

See - Irish nationality law, then stop trying to impose a POV statement on the article. One Night In Hackney303 20:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Irish laws have noithing to do with it if he was born in NI, they may claim that makes him and Ian Paisly nationaluist but we dont have to reflect merely what the Irish gov says and ignore British law, SqueakBox 20:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
You are pushing my patience to the limit. You are a British editor who pushes a digusting brand of bigoted POV on many pages and this is another attempt. You obviously have no clue about Irish (or British for that matter) citizenship law. You are as ignorant about this subject as you were about the difference between a Knight, Baron and Baronets. I suggest you do a bit of reading before engaging is discussion where you have limited knowledge or just stick to article about peado's and weed which seems to be your strong point. THE WORLD DOESNT REVOLVE AROUND BRITAIN!--Vintagekits 20:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
British law is not relevant. Irish Republicans do not self indentify as Northern Irish, they self identify as Irish. Therefore any attempt to describe them as Northern Irish is POV pushing. One Night In Hackney303 20:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, you do realise Irish is an ethnic group? See Irish people, and also see that there's no article for Northern Irish people, it redirects to Irish people. One Night In Hackney303 20:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
If he simply read this section first before making deliberatly provocative edits then this could have been avoided - he is being deliberatly provokative.--Vintagekits 21:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. I can assure you I only have the interest of the encyclopedia at heart and your personal attacks following me around is not a good faith assumption. Please calm down and lets get on with work, SqueakBox 21:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The article should state that Bobby Sands was Irish. He may have had United Kingdom nationality but he also had Irish nationality and the subject's own views are the key here. I would encourage SqueakBox to compare with people who have an allegiance which isn't a nation state: Abdullah Öcalan is described as Kurdish and not Turkish; Mahmoud Abbas is described as Palestinian. To describe Bobby Sands as Northern Irish and not Irish would be forcing a point of view that the British control of Northern Ireland was the only valid position. Sam Blacketer 21:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I am fine with the Irish person, SqueakBox 21:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
And that is a breach of WP:3RR.--Vintagekits 21:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
How is that. I put it in, never here before and then when you removed it I replaced it so it is one revert, SqueakBox 21:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
You personally dont have to be the first person to have added, it just needs to have been added before! Enjoy your break!--Vintagekits 21:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Can we have it back to Irish Provisional IRA member please? Possibly piping Irish to Irish people. The current lead isn't acceptable. One Night In Hackney303 21:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
If he doesnt self revert within 5 minutes I will be reporting him anyway, I have the report and diffs ready anyway.--Vintagekits 21:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Well I would do it myself but I had three reverts with the stubborn anon editor, and I'm thinking it would count as a fourth revert if I put it back as it would be mostly identical to the version I was reverting to before. One Night In Hackney303 21:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
That is odd as I only made 4 edits, the first was a brand new edit and the first 2 edits were substantially different from the second two, which is a compromise suggested by Hackney, SqueakBox 21:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you now suggesting, Hackney, that your compromise was not suitable, ie linking to Irish people. You could indeed revert me without violating 3rr but Vintage couldnt right now, but I am assuming unless you tell me otherwise that you are okay with the current compromise, SqueakBox 21:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
You obviously have never read WP:3RR carefully then.--Vintagekits 21:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Please stop assuming bad faith and that I am stupid, which you keep attacking me with. It says you have to have a version to revert to and the edits have to be substantially the same whereas my first edit was fresh and I changed tack completely mid-way and changed to a completely different copmpromise, dropping NI for Irish people, SqueakBox 21:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
No. What I'm saying was that rather than pipe Irish to Ireland (which was the case before), we pipe it to Irish people. One Night In Hackney303 21:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
That is what I have done, the text now says "was an Irish person" with Irish linking to Irish people, hence my confusion at Vintage's comments as this is so different from saying he was a Northern Irish person with a link to Northern Ireland, which I am now happy to not see in the article, SqueakBox 21:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
No, that isn't what you've done. You've added extra wording which is surplus to requirements. Please change it back to "Irish Provisional IRA member". One Night In Hackney303 21:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Done and fine. Can we please leave the UK link as people wont know it was the UK parliament to whhich he was elected otherwise, SqueakBox 22:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. The current wording is a bit unwieldy, rather than just change it and start a possible edit war I propose the link still pipes to the same place, but the visible text is "Member of the United Kingdom Parliament"? One Night In Hackney303 22:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
That'd be fine too, at the end of the day this is about informing our readers, SqueakBox 22:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Done. One Night In Hackney303 22:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


His proper title is the Honourable, with the prefix MP- as he died a serving member of the House of Commons.

Some things I am not sure of, is did he apply to the Garter for a coat of arms (as all MPs are entitled to), and is he the same Bobby Sands who was linked as a possible suitor for the Baroness Bradford? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 10:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

John Smith (UK politician) doesn't use it and neither does Ian Gow, and I've removed it pending a Wikipedia guideline that states it should be used. One Night In Hackney303 06:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The title of MPs is not 'the Honourable'. Within the chamber of the House of Commons, MPs should refer to each other as 'the Honourable Member' but that is just Parliamentary courtesy and not a matter for anyone outside Parliament. Also, articles about MPs do not include the 'MP' suffix in the lead section. Sam Blacketer 15:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Mr Blacketer is correct. To use the prefix 'The Honourable' outside of a parliamentary context implies that the person in question is the son of a Baron or Viscount. Being an MP confers no title, simply the post-nominal letters 'MP'. Psidogretro (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Suppression of Irish History

The Bobby Sands article shows that Wikipedia has an anti-Irish bias because it allows an anti-Irish bigot like User:One Night In Hackney, who is incapable of making edits based on reason, rather only on hate. He continues to remove relevant information relating to Bobby Sands from the article. Allowing him to edit this page and giving him so much decision-making power would be like allowing a member of the Ku Klux Klan to be in charge of what gets into the Martin Luther King, Jr. article. 20:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

While I do agree that his Catholicism is surely notable and warranting inclusion in the category, your hyperbole and insults directed at ONIH are not appropriate. While he and I disagree on some issues, the fellow has been an excellent volunteer to have on this project and has made significant contributions to the field of Irish history article writing. gaillimhConas tá tú? 20:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
He does not go in this category. See the parent category Category:Roman Catholics which states:

Also, before adding an article to this category or subcategory, please consider whether the person's religious beliefs or participation in the Roman Catholic Church are significant to the reasons why that person is notable.

Also see admin Sam Blacketer's comments on the IP editor's talk page:

It is true that Bobby Sands was a Catholic. It is true that he was and is a hero to the Catholic people of Ireland. However, he is not famous for his Catholicism but for his Irish Republicanism; Irish Republicanism has always insisted that it is not sectarian and is totally inclusive of all Irish people. People should not be added to Roman Catholic categories unless it is their Catholicism which makes them notable.

Therefore regardless of Sands being a Catholic, he does not belong in this category. It doesn't matter if he was Sikh, Buddhist, Scientologist or any other religion, he was notable for dying as a hunger striker and his religion is not relevant to that. One Night In Hackney303 22:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Then remove the Irish-language activist category too as he was not relevant for that either. Hacnkey, please stop vandalizing this page, use some common sense and don't let your bigotry get in the way. 22:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'd say he's notable for a bit more than that. Back on topic however, the fellow certainly warrants inclusion in this category given the sectarian division that permeated the events during the Troubles. His being a member of the Church is notable and applicable. gaillimhConas tá tú? 22:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Please provide a reliable source that focusses on Sands' Catholicism then. One Night In Hackney303 22:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd say that it's basic common sense. Given the obvious sectarian division of the Troubles, the onus certainly isn't on me to provide sourcing for this. Read One Day in my Life perhaps gaillimhConas tá tú? 22:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
So, read his own book to show he's notable for being a Catholic? WP:N is down the hall to the left. I've provided specific reasons why he shouldn't go in the category, you've just provided "he should be". One Night In Hackney303 22:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, alright mate. Keep in mind that this is asking for sources on whether or not the sky is blue. [Sands] always had an interest in Irish history and when the Civil Rights Movement burst on the streets in 1968 the reaction of the RUC to peaceful protest evoked a nationalist response in the hearts of most Catholic youths. He got involved with the whole republican movement as a response to the Catholic oppression going on in the North. That's a quote from our man, Gerry Adams in The Life and Times of Bobby Sands. gaillimhConas tá tú? 22:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
That just proves he was a Catholic, it doesn't prove he was notable for being a Catholic. Are you saying there were no Protestant members of the PIRA, or people who were born Catholic but weren't particularly religious people? One Night In Hackney303 23:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Haha, not sure how you could have derived that from any of my statements. gaillimhConas tá tú? 23:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I never derived any of that from your statements, I'm trying to show that being an IRA member and a notable Catholic are not the same thing. One Night In Hackney303 23:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You are trying to show it, Hackney, just by saying it, when the facts go against you. Your reasons for wanting to keep the category out are very suspicious and do appear to be because of a personal prejudice of yours. 00:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hackney, you are really vandalizing these pages by removing a valid category. You have given no reason why a category a person qualifies for should not be in it. This is not how it is done anywhere else on Wikipedia. Everyone is in the categories that apply to them whether or not they are notable for it. The fact is Bobby Sands is very notable for being a Catholic. You want to deny this fact for no other reason that your hatred for Bobby Sands and your bigotry towards the Irish. 00:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sands is a Catholic who is notable, he is not notable for being a Catholic. Therefore he does not go in the category, per the category description. One Night In Hackney303 00:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
[[Category:Irish_Roman_Catholics]] says nothing of this sort and a subcategory of this is [[Category:People who died on the 1981 Irish hunger strike]]. Not sure exactly why this is a sub-sub category, but nevertheless, present Wikipedia convention points towards including him in this category gaillimhConas tá tú? 00:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The parent category Category:Roman Catholics does, and it clearly mentions sub-categories as well. The 1981 category is currently another sub-cat because of the IP editor, who I'm not getting into another edit war with, I'll just wait until he's blocked if he carries on with his present behaviour. One Night In Hackney303 00:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't see the history there. I'm not sure why you're making such a big deal of this. We have dozens of categories for sorts of things like "Jews by occupation" and so forth. Colin Farrell is in the Irish Catholic category. Your argument is odd, especially considering that Sands actually quite warrants inclusion here gaillimhConas tá tú? 00:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
That would be because a disruptive editor constantly puts people into these categories, for no other reason than they Catholics. That is not the criteria for inclusion, they must be notable for being a Catholic, not just a Catholic who was notable. I've yet to see any evidence that Sands is notable for being a Catholic, he's a Catholic who was notable so does not go in the category. The person making the big deal is the abusive IP editor who has made a number of personal attacks on me and another editor, when myself and Sam Blacketer have patiently explained why Sands does not go in this category, and been accused of being anti-Irish in return. Also, volunteer is spelt with a capital 'V' ;) One Night In Hackney303 01:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, I was referring to your being Wikipedia volunteer, of course :). I just checked out some of the fellow's edits and it appears he's doing it in an attempt to somehow disparage Catholics by including some of these fellows in the category. Bit silly, as I think his edits actually work contra to those aims, but nevertheless. I understand Mr. Blacketer's and your desire to stop this fellow, but on the subject of Bobby Sands, he surely warrants inclusion, and the Irish Catholics category has no stringent criterion, as evidenced by Bertie Ahern, Colin Farrell, and others being included in this category (where I think they should remain, of course). gaillimhConas tá tú? 01:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you excusing me of trying to disparage Catholics? I am certainly not. I am only trying to include them in the correct categories because it is FACTS that are essential to Irish history. The only reason Hackney wants these categories taken out is because he hates Irish people and does not want the full truth to be revealed on wikipedia. The Roman Catholic category added to any of them is factual, yet, Hackney continues to remove it. This should be considered vandalism. You also notice that Hackney isn't removing any categories from any English people or any other people, he is only sabotaging pages of Irish Catholics, specifically the hunger martyrs. 02:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. That category does not belong to the page and I assume it is you that is doing all the vandalism. I do not tolerate this disruption and you may be blocked due to this. 02:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Who are you? Login before you make any comments. Hackney is the one doing the vandalism if you need to know. I ensure you, though, if I was doing what Hackney is doing to pages of Irish Catholics to English people or anyone else, I would be banned in a moment, yet Hackney is allowed to continue doing all the RACIST VANDALISM he wants. 02:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember asking you or anyone else to request logging in before commenting. If the category should be removed, I will deal with this. 02:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The category shouldn't be removed because it is factual. 02:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(sidesteps anon's comments) Actually Mr. Blacketer isn't involved in the previous problem with the banned editor and his cadre of sockpuppets, and this IP editor isn't connected to it either. The inclusion of Ahern, Farrell et al isn't a valid reason for including Sands in the category, it's a reason for removing the category from other articles it is incorrectly added to. Categories are for navigation, not for labelling people with political or religious categories. Given that the majority of notable people from Ireland can probably be sourced to be Catholic or Protestant, if we included people simply for being Catholic or Protestant the categories would be overflowing and little use for navigation. That's why the main Catholic category is narrowly defined, to stop people being added just because they are Catholic. Irish republican and Catholic are not the same thing, as Irish republicans are at pains to point out they believe in non-sectarianism. Therefore as Sands is notable for being an Irish republican, he shouldn't be notable for being a Catholic as well. As I pointed out to the anon, Sands is a hero to Irish republicans but that doesn't make him to hero to all Irish Catholics. If you can show me reliable sources that focus on his Catholicism I'd be in favour of him being in the category, but until then he should be removed. One Night In Hackney303 05:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe it is a valid reasoning, especially when these fellows are stood up against Sands, who according to Adams, began his involvement with the civil rights and republican movements when being faced with oppression from the RUC because he, his family, and his mates were Catholic. All that aside, the inclusionism in the Irish Catholic category is fine (see here). If you've a problem with how categories on Wikipedia are used, this isn't the venue for it gaillimhConas tá tú? 14:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, that just makes him a Catholic who was notable. If you have a problem with the how this Category is supposed to be applied, the appropriate place would be the parent category talk page. One Night In Hackney303 19:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah no. Again, see Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#By_gender.2C_religion.2C_race_or_ethnicity.2C_and_sexuality and the category itself. You are disrupting Wikipedia and more specifically, this article, in a failing attempt to prove a point about your distaste for the above guideline. Just stop gaillimhConas tá tú? 19:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Afraid not. The page you've linked to does support categorising people by religion, obviously using the criteria on the relevant category page itself, which I've repeatedly explained Sands does not meet. One Night In Hackney303 20:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, mate. I've provided sources proving that he does meet the parent category's standards. gaillimhConas tá tú? 20:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, give that link another look. It plainly states Currently, the Wikipedia also supports categorizing People by religion and People by race or ethnicity. gaillimhConas tá tú? 20:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, you have provided no source that states Sands was notable for being a Catholic. And also again, if you have a problem with the way people are categorised in this category, the appropriate venue for a discussion about it is on the parent category's talk page. One Night In Hackney303 20:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Did you not see the Adams source? Also, it's not me that has a problem with the way articles are being categorised. There is precedence to include people in this category per the guideline I've referenced several times and the Irish Catholic page which has several people who are simply members of the Church. Again, please stop edit warring and seek an appropriate venue gaillimhConas tá tú? 20:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
As I actually just violated the three-revert rule, I just fixed the article back to your previous version. However, as you are clearly disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, I'm going to make a post on ANI about this, and hopefully we can get this resolved gaillimhConas tá tú? 20:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that there doesn't seem to be any notability rule forbidding adding people to different categories. This is why there are currently two specific categories

The former category seems to be for people who are notable because of their association with a particular belief and the second merely for categorising people. If we were to add people to categories purely for notability grounds then the following should certainly go as most in it aren't notable for their year of birth.

Actually I would support ONIH's logic but that seems to be an issue to resolve on the categorization pages, not here, so Sands should stay in roman catholics category until that's resolved. Valenciano 21:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

See Category:Roman Catholics, which states Also, before adding an article to this category or subcategory, please consider whether the person's religious beliefs or participation in the Roman Catholic Church are significant to the reasons why that person is notable. One Night In Hackney303 21:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Mate, we've been over this. Sands easily meets these criterion gaillimhConas tá tú? 21:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Not in my opinion, nor Sam's. One Night In Hackney303 21:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
You fellows either need to re-read the category suggestion or learn a bit more about Bobby Sands then gaillimhConas tá tú? 21:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
See WP:CIVIL, and moderate your tone. One Night In Hackney303 21:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Mate, I think I've been rather collegial towards you. I've spent a significant amount of time trying to work with you and I fail to see how you cannot grasp how Sands does not warrant inclusion if you know anything about the fellow or the suggestion on the category page gaillimhConas tá tú? 21:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah - I missed the bit about notability in the religion section. Sands certainly doesn't fit the category then. Yes the conflict in NI was sectarian but that affected virtually everyone involved and seems a weak justification for adding people to the religion categories. Valenciano 21:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. I'd be happy for the category to be added, providing a source that shows he was notable for his religion to be provided, as it's clear he was notable for being a hunger striker and an MP. One Night In Hackney303 21:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Haha, I've already provided a source! gaillimhConas tá tú? 21:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Not in my opinion, especially taking into account the comments from Valenciano and Sam Blacketer. One Night In Hackney303 21:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not a matter of opinion, you see. I provided a source, haha. That's pretty straightforward, innit? gaillimhConas tá tú? 21:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Not if, in my opinion, the source doesn't show he's notable for his religion. Also, please moderate your mocking tone. One Night In Hackney303 21:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Gallimh your source above states "[Sands] always had an interest in Irish history and when the Civil Rights Movement burst on the streets in 1968 the reaction of the RUC to peaceful protest evoked a nationalist response in the hearts of most Catholic youths." This seems to imply that Sands got involved because of the heavy handed RUC reaction to the Civil Rights Movement, a movement which, while mostly catholic, did after all contain protestants. That he got involved because of "oppression of catholics" seems to be your interpretation of the quote which I don't agree with, sorry. Valenciano 22:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(Resetting Indent)(DAMN EDIT CONFLICTS) - I'm a nosy third party. I jsut read through all this talk, and the AN/I.

  • Gailliamh's source, Gerry Adams, Does make me think it's worth a lot further discussion about his inclusion.
  • The IP that keeps trying to make this content dispute into a fistfight ought to be blocked for his continued incivility.
  • I, as a thoroughly disinterested party (and frankly, UNinterested beyond the academia of it on wikipedia), would like someone to provide sources that the catholicism is important, outside of allied sourced. Sorry, Gailliamh, but I see Gerry Adams, as an ideological ally, as a reliable source about the EVENTS he writes about, esp. his side's perspectives, public and private about them, but I think his characterizations of allies, esp. those who could bee seen as 'martyrs', can be expected to be biased toward praise. If more external sources, like say... british articles about the hunger strike? Wire reports internationally? Neutral or opposition authors of histories? (that's jsut three examples) if you can find such sources backing it up, I think it would be hard to argue it, and I'd back you up. And I would further say that it would have to be something like 'Sands, a proud/fervent/devout catholic is on a hunger strike to protest catholic persecutions' would suffice for me.
  • To balance, if the distaff can find articles of the time, or in histories, which suitably emphasize his 'Irish republican-ness' as his driving force, that might help to defuse the ideas.

by full disclaimer, I'm a thoroughly NON-Irish guy in America. I have no ancestors closer than three generations from Scotland OR England. I am not an Admin. I am not a member of any Wikiproject or Wikiteam about conflict/content dispute resolutions, nor am I part of any of the cabals. I just watch AN/I and stick my big nose in where it doesn't belong. That's it. I will look in again, and I've got a tlak page. If you'd prefer I go away, let me know, I'll remove this. ThuranX 22:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Haha, not at all mate! Thanks for spending some of your valuable time to help resolve this. I have made an attempt at compromise below, so feel free to check that out, as well. Thanks again! gaillimhConas tá tú? 22:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


As an attempt at compromise, I made a recent edit (see here) highlighting Sands' Catholicism, which I'm surprised wasn't even mentioned in the article. I've provided both a secondary and primary source and can add more if necessary. As it's now already mentioned in the body of the article, the category seems less relevant. Does this suffice? gaillimhConas tá tú? 22:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing he was a Catholic, simply providing a source that shows he was does not address the reasons being stated as to why he doesn't go in the category. One Night In Hackney303 22:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, well apparently someone was disputing that he was a Catholic (no one here), as evidenced by a recent version of this article which said it was "unclear." We are in agreement, then, that this version of the article is OK with regards to his being a member of the Church? gaillimhConas tá tú? 22:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Well the article makes it clear he was born into a Catholic family, but I don't see that as enough to put him in the category per the criteria on parent category page. One Night In Hackney303 22:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Alright, sounds good! While I disagree with your and Mr. Blacketer's rationale, I'm fine with the category not being applied here. Cheers mate gaillimhConas tá tú? 22:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
OK. I never had any objection to him being described as Catholic in the article (and I'm surprised it wasn't there already), just that categories shouldn't really be used as "badges of identification". As I said above if we categorise everyone simply based on their religion the categories are no use for navigation. And I'm still not averse to Bobby going in the category, providing it can be demonstrated that he meets the criteria. One Night In Hackney303 22:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

One Night In Hackney, to prove that you aren't just anti-Irish, go to the Cho Seung-hui article and remove the Category:South Korean Christians, Cho Seung-hui surely has less reason to be categorized by religion than Bobby Sands. So go remove that category, show that you aren't just racist towards Irish people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby Sands man (talkcontribs) 23:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sir, I suggest you curb your attitude. Remember, if you will, please, to assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors. One Night In Hackney is no more "racist" (an inaccurate term, at best, as the Irish are not a race, they are a people), than (I assume) you are. Your accusations are unsupportable by the facts, and are inappropriate. I will thank you to remain civil. ---Cathal 03:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Two blocks to date haven't stopped his baseless accusations, so polite requests won't either. I don't consider it my job to make sure every article on Wikipedia is correctly categorised, but I will try and make sure the articles I take an interest in are correctly categorised. If you feel Cho Seung-hui should not be in that category, then...
Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). One Night In Hackney303 07:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Two blocks to date haven't stopped his baseless accusations, so polite requests won't either. Well, no one will ever say that I did not try. I rather suspected I was/am wasting my breath. ---Cathal 15:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If Bobby Sands Wasn't Catholic....

You never would have heard of him. Had he been Protestant, he would be loyal to England, if he was any other religion, he would not have cared. Bobby Sands believed what he did, did what he did, because he was an Irish Catholic and it was the Irish Catholics who were being oppressed. Refusing to acknowledge that Bobby Sands was an Irish Roman Catholic is like refusing to acknowledge that Malcolm X was a African-American Muslim. Bobby Sands man 23:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This comparison is not apt, and is inaccurate. Malcolm X was a member, indeed, a high-ranking member, of the Nation of Islam, and it was in that capacity that he became famous (or infamous). The church for which he was a spokesman was heavily involved in the politics of its day, and it was in that role that he became a political activist and a thorn in the side of the powers-that-be. One cannot make a direct analogy between the Nation of Islam and the Irish Republican Army, nor can one make a direct analogy between Malcolm's role in the former and Bobby's role in the latter. Sands was not a member of a Catholic organization, per se. If Bobby had been a member of Opus Dei or, even, the Knights of Columbus, and had earned the wrath of the English gov't. for that reason, and in his role as a member of said organization, it would be a different matter. Indeed, my understanding is that the Catholic Church in Ireland had, on numerous occasions, condemned the Irish Republican Army. Bobby died because he was an Irish Republican, not because he was a Catholic. Malcolm died because he was an African-American and a Black Muslim. ---Cathal 04:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
So, you've never heard of Roy Johnston, who played a significant role in the direction of the IRA pre-1969 split and the civil rights movement, or senior IRA member Ivor Bell, both of whom happened to be Protestants? One Night In Hackney303 15:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Cathel, one thing you ignore and One Night In Hackney has never been able to explain is why Bobby Sands and other Irish Republicans are the only people with pages on Wikipedia where this rule applies to. They are the only pages where factual informaiton is being left out. Cathel, you cannot deny that One Night In Hacknkey is targeting Irish Republican Catholics. You don't see him removing Jewish categories from any other pages, and there are many people in Jewish categories who are not notable for being Jewish. So then why does this rule only apply to Irish Republican Catholics? And of course, the church will condemn any form of violence. Mainstream Muslims leaders also condemn terrorism, does not mean Islamic terrorists should not be in Muslim categories? By your logic, yes. So if I start removing terrorists from Muslim categories, I can count on you to back me up when a person readds the categories? Bobby Sands man 03:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Cathel, Bobby Sands did not die because he was an Irish-language activist, so why don't you go ahead and remove that category too? Bobby Sands man 03:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The obvious whole in your argument is that Islamic opperative are mainly fighting in that what they say is the name of "Islam" - therefore to describe their identity as being muslim is natural. On the other hand Sands (a catholic with a protestant name!) never fought in the name of Catholisism - therefore to categorise him as Catholic could be questionable. I could be swayed in this argument either way as I can see both points, however BS man you are going to about this discussion in entirely the wrong way.--Vintagekits 08:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Vintagekite, what you or nobody has never been able to explain is why Irish Republican Catholics go by a different set of standards than the rest of Wikipedia. John Edwards is in the English-American category, as well as the University of North Carolina alumni category, and the Podcaster category. But John Edwards is not notable for being an English-American, or for being a UNC alum, or a podcaster. John Edwards is only a notable English-American, UNC alum, and podcaster. If you applied the same standrard to John Edwards article that you have set for articles about Irish Republicans, then John Edwards should not be in any of those categories. Yet, we don't see One Night In Hackney removing content from articles about Irish Republicans. Bobby Sands man 01:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I refer you to my comments above. Also, you didn't answer my quesion about Protestant IRA members, perhaps you'd like to do it now? Perhaps you'd like to comment on Ronnie Bunting, the Protestant who was a founder member of the Irish National Liberation Army as well? One Night In Hackney303 09:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
This isn't about Protestant IRA members. This is about YOU removing content from wikipedia and applying different set of standards to Irish Republicans than anyone else with a page on wikipedia. You are only bringing up the case of Protestant IRA members to divert attention away from the real quesiton of why Irish Republican pages should go by a different standard than the rest of wikipedia, and you have never explained this and bringing up irrelevant information won't explain it. Bobby Sands man 20:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
BS, like I said - please provide evidence that Bobby identified himself as Catholic or was a member of a Catholic organisation such of the AOH or Legion of Mary or Opus. regards--Vintagekits 20:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I've already answered that question above, but in case you missed it I'll answer it again and expand on it. I make sure the articles I have an interest in are correctly categorised, I don't have the time or energy to make sure every article on Wikipedia is correctly categorised, my time is spent more constructively doing other things. Also this is very much about Protestant Irish republicans, given the title of this section is If Bobby Sands Wasn't Catholic.... and you asserted that if Bobby was a Protestant "he would be loyal to England", which shows a total lack of understanding of Irish republicanism. One Night In Hackney303 05:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Hackney, it's looks like someone around here is totally confused and has mixed up Catholic and Nationalist, and Protestant and Unionist. Like they're synonymous or something. One teensy example; Dick Warner. He refers to himself as a "Protestant Nationalist". Oops - theory broken :) - Alison 05:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ronnie Bunting should be in a protestant category. Bobby Sands man 18:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits, if Sands was a member of the AOH, Legion of Mary, or Opus, that would mean he was a member of the AOH, Legion of Mary, or Opus, and should be in a category for that if he was. But I am not saying he was a member of any of those organizations. He was a member of the Roman Catholic Church, and should be in a category for that. One Night In Hackney claims to have answered my quesiton, but still has yet to give a reason for why content should be removed from articles about Irish Republicans, when done anywhere else on wikipedia, what One Night In Hackney is doing would be considered vandalism. Bobby Sands man 18:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

One Night In Hackney, for example, please see the John Edwards article, and please back me up in the categories I am removing from his page that he is not notable for. Bobby Sands man 18:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have explained more than once why I remove categories (not content) from articles about Irish republicans and not other articles, I do not have the time or energy to ensure every article on Wikipedia is correctly categories only the articles I take an interest in.
I have looked at John Edwards, and restored the categories you incorrectly removed. Not one of the categories states that a personal must be notable for that reason to go in a category therefore your rationale for removing them was incorrect. If you have a problem with criteria for inclusion in the Catholic categories then this is not the correct place to discuss the matter, and I now consider this discussion closed. One Night In Hackney303 14:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of the term "The Troubles"

This is a local term. Given that wikipedia is obviously global, wouldn't a phrase such as "Conflict" be more appropriate for general use in articles like this, along with an introductory note to introduce the local term, with the appropriate link to the "Troubles" article? Aside from style, use of the local term may also lead some readers to believe this article is being maintained by partisan writers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

No, "the Troubles" is used frequently, and in a much wider context than simply in the north of Ireland. I remember hearing the term as a kid on the nightly news here in the States. It is not considered a "partisan" term by anyone of whom I am aware, and I have heard it used by people on both sides of the issue, as well as by people who have no more than a passing interest in Irish history. ---Cathal 02:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Cathal, are you still in the US? Is it still the most commonly used term in media over there? (By the way I was meaning that it could suggest partisan writing, not that it was a partisan term in itself, but that's an aside). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
Yes, I am still in the US (unfortunately). It is not used all that much anymore, but then the assumption here is that "the Troubles" are over. But, yes, it is used more than any other term or set to terms. ---Cathal 23:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Cathal, I've just done a search on Google News "Northern Ireland" + Conflict, and the same but with "Troubles". The former has 1600+ articles, the latter 600 or so. So - using that source at least - it suggests that in contemporary 'conventional' journalism, conflict is the more common term. I will admit though that here on Wiki it is always the "The Troubles" that is used, and if that term is the preferred one by the writers (who will inherently be local, because that's where the knowledge is), then I'm probably unlikely to persuade such a large body to use a more generic term. Hey ho! It's small beer in the grand scheme of things.
The Troubles is the term used in many places, not just locally. A search for "conflict" is bound to produce more search results as it is a generic term. The British government has never officially classed the problems in Northern Ireland as a conflict, as to do so would legitimise the objectives and actions of the IRA and give them the very status they seen to attain by use of terror. One Night In Hackney303 14:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Which in a sense furthers my point. That if one was writing for general consumption, one would use the terms most familiar to the reader. What any interested party did or didn't call it is kind of irrelevent - except to recognise such terms or "non terms" exist. My point is that in a perhaps idealised world of community journalism, we write for the reader, not for ourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulo999 (talkcontribs)
Sorry, but it doesn't further your point at all. The Troubles is the familiar term, not conflict. Conflict is a loaded term that ignores the complex situation. One Night In Hackney303 11:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Troubles is the familiar term, locally, sure. Conflict is more commonly used, based on google news.

IRA activity

Reading through the article again with the purpose of making improvements, I came across the following in the section on IRA activity:

After the bombing, Sands and at least five others in the bomb team were allegedly involved in a gun battle with the police, although he was also never convicted of this for lack of evidence. Abandoning two of their wounded friends, Seamus Martin and Gabriel Corbett, Sands with Joe McDonnell, Seamus Finucane and Sean Lavery tried to escape in a car, but were caught. One of the revolvers used in the robbery was found in the car in which Sands was travelling.

I cannot follow what is being described here. First of all, when it says "after the bombing," how soon after the bombing are we talking about? Later the same day? A month later? The whole sentence should be rewritten for clarity. But, what really puzzles me is the final sentence with its reference to "revolvers used in the robbery" though no robbery is ever mentioned in the preceding sentences. I can rewrite all of this, but only if I have the correct information. ---Cathal 04:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It was a bombing, not a robbery. I've clarified that and added a cite. Sourcing is something that needs looking at, as the more partisan sources can be replaced by more neutral and reliable ones. One Night In Hackney303 10:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


Does anybody know how much Bobby weighed when he started his hunger strike and how much he weighed when he died? Thanks. 09:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


This page is assiduosly patrolled by those with a republican bias which makes objectivity difficult. Can someone explain the resistance to the category - Criminals who committeed suicide? Sands was foumnd guilty of a crime by a legitimate court; he was, therefore, a criminal. He chose not to eat and starved to death; he was, therefore, a suicide. QED. For those concerned that I might tarnish the reputation of Sands, reflect obn the wikipedia page for suicide particularly Dutiful Suicide. It can be a noble thing. I am a weel-informed Brit saddened by the Troubles and with no axe to grind. I will now be shouted down by a co-ordinated cabal who brook no disagreement, Bring it on. --MJB 08:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability, and probably WP:Civil while you're at it please. Do you have any sources (and not just Thatcher saying he committed suicide) to back up your suicide claim? Brixton Busters 08:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A reference - "Starved themselves [hunger strikers] to death"BBC

I was thinking of something more official. I've done some research myself. See here, in particular the footnote. The cause of death on the medical certificates was "starvation", and the coroner's verdict was "starvation, self imposed". Thaat may well mean suicide, but it's an assumption we should not make. If the coroner had specifically said suicide that would be one thing, but he/she didn't. Also worth looking at is this, in particular the "Neglect" section. And please read the section thoroughly before dismissing what I've just said, in particular the last paragraph of the section. The fact is the the coroner did not return a "black and white" verdict of suicide, so it should be treated as such especially considering the medicial certificates. Brixton Busters 08:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that most would agree that "Starvation;self imposed" is suicide. I read the article which appears to be a reflection on catholic attitides to suicide; interesting but not germane. I acknowledge that Coroners can be challenged but this inquest was not challenged so such speculation is not relevant. Finally, I do not have an authority for this but Death Certificates (is that what you mean by Medical Cert.?) give a cause of death (e.g. asphyxiation) not the reason (e.g. murder). Thank you for engaging so intelligently. --MJB 08:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not consider the article to be that relevant, but the information contained in the footnote is as it is verifiable information rather than the opinion of a newspaper columnist, academic, politician, Republican activist and so on. The footnote says the cause of death on the medical (death?) certificate was starvation, and that the coroner's verdict was "starvation, self imposed". I still believe in the absence of a "black and white" coroner's verdict of suicide we should refrain from adding the category, especially as it is a contentious one. Brixton Busters 09:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

POW Status

I have removed the POW category for the following reason: We have reliable sources that say "'special category' status... priviledges were a recognition of their 'prisoner of war' status [4] and "What Special Category Status actually entailed was that prisoners had de facto prisoner of war status". [5] These both explicitly link POW status to SCS status. But this was restricted to prisoners in certain prisons for a specific period of time. Sands did not have SCS status. Indeed the article iself states that the whole point of the hunger strike was to acheive that status. So perhaps there is an argument that Sands et al meet the criteria set out in various international conventions?

Notwithstanding this argument flirts with WP:OR, the issue is comprehensively addressed by Walker, C.P., a scholar, in Irish republican prisoners—political detainees, prisoners of war or common criminals? Irish Jurist, 1984, 19, 189-225. There is a detailed analyses addressing the basis on which IRA members could be POWs in his chapter VII Claims to prisoner-of-war status under the rules of armed conflict. This chapter addresses claims under both Article 2 and Article 4 of Geneva III, ("The overwhelming liklihood is that terrorists belonging to the IRA fail to qualify for the privileges granted to POWs under Geneva III," pg 211) and Protocol I of 1977, Article 1.4 ("Article 1.4 does not cover the activities of the IRA," pg 219) and Part III, section II ("Provisions of the Protocol forbid attacks, 'the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population;, and such activity may be dealt with by criminal prosecution," pg 220). The conclusion of this study is that, "There seems to be an abundance of evidence to suggest that claims that groups of terrorists be treated as prisoners-of-war under the Law Of Geneva would fail. The European Commission in McFeely and others v UK draws the same conclusion...that the IRA has not attempted to give the declaration under Article 96 of Protocol I, which would be necessary if it seriously claimed that the protocol was applicable," (pg 221) He also goes on to state explicitly that "Prisoner of war status [is] not available to IRA prisoners languishing in UK prisons" and finishes on a note that "It may be concluded that the choice of the tactic of terrorism leaves a rebel group largely outside the Laws of Geneva. Most important of all, claims to prisoner-of-war status are without substance [in international law]" (pg 225). This summary of the sources appear to be very clear on the subject. SCS status was granted by the UK government for political reasons, and this approximated to POW status for all intents and purposes. However, outwith those that were given this status, the independent sources provide no support that IRA prisoners are afforded POW status, or that they had a valid claim under the appropriate conventions. If someone has reliable sources to explicitly counter this, either with regards to Sands or non-SCS prisoners in general, then please provide them, but until then the POW cat should remain removed per WP:V; it is unverified by a reliable, independent source. Rockpocket 01:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"Sands did not have SCS status" - yes he did. He was initally imprisoned in 1973, and had SCS. Scalpfarmer 07:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
My apologies. Thank you for pointing that out. I will add him to the appropriate cat. Rockpocket 07:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Political impact

Most of this section is unsourced, and the "Time" reference most definitely does not source the majority of the text being added. Tagged as original research. Brixton Busters 14:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Logistic is a good editor but seems to be pushing a POV recently on this article.--Vintagekits 14:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The Time article is referencing the fact that Paisley held a memorial outside of Belfast City Hall on the day of the funeral. What's the problem. I do not think it is POV - can you examplain how? I am attempting to balance the pro-Republican bias that this page blatently has. How can we ignore the reactions of Unionists yet write so much about pro-Republican reactions??? Logoistic 14:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I was just writing up a detailed reasoning. "On the other hand, many Unionists in the Unionist majority in Northern Ireland tended to regard Sands and the hunger strikers as part of the campaign to coerce the British government into actions that could not be gained democratically" - the Time article does not say that. "For example, on the day of Sands' funeral, Unionist leader Ian Paisley sought to make the link..." - where in the article does it say he sought to make a link. All the Time article says is that he held a memorial service the same day as Sands' funeral, any claim of a link is original research as the Time article does not say that. Brixton Busters 14:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
During the Hunger strike the UDA prisoners in the Kesh issued a statement backing the five demands of the Hunger strikers, so the claim that Unionist/Loyalists didn't support the hunger strikers is wrong as some sections of that community did, as they knew that any demands granted by the British government would also benefit their prisoners as well.--padraig 14:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Point taken: but surely we all know why he held this memorial on the day of Sand's funeral - linking the IRA and their killings to Sands. We can agree it was more than just coincidental, right? Logoistic 14:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Ian Paisley always loved playing to the media, his memorial service was just a attempt to try and divert media attention away from Sands funeral which was a big news story worldwide.--padraig 14:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to be off for a while, but surely we all agree that Paisley's memorial represents the expression of some unionists that Sands' hunger strike should be directly linked to the killings that the IRA. I suppose we could find a reference somewhere, but then, isn't this stating the obvious? Do we need a reference to say that the locating of the Brighton Bomb was not just coincidental with where Thatcher was staying? All in all, I'm just trying to get balance into the article! Logoistic 15:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I have nothing against the introduction of properly sourced content for the sake of balance. However the first sentence was not sourced by the Time article, and speculating as to the reasoning behind Paisley's service is original research. Is it not enough to say he held the service on the same day, and let the reader draw their own conclusion? I do not agree with your claim that's Paisley's memorial represents anything for those reasons. If reliable sources have drawn those conclusions they should be cited, if not we should not guess. Brixton Busters 15:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, add factual information that is referenced, but do not editorialise and interpret what you think others are says - if you need to read further I suggest WP:OR.--Vintagekits 15:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I can't find any article that discusses this that is free to view over the internet. Therefore I propose to indicate that there was at least concern that there could be a unionist reaction against the hunger strike (the Time article supports this), and then I'll put in about Paisley's memorial. I'll change it accordingly. Logoistic 20:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

death of milkman

ONiH, you should have opened a discussion here. The sources DO say that, your edit can clearly be seen as POV - the rioters cause the deaths of those two people, their deaths were as a direct result of rioters.Traditional unionist 21:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No they do not, not in the way you phrased it. I suggest you stop adding your own opinions and stick to what the sources actually say. One Night In Hackney303 21:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so you are saying that the rioters did not cause the deaths of those people?Traditional unionist 21:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm sticking to what the sources say.
First source

Died three days after milk delivery lorry he was travelling in, crashed into lamp post after coming under missile attack thrown from crowd, at the junction of New Lodge Road and Antrim Road, Belfast. His father also died on 13 May 1981 as a result of the crash on 5 May 1981.

Second source

Eric Guiney (45) and his son Desmond Guiney (14), both Protestant civilians, died three days after their milk lorry crashed following an incident in which it was stoned by a crowd of people at the junction of New Lodge Road and Antrim Road in Belfast.

My wording reflects what the sources say, yours didn't. One Night In Hackney303 21:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Are you questioninf that my wording reflected the facts?Traditional unionist 21:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
OneNight - what is wrong with the way that this was phrased? The edit was:
'Three weeks later, Bobby Sands MP died from starvation in the prison hospital after 66 days of hunger-striking, aged 27. The announcement of his death prompted several days of riots in nationalist areas of Northern Ireland. A milkman and his son died in west Belfast after their milk float crashed after being stoned by rioters'
Are you denying that the crowd had nothing to do with the death of Sands? What is your problem here?? Logoistic 21:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
My wording sticks strictly to what the sources say, so does not introduce any bias or POV. Yours was your own interpretation of events that the sources do not say. Stick to what the sources say, and let the reader draw their own conclusions not make them on their behalf. Logoistic, that is the wording I changed it to, please see the previous version. One Night In Hackney303 21:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
They didn't actually die in West Belfast (unless it was in the Royal Hospital) so I've edited the article again, with more references, cant do the referencing properly im afriad.Traditional unionist 21:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there ANY credible argument that the rioters weren't Nationalist?!?Traditional unionist 21:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there a source that specifically says they were? Again, please stop adding your own opinion and stick to exactly what the sources say. One Night In Hackney303 22:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
We don't need a source to tell us that people living in Nationalist areas in 1981 were Nationalist, we also don't need a source to tell us that those rioting about the death of an IRA man were nationalist.Traditional unionist 22:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes you do. Loyalists have frequently rioted in nationalist areas, after all that's what kicked off the Troubles in the first place. One Night In Hackney303 22:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to suggest that the rioters were loyalist? Sources?Traditional unionist 22:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. I suppose your wording is best, although it's still a fact that they were responsbile for the deaths. I agree with TU that it's not a huge jump to say they were nationalists. "Roberta Guiney, whose husband and son were killed in riots sparked by Sands's death" - from Surely the deductive leap is small enough to assume that these were nationalists? Logoistic 22:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Burden of evidence is on you. You need to prove they were nationalist, I don't need to disprove it. Just because the riot was in a nationalist area does not mean they were nationalist. Find a source that explicitly says it please. One Night In Hackney303 22:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Why is it one me? You reverted my edit, where is your supporting evidence?Traditional unionist 22:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Burden of evidence is on the editor that adds material, not the one that removes it. The word is redundant anyway. The sentence before says the riots were in nationalist areas, then says rioters in the next. The reader will draw that inevitable conclusion anyway, without the redundant word. One Night In Hackney303 22:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats the way it works Traditional unionist, you must be able to back up your edits with references. --Domer48 22:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Burden is not on TU, OneNight. In the same way that it is safe to assume rioters in France were "French", unless you have good resaon to think they're not, then we can assume they were nationalist. Logoistic 22:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
ONiH is suggesting they were loyalist, but without evidence.Traditional unionist 22:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
And it's not redundant, the previous sentence is about a generality, the deats of the guiney's is a specific.Traditional unionist 22:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with TU over evidence for loyalist riots. OneNight, you must have resonable doubt here. You say that Loyalists have frequently invaded nationalist areas. However, do you have evidence that loyalists rioted in reaction (direct or indirect) to the death of Sands? Logoistic 22:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You need to prove they were nationalist, with references which state that. You can not just assume they were can you? --Domer48 22:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

People in the New Lodge, in 1981, rioting in the wake of Bobby sands death.....I think we can to be honestTraditional unionist 22:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

And were is the reference? So everyone knows were the New Lodge is? --Domer48 22:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

New Lodge, Belfast 97% catholic.....Traditional unionist 22:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't need to source anything. You're adding logical deductions rather than sticking to what the sources say. One Night In Hackney303 22:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It is ridiculous to say you need a reference if there is no resonable doubt they were not nationalist. I can also find no reference to say these rioters were human beings, therefore I think the term "entities" is more appropriate... Logoistic 22:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not OR to say that rioters in the New Lodge after Sands died were Nationalists! The New Lidge ain't even an enclave!Traditional unionist 22:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The sources say rioters in a nationalist area, as does the article. You're making deductions on behalf of the reader, it's the reader's job to make their own deductions. One Night In Hackney303 22:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
OneNight, yes the burden is on the editor including the information, but there must be a resonable challenge made to this (see Wikipedia: verifiability). If you do not have resonable doubt, then you cannot expect a reference. Personally though, for the sake of our sanity, I think we can let the reader make this deductive leap as OneNight says. Logoistic 22:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
There is actually no encyclopedic reason not to include the info. ONiH seems to have dropped the suggestion that they were loyalist. The previous sentence is in generalities, it is useful to someone with no knowledge of Northern Ireland to make the point that the rioters were nationalists rioting as a result of Sand's death.Traditional unionist 22:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Let the reader come to their onw conclusions, don't be doing the thinking for them. Please use references not opinions."it is useful to someone with no knowledge of Northern Ireland to make the point that the rioters were nationalists rioting" So your just leading the reader, not with references though --Domer48 22:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There is actually no encyclopedic reason not to include the info. ONiH seems to have dropped the suggestion that they were loyalist. The previous sentence is in generalities, it is useful to someone with no knowledge of Northern Ireland to make the point that the rioters were nationalists rioting as a result of Sand's death.Traditional unionist 22:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, TU, saying that there were riots in nationalist areas is probably better since it avoids Wikipedia having to make the deductive leap. Even though it seems blatently obvious, it is probably better to avoid even risking this small bit of doubt since at the end of the day the reader is still going to come away with the same idea. We still have to remember in future that there must be resonable doubt, however - we can't challenge every single 'fact' we see just for the sake of it. Logoistic 22:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
My position is that I object, in particular to articles about the Troubles, to a 2+2=5 approach. To avoid any possible POV or bias, we should always stick to exactly what the sources say and not embellish them in any way. It worked fine with the first version, why is it being objected to now? One Night In Hackney303 22:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you still saying that the rioters were loyalist? Have you any evidence of this? It is useful for readers with no understanding of the matter to have it explained what the dynamics were. It is useful to know why the people were rioting, and the political position outlines this.Traditional unionist 22:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I repeat my previous point. One Night In Hackney303 22:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Traditional unionist, both Logoistic and One Night In Hackney303 are making sence. Stick to exactly what the sources say and we will not have a problem. Its not our role to "explained what the dynamics were." --Domer48 23:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That is quite right Domer, expect that the dynamics are so face slappingly obvious that we aren't intrepretrating anything that a chimp educated in northern ireland couldn't. Yet it is clearly useful to someone with no knowledge of the events to know that.Traditional unionist 23:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case why do you feel the need to be the one to spell it out. You cannot be the one to spell out "what the dynamics were." Can you not see that. --Domer48 23:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

But why not? This debate is over the addition of one word, one word that cannot reasonably be disputed.Traditional unionist 23:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
One unsourced word. One Night In Hackney303 23:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
A word based on a reasonable extension of a source, which you removed for an unsubstantiated claim.Traditional unionist 23:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

A word based on an "extension of a source" which you added. You are adding material which is not in the source. Can you not see how you can not do that. It is not just me saying this! Please stick with the sources. --Domer48 23:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the rioters were not nationalist?Traditional unionist 23:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
This is getting into the philosophy of science, now. As a fundamental principle not everything added to Wikipedia must be sourced, otherwise you question every little piece of info on there (e.g. sources that the rioters were human beings, sources that they were actually rioting, sources that this actually happened on planet Earth). Wikipedia: verifiability makes it quite clear that something needs to be sourced only if it is, or is likely to be, challenged. And being challenged means someone must suspect that the statement may not be true. To do so they must have reasonable doubt. We do this all the time instinctively. OneNight actually worked along these lines by suggesting in an edit summary that Loyalists have frequently rioted in nationalist areas. This is his expression of doubt. However, this doesn't explain why Loyalists might be rioting in reaction to the death of Sands. In short, I don't think there is resonable doubt here. However because the reader probably naturally makes the inference that rioting in nationalist areas in reaciton to Sands' death means that these people are nationalists, it is safer to avoid making the deductive leap entirely. However, this still does not change the principal that it is up to OneNight and Domer to provide sufficient resonable doubt. Logoistic 10:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
You don't think Loyalists would be on the streets following the death of Sands? Really? Honestly? You do realise that Republicans were rioting all over Belfast, do you think that the Loyalists just sat in their houses and left their streets unguarded? It would be a first if it did happen, I can assure you. The burden of evidence is on the editor that adds material. I've challenged the material as I'm well within my rights to do so. One Night In Hackney303 10:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there evidence that they didn't just sit in their houses? I seem to remember references to a "timebomb" of potential reactions from loyalists, or just unionists in general. Otherwise you are performing just as much original research to come up with your resonable doubt. Logoistic 10:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Only about 12 years of evidence. One Night In Hackney303 10:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
To borrow a phrase from you, sources please. You have no evidence that there is reasonable doubt that the rioters were nationalists.Traditional unionist 11:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes I do, the source doesn't say they were. One Night In Hackney303 11:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
But it says that it was in Nationalist areas, which would make it highly noteworthy to say so if the rioters were loyalists, making it reasonable to assume that they weren't.Traditional unionist 11:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
You're going back to 2+2=5. The only way to avoid POV on articles (and this applies to both "sides" of the Troubles) is to stick to what the sources say. One Night In Hackney303 11:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
So you accept that it is reasonable to say that they were nationalist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Traditional unionist (talkcontribs) 11:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Show me a source that says it. Until then, there is nothing more to discuss. One Night In Hackney303 11:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. You can't legitimately challenge that the rioters were nationalist. There is no reasonable doubt until you provide evidence.
I refer you to my previous point. One Night In Hackney303 19:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Which are also nonsense. Where is the reasonable doubt?Traditional unionist 19:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
See above. No further replies will be forthcoming until sources are produced. One Night In Hackney303 19:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone else reading this please give some input - there is no reasonable doubt that the rioters were nationalist, the information that they were is useful and verifiable, therefore it should be included.Traditional unionist 22:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean not nationalist, surely. Logoistic 23:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
That depends on how good my grammar is. There is no reasonable doubt over the assumption that the rioters were nationalist.Traditional unionist 23:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
If there's no doubt, why do none of the sources say it? One Night In Hackney303 00:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The entry for Desmond Guiney in Lost Lives states: The schoolboy died after a mob on the New Lodge Road stoned his father's milk lorry in rioting which followed the death of hunger striker Bobby Sands. The vehicle went out of control in a hail of missles and crashed into a lamppost. The boys father, Eric died on May 13 from the injuries he recieved..--padraig 10:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
No mention of the mod being loyalist, which would be positively noteworthy in the New Lodge. The omission of the information confirms that they were nationalist.Traditional unionist 10:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't follow your logic on that, your saying because they don't mention that the mod is Loyalist then they have to be Nationalist, surely that applies both ways, no mention of the mod being nationalist could also imply they where Loyalist using your logic. The fact that there is no evidence of the origin of the mod on either side, then it should not be implied, and we just stick to the fact mentioned in sources.--padraig 11:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not up to editors to make jumps of logic about who the mob where. Of course it is likely they where nationalist but I feel you would need to find a source that says this. Educated guesses are still only guesses not fact. BigDunc 15:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


Lets start working together instead of against each other. I'm going to look this over. I strongly suggest any edit warring cease on the main article. I'm willing to provide a pass for up to now, but any further, and there will be consequences.

Remember, we're not writing for people who know the situation, we need to assume that folks know nothing about the situation. About sourcing.. usually the rule is "The person who wants to put a word/phrase/sentence in has the burden of proof to source it if challenged". I need to look it over before I say yay or nay on this. SirFozzie 00:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected - Yet another pointless edit-war here. Article fully protected now. Please keep the discussion going here and let me know when you're ready to agree - Alison 00:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok.... Lets see if we can come up with a way to fix this argument, so I can remove the protection. ONiH is fundamentally correct in his statement that information needs to be sourced if contentous. From what I understand from the discussion that I scanned over.. it's pretty obvious that the deaths occured in what would be called "nationalist" areas of the city.. I don't think either side disagrees with that, right?

While we look for a source that will back up the claim that it was loyalists nationalist who were responsible for the deaths, perhaps you guys can work something to that effect that we can put it in the article? SirFozzie 00:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You meant nationalist not loyalist. One Night In Hackney303 00:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. I just woke up, so forgive me. SirFozzie 00:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
We've already got that the deaths occurred during riots in nationalist areas, and that rioters threw bricks at their vehicle. I think it's a whole lot of drama for a needless qualifier. One Night In Hackney303 00:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm done on this for tonight, save to say, is it really necessary to protect the article? I made an edit, ONiH reverted it on dubious grounds, but there have been no edits to the article in the 90 minutes since despite this conversation.Traditional unionist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Traditional unionist (talkcontribs) 01:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

TU, I think it is best to just drop it. As I have said, people will get the same idea regardless, and it stops Wikipedia making a deductive leap, no matter how obvious it seems. Logoistic 10:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Yet there is no good reason for not adding the information. That is exactly why it SHOULD be added. It is right that if loyalists or nationalists riot, and this causes deaths, that wikipedia should make this clear for those who do not know about the issues. See 1969 Northern Ireland Riots.Traditional unionist 10:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Trad Unionist. You are correct but you will find that well co-ordinated forces are ranged against you. It is OK to list folk songs written in Sands' memory but not to point to other consequences that may besmirch it. Try this Some will criticise the source but are happy to cite --MJB 15:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure given TU's dismissal of other sources as "nationalist propaganda" he wouldn't possibly touch a partisan blog like that with a bargepole. One Night In Hackney303 15:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Loyalist info - different. I hear what you say but sadly CAIN and the major UK & ROI papers aside, NI is a mess of misinformation and you have to take what you can find. I feel for a man _ Trad U - attempting to prove water is wet. You, in your heart know, that after the death of Sands there were no kamikaze Loyalist protests in nationalist areas. They were all at home with Corrie turned up to drown out the crashing bin lids. Quis separabit/Tiocfaidh ár lá/Never Surrender (delete as appropriate). PS ONiH you are a great asset, don't let others drive you away again. --MJB 15:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I know for a fact they were out in force on the Shankill Road. I don't see what the issue is still. Let the reader draw their own conclusion, don't make it for them. And thanks, but it's only temporary :) And also, it was TU that added the link to "phoblacht" in this article. One Night In Hackney303 15:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Traditional unionist to add information it must be cited, verifiable and reliably sourced. Your opinions and views do not constitute verifiable and reliably sourced. You are trying to hold articles to ransom, and it must stop. --Domer48 23:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the mob was nationalist is all of these things.Traditional unionist 23:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Traditional unionist to add information it must be cited, verifiable and reliably sourced. Your opinions and views do not constitute verifiable and reliably sourced. Now either you cite, a verifiable and reliable source, all you have is your opinion, and that dose not cout for nothing. --Domer48 23:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Domer, don't shout the rules at me, I know them. I have also provided sufficient evidence.Traditional unionist 08:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Traditional unionist to add information it must be cited, verifiable and reliably sourced. Your opinions and views do not constitute verifiable and reliably sourced. You "have also provided sufficient evidence," that you do not know the rules. The rules say your opinion dose not come anywhere near verifiable and reliable source, all it is is your POV. --Domer48 11:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't lecture me. The info is referenced and verifiable.Traditional unionist 11:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ye I know, and you are trying to add your POV to it. Which is not referenced. So get a reference, and get back to me. --Domer48 11:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


the term volunteer can imply that what he did was justified and is not NPOV, just as people object to terrorist, others object to volunteer, so i will remove volunteer, feel free to discus it here or on my talk page. thanks.Sennen goroshi 18:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to terrorist, but WP:WTA does. WP:WTA doesn't object to volunteer, and it's the term used by the IRA and indepedent sources. One Night In Hackney303 18:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Im not going to argue with wikipedia consensus, however the fact that the IRA refer to their terrorists as volunteers means nothing to me, I'm sure in their eyes, these murdering bastards are heroic angels.Sennen goroshi 16:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's the term used by indepedent sources also. --Domer48 16:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine that independant sources are merely repeating the term coined by the IRA in the first place. However independant sources also refer to them as terrorists. depends which source you wish to cite. As far as an official British Govt source goes, they are terrorists.Sennen goroshi 17:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

When you provide a verifible and relilably sourced reference which says the term Volunteer is not used, we can discuss it further, because your opinion is just not enough. I would suggest you read our policy again, in relation to this issue. --Domer48 19:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that volunteer was not used, what I was saying is that in some cases volunteer is used, and in others terrorist. The UK Govt has constantly refered to them as terrorists - the crimes were committed in UK, and the govt of the UK refered to them as terrorists.

Bobby Sands was a member of the Provisional Irish Republican Army which according to wikipedia was classified by the British Govt as a terrorist group and as an illegal organisation in the Republic of Ireland. Neither the country bobby sands was claiming to protect, nor the country he was operating in, approved of his organisation or refered to him as a volunteer. This is not my personal opinion, my personal opinion would be to call him "a dead terrorist wanker" or something similar. My NPOV conclusion would be to call him a member of the PIRASennen goroshi 05:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sennen goroshi, there is a lot of disputed issues regarding articles related to the Troubles (see here for example), however this isn't really one of them. Unlike "terrorist", the term "volunteer" isn't in itself pejorative or celebratory. It simply describes some one who chooses to commit time and effort to a cause. There could be an argument that the Irish Republican use of the term with a capital "V" suggests implicit legitimacy as a military rank, however no-one is arguing that we use the capitalised version in this instance. The other argument is that "member" would be a more neutral alternative, and some articles do use the phrasing " X was a IRA member (volunteer)". However, I think the lead of the volunteer article makes it perfectly clear that it "is a term used by a number of Irish republican paramilitary organisations to describe their members", so as long as it is linked there is no real need for the clarification (in my opinion). Rockpocket 17:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there's been a whole mediation case on this ( see here). The ruling, which has never subsequently been modified, states that the term "member" should be used in the first instance in the article, followed by "volunteer" (usually in brackets). This was the standard practice afterwards, and to be honest, I havn't gone checking for a long time. So I will duly modify the article. Logoistic 23:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
The ruling of a mediation cabal is not permanently binding, and it has been superceded by common sense. Consensus can change, and it has changed. One Night In Hackney303 07:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sands election poster.jpg

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Sands election poster.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Active Service

Changed 'active service' to 'terrorist activity'. The PIRA was (and is) a proscribed terrorist organisation. How exactly was Sands involved in 'active service'? Service to which country? To what head of state? Absolute nonsense.

That is actually not a totally unfair comment. Active service is POV.Traditional unionist 15:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
See WP:NPOV and WP:TERRORIST. One Night In Hackney303 15:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
What is your argument? Why is active service a good term to use?Traditional unionist 16:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to suggest an alternative. One Night In Hackney303 16:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Reengaged with IRA activity seems much less povTraditional unionist 13:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
And also completely misleading. IRA activity didn't stop when someome went to prison. How about "Sands resumed his active role in the IRA's campaign"? One Night In Hackney303 01:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a good neutral alternative. Rockpocket 01:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Active service is fine Traditional unionist wouldnt know NPOV when it comes to Irish nationalist articles (Gnevin 09:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC))
Active service implies something legitimate about his dirty goings on - he was a terrorist who was in prison for a damn good reason. I don't see the need for the word active in that, but otherwise seems ok.Traditional unionist 16:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Active service implies nothing apart from he return to service in an active way , stop trying problem where their are none Gnevin 23:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

He was Active in the sense that Himmler was active or Fred West was active. --MJB 01:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

... or the way you are being actively inflammatory. "Resumed an active role" appears to be a neutral phrasing of what he did, lets go with that. Rockpocket 02:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
How is active service pov ? Apart for Traditional unionist could find offence under rock ,i've never heard anyone have object to this term which is in common usage (Gnevin 21:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC))

I accept that there may be no alternative to Active Service but it is potentially offensive. It is usually used by legitimate Armed Forces and its use by the IRA is an attempt to establish a moral equivalence. In short, the logic is: ". . . although a band of brigands, if we call ourselves Brigadier (albeit with somewhat less than the 5000 troops in a real Brigade) or describe ourselves as an Army then we must be the same as a real Army and every bit as morally legitimate as the armed forces of a democratic state". POV I know but no less correct for being so. --MJB 22:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The term is largely associated with service in military organizations, some may consider our use of the term offers tacit acknowledgment of the paramilitary group's legitimacy as an "army". The alternative phrasing offers the same meaning without such associations, therefore it avoids POV connotations. It is also unhelpful to offer commentary on where you think Traditional unionist may find offence, Gnevin. Comment on content, not on the contributor, remember. Rockpocket 22:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:NPA is fine but Traditional unionist is agenda pushing as he always has,but people with agenda should not start talking about being WP:NPOV
I disagree the use of the term Active service, is not POV, the IRA use the term Active Service Unit to discribe volunteers when engaged in operations, the term is also used by the UVF and other groups, its use can be sourced in many books and online sources.--Padraig 22:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I've reworded it to avoid the pointless squabbling over a single word. One Night In Hackney303 23:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Vague statement

"However, the primary purpose of the exercise was often regarded as an attempt to gain international publicity rather than political prisoner status"

This statement is very Vague.To whom are you refering to when you say "often regarded"? there is a link to the washington post (which can't even be accessed)if this is the only reference,then the statement can hardly be regarded as often. where? when? who? be more specific,otherwise it's not believable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)