While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Correction and Detention FacilitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesTemplate:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesCorrection and Detention Facilities articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Irish republicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish republicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish republicanismIrish republicanism articles
Latest comment: 15 years ago22 comments8 people in discussion
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This article should be called "Special category status". There is no need for the phrase to be written with capitals. Ironically, the three references in the article all support this:
"It should be made absolutely clear that special category prisoners can expect no amnesty and will have to serve their sentences." - http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/hmso/gardiner.htm#1
"In 1972, following a hunger strike and a major campaign by both republican and loyalist prisoners, the then Government granted special category status to prisoners convicted of offences connected to the civil disturbances" - http://www.niprisonservice.gov.uk/index.cfm/area/information/page/The1970
Plus
Flackes & Elliott (1994) Northern Ireland: A Political Directory, p.310 - "At the time there were 545 male special category prisoners. ... The Gardiner committee, in 1975, came out against special category status", et.c.
Bew & Gillespie (1993) Northern Ireland: A Chronology of the Troubles, p. 53 - "Whitelaw conceded 'special category' status".
In 1976, the British government also removed the 'special category' status of paramilitary prisoners. It was therefore a given name. It was a category, and therefore belongs in capitals. I'm not alone in thinking this, there are three editors who disagree with you, and I did seek the advice of an admin here, and I think you will agree it was created and removed by law. --Domer48'fenian'20:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
There are plenty of sources I will provide to prove capitals is correct, this article should not be moved without a proper discussion. O Fenian (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Wise up with your capitalisation obsession. It's unnecessary. It's wrong. It was a government designation, and the Government report does not use capitals. This is turning into a vendetta. Mooretwin (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Looking around there appears to be every combination of caps, no caps, caps on Special and Category, and caps on Special only, in the literature. The BBC seems to switch between caps and no caps:
What a mess. I's suggest going back to the primary source if it is available, and seeing how Whitelaw referred to it, or else simply coming to an agreement on one style, and sticking with it. Rockpocket00:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
In grammatical terms, there's no need for capitals. But the most authoritative source is the Gardiner Report (on CAIN) which doesn't use capitals. Ditto the Prison Service (which actually implemented the status). Mooretwin (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Looking into this further, Hansard documentation appears to (largely, but not almost exclusively) favor the no caps version. [1] Since they document written answers by the Government (i.e. they document how Ministers refer to scs/SCS on paper in response to MP's questions [2]), its probably fair to take the no caps version as the "official" terminology. Rockpocket00:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Lets see what O Fenian can come up with before we decide one way or the other. He says he can prove caps are correct, so perhaps he has the primary source. Rockpocket01:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
I doubt it. If he does, I'll accept it, but I'm quite sure that (a) he doesn't have the primary source and (b) the primary source won't use capitals. Mooretwin (talk) 01:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Comment. Dunc, the discussion above does not seem to support your assertion that it is a "well-established capitalisation scheme". Quite the opposite, in fact. The sources are all over the place, though the ones from the British Government appear to favor no caps. Rockpocket17:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Oppose Dunc this is what I've been saying. It is a proper noun. The fact that Rock was willing to wait till O Fenian got back with additional sources, and this move request was still started is in my opinion indicative of a disruption and confrontational approach which should not be condoned. --Domer48'fenian'17:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately I am presently dealing with a family emergency which may last a day or so, but the sources will be presented in due course. I request no action is taken until I have had time to make my case. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Oppose It is a proper noun referring to a specific legal status. It is not descriptive. Proper nouns are capitalized in English. --Bejnar (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Oppose It is a specific legal status and it is a proper noun. The sources presented by Mooretwin are only those which support his disruptive and incorrect campaign against capitals in a wide number of articles. For example these sources are not mentioned:
Formations of Violence: The Narrative of the Body and Political Terror in Northern Ireland - Allen Feldman (ISBN978-0226240718)
The Cost of Counterterrorism: Power, Politics, and Liberty - Laura K. Donohue (ISBN978-0521844444)
The Troubles: Ireland's Ordeal and the Search for Peace - Tim Pat Coogan (ISBN978-0312294182)
Paramilitary Imprisonment in Northern Ireland: Resistance, Management and Release (Clarendon Studies in Criminology) - Kieran McEvoy (ISBN978-0198299073)
There are dozens more which also use capitals. While Hansard prefers the non-capitalised version, as established in parallel discussions (Area of Oustanding Natural Beauty, Special Protection Area, Site of Special Scientific Interest and so on) this is their standard form, whereas academics use the correct capitalised version to signify a legal status. This can be demonstrated with other terms, such as Category A prisoners, whereas academic sources usually correctly capitalise "Category". Special Category Status was part of the same system of categorising prisoners as Category A, Category B and so on. Similarly with Special Protection Area and other parallel discussions relating to official legal statuses, Hansard does not favour capitalisation whereas virtually all the independent sources do and consensus is overwhelmingly against the moving of that article in the ongoing discussion. Academic sources should be preferred, we should not sacrifice academic integrity based on the style used by typists in the British civil service. This move request is designed solely to allow Mooretwin to "win" the edit war he has engaged in for weeks and weeks now, and serves no other real purpose than to disrupt Wikipedia and to waste time. O Fenian (talk) 11:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Disappointing that this was closed while I was banned. I note that O Fenian failed to provide any primary source, but merely a list of sources to support his view - something which I was accused of! It is clear that there are many variations used for this term, but that the most authoritative sources - government reports and Hansard, i.e. those closest to the primary source - do not use capitals. Mooretwin (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
As usual, you are not listening. There were no such thing as "terrorist crimes" prior to 1974, it was only with the introduction of the Prevention of Terrorism Act in 1974 that the word "terrorism" even existed in British law. O Fenian (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
