Talk:Battle of the Bogside

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Stormont gerrymandering

Removed this line: "This gerrymandering resulted in nationalists, despite being in a majority, returning one candidate from Derry to the Northern Ireland Parliament, while unionists also one." From this map it can be seen that there were two seats for Derry, one for the West Bank and the other for the East Bank. They had similar electorates and in each around 35% went to Labour candidates with the rest going to Nationalist candidates (in Foyle) and Unionist candidates (in City of Londonderry). Gerrymandering at local level? Absolutely. But at Stormont level, with the exception of Fermanagh not that significant as it wasn't necessary to maintain Unionist control given their large majority. Valenciano (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Valenciano, I'm a little concerned about this. Nationalist accounts really stress that gerrymandering in Derry was something they were very concerned about. There were articles calling Derry "Ireland's fascist city" and stuff like that, so I'd want to be really sure before we remove this. I'll go and get some sources and see what I find. Jdorney (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, turns out you're right Valenciano,the problem was in the council, not the Stormont parliament. According to Tim Pat Coogan's, The Troubles, p37-38, Derry's population in 1961 was 53,744, (36,049 Cath, 17,695 Prot), but due to the division of electoral wards, unionists had a majority of 12-8 on the city council, which gave them control over the allocation of public housing and the means to perpetuate the situation. Jdorney (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jdorney. It's a fact that gerrymandering took place at local level but at state level, well, the gerrymandering had already been done when the state was created and thereafter Unionists didn't need to worry about Catholic voting strength. Even in 1973, the first post Stormont election, Nationalists only won 19 out of 78 seats with Unionists winning 50. Consensus in the sources I've seen is that gerrymandering at state level was confined to Fermanagh, where a Nationalist majority won only one of the three seats, and possibly Armagh. Derry city itself was only entitled to 1 and a half seats and the extra voters for the second seat could only come from the nearby Unionist Waterside areas. Consensus is also that the switch from PR to first past the post was aimed at the Northern Ireland Labour Party and Independent Unionists who had gained seats at the 1925, though these are really issues for another article.

As for your edit though, there's a problem since in the UK electoral boundaries were (and still are) drawn on the basis of registered electorates on a fixed date, not on the basis of population, so such an analysis by Coogan ignores the fact that there were more Catholics under the age of 18 and thus isn't really a fair comparison. A comparison of Catholics at voting age would be. The CAIN/John Whyte analysis I posted above gives a better analysis of the situation and I'll add in some of the stuff from that. Valenciano (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I would prefer if the new material were added to the population data rather than replacing it however. Jdorney (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Good work Valenciano, I made a few small edits for format and readability. I always get a little concerned when these articles get too long and detailed. This is actually one of my main concerns with controversial Irish history articles right now. Jdorney (talk) 23:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

O Fenian, the other reversion you did on me jut now in History of NI explains the ratepayer franchise and reveals that the 'fact' you brought back from your reliable source is wrong. At least be discreetly inconsistent. --Fynire (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Londonderry v. Derry

The correct legal name of the city is "Londonderry". Derry is commonly used by nationalists and perhaps it is advisable for someone to add "/Derry" everywhere Londonderry is mentioned. However, to remove the name 'Londonderry' all together, appears to be a biased attempt to erase the non-Irish republican Protestant Ulster-Scots heritage in Northern Ireland in an attempt at historical cyber ethnic cleansing. Only the City council is correctly referred to as "Derry". —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndySCO (talk • contribs) 14:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The city is known as Derry on Wikipedia, not by any other name. O Fenian (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Quite funny coming from someone by the username "O Fenian". Far from impartial considering the history of the city in discussion. Which IS recognised even by the constitution of the Republic of Ireland as being sovereign British territory. Furthermore, Northern Irish Law recognises the City as being named "Londonderry" under the Royal Charter that created the city signed by James VI, King of Scots in 1613. This has been confirmed by the High Court - the only body that may change the name of the city is Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth - by royal prerogative. The law trumps a style guide which is incorrect and thus out of date. Derry City Council has recently applied to the Privy Council to change the name of the City, however as of this date the correct usage by NORTHERN IRISH Law, is and remains "Londonderry".

AndySCO (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Just like me, Wikipedia does not care what UK laws or courts say. The city is known as Derry on Wikipedia, no matter how much you stamp your feet. O Fenian (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Its actually a Northern Irish court, which even Sinn Fein-IRA recognise, so i'm going to assume you're a southerner interfering in the affairs of British majority Ulster. Accordingly following the style guide, I have amended the article to include the county and country names which are recognised by wikipedia as being "County Londonderry", "Northern Ireland", and "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", no matter how much you stamp your feet Fenian.

AndySCO (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

We do not generally include county names when referring to the city of the same name, "Armagh, County Armagh" and "Galway, County Galway" are redundant, since everyone knows where they are. Just as everyone knows that at present England, Scotland, Wales and the North form the United Kingdom, we do not generally include "United Kingdom" when talking about any of the constituent countries, "England, United Kingdom" is quite pointless. We do not generally use the long-form name of the United Kingdom either. O Fenian (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we do. Scotland is a distinct part of the United Kingdom under the Act of Union 1707, just as Ulster is under the Act of Union 1801 and the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 and the Good Friday Agreement. To refer to "Scotland" would be to indicate that the country was a sovereign state. It is a nation within a Union state. The correct reference is Scotland, United Kingdom. Also "Derry" is not the same as "Londonderry" as is evidenced by the strength of feeling on both sides - and the fact UK or Irish passports may be issued in either format. This is why the term "stroke city" is often used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndySCO (talk • contribs) 16:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

We don't include county names with county towns as they are redundant, and so is UK when Northern Ireland is already there. Domer48_'fenian' 17:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

AndySCO, the Derry/Londonderry stuff has been discussed ad nauseam [Talk:Derry/Archive_1#Requested_move and the result is always the same:] support for the existing compromise which uses Derry for the city and Londonderry for the county. It's a decent compromise which has saved lots of wasted time. If you want the name changed I suggest you raise the issue on the Derry talkpage though you'll probably notice that many others have flogged that dead horse before you. Valenciano (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Domer48, the county seat of County Londonderry is Coleraine, not Londonderry. Confusing, but true - it doesn't quite make sense to me either.

Valenciano, the point is, the name of the city actually is Londonderry by NI Law, which is supposedly supported by cross-community consensus. I have no issue if the name is actually changed by law, but by using one without another in the context of Northern Ireland, it gives a political gloss to the article leaning one side or another. Hence why if one is used rather than a 'stroke city' format, then it is proper to call it Derry, County Londonderry - or vice versa as folk see fit. It may as well have a Celtic F.C. football jersey on in the background if one is used consistently over the other. Due to the sensitivity of the situation, folk attempt to include elements of both Republican and Unionist usage. It seems logical to do the same here. Hence why so many folk have attempted to flog that horse. This is in the interests of impartiality, or it simply seems an assault on Protestant Ulster-Scots custom in N.I. There is nothing wrong with folk referring to it as "Derry" or "County Derry" as they see fit in personal usage - but using one without another results in a Sectarian shibboleth that calls into question the impartiality of the article.

82.6.40.200 (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

A stroke city style compromise has been suggested on the Derry page but has been rejected. It's best to make the point there but generally style wise Wikipedia doesn't go for multiple names, see San Sebastián for example. Valenciano (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes I know it was rejected. San Sabastian is officially named Donostia-San Sebastián now - its not actually a multiple name, thats its official name. I would instead suggest Derry, County Londonderry at the start of the article - by allowing both usages, this is not in violation of the style guide, is not false, and gives ample respect to both traditions and seems quite in keeping with the peace process, even if only used on the place name at the beginning of the article - it does not deny the existence of both customs by sweeping one under the carpet. Respect for both names is practiced by both the British and the Irish governments now. Acceptance of this in principle is shown on the Londonderry page where at the start of the article, both forms are used.

82.6.40.200 (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I am constantly amazed by the amount of time and space taken up by people over essentially trivial matters like this. Usually people who take no interest in improving the quality of the content of the articles. We have a policy on this on wikipedia - Derry for the city, Londonderry for the county. If youy want to change policy then go to the relevant forum. Don't clog up teh article talk page. Jdorney (talk) 10:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing info

Nothing in the article about the police being undermanned and the amount of hours they had to do. Or the fact that they became exhausted which is why the B Specials were called in. It's relevant and needs to go in. Tired police make mistakes, and if the B Specials had to be deployed who knows what would have happened as they had no training and no riot gear, just batons, rifles and Sten guns. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of the Bogside. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150731031114/http://www.museumoffreederry.org/history-battle01.html to http://www.museumoffreederry.org/history-battle01.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Project banners

Jim Michael, The Banner I invite you to discuss what categories this page should belong to. I have no view, but given the sensitivity of this subject I think that it ought be be discussed and want to nip any potential edit war in the bud. Jim Michael, I see you've been notified about the discretionary sanctions that apply; The Banner, I've notified you now, please don't read that as a suggestion that I think you've done anything wrong. Thanks both. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

This is about project banners, not cats. I added a different banner (LE) on my second edit to this talk page. I was going to reinstate the UKC banner as well in that edit, but didn't in case someone claimed that 1RR applies to talk pages, even though I don't see any evidence that it does. Jim Michael (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Funny to see that Jim Michael claimed that discussion was not necessary, not so long after another very lengthy discussion on another article where the same issue played out. Talk:The_Troubles#WikiProject_Organized_crime, to be precise. So you vould have know that your action was controversial. The Banner talk 19:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, if discussions were needed in order to add project banners to talk pages of articles, there would need to be thousands of discussions about them, which would be ridiculous. If an article is within an project's scope, it should be on its talk page. It's usual, correct practice. It's not POV to add applicable banners, although removing applicable ones is. Nowhere does it even suggest that discussion is needed to add banners to talk pages. The bizarre objection to an applicable project banner on another article's talk page doesn't mean that it's controversial to add any project banners. This article is clearly about a riot & there's no doubt that riots are a type of crime. That's why Category:Riots is a subcat of Category:Crimes. Jim Michael (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Jim Michael, what you say above is true in the general sense, because the addition of banners and categories is generally uncontroversial. Changes don't require discussion unless someone disagrees, at which point discussion becomes necessary. It is clearly the case here that some people disagree with you on the banner, and there is no policy that I'm aware of that separates WikiProject banners from our normal processes of discussion and consensus building, so you need to gain consensus to add it. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

As I said, the problem with that is the huge number of discussions that would need to be had in regard to adding banners.

Each project has a scope & its banner. Nowhere does it say to debate banners' inclusion on talk pages.

It's not controversial that riots are a type of crime. It would clearly be untrue to say that they're not. Jim Michael (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Is there any evidence any article has been improved by any member of any of the WikiProjects in question after they were tagged? I don't think it's anything to do with article improvement. FDW777 (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

How would that evidence be shown? The project banners bring people who are interested in relevant projects to articles of interest, which helps to improve them. That's why they're there. Jim Michael (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Just a simple "no" will do in that case. FDW777 (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

You assert without evidence project banners bring people who are interested in relevant projects to articles of interest, which helps to improve them despite that being the very idea that has been challenged by me. Is there any evidence to support your assertion? Have any of the controversial banners you have placed on any article resulted in improvement by a member of one of the WikiProjects in question? FDW777 (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be asserting that I need to provide proof of the effectiveness of project banners, but I don't. Most editors who are interested in a topic aren't listed members of its project. Therefore, even if a particular article hasn't been edited recently by any member of a particular project, it doesn't show that none of the people who are interested in that project have edited it. The presence of the banners are known by their project members, so adding the banners helps to bring more interested editors to articles. You're giving no evidence of your assertion that project banners don't help. If you were correct, they wouldn't exist at all. Project banners aren't controversial. Jim Michael (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Michael claims here that it is crime-related because it is a riot. So why are 2011 Northern Ireland riots, 2005 Belfast riots, Belfast City Hall flag protests, 2013 Belfast riots and 2012 North Belfast riots not slapped as crime? Could that have something to do that these are all UVF/general loyalist side-related? The Banner talk 20:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

It's a fact that riots are a type of crime.

In the large majority of cases, the reason for applicable project banners being absent from talk pages is that no-one has added them. Editors are welcome to add them. I've added crime-related banners consistently to talk pages of articles about crimes motivated by various ideologies (including Irish republican, loyalist, Islamist, Christian, Kurdish, Armenian, Tamil, far-right & far-left), as well as those not ideology-motivated. I haven't said anything complimentary, sympathetic etc. about any crime, criminal or criminal group. That refutes any suggestion that I'm biased in favour of any ideology, individual or group. Jim Michael (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I doubt the "consistently". The Banner talk 22:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

You can't show any indication to back that doubt; I know that I'm consistent. Any editor is welcome to add applicable project banners to talk pages of articles. The answer is to add banners where they should be, not remove them from where they should be because some on some other talk pages where they should be present, they aren't. Crime banners should be on the talk pages of all articles about riots, because they're a type of crime. To say that's not the case is provably untrue, biased & against the scope of the projects. You & a tiny number of other editors have repeatedly accused me of being biased, but none of you say which individual, group or ideology you claim I'm biased in favour of - let alone show any indication of it. Jim Michael (talk) 10:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

If you were consistently adding those banner, the articles mentioned above would have those banner by now. But nope... no banners. And you are clearly pointed at them as lacking. The Banner talk 12:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think that speculating on one anothers' biases is going to be helpful in this discussion - please all keep it focussed strictly on content. Jim, if you want to pursue this, you could consider starting an RfC, it doesn't look like the other editors involved are persuaded by your reasoning. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not speculation. There are about 3 editors strongly objecting to crimes committed in the name of Irish republicanism - as well as the people & groups who committed them - being indicated as criminal. A major strand of the claim is that they weren't crimes because they weren't 'common crimes', despite no policy/guideline saying that they're exempt. This situation rarely happens on crime-related articles in regard to other ideologies, nor to crime-related articles which aren't ideology-related. It's a fact that riots are a type of crime - it's not something that can reasonably be disputed. Jim Michael (talk) 11:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

We're not discussing whether or not riots are a type of crime, we're discussing whether or not this article would benefit from having a particular WikiProject banner. You think it would, others disagree. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)