Jump to content

Talk:Joseph MacManus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

McManus or MacManus

[edit]

Is he McManus or MacManus? The media reports suggest McManus16:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I actually think that he is Mac not Mc - can someone please alter the title

Here is a link to the Sinn Fein website with his brother and father listed as Mac

http://www.sinnfein.ie/representatives Vintagekits 17:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to say this surprises me, as I was in school with Joe and I believe he spelled it Mc and not Mac. However, I suppose the official Sinn Fein site would have his father's and brother's names correct so I'd go with that. --The.Q 12:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV terminology

[edit]

I've removed "killed on active service" from the lede and replaced with "killed" which is perfectly adequate. "On active service" is a POV term used by supporters of PIRA and other paramilitary groups. Mooretwin (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a supporter and I don't see it as POV. BigDunc 13:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As, presumably, you are aware, it is a term used by PIRA and supporters/apologists to legitimise their actions as being on a par with military actions (KIA is a military term). If PIRA victims are not allowed to be described as having been "murdered" because it is supposedly POV, and PIRA atrocities not allowed to be described as "terrorism", then "killed on active service" must similarly be avoided. Wouldn't you agree? MacManus was "killed on active service" from the POV of the PIRA. From others' POV he was killed while engaging in terrorism. From NPOV he was just killed. Mooretwin (talk) 13:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What Mooretwin said. Just state the facts, not the facts from a republican perspective. Stu ’Bout ye! 13:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a few other pages worded like this. Stu ’Bout ye! 14:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind editing the article in line with WP:NPOV? Thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is currently NPOV and any attempt to enter your POV will be resisted with extreme vigour. Unless the Derry Journal, Peter Hart, Phil Scanton and The Independent are all POV that is! --Vintagekits (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the same logic, all the thousands of WP:RS references to PIRA terrorist attacks mean that terrorist is NPOV and you'll accept such edits to this article and otherwise? If not, then it would appear that you are approaching this article from a particular POV. Mooretwin (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for the sources: the Derry Journal merely quotes the brother of a PIRA member using the term, the Peter Hart source refers to the 1919-21 war of independence and I can't find the reference in Stanton. Mooretwin (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This clearly needs wider input and a centralised discussion. WP:IWNB? Stu ’Bout ye! 10:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe wider than Ireland? Is there a terrorism project page? Mooretwin (talk) 10:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism. This article isn't tagged as being within their remit. The PIRA article is though. I guess this is a similar issue as the Volunteer usage that required mediation. Let's not go there with this, there are plenty of protracted discussions going on elsewhere to keep everyone busy. I don't know which project to raise it at, Ireland probably. Stu ’Bout ye! 11:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean terrorism instead of Ireland, but as well as. There could be cross-cutting issues, e.g. using terms like "active service" or "killed in action", "martyr" in relation to, say ETA, or Islamic terrorists. Mooretwin (talk) 11:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Words to avoid could apply here. I'll raise it at both projects later, but redirect comments at the terrorism project to the Ireland project to avoid two concurrent discussions. Stu ’Bout ye! 11:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good plan. Mooretwin (talk) 12:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with you with regards "martyr" or "hero" or "terrorist" or "freedom fighter" but active service is a commonly used term and in fact the more reliable the source becomes the more frequent the source - eg. A Secret History of the IRA: Ed Moloney, The Provos: The IRA and Sinn Fein: Peter Taylor etc. --Vintagekits (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Terrorist and terrorism are also commonly-used terms. "Active service" is a term used from the POV of the paramilitary/terrorist organisation seeking to portray itself as legitimate. I expect Moloney et al use the term to describe events from a PIRA perspective. Mooretwin (talk) 12:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped reading at "I expect".--Vintagekits (talk) 09:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended this article to make clear that Mr MacManus was killed whilst attempting to carry out a terrorist attack - that is a criminal act. This is NOT ceasing to be neutral. Whitewashing terrorists is not being neutral - it is supporting murder for political ends. That is no more acceptable in Ireland than it is in New York.Sam1930 (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename suggestion

[edit]

MacManus appears in the historical record only for one incident where he was shot. The incident itself appears to me to be more notable given the resulting legal case and the decoration of Glass by the Queen. Should this article be renamed for the incident itself? Wikipedia documents the incident not the man Kernel Saunters (talk) 12:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the annaul lecture about Glass, is the monument erected to Glass, is the chapter in "Rebel Hearts" about Glass? are the Sinn Fein Cumanns named after Glass, the legal case or the trinkets handed out by the Queen? no. These focus on the man - nothing else - which make the man notable!--Vintagekits (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the Rebel Hearts chapter is about Glass and the incident, the DCM and the trip around Buckingham Palace was for Glass and the Legal case involved Glass and the defendents in the trial didn't include MacManus as he was already 6ft under Kernel Saunters (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No its not - the main focus of the whole chapater is MacManus.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a copy - Glass gets equal focus as he shot MacManus in the faceKernel Saunters (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah because Glass really had a "Rebel Heart" alright - I can see why he would be the focus!--Vintagekits (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His family do feature particularly as Glass comments on the waste of a young life polluted by provo propaganda. The focus of the piece is about the incident and the effects on Glass and why MacManus was involved Kernel Saunters (talk) 12:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ill informed personal opinions of Glass, his bigoted career and family are of little interest to me. Your snidey wee comments throughout this discussion haven't gone unnoticed. You might have changed your name but you haven't changed your spots. If you are just on a wind up I suggest you go elsewhere as I wont be bitin!--Vintagekits (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from personal attacks. They reflect poorly on the attacker moreso than his or her object. Mooretwin (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly sweetheart. I will keep my NPA's to a 1:1 ratio of your canvassing. Deal?--Vintagekits (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read the chapter; Glass comments on MacManus's family - its a primary focus of the chapter - Glass reserves his disapproval for MacManus' family. Indeed the MacManus family are interviewed in this context. This is not a wind-up and all my comments are substantiated in Rebel Hearts. Kernel Saunters (talk) 12:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I might have read it if I was the one that actually added the source. Without doubt the author does use interviews with Glass and his family in the chapter but the primary focus of the chapter is MacManus himself - but Glass or the ambush.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MacManus appears only to be notable because he was a PIRA member who was killed and articles have been created (presumably by PIRA apologists) on all such persons. There do not appear to be routine articles on other persons killed during the Troubles. Mooretwin (talk) 12:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cry me a river!--Vintagekits (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Create an article for Glass, this article meets all policy requirements for an article and rename is not an option. BigDunc 14:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No-one has suggested creating an article for Glass. The suggestion is that this article be renamed for the Mulleek ambush, given that the ambush appears to be the real subject of the article, with details about MacManus merely incidental. Mooretwin (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about MacManus and also the incident in which he died. If you want create an article on the ambush. BigDunc 14:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MacManus' notability appears to derive only from the ambush. He is incidental to the ambush itself. Information about his schooling and wife, for example, do not appear to be notable. It seems to me that it is the ambush, and not MacManus, that is notable. Mooretwin (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wife? Notable for much more than just the ambush - including his legacy which is detailed. sweat dreams.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His "legacy" derives from the fact that he was killed in the ambush. There'd be no memorial or "lecture" if he were still alive, or had died a natural death. Mooretwin (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The memorial and lecture and the naming of the Cumann are because of his republicanism not just his death.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, I doubt very much that either would have been named after him, had he not died as he did. What did he do that was notable, other than die in the ambush? Mooretwin (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a BS argument, MacManus is notable because he has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, per policy so stop this crap. BigDunc 17:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! End of story! --Domer48'fenian' 18:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Significant coverage because he was killed in the ambush. Mooretwin (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military infobox

[edit]

Anyone know what the current consensus is on using military infoboxes for members of paramilitary organizations? This is the first time I have seen it used. I can envisage a few issues over this, not least the use of "Volunteer" as a rank (the consensus in the past was the "volunteer" by used a descriptive term (no caps), rather than a proper noun (caps)) in this context. Perhaps advice from the military and terrorism Wikiprojects would be helpful? Rockpocket 06:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This should be brought to the attention of both projects. Mooretwin (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bring it up - I'll shot it down. In the words of your beloved British Army - he represented an "undefeated army" - a military man in anyones mind that isnt riddled with POV.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above contribution merely demonstrates the POV nature of the box's inclusion: it appears to be included to support a particular POV as articulated above. Mooretwin (talk) 09:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zzzzzzz!!! You bore me more and more everyday. Its not my POV its the scum in the British Army's POV.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Each intervention merely provides more evidence that your contributions are motivated by an Irish-republican POV. Mooretwin (talk) 12:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Vk, constructive as ever. I'm sure the Wikiprojects will welcome your intellectual reasoning. I'll draw it to their attention later today unless someone beats me to it. Rockpocket 17:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted something on the terrorism project. Mooretwin (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is some discussion at Template talk:Infobox Military Person#Militant biographies.
My take on the use in general is that it makes a good amout of logical sense. We use {{Infobox Military Conflict}} along the same vein, so why not this? It contains all fo the information we'd want to know about a person who takes part of military conflict, whether he/she is part of a military or not. However, some cases would blur the line between armed conflict and murder, so it would have to be vetted case-by-case.
For this article specifically, I think the use of the template would be warranted; but I will openly admit that my knowledge of the fighting on Ireland is limited, so my opinion is not well reasoned for this case. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 13:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it seems like the consensus is to continue to use the infobox, but to be careful about which fields to use. I have, therefore, removed "rank" and "battles" as, apparently "volunteer" is not a rank, the Troubles were not a battle. Mooretwin (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which I have reverted.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And which I support! --Domer48'fenian' 18:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"volunteer" is well supported and referenced!--Domer48'fenian' 18:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not as a rank. Please refer to discussion here. Mooretwin (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's "open to contention and so must be given references in the infobox itself especially if they are not referenced in the article." It's referenced in the article! --Domer48'fenian' 20:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have omitted to read on: "... open to contention and so must be given references in the infobox itself, especially if they are not referenced in the article (as here). In my opinion, rank should be avoided entirely in these cases unless there is a clear term in use and a reference for it. In this particular case, as it has already been established at a previous discussion that "Volunteer" is not considered a rank in this context on Wikipedia, it should not be used in this infobox. Mooretwin (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This prior mediation case doesn't seem to support use of Volunteer (proper noun) nor volunteer suggesting "member" to be a better use - though I don't see anything in there that suggests that member is a "rank." Seems like the flip side of "terrorist" an explicitly POV term best avoided. Valenciano (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mooretwin is correct Domer, that quote is in reference to something else entirely (which I note is still in the infobox despite a lack of references).--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the reasoning here, and the associated discussions, I have removed "unit" field - since there is no provided source for it. I have also removed the "rank" field, since no source provided has established "Volunteer" as a "rank" (If I'm wrong about that, please do quote me the appropriate text). There was a nice compromise proposed whereby a "role" field could be added, that would suit the use of "volunteer" (no cap, as a description of the person's role, per the previously agreed consensus). I have not added that yet, as it is a high visibility template which should not be edited without consensus. However, if there are no objections I will edit that in a day or two and add "volunteer" to that field in this article. I have also queried the verifiability of the "years of service" field, since it appears unverifiable to me. Finally, I have left "The Troubles" since the only person to expressed and objection to that failed to provide a justification. Rockpocket 01:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per the reasoning here, and the associated discussions does not equal consensus. The term "volunteer" is referenced. If referenced information which suggests that he help another position within the IRA, it can be added. --Domer48'fenian' 08:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a quote that supports your claim, because I don't see it. Rockpocket 08:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IRA (revised edition), by Tim Pat Coogan, and published by Palgrave Macmillan, 2002, ISBN 0312294166,pg 487. Coogan explains on page 487 that all IRA prisoners lose whatever rank they had in the IRA and revert to the position of volunteer. In Florence and Josephine O'Donoghue's War of Independence it explains how the Irish Volunteer organization was structured along British Army lines. In Rebel Hearts: Journeys Within the IRA's Soul‎ by Kevin Toolis given a profile of IRA members he says that "rank and file" members were hard men in their twenties and thirties. Now provide a source that says volunteer is not a rank in the IRA. I'll provide more sources, you can start by providing one. --Domer48'fenian' 09:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well those are not quotes, they are paraphrases. No offense, but I rather read the quote myself, than have you interpret its meaning for me. But even in paraphrase:
  1. You say they "revert to the position of volunteer" (my bold) which rather supports my point. For this to support what you are claiming, it would actually have to say "rank of volunteer". Moreover, assuming you accurately reflecting Coogan's words, the term is not even capitalized, which one would expect if it was meant as a proper noun. If anything, this supports the usage as "volunteer" description of its membership.
  2. How the Irish Volunteer organization was structured has zero value as a source for whether "volunteer" is a rank in the PIRA in general, and whether MacManus was of that rank in particular.
  3. "Rank and file" is a phrase used to describe "the individuals who constitute the body of an organization, society, or nation as distinguished from the leaders." A quick google search will reveal the term used to describe all sorts of non-military organisations. That definition fits with the obvious meaning of Toolis' sentence.
The reason I query this is because the Volunteer (Irish_republican)#Definition section provides sources showing the ambiguity of the term. We have:
  1. "IRA memorials refer to the dead only as "Volunteer", "Vol." or "Óglach" rather than giving a specific rank." (The only way to interpret that sentence is that "Volunteer" is not a specific rank),
  2. "..the term is used to refer to all IRA members" (again, it is a description equal to "member") and,
  3. "Joe McCann, killed in 1972 was referred to in commemorations by his rank "Staff Captain" but also as a "Volunteer"" (His rank is Staff Captain, what is Volunteer, because it can't be his rank?).
All of these statements contrast with the assertion it is a specific rank (though they are paraphased also, so its difficult to know how much interpretation has gone into them). That said, there appears other situations where it is used as equivalent of "Private". How do we know when it is being used in a general sense vs. specific sense, and there is such ambiguity, how can we verify the meaning in any given article (such as this one?) This is why using it under a "role" or "position" makes sense. Rockpocket 23:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Provide a source that says volunteer is not a rank in the IRA. --Domer48'fenian' 07:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Provide one that says that it is a rank. Mooretwin (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have!--Domer48'fenian' 20:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Mooretwin (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is a really unhelpful way to contribute to a discussion, Domer. It would be much more constructive to address the issues I raise, rather than make such a ridiculous claims. The burden of proof is not to prove X isn't Y ("Provide a source that says the moon isn't made out of brandy" Oh, you can't, therefore we should say the moon is made out of brandy), the burden is to prove X is Z. Now unless you plan to actually address the issues, I will go ahead with the proposal that was widely accepted at the wikiproject. Rockpocket 22:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've put forward sorces that says Vol is a rank.! You and your buddy have not, that is a really unhelpful way to contribute to a discussion. Now provide a sources that says Vol is not a rank, and not the stonewalling which is common. No source=no discussion. --Domer48'fenian' 08:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sligo Brigade, years of service, rank etc is all sourced in Tirghra.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, if you could quote that here, Vk, we could all go and do something more productive. In the absence of that, Domer, you going to discuss the issue about ambiguity and lack of verifiability or just ignore it? If you plan to ignore it and continue to revert the solution that the majority if neutral editors favoured, then we can stop wasting our time jump straight to admin oversight. Let me know. Rockpocket 16:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the blanket: the inside story of the IRA prisoners' "dirty" protest, Tim Pat Coogan, Palgrave Macmillan, 2002, ISBN 9780312295134 Page 75. "Full recognition of the Republican command structures. (Warders only to speak through OC’s [Officer Commanding] and staff officers to the prisoners and address all men by their rank - Volunteers, OC, Education Officers, etc.)" Now we could all go and do something more productive.--Domer48'fenian' 18:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And where had you quoted that before? Mooretwin (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually found another one: Ten Men Dead: The Story of the 1981 Irish Hunger Strike, David Beresford, p327. "Kieran [Doherty] lies... under a low, black headstone stating only his rank - "volunteer" - and name." Although this uses the lower case, I think using an uppercase is probably consistent with the other ranks in the infobox. Rockpocket 19:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thank you. Do you have any sources that support his Years of Service? Rockpocket 18:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vintagekits, on the third time of asking, please provide a quote for verification. Rockpocket 23:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox:Battle

[edit]

As the Troubles were neither a battle nor a war, this entry in the infobox should be left blank. Mooretwin (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that the troubles was a war is a controversial one and definitely not NPOV. I would suggest changing this to the more neutral "conflict" per the troubles article and CAIN. Valenciano (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In legal terms, it was not a war. Mooretwin (talk) 08:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be changed to conflict. Mooretwin (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well take it to the template talk page. BigDunc 11:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have done. Mooretwin (talk) 11:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, here Template_talk:Infobox_Military_Person#Battle/war field. But while having the option of calling it a "conflict" is useful, it doesn't solve the problem if there's a dispute about caling it that. NB The Troubles is described in its opening sentence (of that article) as "an ethno-political conflict". Presumably this has been hashed out there in detail, in which case it would seem to make sense to use that description. Rd232 talk 12:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict appears to be a more accurate description. Rockpocket 23:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disturbingly there appears to be a concerted effort to impose a republican POV in respect of this issue, with perceived republican editors insisting that the Troubles are described as a "battle/war", ironically even using a source that supports the consensus to describe it as a "conflict". Mooretwin (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When is a Military conflict not a war? To suggest that there was not a war is to turn logic on its head. The source which is being dismissed states that "The military operations which started in Northern Ireland in 1969 will, without a doubt, be seen as one of the most important campaigns ever fought by the British Army and its fellow Services. That campaign is the longest to date; one of the very few waged on British soil; and one of the very few ever brought to a successful conclusion by the armed forces of a developed nation against an irregular force." To suggest that this does not support the text is to also suggest that these authors don't know what they are writing about.
  1. A farewell to arms?: from 'long war' to long peace in Northern Ireland, Michael Cox, Adrian Guelke, Fiona Stephen, Manchester University Press, 2000, ISBN 9780719057960
  2. The Irish War: the hidden conflict between the IRA and British Intelligence by Tony Geraghty, JHU Press, 2000, ISBN 0801864569
  3. The I.R.A. at war: 1916 to the present : an illustrated history, Eamonn O'Doherty, Mercier Press, 1985, ISBN 0853427534
  4. Brits: the war against the IRA, Peter Taylor, Bloomsbury, 2001, ISBN 0747550077
  5. Ambush: the war between the SAS and the IRA, James Adams, Robin Morgan, Anthony Bambridge, Pan Books, 1988, ISBN 0330308939
  6. The longest war: Northern Ireland and the IRA, Kevin Kelley, Brandon, 1982, ISBN 0862320232
  7. British intelligence and the IRA: the secret war in Northern Ireland, 1969-1988, Mark L. Bowlin, Naval Postgraduate School, 1998, ISBN 9781423555551
  8. Protracted war and the Provisional IRA: a study of the philosophy, strategy and politics of the Provisional Irish Republican Army, Linda E. Chêne, San Francisco State University, 1978
  9. Loyalists: war and peace in Northern Ireland, Peter Taylor, TV Books, 1999, ISBN 9781575000473
  10. War in the Shadows: The Guerrilla in History, Robert B. Asprey, iUniverse, 2002, ISBN 9780595225941
  11. Peace or war?: understanding the peace process in Northern Ireland, Chris Gilligan, Jonathan Tonge, Ashgate, 1997, ISBN 9781859725191
  12. McCann: war & peace in Northern Ireland, Eamonn McCann, Hot Press Books, 1998
Claims of "concerted effort to impose a republican POV" are being offered in the absence of any reference or source to back up their claims. They will be ignored, being nothing more than assumptions of bad faith and nothing better than personal attacks. --Domer48'fenian' 17:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources do not use "war" in the narrow, objective sense needed for the infobox. "War" in those cases is used as a rhetorical device, in the same way as "war on drugs" might be used. "War" is a legal state of affairs attracting the international law of war. I don't recall the criminal law being set aside and the Hague Conventions being invoked in Northern Ireland. As Valenciano points out, to "officially" describe the Troubles as a war is controversial and POV - it serves the interests of certain protagonists wishing to legitimise their actions. Mooretwin (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, a consensus was reached that the word "conflict" should be used. Mooretwin (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So now you are not happy with the sources! Hmmm! Give our heads some peace.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, 'conflict' seems like an acceptable discriptive. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't someone just edit the template to add a "conflict" field, then we have the info box consistent with consensus and what the article actually calls The Troubles? Rockpocket 00:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would but it just blanks it out so I don't know how to. We have raised the issue at template talk but are still waiting on a resolution. There seems no good reason not to use the more neutral "conflict" term per The Troubles article. Even Domer admits that it was a conflict. Valenciano (talk) 09:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added a "conflict" option to the template, and updated the article, since that seems the modal option. Rd232 talk 11:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stop this bullshit enough reliable sources have been provided to say it was a war end of. BigDunc 09:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Troubles article describes it first and foremost by the more neutral term "conflict" so as the idea that the Troubles was a war is disputed and controversial we shouldn't use it in an infobox. The Troubles article is the place to flesh that out. We could produce tonnes of reliable sources to say that the IRA were a terrorist organisation, it wouldn't go in and you'd be one of the first to resist it, because there is a more neutral term that we can use. That principle also applies here. It's called WP:NPOV and you might like to have a little read of it. I'd suggest you check out WP:CIVIL while you're at it. Valenciano (talk) 10:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is not neutral about saying it was a war? BigDunc 11:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discriptive 'Conflict' is neutral. GoodDay (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me if we are using the term The Troubles then we should use whatever The Troubles is described as. The article does not describe it as a "war", but does describe it as a "conflict". Why would you propose "war" is a better term, then? Rockpocket 16:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because a war is what it was not a little squabble, in all honesty don't see what is not neutral about war. BigDunc 17:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
War is a loosely used term. War on Poverty, War on Drugs etc. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I don't really think it is an issue of neutrality, but one of clarity. Rockpocket 19:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly it wasn't a war in the sense needed for the infobox. I don't recall any PIRA POWs for example, and I haven't noticed anyone being sent to the Hague. As GoodDay says, the term war is used loosely for rhetorical effect and for the titles of books, etc., but that usage is not appropriate here. Mooretwin (talk) 08:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Joseph MacManus. 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:

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) 16:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Joseph MacManus. 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:

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) 00:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joseph MacManus. 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:

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) 16:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_MacManus&oldid=1255553958"