Misplaced Pages

Talk:Bobby Sands: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:29, 3 May 2007 editOne Night In Hackney (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers32,879 edits →Title: Add another← Previous edit Revision as of 20:55, 9 May 2007 edit undo75.3.2.96 (talk) Suppression of Irish HistoryNext edit →
Line 522: Line 522:


:] doesn't use it and neither does ], and I've removed it pending a Misplaced Pages guideline that states it should be used. <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 06:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC) :] doesn't use it and neither does ], and I've removed it pending a Misplaced Pages guideline that states it should be used. <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 06:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

== Suppression of Irish History ==

The Bobby Sands article shows that Misplaced Pages has an anti-Irish bias because it allows an anti-Irish bigot like ], 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 ] to be in charge of what gets into the ] article. ] 20:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:55, 9 May 2007

This WikiProject is believed to be inactive.
Consider looking for related projects for help or ask at the Teahouse.
If you are not currently a project participant and wish to help you may still participate in the project. This status should be changed if collaborative activity resumes.
Wikimedia subject-area collaboration "WP:IR" redirects here. For WikiProject International relations, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject International relations. For image requests, see Misplaced Pages:Requested pictures. For Misplaced Pages ignore all rules (IAR) policy, see Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules.
This is a WikiProject, an area for focused collaboration among Wikipedians. New participants are welcome; please feel free to participate!
Shortcut
Irish Republicanism articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 1 1 1 3
GA 1 2 6 3 12
B 12 16 41 27 5 101
C 5 10 53 64 26 158
Start 4 37 170 198 127 536
Stub 1 26 77 29 133
List 1 2 2 10 3 18
NA 1 4 3 204 212
Assessed 24 70 303 382 204 190 1,173
Total 24 70 303 382 204 190 1,173


Welcome to the Irish Republicanism WikiProject, a collaboration of editors dedicated to improving Misplaced Pages's coverage of Irish republicanism, Irish nationalism, and related organizations, peoples, and other topics.

(For more information on WikiProjects, please see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject and the Guide to WikiProjects).

Goals

  • Improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of topics related to Irish Republicanism and Irish Nationalism.
  • Gather interested editors, and provide a central location to discuss matters pertaining to the above.

Scope

  • Topics related to Irish Republicanism and Irish Nationalism.

Guidelines

Open tasks

To-do list for Bobby Sands: edit · history · watch · refresh

To-do list is empty: remove {{To do}} tag or click on edit to add an item.

This 'To do' list- has it been updated since 2007? Basket Feudalist (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Armed Campaigns

Republican Wars

Others

Events

Armed Republican Groups

For an organized hierarchial chart, see Genealogy of the IRA

Irish Republicans

Note: There are many, many IRA Volunteers of varying memberships, and we cannot list them all here. We have many categories for that. Only particularly notable members should be listed here.

Early Volunteers; the Wars

Later IRA

Other

Participants

This user is a member of WikiProject Irish Republicanism.

Please feel free to add yourself here, and to indicate any areas of particular interest

  1. Paddytheceltic (talk · contribs) Protestant Nationalists, Militant oganisations, Political Organizations and others..
  2. Erin Go Bragh (talk · contribs) Militant Armed Irish Republican organizations. Gaelic.
  3. Kathryn NicDhàna (talk · contribs) I've been working on some of the articles about women in the Easter Rising.
  4. Pauric (talk · contribs) Too much to mention
  5. Derry Boi (talk · contribs) Interested in all areas of republicanism really.
  6. One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs) Bit of everything
  7. Irish Republican (talk · contribs) Irish Republicanism 1798-Present
  8. Vintagekits (talk · contribs) Irish Republicanism past and present with more focus on the history of the Provisionals
  9. Phoblacht (talk · contribs) Republican Newspapers from 1790’s to Present.
  10. GiollaUidir (talk · contribs) Republican activities from the 1969-mid 80's. Also, biogs of (primarily) dead activists both political and military. Post-1986 is mainly CIRA activity and shoot-to-kill operations by the SAS etc.
  11. Leopold III (talk · contribs) The leaders in the period from the Easter Rising to the end of the Civil War.
  12. Kevin Murray (talk · contribs) Learning more and helping where I can.
  13. Scolaire (talk · contribs) 20th century history, especially the 1913-1922 period
  14. Sheehan07 (talk · contribs) Love Irish History
  15. Sbfenian1916 (talk · contribs) Love Irish Republicansim, hate Unionism.
  16. United and Free (talk · contribs)- PIRA history and operations
  17. Fluffy999 (talk · contribs) Inter(world)war republican activities. Internment and extra judicial activities surrounding Irish Republicanism.
  18. Free Scotland, Unite Ireland (talk · contribs) Interested in post- St Andrews agreement Republicanism.
  19. Diarmaid (talk · contribs) Six county sovereignty
  20. Domer48 (talk · contribs) Period covered by the Irish Confederation (Young Ireland)
  21. Conghaileach (talk · contribs) Special interest in left-republican history
  22. Max rspct (talk · contribs) PIRA;INLA; civil war era; 70s 80s 90s; links/solidarity abroad;
  23. Carrignafoy (talk · contribs) War of Independence and Civil War (especially in Cork) also development of Official Sinn Féin and its successors.
  24. Brixton Busters (talk · contribs)
  25. BigDunc (talk · contribs)
  26. Ró2000 (talk • contribs) Tá suim mhór agam i stair náisiúnta na hÉireann, neamhspleach go háirithe!!
  27. quirk666 (talk · contribs) Republicanism 1798-present. 32 County Sovereignty Movement
  28. gavcos (talk · contribs) Old IRA, War of Independence, Civil War
  29. ElementalEternity (talk · contribs) 20:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Irish history and republicanism in general.
  30. Biofoundationsoflanguage 15:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  31. Moz1916 (talk · contribs) All Irish history, especially 1903-1932
  32. Princess Pea Face (talk · contribs) Ireland pure and simple
  33. Barryob (talk · contribs)
  34. NIscroll (talk · contribs) --NIscroll (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  35. RSFRuairi (talk · contribs) Anything really.
  36. Gr8opinionater (talk · contribs) 1:10 July 27 2008 (GMT), Interested in Irish nationalism in general particularly from a Political and historical point of view.
  37. Lihaas (talk · contribs) open to much
  38. EoinBach (talk · contribs) Irish republicanism in general from an academic point of view
  39. Gerard Madden (talk · contribs)
  40. SPARTAN-J024 (talk · contribs) I have ties to the Easter Rising and the Irish War of Independence
  41. NewIreland2009 (talk) The 1912-1924 period, with a particular passion for challenging popular myths of the period.
  42. Dribblingscribe (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  43. Tippsno1fan (talk · contribs) Tá an-spéis agam ann
  44. Gallagher-Glass (talk · contribs) General interest.
  45. Fallduff (talk · contribs) National Archives, Dublin and Na Fianna Éireann, pre Northern Troubles
  46. Mabuska (talk · contribs) maintaining neutrality and verifiability
  47. Nicholas Urquhart (talk · contribs) military operations of the "New IRAs": the Provos, the Reals and even OnH, the Official and Continuity IRA.
  48. You Can Act Like A Man (talk · contribs) 32 CSM
  49. Finnegas (talk · contribs)
  50. Sittingonthefence (talk · contribs) Irish republicanism as a philosophy. 1916 and War of Independence combatants.
  51. High_Noonan (talk · contribs) Tom Hunter, 1916, War of Independence
  52. Antiqueight (talk · contribs) Women involved in 1916 or similar.
  53. AusLondonder (talk · contribs) General matters.
  54. Tdv123 (talk · contribs) PIRA, OIRA, INLA, IPLO, ICA, IVF, SE, CRF, SARAF, PLA
  55. Irishpolitical (talk · contribs) Traditionalist Republicanism and Nationalism. Dissenting republicans post GFA. Anti-communist Republicanism.
  56. CnocBride (talk · contribs) All Irish history, though my favourite time period would be the vast 1800–2011 period.
  57. KINGHB190 (talk · contribs) A Corkonian with ancestry in the original Irish Republican Army.
  58. Endersslay (talk · contribs) Enjoy Irish republican music and history.
  59. R0paire-wiki (talk · contribs) Irish Republicanism past and present, with particular focus on Socialist Republicanism.

Userbox

Feel free to place {{User WP:IR}} on your User page to advertise our WikiProject!

Articles

Featured content

Candidates

Good articles

Candidates

Articles in need of urgent attention

Please provide a short explanation, or leave a note on our talk page if needed.

  • John Sweetman. Article on 2nd President of SF needs more footnotes, and appears to have been compiled largely from reports in The Times of London, which is hardly a neutral source on an Irish Republican.

Suggestions for new articles

Articles in Preparation

New articles

Belfast Pogrom

1923 Irish Hunger Strikes

Richard Goss (Irish Republican)

Joseph Whitty

Thomas Harte (Irish republican)

Patrick McGrath (Irish republican)

Jack McNeela

Seamus Woods

Andy O'Sullivan (Irish Republican)

Please feel free to list your new Irish Republican Army-related articles here (newer articles at the top, please). Any new articles that have an interesting or unusual fact in them should be suggested for the Did you know? box on the Main Page.

Collaboration

The article listed here is our current official article to collaborate on. Propose new articles in the Nominations section below.

Nominations

James Larkin - Grosseteste (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Review

Peer review
Assessment / Project's Assessment page

Assessment requests:

Language

Gaelic words and phrases should be marked up using {{lang}}, thus: {{lang|ga|Páirc na hÉireann}}.

Templates

To use the following template, simply put {{IRAs}} at the bottom of an article.

Armed Republican groups in Ireland
   

Earlier organisations

Easter Rising

Irish War of Independence

Irish Civil War

The Troubles

Dissident Campaign

To use the following template, simply put {{NIPP}} at the bottom of an article.

Steps in the Northern Ireland peace process

Banner

Articles which fall within our scope should be labeled as such on their talk pages. To do so, simply place {{WP IR}} at the top of article's talk page.

WikiProject iconIrish republicanism Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis 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 Misplaced Pages. 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
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Categories

Regular cats

Project organisation cats

Resources

Using references

  • For a simple guide to using references, place {{subst:refstart}} (including brackets) on your user or talk page.

Related projects

  • Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ireland
  • Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Northern Ireland
  • Portal:Ireland
  • Misplaced Pages:Irish Wikipedians' notice board
    WikiProject iconBiography: Politics and Government B‑class
    WikiProject icon
    • Biography portal
      • This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
      BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
      Taskforce icon
      		This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance).
      WikiProject iconBelfast Unassessed
      WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Belfast, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the City of Belfast, Northern Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.BelfastWikipedia:WikiProject BelfastTemplate:WikiProject BelfastBelfast-related
      ???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
      ???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
      Good articlesBobby Sands was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 23, 2007). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

      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.

      Moved to "Trivia"

      -Already covered in film section

      Already in music section

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

      Sectarian and irrelevant

      Isn't this what Misplaced Pages 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)

      Nationality?

      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)

      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 http://en.wikipedia.org/Irish_people). Indeed, The Republic of Ireland had a constitutional territorial claim to the island of Ireland. (http://en.wikipedia.org/Nineteenth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland) indeed, today, the citizens of Ireland still include all those born on the island, including the North. See reference 7 in http://en.wikipedia.org/British_people also. Or http://en.wikipedia.org/Northern_Irish#Northern_Irish_nationality 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). Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. Demiurge 10:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/British_citizen#British_citizenship_by_birth_in_the_United_Kingdom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weggie (talk • contribs)

      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)


      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?


      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. 208.63.63.94 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.)
      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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, also look to the discussion section for further insight. --Mal 23:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


      Mal, Out of respect for the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
      • Misplaced Pages:Talk_page#Usage "Wikipedians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject. Misplaced Pages 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)

      Erratum

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

      Context

      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)

      Name

      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 names.....you 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))

      Removals

      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 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) .

      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 (talk • contribs) 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)

      Music

      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 , 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))

      Citations

      This is getting ridiculous. Why don't we just mark the article as needing references, rather than so many different sections each having the
      This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
      Find sources: "Bobby Sands" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (December 2006) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
      template? One example of exuberant markings was that the 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: Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Notability, please rephrase (and is "de trop" really necessary to use instead of plain English? I had to look it up! Language on Misplaced Pages 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, , 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 (talk • contribs) 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)

      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 --172.141.197.154 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)

      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)

      Infobox

      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 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 10:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

      Irsih 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)

      Title

      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 212.183.134.66 (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 Misplaced Pages guideline that states it should be used. One Night In Hackney303 06:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

      Suppression of Irish History

      The Bobby Sands article shows that Misplaced Pages 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. 75.3.2.96 20:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

      1. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20030223/ai_n12580707
      2. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117690/
      3. http://www.foreverdelayed.org.uk/
      4. http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/review.cfm?id=284492003
    Categories: