Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 15:24, 20 August 2012

Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign 1969–1997

I'll cover all the edits in the sequence mentioned in chronological order up to the point the topic ban was proposed, just so there can be no confusion:

• FergusM1970 made 2 edits to the article. The part about insurgency is wrong if anyone reads the rest of the lead - "The British Army characterised this period as the 'insurgency phase' of the IRA's campaign...The British Army called this the 'terrorist phase' of the IRA's campaign" - two distinct phases so why pick just one for the main description? Makes no sense does it?
• DagosNavy reverted one of the edits above
• FergusM1970 made 4 further edits to the article, including making the change that had just been disputed *again*
  • One of the edits needs closer examination. Adding polling data to provide context of PIRA's unpopularity is the reasoning. This is adding an opinion poll from 2009 about whether people in Northern Ireland support a United Ireland (or something else) to an article about a campaign that was from 1969 to 1997. Can anyone see the problem yet? Just in case it needs hammering home, the politicial situation in Northern Ireland changed quite a lot between 1997 and 2009, so the poll is totally irrelevant. If polls about a United Ireland really are relevant to the popularity or unpopularity of the IRA, I'd better not point out that in the early 1990s up to 55% of people polled in Great Britain supported a United Ireland. It's a transparent violation of WP:NOR to use the poll that was added to the article.
• I reverted some (but not all) of the changes I disagreed with. I can happily explain why the other changes made were wrong if needed, just ask
• Portugalpete (a disruptive SPA whose only article edits have been to revert me) reverted my change
• DagosNavy tagged the offending original research that had been restored to the article
• TheOldJacobite reverted the disruptive SPA Portugalpete
• I posted to the talk page asking how the inclusion of the poll was remotely justifiable?
• SonofSetanta reverted me without even attempting to discuss it.
• DagosNavy re-added the tag he added that disappeared somewhere in the previous edits

Earlier edits by FergusM1970

• 2 edits
• 1 edit
• 19 edits
• 1 edit
• 1 edit
• 2 edits
• 1 edit

The last of those diffs is from 13:24, 5 August 2012. None of the edits there are repeated by FergusM1970 in the section above.

7 July 2005 London bombings

I won't bother with all the diffs for this article (and there are quite a few but mostly repititive), but the brief summary is:

• Flexdream attempted to remove an unsourced comparison with IRA bombings during the Troubles
• Nick Cooper reverted his edit
• Rather than attempt to discuss the inclusion of what he deemed to be irrelevant content, Flexdream added a bizarre comparison that you won't be able to find made by a reliable source.
• I reverted the addition per WP:SYN.
• The back and forth attempts to include followed by a removal went on with such hilariously unproductive talk page discussion as "Misplaced Pages link" being the answer to my question of "What sources support the inclusion of the latter?", with the latter referring to the content Flexdream wished to add. And that's coming from an editor who's been here almost six years.