Talk:Holy Cross dispute
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. 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. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.) |
||
| Mid | This article is on a subject of Mid-importance for Northern Ireland-related articles. | ||
|
Article Grading: WikiProject Northern Ireland tasks:
|
|||
 |
This 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 Wikipedia. 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. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.) |
||
| High | This article is on a subject of High-importance for Belfast-related articles. | ||
|
Article Grading: WikiProject Belfast tasks:
|
|||
Why the change from "Loyalists" to "unionists" in the third para of beginnings. Gerry Lynch 23:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
The people involved were unionists.
Lapsed Pacifist 00:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
- It's POV-pushing. Lapsed Pacifist wants to tar moderate unionists with the same brush as the loyalist scumbags responsible for Holy Cross. He's done the same thing on many other pages too, changing "loyalist paramilitaries" to "unionist paramilitaries". Demiurge 08:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
No, it's not. What makes a unionist a loyalist? "Loyalist scumbags"? If you were a unionist, would you like IRA men walking by your door every morning?
Lapsed Pacifist 08:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Picture
This article needs a Picture, does anyone have a photo of the area? Or perhaps a "heat of the moment" pic where the loyalists threw pipebombs on the street? Superdude99 15:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
The argument of IRA Men walking past their houses is a scapgoat to try and condon this sectarian act. If that's the case, why do Loyalists get worked up when Orange Order marches are banned from Catholic areas, when the Orange Order is filled with Loyalists paramilitary members, not to mention to the so called "supports" of the march, who are allowed to follow, teenagers and known Loyalist paramilitary members shouting Anti Catholics slogans.
Every child has the right to education. Why did the parents walk their Children up the road, knowing their was a protest? The same reason Black People did it in America in the 1950's: it would be wrong to let hatred and bigetory to prevail.
BBX, this is a talk page about the article, not a discussion forum. Valenciano 13:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Garbage
This article is awful.
" Sadly they started protesting about this following a dispute and an alleged allegation that a parent kicked the wing mirror of a vehicle. Very upsetting and serious incidents of verbal abuse and violence occurred at the pickets, and there was widespread disorder throughout north Belfast for the duration of the dispute as a result of this dispute."
'Sadly'. 'Very upsetting'?
This is not a balanced article. It doesn't seem to coincide with the BBC (not known for being pro-Loyalist) says http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1518025.stm
The whole article needs rewriting: no more emotive words, and nothing without a good citation, as this article is an obvious target for POV-pushing by either Loyalist or Republican tendencies. I don't think the current length can be sustained as the detail can't be sourced, so it should probably shrink to little more than a 2-paragraph stub.
Nssdfdsfds 01:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, feel free to edit. I have started. Dainamo 15:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- In terms of describing the two communities, I think republican/loyalist only should be used rather than nationalist/unionist. Stu ’Bout ye! 16:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- "Loyalist" and "Republican" have evolved to refer to the more militant wings of the uniionist and nationalist community respectively. Hence when defining the communities in general it is far more NPOV to call them unionist and nationalist. The use of the other terms must be done so with disctetion and refer to specific groups, individuals and actions Dainamo 15:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
