Talk:History of the Orange Institution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Tim Pat Coogan

I've removed the sentence claiming that Orangemen don't know about the Pope supporting King William, because even though Coogan probably does say that, it's still rubbish. I've heard that claim a lot and have yet to see any evidence for it whatsoever. On the other hand, I do have references from Orange publications in which they mention it. I haven't included them here because my notes are in my office and I'm at home, but I can provide them if anyone cares.

The whole page needs quite a bit of work - expansion, references and so forth - but that last paragraph is particularly dire. --Helenalex (talk) 10:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to contradict Coogan please do so, but you can not remove referenced information because you think it's rubbish. Just because you think that it may be referenced but it's still bollocks, is hardly a good reason. --Domer48 (talk) 10:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Just because you dont like something is not a reason for its removal, the comment is WP:V and WP:RS, so unfortunatly your opinion counts for nothing. BigDunc (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Tim Pat Coogan's opinion doesn't count for anything either. At least mine is based on evidence, which I will provide on Monday. Having said that, if you DO have evidence on Orangemen not knowing about the whole Pope thing, I'd love to see it. And 'Coogan sez so' does not constitute evidence.

Since you both seem to object to my 'bollocks' statement, I retract it, and replace it with 'the statement is unsubstantiated and probably untrue'. Bollocks are at least useful. --Helenalex (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The statement meets the criteria outlined in WP:V and WP:RS. On monday you will no doubt provide evidence on Orangemen knowing about the whole Pope thing, and will include it alongside Coogan's opinion, which dose count more than your evidence to date. --Domer48 (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This kind of attitude is pervasive in articles relating to the Troubles and I feel has a detrimental effect on Wikipedia. Who cares what you think about the author of the reference it is, as stated twice, so once more for affect WP:V and WP:RS. BigDunc (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm also going to have a look at the Coogan book and see what his evidence is. If he has some, fair enough - I have no problem with it saying 'some Orangemen are unaware that...' If not, I really can't see why we should include his unsubstantiated claim. The fact that he's a published author has no bearing on it - presumably you wouldn't say that we should include Ian Paisley's claim that the Pope is the anti Christ on the Pope's page. I don't think this is about my opinion, it's about the claim being demonstrably untrue. I should have waited until I had my sources to hand before deleting the sentence, though, and will let the sentence stand until I have them.

In response to BigDunc's comment, I agree with you that there is an attitudinal problem associated with Northern Ireland-related articles (not just the Troubles ones). I can see how the way I went about deleting that sentence would give the impression that I am contributing to it. Given that I know how fraught editing these pages can be, it was silly of me to delete the sentence without having the sources to justify it, and even sillier to explain the edit in such a flip way. I also realise that there is a lot of totally partisan editing going on, which tends to make people defensive and a lot pickier than they would be in less political situations (I also do a lot of New Zealand related articles, and even on controversial subjects there is NOTHING like this).

Having said that, I don't think that the way you (BigDunc) have responded to this is doing anything to help the situation. It is always a good idea to assume good faith and avoid being rude to people. If you contrast your comments with those of Domer, he clearly has the same opinions as you, but has managed to stay polite and avoided belittling me. I'm a big girl and can handle shit like that, but I'm pretty sure a lot of people with good things to contribute are being put off editing Northern Ireland articles because they've made a good-faith edit and had a whole lot of people jump on them. This is a fairly widespread problem and both unionists and nationalists have been contributing to it. I know that you have been on the recieving end of a lot of crap as well, and if you want to improve Wikipedia you need to make sure you are not contributing to the nasty atmosphere around many of the Northern Irish pages. Even if the other side remain unrepentent dickheads, there's no reason for you not to be civil. As Domer has shown, it is entirely possible to oppose someone's edit without assuming they are some kind of bigoted, over-opinonated vandal.

This is probably an excessively long reaction to something which doesn't even come close to being the worst stuff I've seen on a Northern Ireland talk page, but I'm getting completely sick of the bickering which goes on. I fully realise it's a two sided problem and that there are some people who can't be reasoned with, but assuming that everyone who makes an edit you disagree with is one of them is counterproductive.

I feel better having got that off my chest. :) Can we agree to be civil in disagreement? --Helenalex (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Helenalex for your reply, I in no way intended my reply to seem rude to you it certainly was not my intention. But frustration is a weakness of mine, and we just got off on the wrong foot which is understandable when an editor removes content with an edit summary of its bolox it is hard to assume good faith. So now the air is cleared lets move on in a constructive way. BigDunc (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Helenalex all you have to do with Coogan's opinion is add, "According to..." and if you wish to add an alternative view, after the opinion of Coogan add "however such and such says." In addition, you could put your source first and Coogan's after. As long as both opinions are given equall weight their is no problem at all. All I want is the article to be referenced, and that the references meet the criteria outlined in our policy of WP:V and the guidlines in WP:RS. --Domer48 (talk) 12:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've provided evidence of Orangemen knowing about the Pope and William, corrected some of the Coogan references etc, and hopefully the resulting edit is something everyone can agree with. Having re-read my collection of Orange literature (I'm doing a PhD on the 12th) I've come to the conclusion that 'overlook' is a reasonable word to use - some of the accounts of the Williamite War don't mention the Pope at all. The sentence now conveys that although most Orangemen probably don't want to draw too much attention to the Pope thing, they're probably not ignorant of it.

There are still major problems with that paragraph though. It looks as if someone has read the Coogan book and just tacked on a 'everything Coogan says about the Orange Order' paragraph on the end. I'm still a bit dubious about Coogan's knowledge of the Order - the book is on a completely different subject and to my knowledge he's never written anything specifically about the Order - but the main problem is that the info is in the wrong place, and that it's really badly written. So I'll wait for feedback and then if no one has any objections I'll shift it to more appropriate places. --Helenalex (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Winter

The article Daniel Winter is a pathetic sub-stub.

Would someone like to check it over and see whether it can be expanded? If not, it should just be redirected to this article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)