Talk:Orange Institution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.

Contents


[edit] Archiving a talk page

How do editors feel about archiving some of this talk page. Here is a link on different methods. Any suggestions welcome. --Domer48 (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My opinion

this article tries to make the orange order look like they're persecuted by catholics. I suggest re-editing completely and involve say someone who isnt a catholic OR protestant. Stick to the issue and dont involve personal opinion.


"There are two related organisations, the increasingly left-wing militant Apprentice Boys of Derry (named after Catholic guild apprentices who refused entry to and preented a besieging French army from entering Derry),"

This is wrong is so many ways I don't even want to begin correcting it.

Jmwalsh...


I have not said anything about the Orange Order in Ireland because there is little information available about its history there. I gather it has been most extensively studied in Canada. I leave it to those who are better informed than I to fill in its Irish role. If you check my profile you will notice I have a Catholic name, but I am neither Catholic nor Protestant. Jfitzg

The page has improved greatly - thanks Efghij - but it still needs a little npov and more information. It's sometimes a hard subject for those involved to discuss "neutrally" though. Paul


[edit] Opening paragraph & fair comment

There was no need to separate Canada from the Commonwealth given that it is a member.


Something needs to be done to the opening paragraph, which at the moment reads as if the Orange Order were some sort of benign charitable organisation like the Lions Club or something. I added the following carefully NPOV statement, to try to put this right: In April 2004 a Scottish court ruled that it was fair comment to describe the organisation as "sectarian", "anti-Catholic" and "protestant-supremacist". [1]. User:Hcheney reverted this, saying "revert - this edit is blatantly POV; this is relevant for either the Galloway or Ingram article, not the Orange Order - this should be included if the House of Lords upholds the ruling upon appeal" Apart from the patent nonsense about the House of Lords - there is no suggestion of an appeal, as far as I know, and even if there was it seems extraordinarily unlikely that it would go to the Lords - it is clearly untrue to say that my edit was POV. It is the very model of a NPOV ststement. "X says Y about Z" It doesn't say that the Orangemen are "sectarian" etc, it says that a Scottish court has ruled that to say so is fair comment. GrahamN 17:17, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we're referring to the comment an an NPOV one - I'm with User:Hcheney on this. Primarily, it's a statement of the form "W said X about Y's statement Z" - which is hardly an authoritative or appropriate basis for inclusion in Wikipedia. It is, clearly, a point of view.

To further explain why this comment is inappropriate, consider the meaning of Fair comment in UK law. Fair Comment does not necessarily imply that the comment is either true or fair. Essentially, all it says is that the opinion was honestly held, and not given maliciously or recklessly without regard to the facts. The discussion may also need to be on a matter of "public interest" as well (which might exclude certain comments on someone's private affairs). The court said little more than that the opinion quoted might be honestly held, and did not defame an individual. The test for inclusion in an NPOV Wikipedia article is stronger than that.

It is quite in order to include such documentary evidence as you may find of anti-catholicism, sectarianism, or supremacist statements (though less emotive terms might be helpful). On the other hand, it adds nothing to the debate to say that a Scottish court found that someone's opinions on the subject did not meet the legal definition of defamation of an individual.

I propose to delete the "point of view", after a brief period of reflection.

Given that the organisation itself claims not to be supremacist, the NPOV guidelines suggest that such views might be more appropriately discussed in an Opposing Views section.

Paul 17:39, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The sentence in the article could not be more neutral. It is a straightforward statement of fact about a specific court ruling, supported by a reference. It says what it says, no more and no less. If you know about Scottish law, and about and the precise meaning of the term "fair comment" under that code, then it would be nice if you could write us an article about it, because there doesn't seem to be one at present. Thanks. GrahamN 24 October 2004 [Not logged in because I seem to have forgotten my password]

Neutrality is about more than just sticking to factual statements. It's about the tone of an article and the balance of its overall presentation. However the sentence in dispute should be left out of the opening paragraphy simply because it's not very important. As Paul says it also gives a very misleading impression to someone not aware of the legal definition of 'fair comment'. There should be some reference to the controversy in the opening paragraph though. I suggest we change the sentence to something like:

The Orange Order is the subject of controversy, with some accusing it of being sectarian and anti-Catholic.

I would also question the description "exclusively Protestant" in the intro. Obviously it is a true statement but the fact that only Protestants are permitted is a detail that would usually be left for the body of the article. It currently reads like the first sentence of the intro has been deliberately written to draw attention to one particular criticism of the organisation. "The Orange Order is a Protestant fraternal organisation" is sufficient for the intro.

Iota 19:27, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality and balance are both eminently desirable in an article, but they are different things. Neutrality is about sticking to verifiable facts without editorialising or explicitly taking sides: it is an objective quality that is not open to negotiation. Balance, on the other hand, is about including a reasonable variety of facts and viewpoints, and it is necessarily subjective. One person's balanced article is another person's biased one. The rules of Wikipedia demand neutrality; but balance, being subjective, cannot be codified in policy. It is an aspiration that we all strive towards, but it cannot be legislated for. Balance in a controversial article such as this may emerge over time after many people have contributed to it.
The sentence re the Scottish court ruling is objectively neutral (in the sense that I'm using the word - which is the sense in which it is generally used by Wikipedians), but it has now been removed to help serve Iota's legitimate, but nonetheless subjective, idea of balance. The new wording is demonstrably less neutral than original. Instead of being specific, naming people, times and places, it now asserts in a general way that "some catholics and nationalists" accuse the O.O. of being sectarian. This is certainly true, but it overlooks the fact that many others who, like me, are neither catholic nor nationalist, also make such accusations.
Iota, I disagree when you say that these allegations are "not important". Most people in the UK and in Ireland see the Orange Order as an anti-catholic sectarian group, and to us that is the most significant thing about it. Whether or not we are correct to see it that way, we do so, and this is an important fact relating to the organisation. In my opinion, a balanced article needs to make this clear towards the beginning. The fairest way to do this is to include a demonstrably neutral statement such as the one about the Scottish court ruling.
I agree with you that there is a problem with making it clear exactly what "fair comment" does or does not mean. There are two ways to solve that: we could research and write a good article about the precise meaning of "fair comment" in Scottish law, or we could replace the sentence with a specific reference to accusations of sectarianism from a different source. Until that is done, I think we will have to put up with the slightly unsatisfactory "fair comment" sentence. I'm afraid I just can't accept the fudge of "some catholics and nationalists allege...". It's just not balanced!
GrahamN 15 November 2004 [Blasted password still eludes me]


Graham N wrote:

Iota, I disagree when you say that these allegations are "not important". Most people in the UK and in Ireland see the Orange Order as an anti-catholic sectarian group, and to us that is the most significant thing about it.

To the contrary, I absolutely agree that the fact that a lot of people see the Orange Order as sectarian is important. That's why i tried to reword the intro to express that. What is unimportant is what a judge happened to say on a particular occasion about an obscure point of law, because that is what it amounts to once you take into account what "fair comment" actually means.

The new wording is demonstrably less neutral than original. Instead of being specific, naming people, times and places, it now asserts in a general way that "some catholics and nationalists" accuse the O.O. of being sectarian ...we could replace the sentence with a specific reference to accusations of sectarianism from a different source

The new wording may have been a general statement but i dont agree that it was POV. I dont think that anyone would really deny that "some/many Catholics think the OO is sectarian". Nor is it always inappropriate to use general statements. The introduction to an article is supposed to be a short summary that encapsulates all of the most important things about the topic without going into specifics. So we could write "Sinn Fein/the Ancient Order of Hibernias/X/Y/Z thinks the Orange Order are sectarian" but that is too specific for the intro and would leave out the fact that many of its critics dont belong to any organisation and may (like yourself) not fit into any other neat category. IMO it is ok (and often necessary) to use general statements although it is best to back them up with more specific details later in the main body of the article. This is the way things are done in plenty of other articles.

..some catholics and nationalists" accuse the O.O. of being sectarian. This is certainly true, but it overlooks the fact that many others who, like me, are neither catholic nor nationalist, also make such accusations.

This is a reasonable criticism.

Until that is done, I think we will have to put up with the slightly unsatisfactory "fair comment" sentence. I'm afraid I just can't accept the fudge of "some catholics and nationalists allege...".

I dont think it's acceptable to continue with a highly problematic (and IMO POV) sentence until a better one is agreed upon. The statement may be a neutral attribution but IMO it is still POV (in spirit at the very least) to draw attention to criticisms of a group by using a statment that (a) is highly misleading and (b) amounts to promoting to the intro a fact that is not important enough to go there. I have tried again with an alternative wording:

The Orange Order is the subject of some controversy, accused by some, especially Irish Catholics and nationalists, of being a sectarian organisation.

Remove that sentence if you really must. But please dont put back the bit about the judge and fair comment, at least until we can find some consensus, because i really feel strongly that it is not acceptable.Iota 03:01, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


--Aughavey 21:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)The paragraph inserted about the 2005 St Patrick`s Day parade in Cork is entirely incorrect. The Orange Order were invited to send a small group to participate in the Cork St Patrick`s Day parade as part of a celebration of the cultural diversity of the island of Ireland as well as Cork being the European City of Culture. The Orange Order accepted the invitiation. A single Belfast Lodge with their wives and children were to have participated in the parade alongside Africans, Filipines and Chinese families as well as the usual paraders. It was not until the parade organisers received some threatening phone calls stating "we know who you are and what you are planning" that the Orange Order consulted the Gardai (Police) about safety and subsequently withdrew on the grounds of the safety of their wives and children whilst thanking the parades organisers for their invite and they hoped to be reinvited next year. The question therefore is who is intolerant? The Orange Order for accepting an invitation to march not only in the South of Ireland but in Cork alongside other minority groups on St Patricks Day (and no doubt wearing spriggs of Shamrock as they usually do)? Or the small minority issueing threats? There was no local outcry at all just a few extremists mostly from Northern Ireland. To back this up:- Orange Order pulls out of parade http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4275523.stm Protestant cleric attacks invite to Orangemen http://www.irishexaminer.com/pport/web/Full_Story/did-sgzWW0VMhhfecsglO-LCk0lQvU.asp Orangemen to march in Cork http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2091-1482649,00.html Orangemen Set To March On St Paddy's Day In Cork http://www.newsletter.co.uk/story/18282

[edit] Instruments

Isn't there some particular instrument (pipes, flutes?) that is associated to the order and Irish Catholics wouldn't play?

Yes. The lambeg drum --Leathlaobhair 18:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The Lambeg drum (will the link turn blue?) used to be played in AoH parades, and a handful of Irish musicians of a more 'green' tradition still play them. --Mal 03:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Presbyterian bar

The Order is indeed controversial in non-members' eyes.

I think the article should mention that Presbyterians were excluded from joining until c. the 1840s. They don't often mention that do they?

[edit] Glorious Revolution

I don't understand why there is a fairly hefty, seperate exposition of the Glorious Revelotion on this page. Obviously it is very bound up with the Orange Order's history, but I think that mention of the effects of 1688-89 should be more intergrated into a description of the Order's history. Having a long discursion on the political effects of the Glorious revolution just looks clumsy on a page about the Orange Order, as opposed to on a page on the Glorious Revolution.

[edit] Recent edits and historical fact

For starters, the phrase, "It is a historical fact..." should go. Either state it because everyone agrees and it won't be controvercial, or cite an unbiased source. I'm not saying it's not true (I have no idea), "it is a historical fact" is generally a red flag for arm-waving.

Next, I do like the entry, but parts of it are very wordy, and read more like a tribute to the order than an encyclopaedia entry. I'd suggest trimming out some of the quotes and generally covering the facts surrounding the order.

Just some suggestions. Overall, quite nice. -Harmil 28 June 2005 19:03 (UTC)

Aughavey 29 June 2005 01:05 (UTC) i would like to know where lapsed pacifist gets his facts from. The Adelaide Hospital Society has not disbanded http://www.adelaide.ie/

Aughavey 29 June 2005 01:11 (UTC) I also dispute the insertion of the word "similar" and / or "religious" in this sentence. The Orange Institution contributed more members than any other organisation full stop. "The Orange institution saw more of its members serve and make the supreme sacrifice in the First World War than any other religious organisation."

Aughavey 29 June 2005 07:19 (UTC) I also note that lapsed pacifist has changed the following "defeating the Fenians at Ridgeway, Ontario in 1866. An obelisk there marks the spot where Orangemen died in defending their country against the Fenian invaders." to read "the colony". Canada was the Province of British North America and then in 1867 the Dominion of Canada not a colony.

Small point: Aughavey changed "largely based in northern Ireland and western Scotland " to "largely based in Northern Ireland and western Scotland". This was probably a reflex edit, or did you really intend to exclude Donegal? --Red King 29 June 2005 17:35 (UTC)

Aughavey 29 June 2005 21:57 (UTC) "as the Catholic Church requires its adherents to make all reasonable efforts to raise all their children in the same religion, regardless of the other parent's faith." The Catholic churches Ne Temere decree: in earlier times Catholics had been discouraged, even forbidden, by their church from being married by anyone but a priest. Nevertheless, if a Catholic were married by a Protestant minister, the marriage was recognised by the church as valid. Then in 1908 the pope issued a decree, known from its first words as the Ne Temere decree, stating that in future the church would not recognise such marriages as valid.

That is no longer applicable.FearÉIREANN\(talk) 29 June 2005 23:10 (UTC)

Aughavey 30 June 2005 08:46 (UTC) The Ne Temere decree is still in effect. To clarify the line "It is opposed to the Good Friday Agreement."

Wednesday 15 April 1998 The Grand Orange Lodge, the ruling body of the Orange Order, decided not to support the Good Friday Agreement. While not rejecting the Agreement outright the members demanded clarification of a number of issues from British Prime Minister, Tony Blair before it would consider changing its position. [During the referendum campaign the Orange Order came out against the Agreement.]

With regards to the charity sction. The charities listed are Orange owned and run charities. The Orange Order routinely does charitable work for other charities which as stated are given a small amount of coverage.

Aughavey 4 July 2005 18:15 (UTC) With refernce to:- "During the 1992 marching season, the then British Secretary of State, Sir Patrick Mayhew declared "the actions of the marchers would have disgraced a tribe of cannibals" after Orangemen taunted residents of a Catholic neighbourhood they were marching through about the recent murders of five locals by the UDA. The UDA members had killed the men (who had no paramilitary connections) when they sprayed a betting-shop with gunfire. The UDA was made an illegal organisation by the British government shortly afterwards."

Whilst relevant it is worth pointing out this has more to do with "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland, the political status of Northern Ireland rather than direct the Orange Order.

The Universit of Ulster CAIN website records the following:-

Betting Shop Killings / Bookmaker's Shop Killings On 5 February 1992 five Catholic were killed in a gun attack on a bookmakers (a licensed betting shop) in the Ormeau Road area of Belfast. In a statement claiming responsibility the Ulster Freedom Fighters (UFF), a cover name (pseudonym) used by the Ulster Defence Association (UDA), concluded with the words "Remember Teebane".

Note Teebane: Teebane On 17 January 1992 the Irish Republican Army (IRA) exploded a bomb killing eight Protestant civilians who had been travelling in a minibus past Teebane crossroads between Cookstown and Omagh, County Tyrone. The men had been working at a military base in County Tyrone and were travelling home when the attack occurred.

The tit-for-tat killings were not uncommon throughout the 30 year troubles in Northern Ireland before the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998.

Aughavey 5 July 2005 09:57 (UTC) "as well as French Hugenots (including the ancestors of Davy Crockett) fleeing persecution from the Catholic Church. There were also a number of English settlers, largely Anglican. The ruling Anglo-Irish had already been in Ireland for centuries."

I think it is important to note that the Anglo-Irish had been ruling Ireland from dublin for centuries before the plantation of Ulster. Another interesting fact is that in 1155 the then "Bishop" of Rome, Pope Adrian IV granted control of Ireland to England. The grant was confirmed in 1172 by the then "Bishop" of Rome, Pope Alexander III in 1172. I do not believe that this grant has ever been revoked.

This is not quite right (the bit about the anglo-Irish anyway). The "Old English" of the pre-Elizabethan era were not the same people as the "Protestant Ascendancy" of the 17th century onwards. They had been very largely integrated into Gaelic society by the time of the tudors and even the more "English" Pale community were excluded from power because they remained Catholic after the reformation. Because of this, the "Old English" became "Irish" over the course of the 17th C, both in the eyes of the Authorities and in their own identity. Re the Pope, I believe this would be revoked by the fact the vatican recognised the Irish Free State in 1922! Not to mention the fact that the Popes had been backing Spanish, French and Jacobite claims to the throne of Ireland from 1580 - 1750 or so. Jdorney 13:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


Aughavey 5 July 2005 10:01 (UTC) "Many of its members also belong to the Democratic Unionist Party and various loyalist paramilitary groups."

Whilst it is certainly true that there may be members who associate with such things it is entirely against the rules. I is entirely possible that many school teachers, many civil servants or anything else are members of Loyalist paramilitaries. Each private lodge is responsible for its own discipline but anyone convicted of a serious crime would normally be expelled from the Order although it is at the lodges discretion to vote on it ie someone who genuinely repents of a previous crime (since Jesus forgives sin) may be accepted as a member etc.


Aughavey 13:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC) "In 1870 and 1871, 60 people were killed in riots in New York City during Orange Order marches in the city. Orange marches in the city have been banned ever since."

This is absolutely not true.

Aughavey 17:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC) "Nine people had been killed and more than a hundred injured (including women and children) during the parade the year before, when a riot broke out after the marchers had taunted Irish Catholics with sectarian songs and slogans. The ban appalled many nativists, who saw it as bowing down to the wishes of the Irish Catholic immigrant community. "

have you any evidence of this lapsed pacifist? seeing as you previously stated the above that they were banned to this day i will take you points of view, which they clearly are, with a pinch of salt. The accounts of the attacks on the Twelfth (of July) 1870 picnicers by 500-600 men makes a gory story; nine died in the affray, and, perhaps, 100 were injured. A reporter of the "New York Times" blamed the Roman Catholics. He said, "The attack was premeditated and altogether unwarranted." Archbishop McCloskey, and the Irish clergy, who spoke against any counter demonstration on the Twelfth, were condemned by Thomas Kerrigan, President of the New York Hiberniansduring a speech where he condemned the attitude of the churchmen, and the Roman Church's attitude to Orangeism in Ireland. He promised that it would not be permitted to act in the same way in America.

[edit] NPOV check

This article raises serious NPOV issues.

  1. The further down one goes, the less NPOV the text and the more pro-Orange Order (or more correctly, the more 'isn't it a wonderful organisation') the tone gets. In particular, the article's repeat use of 'brethren' to describe the Order implies a relationship between author, reader and topic that breaches NPOV. 'In house' terms used by any organisation should be used sparingly or in quotes, not in general language throughout the article.
  2. Its coverage of the alleged negatives of the order, though strongish in some areas, is not sustained.
  3. The list of charitable work by the Order again adds to the 'aren't they great!' tone. Most organisations are involved in charity work but Wikipedia doesn't list the work in detail. It warrants no more than 1 or 2 paragraphs here, not a big chunk of the page.

Furthermore the article needs extensive wikifying and major editing, to conform to encyclopædic standards. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 29 June 2005 23:44 (UTC)

[edit] History

I tidied up the history section because I thought it was a bit of a mess. It went forwards and backwards in time and went into too much detail on things that were not really relevant, like the Glorious Revolution. I think this article could also lose the paragraphs about the flight of the earls and the 1641 rebellion to be honest. There's articles already on all these things if people want to contribute to them. Jdorney 15:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

It looks like you accidentally removed a huge chunk from the end. See relevant edit. The page now ends rather abruptly: "At the second sessions of the State Grand Lodge of New York in June, 1874 there were discussions on further T"
Redgrittybrick 21:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that, didn't realise I had done it. Just revert it. Jdorney 22:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Fixed now (I think). Redgrittybrick 20:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I've taken out most of the more blatantly biased language, but I feel the article could probably be improved in other ways. XYaAsehShalomX 17:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


"The "Laws and Constitutions of the Loyal Orange Institution of Scotland", 1986 state: "No ex-Roman Catholic will be admitted into the Institution unless he is a Communicant in a Protestant Church for a reasonable period." Likewise the "Constitution, Laws and Ordinances of the Loyal Orange Institution of Ireland" (1967) state: "No person who at any time has been a Roman Catholic.... shall be admitted into the Institution, except after permission given by a vote of seventy five per cent of the members present founded on testimonials of good character . . . "(39) In the 19th century, Rev. Dr. Mortimer O'Sullivan, a converted Roman Catholic was a Grand Chaplain of the Orange Order in Ireland.

In the 1950's Scotland also had a converted Roman Catholic as a Grand Chaplain - Rev. William McDermott"

quote taken from the article:-

THE ORANGE ORDER:

An Evangelical Perspective

ORANGEISM COMPARED WITH FREEMASONRY

SOME EVANGELICAL OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED

A REPLY TO W.J.McK.McCORMICK

By REV. IAN MEREDITH B.A., M.Th. Grand Chaplain Grand Orange Lodge of Scotland & REV. BRIAN KENNAWAY M.A. Deputy Grand Chaplain Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland


[edit] Purple star

Could someone explain the origin of the emblems in the flag? I am quite ignorant on this one Fasach Nua 22:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The CAIN website says the purple star on orange was a symbol of the Williamite forces. I'm guessing the St Georges cross is to show loyalty to England. Although to be honest I don't know much more than that, someone on here is bound to know more?   theKeith  Talk!  21:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The orange field is the heraldic colour associated with the House of Orange (formerly the House of Orange-Nassau), ruling house of Holland after their expulsion of the Spaniards, and of King William III of Great Britain and Ireland, who was invited by Parliament to become Britain's ruler after passing over all other eligible males on account of their Catholicism. The canton is the flag of St George, specifically the national flag of England as distinct from the Union Flag or Royal Standard; it is also the basis of the later flag of Northern Ireland. The charge of a purple star in the lower fly relates to James Wilson's utterance, when his brother Freemasons refused to organise into a Protestant militia, that he "would light a star [...] which would eclipse them forever". It's purple colour probably derives from one of the Institution's disputed links with Freemasonry: a continuation and completion of the Third Degree in Craft Masonry, called the Royal Arch, refers at one point to a Purple Veil, and the significance of the colour is Loyalty. Whence evidently derives the Orange Institution's Royal Arch Purple degree, even though the content is entirely different from Royal Arch, and has more in common with a Masonic Third.
Nuttyskin 02:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting Roots

I've Deleted the Roots section as it adds little to any understanding of the Orange Order itself. Instead I've added references to the Plantation of Ulster, the Irish Rebellion of 1641 and the Williamite war in Ireland in the (now rather inelegant) first sentence of the History section.

If you want to see the edit please go here.

JASpencer 20:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

These two paragraphs contradict each other as written:

Protestant groups were formed to oppose the Catholic groups, one of which was the exclusively [[Anglican]] [[Peep O'Day Boys]], which later became the Orange Order.{{fact}}

and:

After a disturbance in [[Benburb]] on 24th June 1794, in which Protestant homes were attacked, the [[Freemasons]]' organisation was appealed to by one of its members, [[James Wilson (Orangeman)|James Wilson]], to organise themselves to defend the Protestant population.{{fact}}

JASpencer 21:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Been removed. The Peep O'Days citation isn't too reliable though. JASpencer 21:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trinitarian belief

The article states "Members are required to be Protestant with a belief in the Trinity, which excludes Unitarians and certain other Christian denominations and all non-Christians." However the qualifications cited in the footnote only mention that "An Orangeman should have a sincere love and veneration for his Heavenly Father; a humble and steadfast faith in Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, believing in Him as the only Mediator between God and man." This does not seem to be explicitly trinitarian; it does not mention the deity of Christ or of the Holy Spirit, nor does it exclude a unitarian belief merely in God as Father and Jesus as mediator. I understand that the present Grand Master in Ireland is unitarian. Unless someone can cite firm evidence that the Order is trinitarian I would wish to query the section 'Requirements for entry'


---

the Order is indeed Trinitarian.

[edit] Entry requirements

Members are not allowed to be married to a Roman Catholic or have a Catholic mother. That's a nice friendly organization for you !

Nor are members expected to be Jewish, Muslim or athiest. The organisation is a Christian fraternity which adheres particularly to Protestantism.
If you were not a Protestant, I would seriously question the sanity of wanting to join this particular organisation. If you are male, do you sarcastically call the Womens' Institute a "nice friendly organisation"?
Members are actually "allowed" to be married to Roman Catholics, and have catholic parents by the way. Before asserting your political viewpoint, perhaps it would help if you actually had some knowledge of the subject you're talking about. --Mal 02:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Page move

I undid the cut and paste move of February 2006 from Orange Order to Orange Institution, but there is talk both at Talk:Orange Order and Talk:Orange Institution. I prefer the former, as do the incoming links. --Henrygb 00:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm moving this back to the proper title for the article (as per the reason for the move in the first place), and merging the talk pages into this one. --Mal 18:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why the Page move?

Why has this been moved from a name that is well known to everyone Orange Order and to a name that is barely reflected even in the article where Orange Order outweighs Orange Institution by a large amount? I don't see any discussion on the Talk page about this move. Can someone explain, preferably in the first paragraph of the article. Dabbler 22:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree with Dabbler. I see no discussion of this move anywhere---not that the talkpages can be traced at this point---and Orange Institution is not a common name. ---Charles 22:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
It was always called the Orange Order. Are there other motives for this change? MelForbes 23:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The basic stuff

Curious why there is practically no explanation at all about the roots of the word 'Orange' in the context of this article/topic and actually very little in general about William of Orange. A bit too much preoccupation with the more contentious elements of this article perhaps? Rgds, JOHN NATHANN 18:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Facts!

This article seems to be almost entirely pointless. Where is there a statement as to the foundation of the OO and its roots and antecedents, its subsequent history and a chronology? Currently it seems to be little more than an apologia; looking through the discussion page the article seems to have been anti-oo, then pro-, then anti. Now its pro. But can we have some FACTS please. Can someone qualified for the job actually outline its history, PLEASE! 79.66.53.26 16:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Paul M.

[edit] Arson

Orange Halls have often been the target of Republican/Nationalist vandalism, paint bombings, sectarian graffiti and arson attacks with many of the halls suffering severe damage, if not complete destruction.

Could someone please help me with rewording this sentence? "Often" is a Weasel word, how often does this happen? I think there is a lot of POV in this sentence. Drinkanotherday 16:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Just remove the word "often" completely. beano 15:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Londonderry

There is no such thing as the City of Derry Grand Lodge, County Londonderry GAA or Derry Port and Harbour Commissioner. It is just wrong to refer to Derry when talking about the Orange Order.Traditional unionist 09:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the article. The county lodges are "Londonderry County" and "City of Londonderry" as per [2]. beano 15:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Also Londonderry is still the official name on the City Charter. Thats something that can't be changed by Derry City Council only by the Monarch. Mabuska 21:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Derry is the name of the City and the county, the London plantation company was given the rights to exploit the area. Calling the place LondonDerry is akin to calling it IBMDerry or MatsushitaDerry. It'll all be changed soon enough.

[edit] Complete Bigotry

Its intrinsically a sectarian organisation. They celebrate William of Orange's victory over the Jacobites. What was did William have that Jacob didn't? Protestant faith!

and the Pope's support :-) Nothing is simple in here! - Paul (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, there was never an English king called Jacob. 86.43.195.7 (talk) 07:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sectarian Movement

I have provided a ref for this claim please dont edit war on this. BigDunc 12:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you in breach of WP:3RR yet? Sectarian is a POV term. If we agree this then we will have to add a sectarian tag to every religious movement in the world. That would be daftTraditional unionist 12:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

How can sectarian be a PoV term look at sectarian. And the Catholic Church are not sectarian they do not barr anyone joining who where another religon neither do Protestant, Muslim or Hindu they all actively encourage new members from any other religous organisation.BigDunc 12:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You also ignore that many protestants are barred from membership, mainly unitarians. I know someone who is a member, his parents are catholic and he was raised a catholic. Sectarian is not an acceptable term to use for the Orange in an encyclopedia.Traditional unionist 12:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you not proving my point "many protestants are barred from membership, mainly unitarians" due to there religon so it is sectarian.BigDunc 12:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Traditional unionist I hope you will be taking out this "PoV" term "sectarian graffiti" in the article too, seen as you are against the use of the word. BigDunc 13:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sectarian is sourced and should stay, although I have no objections to it being moved or rephrased. One Night In Hackney303 15:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The source admits in the introduction that the book is biased. Just because Michael Farrell calls it sectarian doesn't make it true.Traditional unionist 15:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
What does Farrell have to do with anything? If you object to Farrell then remove Farrell, but that still leaves another source. One Night In Hackney303 15:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Just because someone once wrote that the order is sectarian doesn't make it true. The Pope is a presbyterian. You can reference that statement to here, but it's still untrue. Not that that's a perfect example as it's black and white. Sectarian is a subjective term, as well as being POV.Traditional unionist 15:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:NPOV, you cannot remove sectarian because you don't like the truth. I suggested you rephrase it if you didn't like the wording, and you continued to remove it. One Night In Hackney303 15:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
It is not the truth, you can't add it because that is your POV.Traditional unionist 15:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
My POV? I don't add my POV to articles, I add sourced content. One Night In Hackney303 15:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The only one pushing an unsourced PoV is yourself Traditional unionist I have added a source and so has One Night In Hackney. BigDunc 15:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the answer to this is to look how this is treated in the article Ancient Order of Hibernians. I quote: Its mixture of religion and politics (similar to that of the Protestant Orange Order) has led its critics to accuse it of sectarianism and anti-Protestantism. And also As a vehicle for Irish nationalism, the AOH greatly influenced the sectarian aspect of Irish politics in the early twentieth century and by 1914 had saturated the entire island. I think that is fairly handled. I would expect the same kind of language in the Orange Institution article. --81.132.246.132 18:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
“There is quite as little doubt that this shocking society [Orange Order] was encouraged by the Government, and by most of the magistrates and country gentlemen to keep alive religious animosity, and prevent the spread of the United Irish organization. An union of Irishmen, upon the just, liberal, and fraternal basis of this organization, - would have - rendered impossible that other “Union” on which Mr. Pitt had set his heart—the Union of Ireland with England.” Quote taken from John Mitchel’s History of Ireland published in 1868. --Domer48 22:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The chief object of the Government and its agents was now to invent and disseminate fearful rumours of intended massacres of all the Protestant people by the Catholics.
Dr. Madden says: — “Efforts were -made to infuse into the mind of the Protestant feelings of distrust to his Catholic fellow-countrymen. Popish plots and conspiracies were fabricated with a practical facility, which some influential authorities conceived it no degradation to stoop to; and alarming reports of these dark confederations were circulated with a restless assiduity.” The effects were soon apparent in the atrocities committed by the Orangemen in Armagh, and by the magistrates and military in other counties. --Domer48 22:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that saying it is "sectarian" is ok. It carries connotations. Wikidictionary, for example, under the "sectarian" definition (see here), has "bigoted" and "narrow-minded" as part of the definition. I think we can say that the Order has been accused of it. This link provides a good refernece should anyone wish to put this into this article, or the Ancient Order of Hibernians. If all we're saying is that it is a sect that only allows some people in, why don't we just state it like that without using the word?Logoistic 23:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, Domer: if you are thinking of putting this kind of stuff in the article,you will need strong references for, for e.g., instances of these "fearful rumours" rather than the opinion of a particular author. Logoistic 23:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Domer48 will you please read what others write and try to build a consensual article and not just quote from sources which are, by their very nature, one sided and often sectarian. I have proposed a solution and instead of discussing it, you've quoted from a well known radical nationalist, from 2 centuries ago. This is not a soap box for you to air your political beliefs. I don't doubt that at times certain OO members and lodges have been sectarian (as I do with the AOH), however we are helping write an encyclopedic article. If you are going to state that the OO is sectarian, you should provide rock solid current sources. If you disagreed with someone elses additions to an article, you would ask for the same. We are not trying to push our political beliefs on others (or we shouldn't be). A lot of articles by their nature will have to be built on consensus. If you don't want to help achieve that consensus, you should not be involved in the Wikipedia project at all. --81.132.246.132 00:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry where is the "proposed a solution," you have suggested? --Domer48 12:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Editors removing a sourced claim that they do not like is what is causing the problem on this page. Someone provide a source that disproves this claim or stop reverting no one wants an edit war.BigDunc 13:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the uncited section and included the reference without changing the more encyclopedic wording. Hopefully this is a useful compromise. ELIMINATORJR 13:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep the reference, but lose the wording? What is the point of the reference? --Domer48 15:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what is the point in changing the wording and keeping the reference.BigDunc 15:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Because the ref reinforces the fact it's a Protestant-only movement, therefore it applies. I'm trying to avoid the article using any language that's only going to get edit-warred about. ELIMINATORJR 16:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Seems like a good compromise. At least one that hopefully won't get edit warred. I had suggested looking at the AOH and how it was treated in that article (see above 18:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)). I would suggest: Its mixture of religion and politics (similar to that of the Ancient Order of Hibernians) has led its critics to accuse it of sectarianism and anti-Catholicism. It is factually accurate, and I doubt if its members and supporters are going to say that it is sectarian. Remember this is an encyclopedic article we are writing, which should stand up to scrutiny from all sides. --81.132.246.132 17:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Still NO ONE can give a source or reference to disprove it is not a sectarian organisation, yet insist on removing sources. An encyclopedic article should present facts warts and all. BigDunc 17:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The sources are still there. Can we try to avoid pushing these articles into states that are going to provoke yet more tiresome edit-warring? ELIMINATORJR 18:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
BigDunc: some words carry connotations even if they are the truth. Many people reject that "activist" organisations such as the IRA should be termed "terrorist" because of the connotations that it carries, and indeed it is not used in Wikipedia articles unless it is stating who describes/classifies it as "terrorist". I think "sectarian" is the same. Implying that the Orange Order is "bigoted" and "narrow minded", as "sectarian" is often defined (I have given the link to Wikidictionary), is not showing "warts and all", but is a way of introducing slander by the back door. Have a look at Wikipedia:Words to avoid. Logoistic 23:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the link Logoistic but found this on google "Sectarianism is an adherence to a particular sect or party or denomination." Can anyone really say that this does not apply here. And if the AOH is a sectarian organisation it should be put in to that article if a source can be found for it.BigDunc 09:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
"The Order…for more than a century it has functioned in essence as a pan-Protestant front, helping to unify various strands within unionism. Although its leaders deny any suggestion that it is anti-Catholic, it has been consistently anti-ecumenical and opposed to religious integration. While its regulations tell its members to abstain from uncharitable words, actions, or sentiments against Catholics, they are also pledged to “resist the ascendancy of that church” by all lawful means. They are also warned not to attend “any act or ceremony of Popish worship”, and a number have been expelled or otherwise disciplined for doing so." Through the Minefield, by David McKittrick, The Blackstaff press, Belfast, 1999, ISBN 0 85640 652 X. I just added this to the discussion, it dose show, with my previous edits, that this accusation is not new or uncommon. --Domer48 10:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

“Orangemen like to present their annual festival as a celebration of civil and religious liberty, expressing their cultural heritage and identity in a spectacle of marching enjoyed by all. The reality can be quite different. The parades that dominate the summer months often do so provocatively and selfishly without regard to the cost in terms of community relations or the public purse. Some of the marches are unmistakably triumphal. Participants see them as a continuing and vigorous manifestation of their Protestantism, Unionism and loyalty to the British Crown. They subconsciously under line divisions and seek to assert ascendancy. Some have likened the way that local lodges parade the limits of their parishes to the way that a tom cat marks out territory, signalling the Orangemen’s unyielding belief that they are a powerful majority who will resist any process of change.” Again I simply wish to illustrate that there is a precipitation of the Order that is not shared by its members. This quote is taken from Chris Ryders and Vincent Kearney’s book Drumcree: The Orange Order’s Last Stand, Methuen Publishing Ltd, London, 2001, ISBN 0 413 76260 2. --Domer48 10:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I say again, just because someone said it doesn't make it true. Neither this article, nor the AOH one should say that they are sectarian bodies in a matter of fact way - it's not true.Traditional unionist 11:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
It was not done in a matter of fact way it was referenced by 2 editors and I have another one from there own constitution which also backs up the claim. BigDunc 12:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The quotes may back up that it is a protestant organisation that does not allow catholics. That does NOT make it sectarian in the contemporary and Northern Ireland colloquial meaning of the word.Traditional unionist 13:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
As i said above "Sectarianism is an adherence to a particular sect or party or denomination." are you saying this does not apply to the OO. BigDunc 14:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The dictionary definition of the word is neutral - it would not be neutral to say that the Orange is sectarian. That would clearly be a negative connotation.Traditional unionist 14:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I am presenting the facts "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." WP:NPOV Just because you dont agree with them does not mean it should be removed. BigDunc 14:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
1) I am not the only one who disagrees 2) it is clearly POV to state that the Orange is sectarian.Traditional unionist 15:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Who else disagrees, can they be quoted by a relilable source. Are you suggesting that the references are POV, or the editors are pushing a POV. Should we do away with references, and cite only sources which you agree with? Since you have yet to provide a reference to support your opinion, I see no reason why the use of sectarian can not be used to describe th OO. If you do provide a reference, that to can be added to balance any references all ready there? --Domer48 17:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This definition clearly shows why using the term as a matter of fact would be POV.Traditional unionist 19:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd just like to point that all that this bickering is doing is ensuring that the article doesn't get unprotected any time soon. If one word causes such a rigmarole, what are the chances of a NPOV version of the article at all? ELIMINATORJR 19:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ, this is not bickering, this is a discussion. The simple fact of the matter is 1) there have been a number of references put forward to show that the OO is a sectarian organisation. The sources are historical, contemporary, reliable and verifiable. 2) Not one source has been put forward to suggest otherwise. Just because someone dose not like the information, is not sufficient reason to keep this information out of the article. 3) The article will not remain locked because there is a disagreement here on the discussion page. The article will be unlocked, the referenced information will be added, and it is up to editors to provide contrary views to those included in the article. 4) Editors who engage in edit warring, or removing sourced or referenced material simply because they do not like it, will have to explain themselves to administrators. I would like to add, that I will only be contributing to the discussion page, in order to improve my approach to controversial dialogue. --Domer48 20:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You have provided sources from, frankly, self confessed bigots. I don't own a copy of the Orange State, but Farrell admits that his book is utterly biased in the introduction. The other references are also known to be Nationalist biased. I have provided a reference that shows the term sectarian in its true light - there is no way that the Orange can be called sectarian and that to be encyclopedic. It isn't encyclopedic, it is nationalist propaganda, and cannot be used.Traditional unionist 20:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel your definition Traditional unionist backs up what refs were put in the article and as for Farrell being a bigot dont make me laugh read Michael Farrell. There is only one person coming across like a bigot. Read this definition and decide who it is "A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own."BigDunc 20:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Traditional unionist could you illustrate through references the claims that you are making, 1) that Michael Farrell is a bigot, 2) who says the other authors are know to be biased, 3) and illustrate through referenced sources how it is nationalist propaganda? I might also point out to you another quote from Wikipedia this time

“The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.” This is not only fact but is also policy. I suggest you read it, as it will clear this matter up for us all. Could you please answer the above questions.--Domer48 20:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not bikering, Eliminator, but the evolution of neutrality! Domer and BigDunc: as far as I can see, neither of you can counter the fact that "sectarian" has negative connotations, and therefore would unduly slant the article. Can I ask what specially you are trying to define by labelling it "sectarian"? And also, why can't you just state this meaning without the use of the word? If we can't agree soon, I'll get some outside admin opinion. ;-) Logoistic 20:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
"Thus the idea that sectarianism was an artificial invention of the government moved back into fashion. Sectarianism was certainly encouraged by the authorities in some areas, especially through the Orange Order; but it was not invented. In much of the current hisroriography, ‘atavistic visceral appeal’ is — correctly — attributed to popular Protestantism, but not to popular Catholicism." In this quote, the use of the term is quite clear, is it not? The is nothing wrong with the use of the word, and this view can be challanged by opposing views. What word would you suggest as an alternative? --Domer48 21:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Lots of talking, but little progress. Instead of all this "yes they are" and "no they aren't" how about someone proposes a wording for a referenced section detailing the truth very widespread opinion that the Orange Institution are sectarian. One Night In Hackney303 21:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Logoistic thanks for the offer of outside help, and another opinion. There has been one opinion offered on this discussion,[3], a view I would share. Thanks again --Domer48 21:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I would also like to see some progress here, but I used the word "bickering" because, as Hackney says, we are just going round in circles rather than attempting to find common ground. Here's a start - because we have a requirement that the lede paragraph be as neutral as possible, why not leave the lede as it is, but insert a section about the sectarian (or otherwise) nature of the organisation in the "Requirements for Entry" section? ELIMINATORJR 21:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine that we have a requirement for the whole article be as neutral as possible. So how about removing the fraternal organisation from the lead? I would consider the use of that term as having connotations which would unduly slant the article. I would like also for the questions I posed to be answered. If I’m to improve my talk page discussion, I will have to deal with editors who refuse to back up their opinion with sources and references. As this can cause frustration and annoyance. --Domer48 22:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The lead needs to be capable of being a standalone version of the article, and notable controversies should be mentioned there. How about adding an additional sentence, something like "The Orange Institution has been accused of being sectarian, and the re-routing of an Orange Walk at Drumcree has resulted in rioting by loyalists"? One Night In Hackney303 22:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Does this article not already have a section which notes accusations of sectarianism? I have to say that I feel that this debate is an attempt by nationalists to slant the opening paragraph in a negative way - that is not acceptable. The article as it stands achieves everything that has been discussed here, accusations of sectarianism, the limitations of membership - what more do people want?Traditional unionist 22:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes it does, the controversy section, and therefore per WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV it needs to go in the lead as well. I suggest you stop making personal attacks on editors, you have already been warned about your conduct. One Night In Hackney303 22:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that you stop making insinuations. So because something is in the article it must be in the lead paragraph? That makes no sense. The article gives a very balanced view of the Orange Institution, yet one point of view and one very leading word, backed up by references at least one of which makes no secret of its partiality, is being pushed into the lead paragraph. Any objective reader will see that such an action is not encyclopedic.Traditional unionist 22:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Traditional Unionist, please quit with the personal attacks and dismissal of sources as "Nationalist Propaganda". We already have an ArbCom case open for all the edit wars and bad blood going around, and I don't want to see it grow (or , perish the thought, another one). As a suggestion to break the deadlock, how about something like "Opponents have accused the Orange Institution of being a sectarian organization, due to its goals and exclusion of Roman Catholics as members" with a link to the references on offer.. SirFozzie 22:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
SirFozzie, one of the sources quotes almost goes as far as calling itself nationalist propaganda. And the suggestion you make is a good one - it could be a direct quote from the article as it stands "Its spokespeople and supporters describe the Orange Order as a pious organisation, celebrating Protestant culture and identity, but it is accused of sectarianism and anti-Catholicism"Traditional unionist 22:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, sectarian has to go in the deal. The lead has to deal with notable controversies, and the frequent true comments accusations of the OO being sectarian are notable controversies. NPOV also applies to the lead. One Night In Hackney303 22:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You are actually going out of your way to show your anti-orange bias, I don't think that helps anyone.Traditional unionist 22:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Traditional unionist, please quit with the personal attacks, lets have a civil discussion. There are still a number of questions outstanding I would like you to answer. There have been two useful suggestions from both SirFozzie and One Night In Hackney303, can we move on to discuss these suggestions. --Domer48 23:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
"... but Farrell admits that his book is utterly biased in the introduction." This is your claim Traditional unionist but what Farrell says in the preface is, "It is not an impartial book (I dont belive such a thing exists); it is written from an anti-imperialist and socialist stand-point. But as far as possible I have let events speak for themselves. I think they tell their own story which is damning enough to Unionism...without any embroidery." BigDunc 09:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for verifying my claim, like I say, I don't own a copy.Traditional unionist 09:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
And what would that claim be? And you still have not retracted your claim that the author is a bigot if you read the book you would know this is totally untrue.BigDunc 09:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This quote then is also biased [4], but is one from R. Foster. Who is very anti-Republican, and a noted revisionist. Chris Ryders and Vincent Kearney’s book Drumcree: The Orange Order’s Last Stand, I consider biased, very muted on the Orders history. Traditional unionist, could you suggest a book I should read, which dose not contain any bias? Can we now move to the suggestions by SirFozzie and One Night In Hackney303. Thanks --Domer48 09:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh I've read the book alright. Dudley-Edwards book is fairly balanced. Shes calls it sympathetic I think, but she has no hesitation to get stuck into the order over Drumcree, while at the same time giving an excellent account of what the Order is really about based on some genuine research.Traditional unionist 09:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Which book by Dudley-Edwards are you refering to of course this author is NOT known for there anti-republicanism or there revisionist slant on Irish history.(being sarcastic here of course)BigDunc 09:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
And does this "fairly balanced" tome refer to the OO as not being sectarian if it does please put it in to balance this discussion. BigDunc 10:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
And the "biased" book that I referenced is considered "A detailed well-sourced history" by Robert Fisk. BigDunc 10:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Frisk isn't the best example to use to back up your argument. In any case, I couldn't disagree with that analysis - it is detailed and it is well sourced, whilst still being biased and not particularly useful as an academic text, beyond it being an example of a nationalist intrepretration of history. The book is The Faithful Tribe, and I do recommend that you read it. Brian Kennaway also has a pretty good book out at the minute.Traditional unionist 10:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
"It's not because they're bad, but because they're stupid." The Faithful Tribe Ruth Dudley Edwards ISBN 0002558637 One of the reasons given for the antics of the OO. BigDunc 11:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd be surprised if that quote wasn't taken out of context - it is much more than likely referring to individual members or small groups of members. That quote is certainly not representative of the tone of the book.Traditional unionist 11:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sectarian Movement Cont.

Traditional unionist you have accepted the use of references, so can we now move on? Can we now move to the suggestions by SirFozzie and One Night In Hackney303. Thanks --Domer48 12:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not accept that Michael Farrell's opinions can be taken as facts. And I would point you to my 22:52 yesterday.Traditional unionist 12:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Traditional unionist, there was a number of references put forward, you have rejected them all. --Domer48 13:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That is because they are all opinions and not proof of verifiable facts.Traditional unionist 13:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

“The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.” This is not only fact but is also policy. I suggest you read it, as it will clear this matter up for us all. --Domer48 13:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

'Qualifications of an Orangeman'."strenuously oppose the fatal errors and doctrines of the Church of Rome, and scrupulously avoid countenancing (by his presence or otherwise) any act of ceremony of Popish worship". An Orangeman should "by all lawful means, resist the ascendency of that Church ... ever abstaining from all uncharitable words, actions, or sentiments towards his Roman Catholic brethren". His actions should be guided "by wisdom and prudence, and marked by honesty, temperance and sobriety; the glory of God and the welfare of man, the honour of his Sovereign, and the good of his country, should be the motive of his actions'. (Jarman and Bryan,1996; p7)

There is enough evidence to prove the sectarian nature of the OO. Traditional unionist you have not supplyed one counter claim to prove or disprove the references except to call it bigoted, biased and nationalist propaganda, so I feel we should go with the suggestion made by SirFozzie. BigDunc 13:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You have provided the qualifications of an orangeman. There is no doubt that these could be reinterpreted as sectarian, but that does not make it true. It is verifiable that some (eg Farrell) think it is sectarian, that does not make it true. You cannot proffer opinions as facts.Traditional unionist 13:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Roy Foster says it quite clearley that they are sectarian, in the quote I used. Traditional unionist, you have rejected all the references, and have not been able to cite one source to dispute them. I agree with BigDunc and suggest we use SirFozzie wording. --Domer48 13:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
So again I ask you show me a quote, reference, anything except YOUR opinion even from a Grand Wizard sorry Freudian slip Grand Master that says it is not sectarian. BigDunc 13:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
BigDunc, Please watch the Personal attacks on groups. It's not constructive, is it? SirFozzie 19:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
My deepest appologies to the OO did not mean to imply that they were a fascist right-wing organisation.BigDunc 10:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Background

I would like to suggest that a historical section be added. This would improve the article, and would challenge the opinion in the Order only became overtly political around the issue of Parnell. I would suggest also that there should be a section on the Battle of the diamond, as I have a number of opposing views? I am again confining myself to the discussion page and will only put forward references. --Domer48 21:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Work away, adding to the article is not contentious in itself, but you cannot proffer Michael Farrel's opinions as fact, merely Michael Farrell's opinions.Traditional unionist 22:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Traditional unionist I was under the impression that you accepted the use of references. Your selective attitude is disappointing. I can only refer you to my edit on the use of sources, and hope you will accept the policies as outlined. --Domer48 13:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course I accept the use of references, by all means say in the article that Michael Farrell thinks it is a sectarian orginisation - but you can't imply that that means it is true, you'll create an edit war. That's not a threat, I wont be engaging in an edit war, I'm stating that that is clearly what will happen.Traditional unionist 13:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What are we trying to say by "sectarian"?

None of the proposals show what we are meaning by inserting the word "sectarian", just getting the word in with some references. If we are saying that they exclude catholics then we should say this without the word because of the negative connotations of "sectarian". We cannot ignore the fact that it is frequently described as sectarian, as well as the fact that this carries negative conotations and therefore presents the order negatively. Therefore, if this is what we are trying to say, I propose adding the following after the second sentance in the "Requirements for entry" section:

Because of this, the institution is sometimes labelled as sectarian, a term that carries negative connotation.

Thus, it would read:

Members are required to be Protestant with a belief in the Trinity. This excludes Catholics, Unitarians and certain other Christian denominations and all non-Christians. Because of this, the institution is often labelled as sectarian, a term that carries negative connotation. Most jurisdictions require both the spouse and parents of potential applicants to be Protestant, although the Grand Lodge can be appealed to make exceptions for converts. Members of the Order face the threat of expulsion for attending any Catholic religious ceremonies.

We could add references to show this labelling if necessary, although I don't think it is. Does this sound acceptable? Logoistic 13:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does. It is true to say that some feel that it is sectarian, and that should, and I have to say already is, included in the article. The above is accurate and acceptable.Traditional unionist 14:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Logoistic for your contribution to the discussion. It is both constructive and reasonable, and will help expand the “Requirements for entry” section. This discussion however, is dealing with the lead section on the article, and as such, the use of the term “sectarian,” is to portray the negative connotation implied. Is that not what all the references have suggested, and stated. Since you yourself show in your alternative “the institution is often labelled as sectarian.” I imagine you know what connotation is “often” implied, when it is used. --Domer48 19:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Domer. However, Wikipedia articles arn't supposed to deal in connotation. If you want to say something negative about it, then these must be explicit facts, not implicit opinions. We both know that we cannot get away with explicitly stating that the order is "biggoted" and "narrow-minded", so you can't do this implicitly either through using a negative word as if it were fact. I don't understand why we can't leave it at my proposal. Logoistic 20:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"Thus the idea that sectarianism was an artificial invention of the government moved back into fashion. Sectarianism was certainly encouraged by the authorities in some areas, especially through the Orange Order; but it was not invented." R. F. Foster, The Irish Story, Penguin Books, England, 2002. I do not like to quote this book, because the author is a revisionist, but is accepted by anti-nationalists (bought it third hand). But even he is not being messing with his words. The OO is considered sectarian. --Domer48 20:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

“The Protestant only Orange Order, established in the 1790s to carry out sectarian warfare against the Catholic Defenders in the countryside, functioned as a shadow government that enforced the rules of Ulster’s religious caste system.” Terry Golway, For the Cause of Liberty, Simon & Schuster, New York, 2000, ISBN 0 684 85557 7
“A not inconsiderable factor in the breaking of it was a reversion on the part of many Protestants to their old sectarian ways under the auspices of the recently founded Orange Society.” Robert Kee, Ireland a History, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, England, 2005, ISBN 0 349 11676 8. First published in 1980, Abacus edition published in 1982, reprinted in 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, revised in 1995, published revised edition in 2003, reprinted again in 2004 and 2005.
I do not think connotation comes into this discussion, and based on the numerous references so far, to portray the OO as a benign organisation in the lead is disingenuous. --Domer48 21:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update on the lead

I have talked with Traditional Unionist, and he let me know he had no problem with the sentence discussed here on the talk page. Therefore, I have added it to the article.

Since the page is still protected for a bit longer, let's take advantage of the chance to get it all out now, so there's no further edit warring later. Does anyone have any problem with the article as it now stands? SirFozzie 02:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Some mention of the Drumcree standoff needs to be in the article ideally in the controversies section, obviously we need to cover it there before deciding whether it needs to go in the lead or not. One Night In Hackney303 02:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
There is an article on Drumcree Church which covers some of the issues.Traditional unionist 08:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No I am not happy with the lead surprise surprise who are the opponents of the OO? And if we are going to be pedantic on the use of negative connotations what about fraternal is that not a positive connotation? Should the article not be neutral? BigDunc 10:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you like the names of everyone who doesn't like the Orange individually listed? Saying that sectarian has negative connotations is not pedantic, it is factual. Saying that the Orange is fraternal is not a positive statement, it is factual.Traditional unionist 10:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I would prefer my wording because no one doubts that is is a sectarian organisation in the definition that it excludes non-protestants, just that the word "sectarian" carries negative connotations, and this needs to be adressed (as I thought my proposal did). In the same way no-body doubts that the PIRA/RIRA, etc, were/are "terrorists", there is the problems with the negative connotation (if it simply meant violent actions against economic and secutiry forces, or whatever, people would be fine with the word, but the fact is that it carries lots of negative connotation). Logoistic 10:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

And again acording to definition I provided Sectarian is Factual. BigDunc 13:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That is true BigDunc, but your definition is not comprehensive, a point that has been made repeatedly here.Traditional unionist 14:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Incidently, Sir Norman Stronge was murdered. That fact and that word were referenced hundreds of times, yet those who refused to allow that word prevailed and the article reads killed. You are in the same situation here BigDunc.Traditional unionist 14:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe this section is relevant to the discussion Aatomic1 14:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

..."or neutrally cite an actual credible person or body that has used that term ("X says Y")." Cant see a problem with getting refs for this. BigDunc 14:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The question BigDunc poses is a valid one, that is, who are the opponents of the OO? Based on the references provided to date, those “opponents” would be historians, journalists, academics and solicitors/authors. None of which would consider themselves opponents I would think. The use of the word sectarian in relation to the OO, is meant with the negative connotation in mind. As demonstrated in the references provided, its use is broader than that of the simple exclusion of other religions. To date no alternative sources have been cited, which would exclude the use of sectarian. The sources which have been provided are both verifiable and reliable. The only question to be answered is the form of wording to be used, which conveys both the stated and implied use of the word. I would suggest something on the lines of the following, “The Orange Order is considered to be a ‘sectarian’ organisation by many outside the Order.” This would serve two purposes, 1) it would reflect accurately the references provided, and 2) it would illustrate that the Order themselves, don’t see themselves as such.--Domer48 16:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:Words to avoid specifically refers to 'outsiders' not opponents. I believe all of the above are 'outsiders' to the OO and therefore any edit will need to follow the proscribed Matter of Style Aatomic1 17:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I dont understand the point you are making Aatomic1 could you explain it for me thanks. BigDunc 17:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Aatomic1 if you read BigDunc's contrabution, you will notice that they quote from WP:Words to avoid. If you read my contrabution, you will notice that the word sectarian is in inverted commas. Which means that it is a quoted by someone. As to the rest of your reasoning, are you suggesting that unless the OO describe themselves as sectarian, no one else can? It has been agreed that "sectarian" is going in, all we are discussing is how it should be phrased. --Domer48 17:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy with the suggestion made by Domer48. BigDunc 18:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Yet because a nationalist uses the word sectarian that becomes fact. I refer you again to the murdered/killed debate on Sir Norman Stronge.Traditional unionist 20:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Traditional unionistthats a compleatly different discussion. Lets stick to this article, and get this out of the way first shall we. I would again remind you to be civil, and do not make statements you can not back up. How do you feel about my suggestion? --Domer48 21:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It is an identical discussion, with identical issues having been discussed.Traditional unionist 23:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Traditional unionist on your talk page you have agreed that it should appear in the lead, and that it should include that the Order rejects this. [5] So I would ask again, is my suggested wording ok, “The Orange Order is considered to be a ‘sectarian’ organisation by many outside the Order,” as I consider that it covers both points you have made. --Domer48 08:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

We're splitting hairs a little now, but I prefer SirFozzie's wording better.Traditional unionist 09:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Domer's wording is ok with me, although it could do with explaining why, and a link with the sectarian article. I still prefer mine! Logoistic 11:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The why will be explained in the sources for the use of the word sectarian.BigDunc 12:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Logoistic your wording is fine, for the section it is in “Requirements for Entry,” however we are dealing with the “Lead” section. The “Lead” section is supposed to be a synopsis of the article. The synopsis we have agreed must contain the “sectarian” reference/s, as it forms an important part of the article. What we are trying to decide is how we word it in the “Lead,” which accurately reflects the references, but also points out that the order rejects this. (To date, no citation has been provided, which reflects this rejection, but that’s another matter) The only possible conclusion I can determine is that you consider that it should not be addressed in the lead? As to SirFozzie’s suggestion, BigDunc has pointed out that the references used, are not opponents of the Order, therefore the use of the word "opponents" is not appropriate. --Domer48 15:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest Outsiders Aatomic1 16:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

michael Farrell isn't an opponent of the Orange?Traditional unionist 16:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Give a source Aatomic1 from an insider which differs from what has been referenced.BigDunc 16:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
They are not Michael Farrell's words they are a quote taken from a book that he wrote and if a civil and human rights activist is an "opponent" what does that say about the OO. BigDunc 16:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Michael Farrel is a nationalist - he admits that his book is not a neutral work, your comment supposes that it is.Traditional unionist 16:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I have made no claims regarding the book and you know that I put in his exact words on what he thought of the book above. BigDunc 16:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
You're not making any sense. Michael Farrell wrote a book, that makes the quote his words. The book is written from a nationalist POV, not a neutral human rights observer, you didn't make any claims, but your comment supposed that the book was a neutral work - it ain't.Traditional unionist 17:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There are many quotes now apart from Farrell’s, not that his should be dismissed. The fixation on Farrell is I consider disingenuous.

“The order survived many bannings, its reinstatement often as the result of noble insistence, and was to play a significant part in Ulster politics and sectarian violence thereafter…The titular and persistent tribute to William III is ironic in light of his known non-sectarian views.” Sean McMahon, A Short History of Ireland, Mercier Press, 1996, Dublin, ISBN 1 85635 137 8.

“…that evening the victorious protestants established an ‘Orange Society” to protect their own immediate interests and to maintain the protestant ascendancy. During the next few months the Roman Catholics of Armagh and the neighbouring counties were subjected to a violent persecution, which drove thousands of them to take refuge in Connaught.” J. C. Beckett, The Making of Modern Ireland 1603-1923, Faber and Faber, London, 1966, SBN 571 09267 5.

I consider that it has now been established beyond question, that the Order is sectarian. Sectarian in its broadest sense. Not one citation has been proffered to refute this, and still the discussion goes on. Now the question remains, is my suggested wording acceptable, or should we go for a more illuminating description of the Orders sectarianism. --Domer48 17:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we get away from all this "Farrell=nationalist" nonsense, it is not germane to what he said. All Farrell said was that Catholics (or people with close relatives who were Catholics) were not permitted to join. So he wasn't expressing an opinion that could possibly be tainted with any bias, he was expressing a fact. So let's move on from that particular non-argument ok? One Night In Hackney303 18:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update on Lead cont..

To date there has been 12 references put forward to illustrate the the inclusion of the line “The Orange Order is considered to be a ‘sectarian’ organisation by many outside the Order.” No cited sources have been put forward to refute them. This line should go in. --Domer48 20:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree. BigDunc 20:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, I can't agree. let me copy a section for you from the Words to Avoid page.

Such terms often convey to readers an implied viewpoint — that of the "outsider looking in and labelling as they see it". The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it is pejorative or inflammatory in nature.

It's often a good idea to avoid terms that appear biased or may be perceived so by some notable group, even if technically they aren't. A more neutral wording is preferable and can be found by careful thought. Often an easy way to do this is to describe rather than label, or neutrally cite an actual credible person or body that has used that term ("X says Y").

Let's find that more neutral wording and use that careful thought. SirFozzie 20:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh.. before I forget, I came across this UPI article today. Should perhaps something be added that the Order is (apparently) attempting to soften its anti-Roman Catholic edge? [6] SirFozzie 20:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Or better still, let's use the admission of an insider [7]. One Night In Hackney303 20:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

So after the word “fraternal organisation” we could include the following “although according to a number of historians, academics, authors and journalists the Order is considered to be a “sectarian organisation.” Bearing in mind that we could put a reference beside each group of people who say it to denote the comment. So A, B, C, and D say it though E dose not. --Domer48 20:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

SirFozzie the references above 12 according to Domer48 have they not shown that the term is used by a lot of people are they not encompassed in ...neutrally cite an actual credible person or body that has used that term ("X says Y"). or are you saying that they are not neutral? BigDunc 20:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

See my reference. The leading Orangeman in Scotland said "OK, we’re ‘sectarian’". One Night In Hackney303 20:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

ONIH that is some link, and is just the icing on the cake. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are its a ... --Domer48 20:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

So know we have insiders outsiders a lot of siders yet it can not be said on WP. Great link ONIH BigDunc 21:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Dunc, watch it. There are guidelines on WP, and I'm doing my best to keep everyone inside those guidelines. I'm not saying it can't be said, I'm saying it has to be said and cited properly.

(edit conflicted comment)

Ok, answering two comments here.

BigDunc: What I'm trying to avoid is saying "Others Say X" in the article. Domer's suggestion would be better. It cites WHO says WHAT about the Orange Instituion. "Irish Historian So-And-So stated that the Institution was sectarian in his book, "My Book"." for example.

ONiH: I have no problem with that, but I would also suggest that we look into adding in the quotes that show (apparently) the head of the Orange Institution softening it's anti-Catholic edge, and also that it considers itself as "Sectarian as the Bank of Scotland". SirFozzie 21:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Or how about another one? [8] The same Orangeman admits they have a sectarian reputation, and of course there's the quote that an Orangeman is also instructed "to strenuously oppose the fatal errors and doctrines of the Church of Rome and scrupulously avoid countenancing (by his presence or otherwise) any act or ceremony of Popish worship". One Night In Hackney303 21:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not aware that I have broken any guidlines SirFozzie if I have could you tell me what I did wrong.BigDunc 21:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Paul Lynch (politician) (a nice neutral source if ever there was one surely?) descibes them as avowedly sectarian. One Night In Hackney303 21:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

SirFozzie if it is not too much of an imposition, could you, based on the accumulating amount of references, put together a sentence similar to your last one. If the words not and barge pole are in the answer I would understand. I also have a problem fraternal, its not cited, and based on the run around we’ve had, at least one would be nice? --Domer48 21:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure. New Section coming up! SirFozzie 21:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

QUESTION can the leader of the OO change the constitution without discussing with it's members? BigDunc 21:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Lead, Part 2

How about a sentence like the following in the lead. "In recent years, the Orange Institution has attempted to soften its Anti-Catholic edge (insert reference to that UPI article above), in an attempt to shed the view that it was inherently sectarian (insert reference to the article above where the head of the Grand Order of the range Institution in Scotland said "Yes it's sectarian, but as sectarian as the Church of Scotland") replacing the current one that's in there. Would that help? SirFozzie 21:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Its tantalisingly close, could you leave it with me. I’m remembering the word “Opponents,” and do not want to jump. --Domer48 21:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure, I have to head home (at work right now) anyway. SirFozzie 21:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Whilst this obviously serves to get a balance between inside and outside view (personally, I felt that Domer's speech marks on 'sectarian' were sufficient to convey this), it does so by going tit for tat - the end implies that it has been sectarian, and the start implies it's not really now. In other words, we have simply split inside/outside into seperate time periods, and that clearly is not right. Moreover, the meaning of word "sectarian" is not adressed in any way. What do we mean by sectarian? Does it mean because it excludes non-protestants? Does it mean because the order has been opposed to Catholicism most explicitly? Does it mean because they are "narrow minded" and "biggotted", but are now softening this? Thus, there are two issues any edit needs to encompass:

1. It needs to demonstrate the fact that lots of people label/have labelled it "sectarian". This means detatching it from the article persona by explicitly highlighting an outside.

2. It needs to show what it means by sectarian (and the only definition that would get in is that it is protestant-only, and has been anti-Catholic). To remove the negative connotation from the article's persona I have suggested we need to explicilty highlight the context with which it is defined (hence my own proposal "This excludes Catholics, Unitarians and certain other Christian denominations and all non-Christians. Because of this, the institution is often labelled as sectarian,..."). I furthered this by highlighting that the negative connotation is there ("...a term that carries negative connotation"), but is not directly linked to the facts that the order excludes non-protestants. In other words, it is not fact that the order is "bigotted".

I know my proposal wasn't supposed to go in the lead, but it is easilly transferred. Logoistic 23:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to explain sectarian in that level of detail in the lead. It will be wikilinked, and it will be explained in more detail later. The organisation isn't just considered sectarian because it excludes non-protestants, the sources make that clear. One Night In Hackney303 23:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


There are a number of problems here. The Imperial Grand Lodge of the World is not a very powerful body. Each Grand Lodge is pretty autonomous, so what a Scottish Orange leader says, applies only to Scotland. Secondly, an Australian politician is still a politician, and why would he bother commenting on the Orange without an axe to grind? I have no problem with the accusations of sectarianism being outlined the the lead sentence, but it looks like a sledgehammer is being employed to crack a peanut. Why the verbosity? Why the need for ad nauseum supply of references? Why not just say that the Orange has owing to its history and rules, particularly with regard to membership, been accused of sectarianism, however the Order rejects this charge, and has made efforts to make its public activity more more inclusive [9] [10] in recent years.
Being a protestant fraternal orginisations is no more an instant proof of sectarianism than the Catholic, Presbyterian or Anglican Churches.Traditional unionist 11:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think your suggested wording is coming very close to what we are looking for here. Particularly “owing to its history and rules.” Your references though, could be taken either way, and I would be concerned that down the road they would be challenged. One only has to look at the reaction to my references. --Domer48 18:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Lead Part 3

Serious question, that is the extent of the POV being pushed here by the usual nationalist tag team. If the team are putting up links claiming that the order is sectarian and then insist on its inclusion in an article, than can other editors produce links that insist the IRA were murderers and insist that that POV is included? Conypiece 17:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

And that Sir Norman Stronge was murdered by terrorists and murderers. That is an excellent point - where does this end?Traditional unionist 17:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ae you Conypiece asking editors to form a team this is against WP guidelines disruptive editing BigDunc 17:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Right. One warning, and one warning only. If I have to make this clear on every edit warrior's talk page I will. this continues in the vein of incivility that it has been ratcheted up to now, blocks will be issued. If edit wars continue, the pages will be protected (and once again, blocks will be issued). You will either be civil with each other, or you will not have editing priviliges on Wikipedia. Have I made myself utterly clear? SirFozzie 17:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks SirFozzie. --Domer48 17:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree SirFozzie.BigDunc 17:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing?! Actually its called equality. And sirfrozzie no you have not made yourself clear. If on the Orange Order page there is a claim of it being sectarian, can members of the IRA (or uvf uda etc) be called terrorists who killed innocent people? You should not be fooled by the tag team efforts on this page. And Domer and BigDunc, can you please put on record your intention that you will not to remove the name 'terrorist' from any IRA page ? Conypiece 17:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Last warning, Conypiece. Quit the incivility and personal attacks or you will be blocked. SirFozzie 17:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I sincerely apologise SirFrozzie... Now please explain to me why some peoples POV is more relevant than others? Its a serious question, its not incivil, it is not attacking anyone personally. Conypiece 17:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Conypiece, let me explain what I'm trying to do, so hopefully we can ratchet down the rhetoric. In this latest flap over the word Sectarian, we had a previous discussion and it was agreed that we would not use the word "others", because that's too nebulous. One of the problems with these series of articles is that yes, both sides have a PoV that is wildly divergent from the others point of view. In this case, the folks who want to see that sentence in the lead have provided references (note, that works both ways, did you see I posted a possible reference that states the Order's head in Scotland has removed several anti-catholic things from the Order's charter, which led me to trying to add a bit in the lead about them softening their anti-catholic edge). What we are trying to do is be both clear and concise.

Would you prefer something like.. Opponents of the Orange Insitution have charged that the Institution is Sectarian, due to its goals and banning of Roman Catholic members, a charge the Institution denies as a whole, but the head of the Orange Institution in Scotland, Ian Wilson used the term to describe the Institution (comparing it to the Church of Scotland) with a link to this article. [[11] SirFozzie 18:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yea that seems fine SirFrozzie, however maybe in the sense of being people all of one mind could also be included in the brackets, for as it stands one gets the impression the COS is also sectarian. Apart from that its grand. Conypiece 18:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Cool. Now we're getting somewhere, I think. Let's see what the other editors think before I edit the page with it in there. SirFozzie 18:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Does the source say that? One Night In Hackney303 18:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

(changed the title)... here's the quote from the source.

The Grand Master also made the controversial admission that his organisation is "sectarian" - but defended its right to exist. He said: "I take a very ‘reformed’ stance - we stand for civil and religious liberty. "The order is a broad church, open to anybody who accepts Christ as saviour, and accepts scripture as the sole rule of faith. "OK, we’re ‘sectarian’ - just as is the Church of Scotland, in the sense of being people all of one mind - like Roman Catholics. "But that’s not anti-Catholic, it’s not bigotry. I genuinely welcome the contribution the Irish, say, have made to this country.

Catholicism isn't the only denomination to be excluded from membership.....Traditional unionist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Traditional unionist (talk • contribs) 18:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I see no reason for it to be in the lead. The lead is the overview, the clarification can go in the main body of the article. One Night In Hackney303 19:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

SirFrozzie, the word “Opponents,” who are they? The only references we have used are historians, academics, Journalists and Authors/Solicitors/Civil Rights Leaders. We could hardly describe them as “Opponents.” --Domer48 19:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Mostly, they are verifiable Irish Nationalists, not neutral observers. And it seems to me that the wording would be inaccurate, Catholics are not the only people, and not even the only Christians, not eligible to join.Traditional unionist 19:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The Australian politican is a neutral observer, despite your claim to the contrary. Don't forget it's not just Catholics that can't join, it's relatives of Catholics too. One Night In Hackney303 19:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
And Muslims, and Hindus, and Jews, and Atheists.......Traditional unionist 19:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Relatives of them too? Source please. One Night In Hackney303 19:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
You're getting a little specific now. It's also not true to say that you can't join if you're related to a Catholic. There is an extra hoop to jump through if either parent was a Catholic, that's different, its possible to join if you were a catholic.Traditional unionist 19:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Farrell says No catholic and no-one whose close relatives are catholic may be a member. Sources please, not speculation. One Night In Hackney303 19:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm telling you that what you have sourced is as inaccurate today as it was in the early 1970's when Michael Farrell wrote it. I'll get a source from somewhere but the mate of mine who is an Orangeman and whose father is a Catholic will tell you that Farrell (as with so much) is wrong.Traditional unionist 19:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I refuse to engage in further speculation. Please provide reliable sources for your claims. One Night In Hackney303 20:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Could I again suggest this “The Orange Order is considered to be a ‘sectarian’ organisation by many outside the Order.”We are going to get to the finer points in the article in anyway. Logoistic proposel will be in the lead of the “Requirements for entry” section. There is also my suggestion on the "Historical Background," were additional information can be added. We all agree after all that ‘sectarian’ is going in the "Lead." --Domer48 19:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The Orange Order is considered to be sectarian by many outside the Order, however this is an accusation that the Order rejects - seems to cover everyones bases.Traditional unionist 19:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
They don't reject the accusation. They accept they are seen as sectarian, and even admit they are sectarian. One Night In Hackney303 20:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
No, one guy on Scotland said that, as Ive said before that doe snot apply to every Orangeman in the world.Traditional unionist 20:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair point One Night In Hackney303 and is backed up with references. How about this "The Orange Order is considered to be 'sectarian' by many outside the Order, however this is an accusation rejected by some within the Institution." --Domer48 20:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

One provo calling another a murdering terrorist doesn't allow us to say that on the main page of the IRA does it?Traditional unionist 21:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Please Traditional unionist, lets remain civil, and try to move forward. What do you think of my suggestion. --Domer48 21:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we should add details of Drumcree, including things like this. One Night In Hackney303 21:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that the Order rejects the accusations of sectarianism, and the comments of one member in scotland does not change that.Traditional unionist 21:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I, and others, are no longer interested in just your thoughts. Throughout this entire situation you have failed to produce a single source justifying any of them, please do so in future. One Night In Hackney303 21:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that in the main space [12], but you are right about Drumcree. It has for the past ten years been such a major issue. --Domer48 21:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Domer's lead seems ok with me - but with the small alteration from "many" to "some", so it would it read: "The Orange Order is considered to be 'sectarian' by some outside the Order, however this is an accusation rejected by some within the Institution." Perfect! Logoistic 21:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Surly it should read " by nearly all within the Institution"Traditional unionist 21:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Source for that please. One Night In Hackney303 21:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
That is a laughable thing to say! You have a source from one uy saying something! That is one guy out of a worldwide membership of hundreds of thousands!Traditional unionist 21:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
If it can't be sourced, it doesn't go in. One Night In Hackney303 21:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Traditional unionist, your references say between 40-50,000. Hardly hundreds of thousands. One Night In Hackney303 is right to ask for references. How about the suggestion? I might be rejected by others, it is only a suggestion after all. --Domer48 21:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

References are not needed for the most obvious of information. The reference of 40-50 thousand is in Ireland. The Orange is a global fraternity.Traditional unionist 10:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
References are needed for anything that's challenged. I've challenged the claim, please reference it. One Night In Hackney303 10:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
That is an extremely dangerous president to set. It dictates that anything tagged fact must be referenced or removed. That is not rational.Traditional unionist 10:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
It's also policy. One Night In Hackney303 10:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Where is the reasonable doubt that nearly all orangemen reject the claim of sectarianism? Where is your evidence that there is wholesale acceptance of that claim?Traditional unionist 11:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So, the changes...

SirFozzie's edit in the lead would be ok with me if, like Domer's suggestions, sectarian is put in speech marks (the single ones 'i.e.'). This is virtually the same as Domer's, plus includes details of the context it is used. TU seems to agree with it, I do, and I think Domer does. Any objections to leaving it with this small change? Also, there seems no objections to my proposal in the main article. So SirFozzie - can we make these changes please? Logoistic 10:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I wholly object to sectarian being in anything vaguely resembling scare quotes. One Night In Hackney303 10:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah,ok, I see how this could be portrayed non-neutrally. I merely intended for it to remove the term from the article persona. Could we at least puta link in it to the sectarian article? Logoistic 10:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
No it doesn't, it avoids making the term seem like it is being used as a matter of fact, which would be grossly offensive.Traditional unionist 10:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I was always in favour of a link to the sectarian article, I suggested it above. One Night In Hackney303 11:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Using a form of quotation marks is more accurate, it displays that it is a claim and not a fact.Traditional unionist 11:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
TU makes a fair point, though. Logoistic 11:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Not really, considering the proposed wording is something like Opponents of the Orange Insitution have charged that the Institution is Sectarian. That's pretty clearly a claim in my opinion. One Night In Hackney303 11:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, we are essentially quoting from people, and it is very important to avoid putting it in as matter of fact. It is not used in the snide context that are mentioned in scarequote article you linked, OneNight. I would be prepared to accept the proposal with or without. Logoistic 11:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but using them has the opposite effect in this case. It makes the claims look snide, when we shouldn't be judging about the claim just objectively reporting that the claims have been made. One Night In Hackney303 11:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
You are making a value judgment on the use of quotation marks. It is a quote, not a fact.Traditional unionist 11:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Great, if we're using quotes let's go for the "wholly sectarian" quote then ok? One Night In Hackney303 11:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
clearly not.Traditional unionist 11:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

ONIH is right about the scare quotes, never thought about that. There had been a link to the sectarian article, and that should be there also. I still have a problem with the use of the word 'Opponents' because the references would not consider themselves as such. --Domer48 11:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you asked them? Most of the defiantly would. It remains a quote.Traditional unionist 11:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
When I first put sectarian in to the article it was with a link to the WP article on sectarianism and I dont feel the need to put further quotes on sectarian also I feel opponents should be refrenced if it is to be used. If that is the case anyone who is not a member is an opponent. BigDunc 10:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Mchael Farrell has spent the better part of his life as an opponent of the Orange. The word is a quote, not a fact, we have been through that.Traditional unionist 10:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
TU, after rereading it, it doesn't really sound like a matter of fact. My own proposal, that you agreed to, doesn't sound like that, and it isn't in scare quotes. I think maybe because if it is linked to another article this will amke it stand out from the main text so that it won't wash over the reader as something matter of fact. If you give a little here, we can make things go forward. Logoistic 10:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not a matter of giving a little, its a matter of getting it right. Scare quotes is a value judgment that I don't accept in this instance. The word is a quote, perhaps the footnotes should be appended to that word.Traditional unionist 10:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
if theres already a link to sectarianism,there is in my opinion no real need to add "extra quotes" on the sectarian word that is all things sectarian..--Breen32 10:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Traditional unionist, one word is not a quote. If you want to use a quote, why don't we use "avowedly sectarian" from the totally neutral source? One Night In Hackney303 14:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It is a quote. And seeing as it is such an emotive word, quotation marks must be used.Traditional unionist 14:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
As Traditional unionist can not see past his POV and hatred for Michael Farrell one of I think 12 references given to prove this claim lets use the neutral reference provided "avowedly sectarian". BigDunc 14:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
That is clearly patent nonsense.Traditional unionist 15:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
No, it was said by a reliable neutral source. Do you have a conflict of interest here please? One Night In Hackney303 15:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The Traditional unionist has missed everyone elses point most noteably his own..His defence of his partisan views and his retardation of the subject is as he would put it "nonsense"..Breen32 15:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain for me how that comment brings us any further forward.Traditional unionist 16:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well for starters the RUC was a notorious sectarian so called law inforcement group,which was made up at one stage by over 95% of your unionist brethern-do you see any link? shall i go further..Breen32 17:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The RUC was set up by Stormont in 1922 that legislation required 1/3 of Officers to be Catholic. Decades of republican intimidation and murder say that that was never achieved. Now perhaps you could explain the relevance of that little outburst?Traditional unionist 17:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Can my question be answered please? Do you have a conflict of interest here TU? One Night In Hackney303 17:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I am not a member of the Orange Institution in Ireland, or anywhere else.Traditional unionist 17:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

since when are bare relavent facts known as outbursts..?are you in the dark about your own history..?Or is it everyone elses fault that the unionist population held the monoply on being a member of the RUC..Breen32 19:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed wording

Could other Editors put forward their suggestions, and we can discuss it below them? --Domer48 18:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

  • It is the opinion of a number of both contemporary and historical commentators that the Orange Order is a sectarian organisation.
  • Commentators from across the spectrum of society, have described the Order of being sectarian, a view endorsed by one of its own members.

We have a proposed wording. It includes the fact that opponents of the order regard it as sectarian, sectarian being a quote from these opponents.Traditional unionist 19:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Paul Lynch isn't an opponent, he's a neutral observer who described them as "avowedly sectarian". Also, everyone except you objects to quotation marks so I wouldn't expect to see them in the wording. One Night In Hackney303 19:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Traditional unionist instead of starting another song and dance, put some wording under mine which you consider would cover the matter. Because you are just knocking any suggestion at the moment. --Domer48 19:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

We have an acceptable wording on the table, you are refusing to identify a quote as being so.Traditional unionist 19:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well put it under mine, if its there on the table. --Domer48 19:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Can editors put forward their suggestions, thanks. --Domer48 08:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The orgins of unionism is scottish settlers sent to Ireland to farm the land,and essentially remove or control the native people by means of military support and aggression,this in todays terms would be classed as ethnic cleansing..this is with out doubt pure and utter sectarianism from one group of people to another..Breen32 11:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

  • It is the opinion of a number of contemporary and historical commentators that the Orange Order is a sectarian organisation. This is the wording I would propose goes in to the lead of the article. BigDunc 13:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no need to open this discussion. SirFozzie's wording was agreed, and now shows on the article. The issue is recognizing that a quote is a quote.Traditional unionist 14:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
No, it wasn't agreed. Paul Lynch is not an opponent, it's incorrect to say he is. One Night In Hackney303 14:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The ariticle as it stands has not been agreed and if it has by whom and when and what was this debate about then? BigDunc 14:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Very good question BigDunc. I have no idea.Traditional unionist 14:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Fozzie changed the wording on 5 September. Since then he started a new debate over what the wording should be, so it's pretty clear the present wording hasn't been finalised. One Night In Hackney303 14:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

One Night In Hackney303 the point has been made a number of times now, Traditional unionist is dead set agaings reason, we should all move on, and put forward suggestions. --Domer48 14:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm being perfectly reasonable. It is POV to use sectarian as a matter of fact - it isn't.Traditional unionist 14:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Considering that isn't what is being proposed, I fail to see your point. One Night In Hackney303 14:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Could you point out to me Traditional unionist the matter of fact way sectarian is being used. BigDunc 14:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
By not putting a quote in quotation marks. The word is a quote.Traditional unionist 14:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
How is It is the opinion of a number of contemporary and historical commentators that the Orange Order is a sectarian organisation a statement of fact? One Night In Hackney303 14:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree ONIH if Traditional unionist wants sectarian in quotes lets use "avowedly sectarian" by neutral observer Paul Lynch. BigDunc 14:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm having trouble verifying that Paul Lynch is neutral. Not many references to him on the internet. And that quote is defnataly not acceptable.Traditional unionist 15:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Have you read the reference? He attended as an "Australian International Observer of the marches, representing the Australian Brehon Law Society". How is he not neutral? One Night In Hackney303 15:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Instaed of saying NO to everything Traditional unionist what is your suggestion? BigDunc 15:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not rejecting everything. I am happy with the form of words as it stands, provided the quote is properly attributed as such. ONiH, try googling Australian Brehon Law Society. I think the results will show all they need to about the neutrality of that organisation. Very little evidence that it exists, and all there is is in SF propaganda.Traditional unionist 19:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

ABC are SF propaganda?! Is there anything you won't try and dismiss as nationalist propaganda? One Night In Hackney303 19:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Read Brehon Laws. Gives an indication of the origins of that orginisation.Traditional unionist 19:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I see nothing there that says Paul Lynch is not a neutral observer. Your attempts to dismiss any source that says something you don't like are becoming quite tiresome, it has to be said. One Night In Hackney303 19:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I remember you claiming that water isn't wet.....I mean rioters in the new lodge wern't nationalist because you were challenging the overwhelming evidence. I am challenging the neutrality of this source on good grounds.Traditional unionist 19:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Every so slight problem there. The sources didn't say that the rioters were nationalist. You see, it's all about sources. And you've yet to provide a single source for pretty much anything you've said on this page, but in particular you've not provided a single source for your claims that any of the sources are not neutral other than your own opinion. So, how about some sources? One Night In Hackney303 20:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I have made a valid challenge to the neutrality of that source.Traditional unionist 20:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
No, you haven't. You see the problem is if that sentence reads "opponents" and includes that reference, I'm instantly going to tag "opponents" with {{cn}} and then you will be required to produce a source that proves he is an opponent. So yet again, I ask you for sources please. One Night In Hackney303 20:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, it's your source, you prove his neutrality. I have provided more than enough evidence that he is of dubious neutrality. The group represented has next to nothing about it on the internet, and what can be learned shows a clear link to Catholic Ireland.Traditional unionist 20:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't need to prove his neutrality. If you wish to claim prove he is an opponent of the Order, please do so. Until then he will not be described as an opponent. Over to you.... One Night In Hackney303 20:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Traditional unionist you have provided nothing, no source, no citation and no verifiable information for any of your views. All you have provided is your opinion. Now, provide verifiably referenced sources that say that the sources that have been provided are Nationalist propaganda, Republican propaganda, Biased, Bigoted, or just plain wrong. As far as I’m concerned, this part of the discussion is over. There are now two suggestions on the table, if editors wish to add more please do so, and let us get on with it.--Domer48 20:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed lets put this to bed as soon as possible. BigDunc 21:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead Section proposel

The Orange Institution, more commonly known as the Orange Order, is a Protestant fraternal organisation based predominantly in Northern Ireland and Scotland with lodges throughout the Commonwealth and the United States. It was founded in Loughgall, County Armagh, Ireland in 1795; its name is a tribute to Dutch-born Protestant king of England, William III, of the House of Orange-Nassau. It is suggested by both contemporary and historical commentators that the Orange Order is a sectarian organisation, a view endorsed by one of its leading members in Scotland.

Can we look at the wording and offer suggestions. Not opinions on the use of the word sectarian, that has been well covered and discussed by Editors. --Domer48 21:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd lose "a number", as that's slightly weasel wording. Other than that, it looks pretty good to me. One Night In Hackney303 21:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Domer48 21:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes that looks good to me. BigDunc 21:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The final sentence is stuffed with POV. This does not stand up.Traditional unionist 22:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"No", "no", "no", "no". Do you have anything constructive to add? One Night In Hackney303 22:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Traditional unionist the final sentence is cited, verifiable and reliably sourced. You opinion has not. --Domer48 22:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It is cited, it is not verifiable and is certainly not reliably sourced. One out of three isn't good enough.Traditional unionist 23:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

lets make it one out of four...Breen32 00:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Back that up with verifiable and reliably sourced information, because I'm not intrested in your opinion. The fact that you seem to be getting away with this also speaks volumes. I requesting that this page be unblocked and the lead as it now stands goes in. --Domer48 23:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
How about rather than saying 'sectarian', we say something along the lines of 'the order is exclusively protestant and has historically been known for anti-Catholic rhetoric'? I think the big problem with saying 'sectarian' is that there is no real agreement on what constitutes sectarianism. However the order IS exclusively protestant and I don't think anyone can argue that Orange leaders haven't expressed anti Catholic views, publicly and in their capacities as Orange leaders. Rather than using a term which is just going to get people's hackles up, we could just say what it is they do. --Helenalex 00:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't really see what the problem is here. TU didn't object to the present wording, where sectarian is not in quotes and is it said that their opponents claim they are sectarian. However, other editors have pointed out that there's no evidence the people making these claims are "opponents". TU labels anyone who claims the OO are sctarian are nationalists, yet refuses to provide any proof of this. Where's the evidence of John McGarry John & Brendan O'Leary being nationalists for example? If TU wants to claim these people are "nationalists" or "opponents", the burden of evidence is on him to prove it. I've repeatedly asked for sources for anything TU says, and nothing is ever provided. One Night In Hackney303 01:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Helenalex I feel you are wrong on this you say there is no real agreement on what constitutes sectarianism. Well that is why the word is linked to the sectarian article. We provide the information and let the reader decide. Because some editors wont accept anything they feel to be bad against this organisation they constantly try to block everything with spurious arguments. BigDunc 07:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Brendan O'Leary, advisor to Kevin McNamara and Mo Mowlam, two of the most pro Nationalist Labour NI spokespeople in history. Australian politician, made his pronouncements on behalf of an obscure law society with clear links to Catholic Ireland. Michael Farrell, a well known Nationalist. You can't claim these people's opinions as facts, they are clearly not neutral, they all have a clear POV.Traditional unionist 08:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If they are not neutral-then will you explain their point of view..Breen32 09:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

With references please not your POV. BigDunc 09:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Let me tell you something Dunc; water is wet. Read the wikipedia articles on these people. Read their books.Traditional unionist 09:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
References please.BigDunc 09:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Read their wikipedia articles, read their books.Traditional unionist 09:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
You are making the claim you reference it, please no more POV.BigDunc 10:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to be engaging with you until you start being reasonable.Traditional unionist 10:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Mo Mowlan and Kevin Mc Namara are just far too sensible and have proven them selfs reasonable beyond doubt for you to see them as anything else but non neutral..Academics such as them surely cant be that pro nationalist as to your POV..Why are you so unreasonable when you wont provide refrenses..Breen32 20:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

{{editprotected}} This discussion has gone on long enough with USER:Traditional unionist not providing any sources or references to back up his claim dispite 12 references been given for the proposal.
The text in the lead that has been put forward is this;
The Orange Institution, more commonly known as the Orange Order, is a Protestant fraternal organisation based predominantly in Northern Ireland and Scotland with lodges throughout the Commonwealth and the United States. It was founded in Loughgall, County Armagh, Ireland in 1795; its name is a tribute to Dutch-born Protestant king of England, William III, of the House of Orange-Nassau. It is suggested by both contemporary and historical commentators that the Orange Order is a sectarian organisation, a view endorsed by one of its leading members in Scotland.

References will be added when this is put in to the article. BigDunc 09:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have provided evidence that the sources come from opponents of the Orange Institution. BigDunc/Domer don't like it.Traditional unionist 09:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Where????? BigDunc 09:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Over ten references have been provided, Traditional unionist, has only provided comment, opinion and no references. This is not a content dispute, Traditional unionist is just being disruptive. --Domer48 10:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Any administrators reading this should be aware that there is a CheckUser request in and evidence supplied on allegations that BigDunc and Breen is a sockpuppet of Domer.Traditional unionist 10:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

And regardless the references are there, you have supplied nothing but opinion. BY THE WAY, everyone involved is being checkUsered, including you. So your point is? Exactly, you are devoid of anything other than opinion, and none of that is referenced. --Domer48 11:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It is opinion that the Orange is sectarian. You are trying to have that referenced as fact. I have provided evidence that the so called neutral observers are not so. You don't like it, which isn't good enough.Traditional unionist 11:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
And if you think that I am engaged in sockpuppetry, supply evidence. The difference is that evidence has been tendered that you are engaged in sockpuppetry, although I need to amend that slightly.Traditional unionist 11:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
That is nothing to do with this so leave it to the powers that be to put a halt to your paranoia and I will say it again WHERE ARE YOUR SOURCES OR REFERENCES? BigDunc 11:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

When you have dug yourself into a hole, my advice is stop digging [13]. As part of the ArbCom, I do not need to provide evidence, you'll be check usered anyway. O and by the way, "It is suggested" is not "trying to have that referenced as fact." Breen32 is a sock of BigDunc, but BigDunc is a sock of Domer48, but Breen32 is not Domer48, ye right. And still no admin steps in to say, you requesting a CheckUser as a reference to back up your lack of sources, just dose not work. --Domer48 11:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be consensus to make this change. Editprotected requests are only for small changes with clear consensus. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
"I don't agree" =/= "no consensus". Please read the discussion above. Traditional unionist has been repeatedly asked to provide references that the sources are "opponents" of the Orange Order, and has refused to do so. One editor cannot be allowed to hold an article to ransom. One Night In Hackney303 12:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protected edit request

{{editprotected}} In the last sentence of the lead, please change "Opponents" to "Observers". Despite repeated requests, no sources have been provided to prove the sources are "Opponents". One Night In Hackney303 13:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Untrue. Many references have been provided.Traditional unionist 13:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Where? Links please, here and now. One Night In Hackney303 13:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I am sick asking for the refs WHERE are they p,ease BigDunc 13:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


Editprotected requests are only intended for completely uncontroversial changes, not ones like this that are related to the reason for protection. Please discuss the issues here rather than asking uninvolved admins to join the dispute. I have no opinion on the merits of this proposed change; it's a general policy not to make changes to protected pages that have any significant chance of being disputed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an uncontroversial change. There is no evidence that the sources are "Opponents". Evidence has been repeatedly requested and has not been provided, how much longer do we have to keep banging our heads against a brick wall? One Night In Hackney303 13:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Plenty of evidence has been provided. You choose not to see it.Traditional unionist 13:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Evidence is verifiable reliable sources, not your opinion. One Night In Hackney303 13:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I have not tried to pass off opinion as evidence.Traditional unionist 13:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Where are your verifiable reliable sources then please? I've yet to see any. One Night In Hackney303 13:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I must be blind or stupid but I can not find any source that backs up your claim again WHERE is all this evidence. BigDunc 13:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further edit request

{{editprotected}} Please add {{fact|date=September 2007}} after "Opponents" in the last sentence of the lead. That way we need a verifiable reliable source provided, and if it is not provided the word has to go, at some point. One Night In Hackney303 13:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation Tag required

{{editprotected}} Political links and related organizations
"The Order first became overtly political during Charles Stewart Parnell's campaign for Home Rule in the 1880s" [citation needed] This information is wrong, the Order has been "overtly political," since it founding. Please place the tag, and I'll provide the references which will correct this misinformation.--Domer48 13:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This source needs to be seen before this info is removed. This user has a habit of adding sources from biased authors.Traditional unionist 13:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
here we go again has not even seen the ref but yet has formed an opinion more nationalist propoganda hey Traditional unionist___BigDunc 13:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not asked for it to be removed yet. When I do remove it, it will be replaced with references. --Domer48 13:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced needs citation

{{editprotected}} Controversy
"Its spokespeople and supporters describe the Orange Order as a pious organisation, celebrating Protestant culture and identity, but it is accused of sectarianism and anti-Catholicism." [citation needed]
This information is unreferenced, reference can be provided, but an Admin suggests concensus is required to do so. Unreferenced material can be challanged and removed, I'd like to place references. --Domer48 13:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

I am struggling to see any consensus. Might I suggest WP:RTP to allow any neutral observer with a short attention span to form an opinion. Aatomic1 13:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't need consensus to add citation needed tags. One Night In Hackney303 13:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Aatomic1 please remaine civil. --Domer48 13:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove unreferenced material

{{editprotected}} England
"Most English lodges are based in the Liverpool area, including Toxteth. An estimated 4,000 Orangemen, women and children parade in Liverpool and Southport every 12 July, watched by tens[citation needed] of thousands more."
No references have been provided, therefore it should be removed.--Domer48 13:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation Needed

{{editprotected}} The Twelfth Main article: The Twelfth "The highlights of the Orange year are the parades leading up to the celebrations on the Twelfth of July. The Twelfth however remains a deeply divisive issue, not least because of allegations of triumphalism and anti-Catholicism against the Orange Order in the conduct of its Walks and criticism of its alleged behaviour towards Roman Catholics."

I would like placed fact tags / citation tag after the words "allegations" and "alleged." My question being who is making these allagations?--Domer48 12:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

How would I go about merging Orange Walk into this article. And why not merge The Twelfth while we at it, this would make the whole article more comprehensive? --Domer48 13:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The process is probably similar to AFD. I will be opposing the latter strongly.Traditional unionist 13:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This is nothing of the sort, please do not cause anymore trouble.--Domer48 13:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand that comment, what do you mean?Traditional unionist 13:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You have said "is probably similar to AFD," and opposed it regardless of knowing what it entails? --Domer48 13:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I know what merging an article is! You may have a point on the first article, but not the twelth.Traditional unionist 13:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well now were getting somewhere. So you agree with a merge of Orange Walk then. --Domer48 13:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Would I be right in my ststement above Re: merge of Orange Walk. --Domer48 15:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
This discussion would be greatly aided by an agreement on the part of those involved to keep the ongoing disputes over at [[14]] where they belong, and actually use this page for discussion of improvements to this article. It would also help if people would consistently use proper talk page formatting, but that's a pet peave of mine.
That said, I see no reason that Orange Walk and The Twelfth should not be merged, and I will place the merge tags myself in just a moment. As far as merging those two articles into this one, I am less certain. I would like to see other's comments (especially from those editors with more experience than myself) on that matter. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I oppose both merges, because all three pages are, or could easily be, long enough to justify pages of their own. Orange Walk could be expanded quite a lot, for example to include a list of the major marches, an overview of the Drumcree conflict (which should have a page of its own as well...), a general description of what form the marches take, etc. --Helenalex 20:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admins

Is there any admins looking at this article who are brave enough to step up to the breach and stop one editor holding this article to ransom thanks. At this rate this article will be blocked forever. BigDunc 13:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Admins considering that request should be aware of thisTraditional unionist 13:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Lets not go down that road, shall we [15]. --Domer48 13:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Beat me to it Domer. BigDunc 13:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hadn't noticed that, thanks!Traditional unionist 13:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could help [16]. --Domer48 13:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

As usual, TU fails to back up anything he says with actual evidence or sources. I propose the article is unlocked, and any edits TU makes that are not backed up by sources are reverted immediately. I'm tired of asking for sources and receiving none, TU cannot edit this article based on his own opinion. We have provdided source after source, he has providing nothing. One Night In Hackney303 13:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I have provided evidence several times, and will not repeat myself unnecessarily.Traditional unionist 13:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone see this evidence? I cannot. One Night In Hackney303 13:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You have provided opinion, not evidence, there is a difference. --Domer48 13:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It is your opinion that my evidence is opinion. That is not the case.Traditional unionist 13:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The evidence is not from verifiable reliable sources, therefore it is not relevant. The opinions of one editor who refuses to provide sources cannot continue to cause Wikipedia to grind to a standstill like this. One Night In Hackney303 13:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The section below shows what your up against, Blank, there will be no sources or references added to it. --Domer48 13:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources provided by Traditional Unionist

Could you please put the refs,sources or what ever you claim to have brought to this disscusion. I would ask other editors not to post to this section on till after TU has posted. BigDunc 13:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are you asking me to repeat myself?Traditional unionist 13:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotection

I am about to ask for the page unprotecting on RFPP. However before I do so I would like an agreement that there will be no edit warring. I require the page unprotecting so I can add tags to certain contentious sentences, I am not planning on making any other changes. Everyone agree? One Night In Hackney303 13:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds ok. Agree. --Domer48 13:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Agree this article needs to be unprotected. BigDunc 13:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. As out;lined in my evidence what you are planning to do is vandalism by the back door.Traditional unionist 13:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
No wording is going to be changed or removed, so that's not relevant. One Night In Hackney303 13:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Then you should be asking an admin to make changes for you, not unprotection.Traditional unionist 14:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
We've been waiting 24 hours, and with your refusal to provide sources we'll be waiting 24 years at this rate. One Night In Hackney303 14:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I have provided many sources.Traditional unionist 14:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Well you'll need to provide them to replace the {{fact}} tags I'm going to be placing on the article soon, then we'll see won't we? One Night In Hackney303 14:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Traditional unionist is not holding this page to ransom, based soly on their opinion. The section above is evidence enough of that. Full of their references. Work away ONIH, and let Admin deal with TU if they cause disruption. --Domer48 14:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] edit requests

As I have explained, editprotected requests on this page are unlikely to be fulfilled. Please stop trying to involve admins in the dispute here. If you cannot come to consensus about the content of the article by discussion here, consider mediation. I don't expect any admin will be willing to edit the page because while the content is still a subject of active dispute. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The page is unprotected anyway. One Night In Hackney303 21:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cites needed

I see the sources Traditional unionist claim exists to cite the required text have not yet been added to the article. Perhaps Traditional unionist would either like to add them to the article now, or list them below so another editor can do it? Simply saying you've produced them already is no longer acceptable, I'd like them adding to the article please. One Night In Hackney303 22:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The mysterious source from TU will not be added because he never provided any its time changes were made to the article. BigDunc 13:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Because you choose not to read them is no reason for me to repeat myself.Traditional unionist 15:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, could you provide the reference for "Opponents."? So we can just get that out of the way? Thanks --Domer48 15:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, rationale has already been provided.Traditional unionist 15:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Your rational, now the reference? Thanks --Domer48 16:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous Traditional unionist you have benn asked more times to provide a source for your claim and still nothing. Simple fact no source, the word goes so use it or loose it. BigDunc 17:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big Duncs revert

I really don't have time for this nonsense. Some of those do need referenced, but others, when removed, make the piece read like a Sinn Fein manifesto. I will look for some references when I get a moment.Traditional unionist 13:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The ones that dont I left all the rest reads like an OO love in just because you dont like what the truth is about the OO you can not leave un sourced pieces in the article.BigDunc 14:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your edit, as in places, particularly the first instance, your pruning is extremely selective. As I say, I don;t have time for this, but I will look for references to what I can. The Slugger reference seems good enough to me by the way, it is properly sourced as well. From memory, I couldn't find the press release I was looking for on the GOLI website.Traditional unionist 14:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Traditional Unionist, either provide references, or the claims can't remain in the article.--Padraig 14:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I intend to. But the article cannot remain the way you and BigDunc re trying to. It simply is not encyclopedic.Traditional unionist 14:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Dosen't work that way, either you or another editor can provide sources or the material stays removed as for WP:OR and WP:POV.--Padraig 14:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I am using WP:IGNORE specifically number two in this. Big Dunc's edit damages wikipedia.Traditional unionist 14:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
You appear to have misread WP:IGNORE. It starts "If a rule prevents you from working with others" (emphasis added by me). Edit warring is not "working with others". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

Please can editors stop edit warring, and discuss this issue. I have issued WP:3RR warnings to two editors, and further edit warring is likely to lead to blocks and possibly to the protection of the article.

If the discussion cannot be resolved through discussion, trying some of the further steps suggested at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Editors may also want to consider whether warring as part of a dispute being discussed at an arbitration case is really a particularly wise idea. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I ask Traditional Unionist to self-revert his last and 4th revert on his talk page he has refused to do so.--Padraig 14:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
You forgot to mention that I have explained my refusal.Traditional unionist 14:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Traditional unionist read WP:ATT and WP:RS BigDunc 14:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Do not patronize me. Please read WP:BUROTraditional unionist 14:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I would not dream of patronising you just showing you the error of your ways. BigDunc 14:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

My "ways" are in perfect order.Traditional unionist 14:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Pity your refs aren't. BigDunc 15:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You you personally attacking me? I may have to run away crying. My references are all in order.Traditional unionist 15:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Evidently the refs aren't in order, as I've had to reword two sentences to what the sources actually say. One Night In Hackney303 15:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually you've totally ignored what the references say.Traditional unionist 15:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh really? Please explain how this source refers to one member and one incident, whereas your edit referred to more than one incident and more than one member? One Night In Hackney303 15:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
This is beginning to sound like holocaust denial now! Are you seriously trying to suggest that Orange Halls are not regularly targeted? If so this will put you right.Traditional unionist 15:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
So, you're admitting the source didn't match the information you added? One Night In Hackney303 15:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm away

You've managed to destroy my afternoon's study - and now I have to go to work. I'll be hoking out a few books tonight and coming back with more tomorrow.Traditional unionist 15:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TOC

This article might benefit from {{TOCleft}}. Rich Farmbrough, 17:51 2 October 2007 (GMT).

[edit] To ALL editors

There is a proposal being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles/Proposed_decision#Just_a_heads_up by various admins and parties to the ongoing ArbCom case that would limit the editors to 1 revert/week (not counting reverts of anonymous IP addresses) I don't want anyone to miss it, because if it gets put through and someone gets blocked for breaking it, I don't want any complaining about "I didn't know about it!" SirFozzie 18:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting idea that, but can you explain how Traditional Unionist can make 4RR on this article today and not be blocked for edit warring, seeing as the discussion on this page over the past number of weeks is related to the unsourced material that BigDunc removed today after the failure to provide sources to backup this info.--Padraig 18:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Padraig: I'm not the one who decided, so I'm not going to be the one to wheel war (well, sorta wheel war, but I have faith in the judgement of Alison and BrownHairedGirl as well). Also, it was recognized by both admins that it took two to tango. So rather then block them BOTH, one final warning. SirFozzie 19:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It can’t be explained! One of the main problems is the lack of consistency on how policies are applied. We had the ridiculous situation already, were having provided multiple references, we are told to go of and find consensus. Never mind the fact that one editor, refused to cite sources for their opinion. The equation is as follows Comment + Opinion - References = Article Lock (Need Consensus). I have raised this before, some editors prefer article locks! Why not as part of this solution, impose blocks as opposed to articles being locked, that is what was proposed in the last ArbCom I was involved in? Look at this recent situation, Dunc removes unreferenced material which had been tagged, TU replaces it. And this is an edit war? That "two to tango" is BS, no offence intended Fozz. --Domer48 19:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

None taken, Domer :). Basically, Alli and BHG thought that Dunc could have been a bit more.. well... civil is too strong, but he could have handled it better.. like posting something on the talk page that "I'm going to remove these sections if better references are not found in a week". At least then it could be said he had given every opportunity to engage TU. But I do agree, the references are not so good in a couple places.. one link goes to "Slugger O'Toole"'s blog. Not a RS by any means. SirFozzie 19:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Fozie I have asked TU to provide sources for the OO article umpteen times all you have to do is look at the talk page and here and he has failed to do so. He seems to want to have page protection on this article which always seems to be on the page he reverts too. BigDunc 19:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I won’t prolong the discussion, but one would think that a {{Fact}} tag is putting an editor on notice. What about my suggestion about locking articles should be only used as a last resort? --Domer48 19:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yet its now being proposed to put all editors on 1RR per week because one editor can't provide references to support his POV editing, and reverts attempts to remove unsourced material with edit summaries such as this and this.--Padraig 19:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Your right Pádraig, and it’s the frustration this creates that causes such angst. That it is called edit warring or two to tango just inflames the whole thing. This is not edit warring! This is not two tribes! This is one editor imposing their POV. Admin’s are basing their calls based on experience, not on the situation at hand. Look at the issues on a case by case basis, and apply policies accordingly. Familiarity with editors and the problems is in it self becoming a problem. And as most Admin’s can attest Familiarity breeds contempt. --Domer48 19:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Locking an article is not something done lightly, I agree. Usually, when two editors go to war over an articlem it's better to give cool-off blocks to the warriors rather then lock the article, because someone not involved in the edit war might come in and improve it. With this many folks involved, locks are sometimes better to get ALL the editors to calm down. Didn't work here, agreed. And just to explain where I'm coming from on this, with the amount of bad feeling that's going on, it's always good to show that you went the extra mile to try to resolve conflicts without edit-warring. It's less likely to piss of the admin who shows up later, ;) SirFozzie 19:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What more could I have done Fozie you have seen the talk page he has been asked plenty of times to provide sources he wont, reverts 2 more times after I stopped so as not to break 3RR yet the page gets protected and TU gets his POV left on this article again. BigDunc 19:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Fozzie is right: go the extra mile. You all know how these edit wars start, and there are plenty of things that editors on both sides could have done to stop the situation escalating. I'm not saying that they would necessarily have worked, but it is important to try them.

TU's failure to source his edits and the incivility of his replies are very clear. But what was so urgent that BigDunc removed the contested comments without first pointing out in talk that the references were long overdue? What was so urgent that TU's revert had to be followed by another revert rather than taking it to talk? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I can see were you are coming from but are the tags not indication that an editor is going to make a change after a period of time. I felt it would be pointless to ask TU about it as he would have churned out the same responses he has given the last 4 weeks or so since I came in to contact with him on this article. And he would not have done anything different he would have reverted no matter what. But I have learned from this episode. BigDunc 21:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

He had more then two weeks to provide references and failed to do so, and if you follow the discussion on this talkpage he had no intention of doing so until he was basicly forced to do so today, so why did he start reverting the removal of the unsourced material, he could have added it back later with proper references without edit warring, yet he achieved his aim the article is now locked, which prevents other editors from providing proper references to the article and improving it.--Padraig 21:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Could not have put it better Padraig that is exactly what he wanted page protected on his POV again. BigDunc 21:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

All that has been achieved is the perpetuation of this type of situation. A green light to obstruction and prevarication. Is there any admin willing to bet that we will not now have the same situation in a week? Will unreference material be removed, and then be reverted? The former justified by policy and the latter condoned, almost excused by locking an article. Like BigDunc, I to have learned from this and other experiences. The most important lesson is the futility of these discussions. The decision has been made, the logic, the rationality, the validity of our concerns will be ignored, or worse, be used as an example of our unreasonableness. My only advice, the more the bar is raised against us, the higher we should set our standards. --Domer48 22:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that Padraig may well be right that if TU had been asked again for the refs, they would not have been forthcoming. That is being cited as a justification for not trying, but I think that it's exactly the opposite: it's a very good reason why you should have tried. (Yes, I know hindsight is 20-20 etc, but we're in lesson-learning mode) If he had been asked again, there were two possibilities: either he provided the refs, in which case you could move on (if only to assessing them), or he didn't, in which case it would have been entirely reasonable of you to say something along the lines of "do it soon, or it will be reverted". That way you could now be demonstrating that you really had exhausted efforts to resolve things, and that would be clear to any admin coming to the article. And that's what you need if you want admins in this territory to take actions other than the neutral steps of warning both sides or protecting the article: you need to demonstrate not just that the other party is wrong, but that you really have tried to avoid another conflict. I certainly would not like to bet that we will not now have the same situation in a week. But I do allow myself to hope that if there is still an impasse in a week's time, that it won't have become an edit war. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I did see here where I addressed the issue on his talk page, plus his edit summaries I highlighted above, he is a member of the Orange Order and seems to be trying to claim ownership on this article. I also ask him to self-revert when he made his fourth revert which he point blank refused to do, and should have been blocked for his disruptive editing.--Padraig 01:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
You need to be careful with your blind assumptions young man. I am not a member of the Orange Institution.Traditional unionist 12:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about dialogue before removing the contested material. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This talkpage prior to this seems to discuss just that, Traditional Unionist and other editors had more then enough time to find proper sources to support the claims being made.--Padraig 08:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Should it not have been the case that TU, rather than reverting, gone of and got the references and then place the information back into the article. After all, they went and added unreferenced material back into an article, which had been clearly tagged. Would it be at all possible to stop refering to this issue as an edit war, because that is simply not the case. And one more thing, will this article being locked address this problem? If not, it should be unlocked. --Domer48 08:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving on, starting discussion

I have been reviewing yesterday's edit war, and the deep frustration felt by editors on both sides of this argument. I would like to try to suggest a way forward.

I have already suggested that editors re-read Wikipedia:Resolving disputes and consider some of the options there, but I note that Wikipedia:Requests for mediation will not take on a dispute unless the editors involved have already started a discussion, though editors may want to consider seeking assistance from the informal mediation cabal.

However, I have been reviewing yesterday's edit war, and it occurred to me that one of the difficulties is that several contentious issues were under discussion at the same time. That makes hard to focus on solutions to particular points of contention.

So my suggestion is to:

  1. break down the problem into smaller and more manageable chunks
  2. try to resolve one point of disagreement before moving on to the next
  3. Once agreement has been reached, use {{editprotected}} to get an admin to implement the agreed change

Starting from the top of the article, the section on The Twelfth appears to have several points of contention:

  • The lack of references for the point about "triumphalism and anti-Catholicism", and disagreement about whether this point should be labelled as an "allegation" or stated as fact
  • The lack of references for the point about "criticism of its alleged behaviour towards Roman Catholics", and again disagreement about whether this point should be labelled as an "allegation" or stated as fact
  • A dispute about whether a date is needed in the statement that "As of 11 July 2006, most Orange parades however had passed off peacefully and without incident."(refs: http://www.birw.org/Parades%202005.html and http://en.epochtimes.com/news/6-7-11/43805.html )

I don't claim to have identified all the issues in that section, or even to have characterised them accurately. The editors involved here are the ones who need to identify the issues, and I am just trying to show how things could be broken down.

One thing stands out for me from this section: that the Orange and nationalist/republican perspectives on this issue have both identified a need for references for points which concern them, and yesterday's edit-war cycle involved editors from both sides fact-tagging points with which they disagreed, and removing fact tags from points which they thought were self-evident. It seems to me that both sides have some research to do.

As above, this is only a suggestion. If there is a better way forward, please use it! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing "The Twelfth"

Well I feel the onus is on TU to provide sources for the claims he wants kept in the article what about a time frame as Alison seems to think I jumped the gun in waiting 4 weeks for a source to be provided. BigDunc 10:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
BigDunc, please can you look again at the list of contentious points I identified? It seems to me that two of them are claims which TU would like to remove, and on which he has sought citations (see for example this edit). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, a date is essential for that particular sentence. The newest of the two references is dated 11 July 2006. As we're all doubtless aware, parades would have taken place the following day and this year as well too. Without a date, the references do not source the text. Similarly there's this sentence - The main annual Orange parade in the Republic of Ireland is at Rossnowlagh, County Donegal, an event which has been free from trouble and controversy. This is sourced by a BBC article dated 9 July 2001. That's obviously not an acceptable source for that sentence with its current wording. One Night In Hackney303 12:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


Firstly, as far as I could see, the entire paragraph for the Twelth needed referenced. It seems ludicrous to claim that it is more than an allegation that the event is sectarian etc. The BIRW report shows that it is an allegation. On the point of 90% of Orange parades being uncontentious, this is a truism in Northern Ireland, reported year after year on TV reports. I have provided two references for this, and in time I think I know where I can find one in a couple of academic works. Yet ONiH is intent on portraying a truism as fluid, as if the small parade in Ballinamalard (for example) will suddenly erupt in sectarian violence next year! Its daft.Traditional unionist 12:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no. A reference from 2001 cannot predict the future, it cannot say there was no trouble since that date. You will find the key is verifiability not truth. One Night In Hackney303 13:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Did you read the sources? The sources from 2005 and 2006?Traditional unionist 13:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Ive just spotted the one you mean. This is not sensible. There is never any trouble at Donegall, and there is no likelihood of there ever being. There is no trouble at the vast majority of Orange parades. This is true and verifiable, to my mind it has already satisfied the verifiability test.Traditional unionist 13:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Rather than relying on assertions, would the Parades Commission be a good place to look for a wider assessment? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Not always, but mostly.Traditional unionist 13:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm interested in making sure the information in the article is verifiable. I think the more sources that can be produced that have covered this in detail while the page is protected the better. I mean what does "most" mean anyway? 80%? 90%? 95%? 99%? It's a meaningless word, wouldn't you agree? One Night In Hackney303 13:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
No. I wouldn't. But I understand why you would say that. I have provided sources that prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there is only trouble at a small minority of orange events. I am not aware of the stance, if any, of British Irish Rights Watch, but I would supremly doubt that it has a Unionist or Orange bias. And this orginisation states that "as always" there was no trouble at the vast majority of Orange events 2 years ago. Can you knock that claim down?Traditional unionist 13:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Pardon? You really should have a read of assume good faith. "Most" is a pointless word, it doesn't tell the reader anything. I'm in favour of more accuracy, if "most" means 90% then put 90%, if it means 95% then put 95%. "Most" is open to interpretation by the reader, an exact figure is not. If you read what I said above I asked for sources that cover it in more detail, in order that a more exact figure can be used. Yet for some spurious reason you don't want that to happen, why? One Night In Hackney303 13:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Because, as I suspect you well know, it will be nearly impossible to gain an exact figure. For what percentage of Orange Parades pass off peacefully, only the number that are uncontentious, which will not be possible to gain a suitable fraction for, as the number of actual parades is likely to be lower, perhaps considerably lower, than the number applied for.Traditional unionist 13:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not even bothered about an exact figure a rough figure will do just fine, even if it said "90-95%" (for example) that would be much more preferable than the meaningless "most". One Night In Hackney303 13:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Then I suggest you try what has been suggested, the parades commission website.Traditional unionist 13:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you both try the Parades Commission website? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Wait, wait, wait...TU said I have provided two references for this, and in time I think I know where I can find one in a couple of academic works, and I started a discussion on the use of the word "most" and asked for an exact figure if possible. Now maybe I'm being overly optimistic here, but I'd have hoped that if relevant information came to light in these "academic works" that it would be provided accordingly? One Night In Hackney303 14:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
It will. In time. Wikipedia doesn't pay my rent you know.Traditional unionist 14:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Right, so hopefully now you realise that if I bring up wording I feel needs changing or clarifying you'll understand I'm doing it in the hope that you may be able to provide sources that I can't? One Night In Hackney303 14:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I always assume good faith.Traditional unionist 14:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent). I think that there are two issues here:

  1. http://www.birw.org/Parades%202005.html refers to "most", without quantifying that. Is the BIRW an acceptable source? If so, then the article shouldn't use greater precision than the source
  2. Greater precision might be desirable. But if more precise sources are not yet available, why is it improper to use the only source so far? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Please read my initial comments about this - "I think the more sources that can be produced that have covered this in detail while the page is protected the better. I mean what does "most" mean anyway? 80%? 90%? 95%? 99%? It's a meaningless word, wouldn't you agree?" The first sentence was requesting more sources, the following sentences give one example of why I wanted more sources. Removal of the word was never discussed, only hopefully replacing it with a more precise word from other sources. One Night In Hackney303 14:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I get you. But is greater precision on that point actually appropriate on this page? The section Orange Institution#The Twelfth is only intended as a summary of the main article at The Twelfth, and whatever figure is chosen will apply only to one year. Rather than setting out now to expand the differing degrees of contention each year, wouldn't it be better to collect a bundle of more detailed sources to use in The Twelfth, use them to write a much more verbose and detailed account of how parades have been assessed, and then review that account to see if it points to any revision of the summary.
Wouldn't it be better to note that point of dispute as resolved for now (in that the brief mention is acceptably sourced), and move on to the many other areas of disagreement? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't really class it as a point of dispute. I mean, what could I conceivably change it to? In the absence of a more reliable figure, that's as good as it gets. I was simply asking for more sources in general, and giving a specific example of one thing that could possibly do with improving. One Night In Hackney303 15:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. But the article is currently protected because there are many points in the page which are the subject of dispute, leading to yesterday's edit war. It seems to me that if protection is to be lifted, it is more important to resolve the items in dispute than to open up new areas. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't even tell you what the current dispute is really. The earlier edit war had blown over and constructive edit was ongoing. TU was adding sources, I was rewording to what the sources actually say (for example this edit). As a 2005 (or 2006) report cannot deal with subsequent events, a date was needed on another sentence. All the protection does is leave us twiddling our thumbs for a week. One Night In Hackney303 15:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually you are rewording referenced info to a pro nationalist POV. That should say 2on at least one occasion", for example. The 2005 and 2006 reports are clearly adequate references to say that nearly all Orange events are trouble free. You are being maddeningly pedantic about that in particular.Traditional unionist 15:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
ONIH, there is no need at all to twiddle any thumbs. Once there is consensus for any change, use {{editprotected}} to ask an admin to implement the change. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
We've been there before, believe me when I say that won't work. One Night In Hackney303 15:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
If the participants concentrate on expressing their mutual hostility, then it definitely won't work. But if editors are prepared to get down to work and try to assess the outstanding {{fact}} tags one point at a time, without getting sidetracked into other points or the trading of barbs, then there is a chance of it working. This thread refers to three points where both sides have been challenged by the other to produce references, but after more than 2,000 words there are no new references. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a question. Unreferenced material was removed yesterday - it is now clear that references for some of it was readily and easily available. Where is the line between someone who removes information that they cannot find references for, and someone who removes information which they for whatever reason choose not to look for the references? Surely the latter is vandalism?Traditional unionist 15:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

aaargh! Do you want to rake over the coals, or do you want to improve the article?
Rather than attributing blame, wouldn't it be better to work together now to find the references to allow the removal of the twelve {{fact}} tags currently in the article? (remember that it was those outstanding fact tags which triggered yesterday's edit war). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Generally it is the responsability of the person making a statement to find references, not the person who wants to remove it. In an ideal world people would be able to make 'common sense' statements without them being deleted or having a fact tag attached to them, but unfortunately when it comes to contentious issues there is no agreement on what is common sense and what is propaganda. Having said that, I think the two people most involved in this edit war need to step back and think about whether their attitudes are helping matters. What is going on on this page is a microcosm of the stubbornness, refusal to see the other person's point of view, and refusal to compromise that has caused so many problems in Northern Ireland. You both need to start thinking of solutions that you can both live with, rather than insisting on getting your own way. --Helenalex 15:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
My point is that there are common sense issues here. All it would have taken would have been some basic google searches to remove the tags and source the claims, yet an editor chose to instead remove (in places selectively) useful information. That doesn't help anyone, and caused this dispute.Traditional unionist 16:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
If those refs can be quickly found through through "basic google searches", why don't you go and do the said basic google searches? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I did, which is my point.Traditional unionist 16:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irish Hunger strike

Can you comment on this content dispute please? [17] Thanks, Valenciano 13:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're asking me, then I'll decline. Sidney Elliott is a respected and world renowned electoral expert.Traditional unionist 13:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Methinks he got the wrong page. One Night In Hackney303 13:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Twelfth

First Citation tag. Remove the word “allegations.” And also the word “alleged,” on the next line were the citation tag was removed. They are not allegations and they are not alleged. These references show this quite clearly. They are made up of both contemporary and historical sources. I have included most of the applicable paragraphs to dispel any notion of selectivity. The sources more than qualify as both reliable and verifiable, to be sure of it I have included some biographical information. --Domer48 18:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"Orangemen like to present their annual festival as a celebration of civil and religious liberty, expressing their cultural heritage and identity in a spectacle of marching enjoyed by all. The reality can be quite different. The parades that dominate the summer months often do so provocatively and selfishly without regard to the cost in terms of community relations or the public purse. Some of the marches are unmistakably triumphal. Participants see them as a continuing and vigorous manifestation of their Protestantism, Unionism and loyalty to the British Crown…The lodges’ insistence on marching anywhere at any time, and the bands’ habit of playing louder as they pass Catholic churches and neighbourhoods have helped to thwart any prospect of a mutually respectful relationship. In fact, Catholics see the Order as the all-powerful instrument through which they were consigned to second-class citizenship in Northern Ireland for decades after partition in 1922."


Reference Drumcree: The Orange Order’s Last stand, Chris Ryder and Vincent Kearney, Methuen, ISBN 0 413 76260 2.

Chris Ryder is a freelance journalist writing regularly for publications including the Sunday Times and Irish Times, and was previously Northern Ireland correspondent for the Daily Telegraph. His previous books include Inside the Maze: The Untold Story of the Northern Ireland Prison Service and The RUC: A Force Under Fire.

Vincent Kearney is Northern Ireland correspondent for the Sunday Times, and formerly Political Correspondent for the Belfast Telegraph. He was Northern Ireland Journalist of the Year in 1995, and in 1996 he was a member of the Belfast Telegraph team who received the Northern Ireland All News Media award for coverage of the Drumcree stand-off and its aftermath.


"It has sometimes been difficult to discern such high-minded sentiments, for example when Orangemen triumphantly hold up five fingers as they parade past a spot where five Catholics were shot dead. Previous marching seasons have produced widespread disorder, and while other elements bear some responsibility for these disasters, it is the Order’s metronomic determination to march past hostile Catholic areas which has time and again occasioned serious disturbance. It was in fact ever thus, for throughout its two-century history the Order has left behind a trail of troubles… But it was Belfast which saw the worst of the violence with repeated riots during the marching season, most of them following Orange demonstrations, 2 major disturbances taking place between 1813 and 1886. Several of the Subsequent government inquiries showed that most of the city’s policemen were Orangemen. Six commissions of inquiry were set up to report on the causes of rioting. The reports of all six blamed two main factors, poor policing and Orange parades. One report said: “The celebration of that [Orange July] that is plainly and unmistakably the originating cause of these riots”, adding the occasion was used “to remind one party of the triumph of their ancestors over those of the other, and to inculcate the feelings of Protestant superiority over their Roman Catholic neighbours."

"Friction had developed because the marchers insisted on a age-old route homeward through what had now become a solidly Catholic district, Garvaghy Road. After protester stood quietly to allow the march past, as agreed, they were angered when local Ulster Unionist MP David Trimble said there had been no compromise and held hands aloft with the Reverend Ian Paisley to applause from Orangemen in the centre of Portadown."

Reference Through the Minefield, David McKittrick, Blackstaff Press, 1999, Belfast, ISBN 0 85640 652 x.

David McKittrick was named Correspondent of the Year by the BBC’s What the Papers Say in February 1999, and two months later was named Journalist of the Year in the Northern Ireland Press and Broad casting Awards. As Ireland correspondent of the London Independent since 1986, he has won several other media awards, as well as the Ewart-Biggs Memorial Prize for the promotion of peace and under standing in Ireland. A frequent broadcaster who has reported on Northern Ireland since 1973, this is the fourth collection of his journalism to be published by Blackstaff Press. He is co-author with Eamonn Mallie of the 1996 book The Fight for Peace.

Here's a Belfast Telegraph article from this year saying 'The parade has been as peaceful as last year's Twelfth which was described by police as the quietest in over 30 years.' http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/breaking-news/ireland/article2763784.ece
I'm not sure which parade they are referring to, but from the article context they seem to be referring to the 12th in general. Here's another BT article quoting the Orange Order on the number of attacks on their halls (50+ in a couple of weeks of July this year) http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/breaking-news/ireland/article2783173.ece
Once the page is unlocked these can be added as references. They took me a total of about 10 seconds to find, so I am annoyed and bewildered as to why no-one (TU in particular) did not just find and add these rather than getting into a stupid edit war. This is probably the lamest aspect of this whole thing - no one is saying anything particularly controversial. If one person was insisting that the Order were single-handedly responsible for the troubles or that they are being victimised by the government or something I could understand it. But people are endlessly bickering over statements which 90% of the population of NI would either agree with or agree with if the wording was slightly modified. --Helenalex 14:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well you know how I feel then Helenalex I have been asking TU for 4 weeks to ref this article all to know joy. BigDunc 14:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we're getting confused here. It isn't enough to take the word allegations out - that is POV. What is verifiable is that there have been instances of insensitivity and wrong doing (nearly always in Belfast - outside of Belfast it is mostly concentrated in northern County Antrim). What is not verifiable is that the 12th of July is a hate fest across Northern Ireland. Another point is that the 12th is not a NI only event, it is global. There are well known examples of wrongdoing by so called Orangemen, much more evidence by distasteful bands, but it is true and verifiable to say that the twelth, and nearly all parades at any other time of year, are peaceful and uncontentious. That must be brought out in that paragraph.Traditional unionist 16:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, so we can take out the words “alleged” and “allegations.” Because they are not allegations and they are not alleged, but verifiable facts. While TU considers that "it isn't enough to take the word allegations out," they do conceed, that it "is verifiable...that there have been instances of insensitivity and wrong doing" and "there are well known examples of wrongdoing by so called Orangemen." Helenalex there are two references there in that section on "The Twelfth" after " most Orange parades however had passed off peacefully and without incident," and two more will not hurt, thanks for that. So that should address TU's point on it not being a "hate fest," and is in the same paragraph. So can we go along with my proposed wording for this section as shown in the sandbox --Domer48 17:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Im afraid that your suggestion simply isn't encyclopedic, it simply makes a POV statement and leaves it at that. What it does not draw out is that the contentious nature of the twelfth, and indeed all activities of Orangeism, is highly concentrated to Belfast, and even there is not even a majority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Traditional unionist (talk • contribs) 17:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I very much afraid that is not an acceptable response to the reasonable discussion we are having. First, you accept the validity of the references! Therefore the words “alleged” and “allegations” are gone. Your comment that it “simply isn't encyclopaedic” is nonsensical. As to “it simply makes a POV statement and leaves it at that,” is absurd, I’m removing the POV from the statements. If you wish to broaden the section, by all means do so, all I ask is that you reference it. Please no more blog sites. Now I would just make one more point here before we move on. TU no more comment and opinion, as evidenced by your last contribution. We on this article are attempting to move things along. This is not going to be allowed to drag on this time! The references are their, I provided them, move on shall we? --Domer48 19:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sandbox

To help editors trying to reach consensus on creating a consensus version of the article, I have created a copy of the latest version of the article, at Talk:Orange Institution/sandbox. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have made the changes in the sandbox, is that the idea behind its use? --Domer48 20:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
That's one way of using it; another is to take the small chunk you want and propose a new version of that little chunk. The advantage of the sandbox is that when the article itself is protected, editors can't copy the markup of the text, which can be a right pain in proposing changes if the passage involved includes references.
The main point is that the sandbox may be help in developing changes to the article, by improvising a copy which isn't "live". When there was an edit war over the article Fatimah, I created a sandbox after protecting the article, which editors used to create a much-improved version. But use it as you wish; if someone else changes it radically in a way you don't like, your revision u=is still there in the history. You can even create a forked version (e.g. Talk:Orange Institution/sandbox/Domer) if you want to pursue a set of changes in parallel to what others are working on.
Hope it helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that people are starting to work constructively. Before particular sentences get set in concrete ('we agreed on this exact wording!') it seems to me that the particularly contentious sentences have become extremely awkward, and also that it makes no sense to have the Twelfth section seperate from - and on a different part of the page from! - the section on parades. I've done a sandbox fix of both issues at Talk:Orange Institution/sandbox/Helenalex. Where multiple footnotes exist for one sentence, I've run them together so that all the references are in the one footnote. This looks a lot better, imo. --Helenalex 21:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone has moved my sandbox to User:Helenalex/sandbox/OrangeInstitution. I'm not sure why. --Helenalex 21:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That seems fine with me User:Helenalex/sandbox/OrangeInstitution, lets see what others think? --Domer48 09:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Helenalex , can we move on to my suggestion on the Political links and related organizations section, while the others review your proposel? It should be a simple enough one, the ref's are there? --Domer48 09:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political links and related organizations

I would like to have this sentence changed:

The Order first became overtly political during Charles Stewart Parnell's campaign for Home Rule in the 1880s.[citation needed]

This is clearly patent nonsense, as these references will attest. I would propose changing the sentence to:

The Order, from its very inception was an overtly political organisation.

References:

"The Protestant only Orange Order, established in the I 790s to carry out sectarian warfare against the Catholic Defenders in the countryside, functioned as a shadow government that enforced the rules of Ulster’s religious caste system. Its sprawling network of lodges controlled private sector hiring and public sector services. The extent of the discrimination was clear at Harland & Wolff shipyards in Belfast, where there were only 225 Catholics in a work force of three thousand in 1 887.

The Protestants of the Orange Order understood that this blatant discrimination would not continue if a Dublin-based legislature were established. So, speaking the language they believed Britain would understand, they argued that Home Rule would be Rome rule, that in a self-governing Ireland, they would be subjected to the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church. Seeing a chance to win support for his Conservative Party, Lord Randolph Churchill told colleagues that “the Orange card would be the one to play.'"

Reference: For the Cause of Liberty, Terry Golway, Touchstone, 2000, ISBN 0 684 85556 9

"But that same night a body of magistrates, squires, squireens, and parsons in County Armagh met together and formed the Mother Lodge of the Orange Society. Under a pretext of zeal for law, order, and the Protestant religion an oath-bound secret society on the Masonic model was organised, which, in practice, proved a fomenting centre, as well as a cloak of protection, for the organised knavery into which the Peep-of-Day Boys had degenerated. The Orange Order became an organised conspiracy of all the most de generate reactionaries of every social strata—an instrument whereby the lumpen strata were used as tools to break up the solidarity engendered by the United Irish men, and to replace the struggle for democratic advance by disintegrating it into an embittered war of sect against sect, from which the only ones to profit were the dare Beresford clique in Dublin Castle and their hangers-on of every social grade. In evaluting the Orange Society it must not be forgotten that the bodies it was founded to disrupt and destroy—the United Irishmen and the Defenders—functioned, the one as a great liberating force, and the other as a tenants’ protection league and an agrarian trade union. The Orange lodges functioned as a “union-smashing” force, operating in the interest of an oligarchical clique threatened with overthrow by a revolutionary-democratic advance. They constituted the first Fascist body known in history."

Reference: Ireland Her Own, T. A. Jackson, Lawrence & Wishart, London, First published in 1947, Reprinted 1971, 1973, 1976, 1985 and 1991, ISBN 0 85315 735 9

"However, this very fact brought home to the government the extreme seriousness of the United Irish threat and military measures were immediately taken against the secret society in its stronghold among the Presbyterians and Catholics of Ulster. The ruthless way in which the army now conducted its search for arms and information was remarkably successful and by the end of 1797 the conspiracy in that part of Ireland was virtually broken. A not inconsiderable factor in the breaking of it was a reversion on the part of many Protestants to their old sectarian ways under the auspices of the recently founded Orange Society."

Reference: Ireland A History, Robert Kee, Abacus, First published 1982 Revised edition published 2003, 2004 and 2005, ISBN 0 349 11676 8

"In Armagh, there was a pitched battle in September 1795 between Protestant and Catholic groups. The Defenders were overwhelmed. Following this fight, a new extra-parliamentary body was founded, the Orange Society, which later changed its name to the Orange Order The aim of the Society was to maintain what its members no longer trusted the parliament to do, and it defined its loyalty in a distinctly conditional way: ‘to support and defend the King and his heirs as long as he or they support the Protestant Ascendancy’. Many Catholics living in mainly Protestant districts were forcibly driven out, most of them finding refuge in Connacht. Those who remained trusted to the Defenders to keep the roofs over their heads."

Reference: Ireland History of a Nation, David Ross, Geddes & Grosset, Scotland, First published 2002, Reprinted 2005 & 2006, ISBN 10: 1 84205 164 4

I think this comes down to how you define 'political'. None of these quotes show that the Order was involved in parliamentary politics befor the time of Parnell, ie politics in the narrower sense. Clearly they were 'political' in the wider sense, but then so was nearly everything in Ireland. To me, 'overtly political' means political in the narrower sense, ie they tried to directly influence government policy, and you haven't demonstrated this. Perhaps a more appropriate wording might be something like:
From its inception, the Order was involved in the power struggles between Loyalists and Nationalists, and played a role in the suppression of the 1798 Rising and in the driving out of Catholics from predominately Protestant areas. From the time of Parnell's Home Rule movement in the 1880s, it was also directly involved in parliamentary politics.
On a side note, I'm wondering how balanced some of the sources you're using are. Statements like 'They constituted the first Fascist body known in history' don't do much to establish objectivity, and leave the page open to charges of nationalist bias. There are plenty of more neutral sources for all of this. Page numbers would also be helpful, in future. --Helenalex 12:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
On your point on the political influence of the OO on the UUP, almost every prime minister of the former government of Northern Ireland and leaders of the UUP then and since has been a member of the OO, with IIRC only 3 not being members.--Padraig 13:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Sure, but as far as I'm aware this doesn't date to before Parnell. No sensible person would argue that the Order hasn't had a huge amount of 20th century political influence, especially during the first Stormont parliament, and we need to say something about that. But no one has yet refuted the claim that the Order wasn't overtly political (ie involved in parliamentary politics) before the 1880s. --Helenalex 14:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Well the Orange Order was only established in 1795 itself, but Orangeism itself predates that.--Padraig 14:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

From it’s inception the Orange Order has been politically motivated! That motivation has been 'overtly political.' That they were encouraged and supported by a political party would mean that the Order was involved in parliamentary politics befor the time of Parnell. --Domer48 14:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Helenalex, could you possible suggest a book which would be the polar opposite of the T. A. Jackson book. Or something which would refute his claims? --Domer48 15:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Padraig - sorry, I'm not seeing your point, probably because I'm not sure what Orangeism is if it's detached from the Orange Order.
Domer - your first point: Again, I think the problem here is the vagueness of the word 'political'. If by 'the Orange Order was politically motivated and that motivation was overtly political', you mean 'the Orange Order was involved in maintaining the Protestant ascendancy' or the balance of power which oppressed Catholics or something like that, then I would fully agree with you. The trouble is that readers will not necessarily take 'political' to mean that, especially when the word 'overtly' is used. This is why I suggested the alternative wording which clarifies exactly what it is that the Order was doing and when. If you mean that the Order was involved in parliamentary politics or had a major influence on the governor of Ireland, then you could be correct but you would need to find some sources to back that up. In the mean time, do you have any problems with the wording I suggested above, and if so, what?
Your second point - One of the several books on Orangeism published by the Orange Order would fit the 'polar opposite' bill, but I don't think that would be very helpful. My point was that there are plenty of books by legitimate, relatively unbiased scholars which back up all the points you are wanting to make. If you use those, instead of what appears to be a nationalist tract (I haven't read it, I'm judging by the title and the extract) from 1947, then people will be more likely to accept the statements that they are referencing. It's not so much that anything in Jackson is necessarily inaccurate - although some of it is very POV - rather that with a topic as contentious as this one we should strive to use sources that people can't reasonably attack as republican propaganda. --Helenalex 21:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't have the time but try the recent books by Eric Kaufmann (who has edited this article recently) and Brian Kennaway. Brian's is very good and very balanced given the treatment he was given in some quarters over the past 15 years.Traditional unionist 11:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

HelenalexI have placed the referenced text into this section. I don't think this comes down to how we define 'political,' butsimply going by what the sources say. I have removed one of the references, on your advice, and not because I have a problem with it. --Domer48 13:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing The Twelfth

Has any editor found a citation for what is required in this section if not I intend to remove them. BigDunc 17:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked for a reference? I'm ill and busy simultaniously, so don't have time or the energy, but simply removing the word allegation is POV and untrue.Traditional unionist 18:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Never said that is what I am going to do I have refs for this but will wait till Monday to give you time.BigDunc 19:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, It'll be Christmas before I get a moment to myself, so I wouldn't be waiting for me. Have you looked for references?Traditional unionist 12:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually the references are there to remove the words Traditional unionist, and to keep them there would be POV! There gone on Monday. --Domer48 16:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have applied the changes outlined above. Any additional information, should be referenced. --Domer48 10:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What you have done is an utter disgrace. You have pushed nationalist POV into an encyclopedic article, thus discrediting the entire project. Well done.Traditional unionist 11:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I would remind you to remain civil, and cease to engage in personal attacks on editors. I would also recommend you read the talk page guidelines. Having now being informed of them, I should not have to remind you again. --Domer48 12:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Grow up.Traditional unionist 12:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at that again, and you're clearly confused. You're not writing an essay for marking now. That's what that reads like and it cannot remain. It is unencyclopedic, POV and damaging to wikipedia.Traditional unionist 13:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Traditional Unionist, find references to fix what you think is wrong, rather then complaining about it here.--Padraig 13:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Please remain civil Padraig, and that is something I have accused others of in the past, with little success.Traditional unionist 13:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I made no personal attack on you nor was I uncivil, you have had two weeks to provide references and failed to do so, you then accuse editors of POV editing on the article, I merely pointed out that instead of complaining about it find references and fix it.--Padraig 15:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Traditional unionistI would yet again remind you to remain civil, and cease to engage in personal attacks on editors. I would also strongly recommend you read the talk page guidelines. Your edits appear now to be disruptive in order to simply make a point. Stop now! Cite policies to illustrate your point, opinion dose not count. --Domer48 13:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately you do not seem to agree with your own point! You are referencing opinion as fact, and you have written this piece in an unencolopedic fashion.Traditional unionist 13:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If it is your intension to have the article locked again, I would strongly suggest you think again. You have had amply opportunity to reference material, and have flatly refused to do so. Though, you have found time to edit war. Stop now! --Domer48 13:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

It's good to see that the bickering seems to have stopped and constructive things are now being done with this page. It was about time a history section was added. Having said that, I'm wondering if it's maybe a bit too long for this page? Perhaps there should be a History of the Orange Institution page, which could include more info, and a shorter version on this page. --Helenalex (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV removed

"Of the approximately 700 Orange Halls in Northern Ireland, 282 have been targeted by nationalist arsonists" (emphasis added). Source says "There are 700 Orange halls across Ireland. Since the Troubles began, 282 have been targeted by arsonists". Let's stick to what sources say, instead of pretending the OO don't torch their own halls for the insurance money or to gain sympathy. One Night In Hackney303 15:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Try reading the right source. Paul Butler, SF MLA has a letter in todays Irish News saying the vandalism is by nationalists. You make a valid point, but remove the wrong piece of info.Traditional unionist (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
So Paul Butler claims all 282 arson attacks were committed by nationalists does he? Is he a one man telepathic crime-solver? Take a look at WP:SYN, what you're doing is against policy. One Night In Hackney303 15:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
You're removing valid information when you should be rewording the sentence. I understand your point now, but try to edit constructively rather than try to remove info that is in your partisan interests to.Traditional unionist (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, your claims of insurance or sympathy vandalism of their own halls is sickening and baseless. It shows bitterness that is not helpful to the wikipedia project.Traditional unionist (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I've probably pissed off both sides, but I've tried to make an edit satisfactory to both viewpoints (I shoulda taken this page off my watchlist at the end of the ArbCom, but since I saw this happening, I figured I'd step in and at least try to keep things from erupting) . We are reporting on what he says, but only as to what he has said. I do understand that Synthesis is an issue here. SirFozzie (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
What you've done is fine, except that bulter is a SF MLA and IRA man who shot a policeman in the back of the head.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Traditional Unionist, I just tried to jump in and forgot to read the link to the article first. Now, maybe folks will understand that I truly have no dog in this fight and no knowledge of the people involved (I had one person ask me recently where in Ireland I lived, because I've been involved so much in these conflicts as a mediator *laughs*. If I'm wrong, please tell me/explain to me, either here or on my talk page. :) SirFozzie (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Your help is always appreciated.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Fozzie. It was a blatant case of synthesis. Paul Butler says the vandalism was by nationalists, another source says 282 incidents, but you can't combine the two to say all 282 incidents were by nationalists. I'd say a conservative estimate is 25% were insurance scams or attempts to gain sympathy personally. One Night In Hackney303 14:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
That is an unsubstantiated, ad homain, disgusting suggestion. I was not attempting to synthesis, if i advertantly did, you reacted with venom.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Unless there is evidence that any of the halls have been burnt down for insurance or sympathy - and where on earth does the 25% figure come from?? - it should be assumed that all apparent arsons are arsons. I doubt every single case is the work of nationalists - a few are probably random vandals, accidents mistakenly attributed to arson, the odd loyalist trying to make the other side look bad - but it seems reasonably to assume that nationalists are responsible for the vast majority of cases. The page doesn't say that every hall was burnt by a nationalist, just that Paul Butler has said there is a nationalist arson campaign against Orange halls, and it does seem like he would know.
ONIH, I have no particular love for the Orange Order either, no more than I would for any other group of religious bigots, but they clearly are being targetted in this way, and blaming the victim is unconstructive and low. Stop it. In the past I've been fairly annoyed by TU's conduct on this page, but he (assuming gender here) seems to have reformed and is to be commended for being calm and sensible in response to a very low blow. --Helenalex (talk) 09:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removing referenced information

Please do not remove referenced information, or alter the content of same. --Domer48 (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"Not alter content of same"? Is that also a prohibition on correcting your standard mistakes and lack of punctuation? It's 'does', not 'dose', and 'Coogan', not 'coogan'.
There are no bans on Wikipedia on editing content.--Damac (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you please be civil Damac (talk) and look at WP:SKILL--BigDunc (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's not be tiresome. The source describes it as overtly political. The new wording demonstrates that. The substance has not been altered.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
It has been altered it was overtly political according to the source not just described as political implying that maybe it wasn't. BigDunc (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
One non neutral authors opinion does not a statement of fact make. There is a case to be made that "maybe" it wasn't political from the start, your opinion together with Coogan's does not alter that. Stop edit warring.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
My opinion of the OO is not relevant but a reliable and verifiable ref should not be changed to suit a POV. BigDunc (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

TU I've been down this road with you already. Now do not distort referenced information. If you wish to challange this information, please provide a referenced source. Now there are three references on this, and none of them are Coogan's, if you like I can add one from him as well. Now do not distort this information. --Domer48 (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It has not been changed to any extent, other than to improve the quality of the reporting. One source of a non neutral author is not a statement of fact. He calls it political from its inception, that is said in the article. Job done.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The pair of you are edit warring,. Stop it, you are breaking wikipedia policies.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
What exactly is a non neutral author TU? And please do not edit war by putting your own slant on a ref. BigDunc (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

TU, there are three references to back it up, I should know I added it. Now please do not alter the referenced information. --Domer48 (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There is one reference.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
There is 3 here

1 For the Cause of Liberty, Terry Golway, Touchstone, 2000, ISBN 0-684-85556-9;
2. Ireland: A History, Robert Kee, Abacus, First published 1982 Revised edition published 2003, 2004 and 2005, ISBN 0-349-11676-8;
3.Ireland History of a Nation, David Ross, Geddes & Grosset, Scotland, First published 2002, Reprinted 2005 & 2006, ISBN 10: 1 84205 164 4 BigDunc (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

For these purposes quotations would be handy. You also need to get into the habit of including page numbers in your references, reader's can't be expected to readt the entire book for one reference.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok folks, I'm glad that the discussion has gone towards source verifiability rather then the psuedo-attack stuff I was seeing previously. Domer: Can you provide page #'s and that? I would agree with TU that it would be helpful, that we can verify the information (as well as the context that it was placed in).. it's also more useful for the average reader, if they pick up these books to see where the info is coming from. Let's AGF and Assume AGF of others, and move forward instead of squabbling. (BTW, spare a thought for us poor frozen SOB's here in the Northeast US.. we had a windchill of -23 Celsius yesterday. Yuck! ;) ) SirFozzie (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I have friends from MS here now, they're amazed to see a foot of snow!Traditional unionist (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Page numbers now provided. --Domer48 (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And the quotations? Just in the talk page would be great.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The Protestant only Orange Order, established in the 1790s to carry out sectarian warfare against the Catholic Defenders in the countryside, functioned as a shadow government that enforced the rules of Ulster’s religious caste system. For the Cause of Liberty, Terry Golway, Touchstone, 2000, ISBN 0-684-85556-9 p.179
  • The ruthless way in which the army now conducted its search for arms and information was remarkably successful and by the end of 1797 the conspiracy in that part of Ireland was virtually broken. A not inconsiderable factor in the breaking of it was a reversion on the part of many Protestants to their old sectarian ways under the auspices of the recently founded Orange Society.Ireland: A History, Robert Kee, Abacus, First published 1982 Revised edition published 2003, 2004 and 2005, ISBN 0-349-11676-8 p.61
  • In Armagh, there was a pitched battle in September 1795 between Protestant and Catholic groups. The Defenders were overwhelmed. Following this fight, a new extra-parliamentary body was founded, the Orange Society, which later changed its name to the Orange Order. The aim of the Society was to maintain what its members no longer trusted the parliament to do, and it defined its loyalty in a distinctly conditional way: ‘to support and defend the King and his heirs as long as he or they support the Protestant Ascendancy’. Many Catholics living in mainly Protestant districts were forcibly driven out, most of them finding refuge in Connacht.Ireland History of a Nation, David Ross, Geddes & Grosset, Scotland, First published 2002, Reprinted 2005 & 2006, ISBN 10: 1 84205 164 4 p.195

Now TU, even you would agree I was reserved in my edit. That I could add another couple of references is enough to suggest I have been restrained. Now would you like to have some of the quotes put in, or have I been correct in my edit --Domer48 (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you really have found three bigots. It is still not verifird that the Order is political. There are some historical inaccuracies in those quotes, and they are written in very POV language, not very good academic works if this is indicitive of what is in the rest of them! I'll do some reading after work tomorrow to get at some truth here, but you can take it as read that I'm not happy with this bile being presented as fact.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You call Robert Kee a bigot thats rich. Do you even know who the authors are before you spew your bile about bigots BigDunc (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Have just done a little research on these books. One is so obscure Amazon doesn't have a new copy(and has been referenced by academics so little that google doesn't know about it), one you haven't given the full name of (the bit you left out is quite important for checking realibality - A thousand years of Irish heros), and in the other you're stretching the quote a bit. Not brilliant sources. You appear to be calling me a bigot. You will withdraw that remarkTraditional unionist (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I was a bit hasty about Kee, I ment two bigots. You've stretched Kee's works a little bit to suit .Traditional unionist (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

TU please, now there is no need for that. I have went to a little effort here for you, a simple thanks would have been enough. --Domer48 (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

except that there are major deficiencies in your sources and use of sources.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Terry Golway is City Editor and columnist at The New York Observer. He is also a frequent contributor to the Irish Echo, America, American Heritage, The Boston Globe, The New York Times, and other national publications. He is the author of Irish Rebel: John Devoy and America’s Fight for Ireland freedom and co-author of The Irish in America, a companion book to the award-winning PBS documentary series. Now what book is not correctly titled?--Domer48 (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for showing up where Mr Galloway's POV is. The Irish Echo is not exactly a neutral source, and one wouldn't expect it's writers to be either. You left off the end of the title of his book, which shows the POV of the book.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

TU, I can see were this is going, and I'm not going to get into it with you. On Golway, you ommit The New York Observer, The Boston Globe, The New York Times, American Heritage. Now I have tried to be helpful. The discussion is over. --Domer48 (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Alas squire; it isn't. You can't project opinion as fact.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, one of two things, I can pile a number of quotes onto that article which are supported by WP:V and WP:RS, in addition to the ones here, or I can walk away. Now I will walk away, because you have nothing left to offer this discussion. --Domer48 (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

So to surmise your ultimatum, either I drop this debate or you will swamp the article with POV that meets the rules but is opinion dressed up as fact? That's not very nice young man. Not in the spirit of any policy either.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You only here what you want to here. What I'm saying is, that I can reference everything that I add. I could references this over and over just to prove a point, but why should I. Your blinkers are never going to be of, so it makes no difference what I do. Now, go off and get yourself a couple of books, and add as much referenced text as you wish, but just don't edit war anymore. --Domer48 (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You really don't understand what you're doing wrong here do you? Two of these three authors, are Irish nationalists. We can see this from a very basic look at their histories. More to the point, what they write is written in pajoritive terms from a nationalist POV. That does not make these statements fact. It means they exists, but it does not make them fact. therefore saying that the Order always was political because these people say so is not adequate. Saying thet these people think x, is adequate.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Time to step back

Ok, as requested by the checkuser I was talking to, I have submitted a formal Check User request at RfCU. I would suggest that both sides take the next 24-48 hours off from any OI page edits (I don't want to block anyone from edit warring, and I don't want to lock out other editors from possibly improving the article), while that works, and also to try to determine whether the sources satisfy NPOV (I can't say either way to it at the moment, I need a hell of a lot more free time then what I have right now to check the sources). So let's all step back, no one has to protect pages, no one has to be blocked, and we improve the article. K? SirFozzie (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

How many times must I be the subject of a Requests for checkuser? What is this now, the third or fourth time. I was checked during the Famine ArbCom, the Troubles ArbCom, one by Markthomas? This is a form of intimidation, as is the accusation of edit warring. A statement with three references, is altered to suite one editors known bias. The references are verifiable and reliably sourced, and rather than put forward an alternative view, I get "Wow, you really have found three bigots," "I'm not happy with this bile being presented as fact," and "Two of these three authors, are Irish nationalists." So, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF are out the window. And this dispite the fact that I said I'd walk away from the discussion. A yeh, Domer48 edit warring again. --Domer48 (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Domer, EVERYONE is edit warring. That's why I'm asking everyone to step back. I'm not singling you out, or anyone out. I just want the edit warring to stop. Period. SirFozzie (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is being Requests for checkusered AGAIN. TU asked for it before, and it showed I was not Dunc or Breen or Pappin. Now I have no problem with it, but an editor who deliberatly changes a referenced statement, can request one. So the advice is: If an editor changes text to push their known bias, the best thing you can do is leave it! --Domer48 (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I missed that (the previous request), but not only did TU request it but Dunc went along with it (now admittedly, that's not an actual reason to DO it..) Domer... Let's put it this way. I understand the depth of feelings between the two groups here (Note: the depth of feelings here, not the depth of feelings to the people who actually live the situation). I have done my best to bend over backwards for everyone who seemed to be willing to at least listen to what I had to say. There have been numerous times where I would have been justified in locking down articles, and blocking all of you. But I haven't, because I believed that just about everyone had more to contribute to the encyclopedia by working on it, rather then take away from it by constant arguments. It's beginning to look more and more like some folks are willing to take advantage of that and of me. SirFozzie (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have never taken advantage of anyone. I have listened to the advice, and tried to go along with it, and all I got was shafted. Were are the admins when I’m getting messed about? Now I’m not crying about it, I even gave you the opportunity to step in and pull me up if you thought I was out of line. Told you to be a hard nosed fucker about it. And I was left swinging. I have every POV merchant on my case, and I know now, all I have to do is put one foot wrong and I’m over a barrel. That is just the way it is! The only reason I understand the policies here, is because I had everyone of them used on me, but I have yet to see them used to protect an editor who plays by the rules. The Checkuser was wrong! --Domer48 (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Zealand Section

Please do not remove referenced material from article and dont edit war. BigDunc (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I am removing your UNSOUCRED claim. SF have asked for this to be removed as he was an Orangeman. They have not denied this, both facts are reported by the BBC.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
It was because of his "anti-Catholic speeches". BigDunc (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no source to back up your claim that they dispute the assertion. They don't.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a second hand account and not an appropriate source.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You put it in not me I just read it all and didn't select what I wanted from it see WP:SYNTHESIS--BigDunc (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Dunc this is not the first time TU has attempted this. In this discussion WP:SYNTHESIS was also used. On that occasion TU said "I was not attempting to synthesis, if i advertantly did." Maybe this is a similer situation? Maybe you should give them the benifit of the doubt again? Though I do see your point about the reference, TU uses the reference, but when you use the same reference they then say that is a second hand account and not an appropriate source? I don't understand that one myself? --Domer48 (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
"mostly (but not exclusively) Unionist or Protestant symbols"? Let's just have a look what's on the list shall we?
  • The statue - fits the description, I guess....
  • three pictures, one a present from a British Army regiment. Not really "Unionist or Protestant symbols" are they?
  • a Royal British Legion certificate. Not really a "Unionist or Protestant symbol", definitely stretching it a bit.
  • artwork presented to council by the 8th Infantry Brigade. As above...
  • a Charles and Diana mug. Please....
  • a little dragon from the 1st Battalion Welsh Guards. What sort of dragon? A cuddly fluffy one? A regimental mascot type one? Definitely stretching it a bit....
  • a Royal Engineers paper weight. Definitely stretching it a bit....
  • a 22nd Regiment Cheshire plate. Definitely stretching it a bit....
  • Plus the Kevin Lynch dedication that's suspiciously missing from that list
Now I don't know about anyone else, but other than the statue of Massey I wouldn't look at any of them and think "Protestant symbol" or "Unionist symbol". The source says "symbols of Protestant and British culture", which I think is more apt. Royal British Legion and Charles and Diana mug most definitely say "British culture" more than "Unionist". One Night In Hackney303 09:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


I think your point ONiH is a little semantic and doesn't alter the substance of what this is about. As far as the minor alteration goes, it is however, probably right. Also, you seem to understand, unlike Dunc/Domer what the source says. Nowhere do SF refute the claim that they are removing a statue of a son of the town simplky because he was an orangeman. I would however dispute the way it is protrayed here. I haven't read the sources today, but memory tells me that the BBC report this as fact, and the subsequent utterings from the provos in no way refutes the claim, and to my reading actually backs it up.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My reading of the sources you provided are that it was not exclusively because he was an orangeman but also his anti catholic speeches. And none of the sources here give any indication of what the Provos think on this matter. They as far as I am aware did not even comment on the removal of the statue. BigDunc (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
If you're going to be silly then you should stay quiet. On your first point, that is reported to have come from an outside second hand source, the BBC report, from memory, states as fact that the provos objected to his membership of the Order, with no mention of anti-catholicism. Yet you, without a source, from the bowels of your own POV, chose to add to the article that SF deny this. Why?Traditional unionist (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
If your not going to remain civil there is not much point carrying on. In all my discourse with you I treat you with respect and do not personally attack you no matter how much I disagree with what you say.BigDunc (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

TU as far as this discussion is concerned, all I have said was, that you should be given the benifit of the doubt on thesynthesis of information, and that I can not understand how you can object to a reference that you yourself introduced. Now you are raising the provos in the discussion, dispite the fact that they are not mentioned at all? Please stick to the point at hand, and try remaine civil. --Domer48 (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"According to Sinn Fein he was first and foremost an Orangeman and he made anti-Catholic speeches." and that "There was an inventory of 10 items, one of them a republican dedication to hunger striker Kevin Lynch, which may cause offence to the republican side of the community if it was removed," and also "His track-record was substantially representative of just one side of the community, you cannot cherry-pick neutrality - it's either neutral or not." And the only second hand source I can find in YOUR refs is from Edwin Stevenson a UUP member hardly the most impartial person. Also I cant find any refs to say what the IRA say on this subject BigDunc (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm struck by two things with the references provided above. The Belfast Newsletter dose not mention the Kevin Lynch dedication which is also to be removed. In addition, one sources says the "The statue" is a tourist attraction, and another says they get asked a lot who was he? As Dunc has also mentioned above the IRA are not mentioned as having an opinion on the subject. --Domer48 (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Simply because someone has failed to deny a claim someone else has made about them does not mean it can be stated as fact. If that was the case, I would draw your attention to this. Brian Mulroney, Bob Hope, George Bush, George Bush Jr, Ted Heath, the Rothschild family, Boxcar Willie, the Queen of England, the Queen Mother, Prince Philip, Kris Kristofferson, Al Gore and others were accused of being reptilian, child-sacrificing paedophiles, yet I don't see them denying it?! One Night In Hackney303 21:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
That is quite correct - my point however is that it has been reported as fact by the BBC, which is at the top of the reliability scale! The fact that a DUP MLA says they refute it doesn't mean they do.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for improving this article

Now before you even think about replying, just pretend the person that said this is someone you've never dealt with before, and you know nothing about them:

  • New Zealand section - get rid of the coatrack. The statue issue isn't directly related to the New Zealand section, and it certainly isn't directly related to the Orange Institution. If we're going to include new stories every time there's a passing connection, this article is going to get very large. Look at the section right now, how much of it is about New Zealand?
  • Republic of Ireland section - similarly, the coatrack about David Armstrong can go. Yes I'm well aware I expanded that, but only because it was difficult to explain the full situation in the existing sentence. It's enough to include that someone spoke out against it, without going into too much detail.
  • Countries sections in general - either expand the smaller ones (Wales, New Zealand after possible removal of coatrack, Ghana, USA to an extent) or merge them into one "Other countries" section.
  • External links - lose some of the links to individual lodges. Let's face it, there's plenty of lodges who'll have websites so unless there's some particular reason why a particular lodge should be linked to then don't. Link to some of the major ones possibly.
  • Orange Flag section - merge it into another section if possible. Right now it's just ugly with one sentence that mostly describes what the flag looks like, when people can see the flag right next to the description.
  • England section - merge the two sub-sections into it.
  • Drumcree - needs to be in the article. I would suggest any attempt to add it is done in the form of a sandbox and discussed before adding it, as we all know what will happen otherwise.

There's plenty more needs to be done, but that's more than enough to be going on with. So, do you want to argue about one or two sentences, or do you want to actually create a decent article? Over to you..... One Night In Hackney303 12:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to any of that.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure there must be more that can go in the New Zealand section surely? Right now it just starts with Massey being a member. When did they start in New Zealand etc etc? One Night In Hackney303 17:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I come from a long line of Orangemen, but haven't joined myself. The Orange is not my forte at all in terms of history!Traditional unionist (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Google is your friend. Looks like we could do with a few other countries being mentioned too..... One Night In Hackney303 22:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
As presumably the only NZer involved here, I'll take over the New Zealand section. I know there's an article on the Order in NZ somewhere, so I'll dig that out and reduce it to a paragraph or so. I don't think I'll be able to provide a lot of info on the NZ Order in the 20th century, since as far as I'm aware no one has researched that. I have newspaper reports of them parading in 1920 and I know that at some point between then and now they stopped, and are pretty much invisible, but that's about it. I'm not even sure if they even still exist in any meaningful form.
I have to agree with the people who are calling for the 'coatrack' to be removed, since it has little to do with New Zealand. It would be more appropriate on the Limavady or William Massey pages (or both), but I think that unless they actually remove the statue the issue is only temporarily notable - if they decide to keep it, will anyone actually care in a year's time?
For the record, Massey is not known in this country as anti-Catholic. I think he might have capitalised on some sectarianism in the 1920s, but during WWI he was in coalition with a party led by an Irish Catholic (Joseph Ward). In NZ he is known primarily for crushing a wharf workers' strike. --Helenalex (talk) 09:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Other suggestions:

  • Move the 'military contributions' section to the History of the Orange Institution page, except for the war memorials subsection, which should go into the new 'historiography' section of this page.
  • Reorganise or just remove altogether the 'controversy' section. Practically this entire page could go under the heading of 'controversy' and what's in there now is mostly just a jumble of random stuff. Most of it would be more appropriate under parades or history.
  • There needs to be something on the women's order. I would put this in myself, but I haven't been able to find out what it's officially called, since they don't have much of an internet presence and no one has researched them in detail, as far as I can tell. I think someone who is currently in Northern Ireland needs to ring up and ask.
  • I agree with ONiH about the flag, but I'm damned if I know where it should go instead.

Everyone's being so constructive... This isn't quite up there with the Paisley/McGuiness lovefest in terms of unlikeliness, but it makes a nice change. Let's try and keep it up. :) --Helenalex (talk) 09:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ladies Orange Benevolent Association by any chance? I moved the flag. I suggest any removal of any criticism is discussed here. Some of might need to go, but it's a contentious part so.... One Night In Hackney303 07:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
That seems to be the name in Canada, the very few references to it in Ireland seem to refer to a charity organisation rather than the women's order as such. You could still be right, but I think we need something a bit more concrete. I like what you've done with the flag, and I've been thinking for a while that wasn't the best place for the Scottish pic.
I wasn't planning on deleting anything in the controversy section, just moving it to a more appropriate place. The parades stuff can go into the parades section, the Craigavon/de Valera stuff can go into history, the last paragraph into the appropriate parts of 'throughout the world', and the first sentence is basically a repitition of what's in the article's opening paragraph. Any objections? --Helenalex (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 12th as a public holiday

I see there is a reference for this, but I'm almost certain it is wrong. The 12th is a de facto public holiday, but it isn't actually. Most employers offer staff either St Patricks day or the 12th off as a publ;ic holiday, but I don't think either are. St Patricks day might be, but like I say, am almost certain the 12th isn't. I'll check it out.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Source, source, source, source etc etc. One Night In Hackney303 12:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] George Galloway

Has anyone suggestions as to do with comments by Galloway in the England section as TU says it is not certain that he was refering to the OO in England if anything I would assume he was talking about the OO in Scotland as he was refering to Adam Ingram who was a member of a lodge in Glasgow. BigDunc (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Was it me? I don't remember saying anything about this.Traditional unionist (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it wasn't I seen clarify in the edit summary beside your name so assumed (which in my experience is always a bad move) but I feel doesn't belong in that section any thoughts. BigDunc (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I added the hidden comment about it. As I wrote, it could probably do with moving somewhere if anyone has any ideas? One Night In Hackney303 15:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I suppose at the very least it should be removed from the England and possibly inserted in the Scotland section. BigDunc (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes it is about Adam "Kick The Pope" Ingram, see here. And of course "Kick George Galloway" is relevant as well, see here. I think it definitely belongs in the article somewhere, especially as a judge has ruled that many of the observations made about the OO are "fair comment". One Night In Hackney303 16:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent addition to the lead

"however some demoninations of Protestants are also ineligible for membership" is sourced by this. Am I missing something, as I don't see anything that says "some demoninations of Protestants are also ineligible for membership" on the page? One Night In Hackney303 16:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't see it either. I vaguely recall reading that Unitarians aren't eligible because they don't believe in the Trinity, but whether that's actually a requirement I don't know. As far as I can see there's nothing about the trinity or non-eligible Protestants anywhere in that source. --Helenalex (talk) 09:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
(having just read TU's most recent edit) Ah, I thought it was the Unitarians. However, showing that they're not eligible to join the Royal Black doesn't mean that they're not eligible for the Orange Institution. I've returned my copy of Edwards to the library so I can't comment on the other source. --Helenalex (talk) 09:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit reverted

This one to be precise. According to this Rossnowlagh is the only parade to be held in the Republic. If there's a source saying otherwise please cite it and amend the text accordingly. One Night In Hackney303 20:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

there is certainly a Lodge in Dublin, I'd say there is a source for this from the time the citezry of Dublin were so offended by the Orange they tore up their own city.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

offended by the Orange, they tore up their own city? When was this? --Domer48 (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Everything I've read on the subject says the Rossnowlagh parade is the only one in the Republic, but I suppose there could be a few little ones that aren't widely known. We would need evidence though. In terms of lodges, this source says there are lodges in 9 counties of the Republic, so I will amend the section accordingly. --Helenalex (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from James Sloan (Orangeman) and Daniel Winter

I have proposed merging James Sloan (Orangeman) into this article. If nothing is known about him other than the bare fact that he founded the Orange institution, then per WP:BIO1E there is no need for a separate article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If there's no other information, seems reasonable. I recently performed a similar merger on Stan Yapp and Gordon Morgan (note, none of the external links verifiably refer to the same person), to West Midlands County Council. One sentence stubs are a bit worthless if the same information is in (or can be placed in) the target article. Aren't there a couple of other founder members to merge too? One Night In Hackney303 16:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Added Daniel Winter, the other one seems ok as it is. One Night In Hackney303 16:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
You're right, the Daniel Winter article looks mergeworthy too: another factoid masquerading as an article. I agree, though, that James Wilson (Orangeman) is a real article and should not be merged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Historically Dan Winter deserves an article more than the other two. I'd say leave the other two and merge (de facto delete) sloan. Someone will come along and make articles out of them, not doing any harm.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Substub "articles" such as this do indeed do harm, because they misleadingly promise the reader that by following the link they will learn more about the topic ... and then, having waited for the page to load, all they find is a factoid no bigger than in the text surrounding the link they followed.
The proposal is merge Winter, not delete; if someone has the sources to write a proper article, they can, but waiting-for-Godot is no reason to keep this one-liner in the meantime. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Navigation template

Would it be possible for someone to produce a navigation template for this article and its related content? --Jza84 |  Talk  16:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that necessary? I mean, what would go in it?Traditional unionist (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I invisaged something that organises various lodges, key figures, localities, events, customs, affiliations and so on. Not strictly necessary (like all such templates), but I though it would help with the navigation to and from articles in this series. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)