Talk:Curragh incident

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Opening heading[edit]

I've never heard this referred to as anything other than the Curragh Mutiny. It ought to be moved, I think. john k 03:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I've also seen it just as "The Curragh." Is there an agreed-on definitive account? Mackensen (talk) 11:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The Curragh" is nearly always a reference to the racecourse. Nunquam Dormio 06:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move to Curragh incident to fix the capitalization. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curragh IncidentCurragh Mutiny — Per WP:COMMONNAME. 30,000 Google hits for Curragh Mutiny, 18,000 for Curragh Incident. Have never heard this called anything but the Curragh Mutiny. Jonchapple (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose A Google book search: "Curragh Mutiny" returns About 3,640 results; "Curragh Incident" returns About 5,730 results. -- PBS (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It did not become a mutiny, and so using that in the title would be wrong and misleading.--Britannicus (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliable source for the last statement, (from one of the first book returned by the Google search I made) Beckett, Ian Frederick William; Army Records Society (Great Britain) (1986). The Army and the Curragh incident, 1914 (illustrated ed.). the Bodley Head for the Army Records Society. p. 1. Although sometimes erroneously referred to as the Curragh 'Mutiny' rather than, more appropriately, the Curragh 'Incident' -- PBS (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I believe this is the common name, calling it an "incident" downplays its seriousness. PatGallacher (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I just did a search of Google web search and could not get the numbers Jonchapple got. Then I tried it with google.co.uk and got about the same resuts Curragh incident about 18,000 and Curragh mutiny about 29,900. But that is simply for pages that have both words on it not for the title making the same search placing the terms in double quotes and removing Wikipedia pages: "Curragh incident" -wikipedia About 7,130 results "Curragh mutiny" -wikipedia about 5,040 results. So even a crude Google search, not just a search of reliable sources, returns more hits for "Curragh incident" than for "Curragh mutiny" -- PBS (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What makes you think it is the common name in reliable sources? --PBS (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's a transatlantic thing? FWIW, Alfred Ryan's Mutiny at the Curragh, Joseph Lee's Ireland 1912-1985, Tim Pat Coogan's The IRA, Ranelagh's A Short History of Ireland, Peter Cottrell's The Irish Civil War 1922-23 all use "Mutiny", as does The Guardian newspaper. Jonchapple (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so the source I gave above was published by the "Army Records Society (Great Britain)" a crude search on the web for UK addresses give "Curragh incident" -wikipedia site:uk gives "About 586 results" "Curragh mutiny" -wikipedia site:uk gives "About 410 results" (unfortunately it is not easy to do the same thing with a Book search) but the ratios between a global web search and a UK domain only are about the same (1.4). -- PBS (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Britannicus. I have almost always heard it called the Curragh incident. Partly I suspect the rather mealy-mouthed description as an 'incident' comes from a desire at the time to play down the significance of what happened, but in my judgment 'incident' is the common name. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Surely it should be either Curragh incident or Curragh mutiny, per WP:CAPS. Jafeluv (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Curragh incident" is the commonest name among reliable sources such as books and scholarly articles as shown by simple gbook, gscholar or library catalog searches. DrKiernan (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You would support a move to Curragh incident, then? Jafeluv (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Shouldn't this rather bizarre article name be looked at again? Much reference to this at the moment in the light of all the anniversaries and Wiki seems to be about the only place to call it "Incident". Sarah777 (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As per discussion above, "Incident" is correct and is used in better books, at least in the UK, not least as it was not, strictly speaking, a mutiny (even if there was an element of "moving swiftly on and pretending that nothing had happened" on the government's part). The article mentions the inaccurate name by which it is sometimes known, but that doesn't mean that the article should be so named.Paulturtle (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Curragh incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crewe, who?[edit]

In the Paget's orders section, there is reference to someone named Crewe in the sentence, “Asquith set up a five-man Cabinet Committee, chaired by Crewe (who soon fell ill) …”. Crewe, who? Is it Robert Crewe-Milnes, 1st Marquess of Crewe, the then former Lord Lieutenant of Ireland? This needs clarification. Thanks!Face-smile.svgSpikeToronto 18:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, him. He was effectively a sort of deputy to Asquith, chairing meetings in his absence, perhaps because Asquith didn't see him as any kind of threat.Paulturtle (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ulster Volunteers = UVF?[edit]

Throughout this article the Ulster Volunteers are referred to as the UVF. THE UVF were a para-military group formed in the 1960's 50 years after the events described here. The 2 terms are not interchangeable. 90.248.222.190 (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are two UVFs, the original UVF formed in 1913 and mentioned in the very first paragraph of the Ulster Volunteers article, and the 1966 version at Ulster Volunteer Force At the very top of that article is a note saying "For the original Ulster Volunteer Force, see Ulster Volunteers". DuncanHill (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me we need to take real care not to mislead the reader. "Two UVFs": is this a situation where we ought anyway to have a disambiguation page? - SquisherDa (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]