Talk:1981 Irish hunger strike/Archive 1

older entries

"burning of the British embassy" - was this not after Bloody Sunday? I thought that on this later occasion there was only an unsuccessful attempt to attack the British embassy - with the Gardaí blocking a huge crowd from going to the embassy? Am I wrong? zoney ♣ talk 01:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think your right, I'll amend article Astrotrain 17:17, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Biased article

The article page is not an encyclopedia article but reads like a propaganda leaflet for the IRA group. No one can call Wikipedia an encyclopedia with such stuff on it.

Then edit it - remember the wikipedia motto - "be bold". Also remember that some of those who have worked on this article - me included - are certainly not Republicans. Gerry Lynch 00:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the NPOV tag- it's been on for a year and a half, and there's no specific criticisms. Additionally, there has been substantial edits since it was introduced. Gabrielthursday 22:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I readded a couple of days ago - the Consequences section is POV.09:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Simply the fact that it is called '1981 Irish hunger strike' is propaganda. It took place in Northern Ireland.Spanker LUFC 12:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed Cckkab 00:10, 06 Oct 2007 (UTC) The hunger strike was a Pyrrhic victory (a book source given where this claim is made) to Some sources see the hunger strike as a pyrrhic victory (followed by source) The earlier affirmation is categorical, un-Wikipedia like and for me is blatant political motivation

Stick to what the sources say, and if you have a reference which disputes it add it along side. If you are going to make statements like "is blatant political motivation," and "un-Wikipedia like," please explaine how. References would be handy, as unsupported comment and opinion is un-Wikipedia like. --Domer48 09:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no dispute that it was a Pyrrhic victory (and Pyrrhic is capitalised), and for the record it wasn't Danny Morrison who said it was. Blatant political motivation would be adding it when a source doesn't say it, or disputing it when a source doesn't dispute it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Also...

• Heinrich Himmler - This was very much a pyrrhic victory
• History of France - Yet, after the extremely bloody battles of Ramillies and Malplaquet, Pyrrhic victories for the allies
• Greensboro, North Carolina - The Americans lost that battle but the Pyrrhic victory slowed Cornwallis' British forces enough
• Five Points, Manhattan - succeeded in razing Five Points and re-purposing the land—a pyrrhic victory in that the masses of the indigent simply moved to the nearby Lower East Side.

And there's countless more similar examples. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... Just spending a moment looking over the documents at the Thatcher Foundation for example will instantly reveal that the then Prime Minister of the UK certainly didn't see the whole thing as a Pyrrhic victory. For example here: "The fast could be ended at any time and I would welcome it ... It is up to them. I am not going to compromise with what is right. They want political status. That is to say they want to be treated differently from other prisoners. That they can never have. Murder is murder—whatever the motive".[1] Again, "We cannot yield on the issue of political justification for murder and violence and of prisoner of war status for those who commit such crimes".[2] I think this article has to make the point that not everyone saw it as a "failure" for the British (which is what a Pyrrhic victory implies). At the time at least, the government maintained it was an example of where you don't give in to terrorists. As the article stands now, that viewpoint isn't respected. Instead we have a very sympathetic spin placed on the article. Cheers, Neale Monks 12:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

How is Thatcher an unbiased and independent source? Pyrrhic victory implies that Thatcher won (hence the word victory) but with devastating consequences. De facto political status was quietly conceded following the 1983 escape. The prison authorities closed down the prison workshops as a result of the escape (and other security incidents), and the prisoners no longer had to work. With that, the last of the "Five Demands" was conceded. In fact, that needs adding to the article and I'll do it later, with some British press reaction from the end of the hunger strike in addition. Once that's added, it might alleviate your concern. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course Margaret Thatcher has her own angle. But that's my point -- all sides had angles, and all sides will say they won something out of the situation. That has to be respected, even if, after deliberation, historians are generally trending towards one particular conclusion. Cheers, Neale Monks 13:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The British Government conceded to all the prisoners demands when the Hunger Strike ended, the only thing they didn't do was publicly admit to that fact, also they did concede to the fact that the prisoners where political prisoners, when the release of the prisoners was negiotated and delivered as part of the peace process.--Padraig 13:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added additional information, and reverted the change. I don't believe in "statement", and that it was a Pyrrhic victory is the overwhelming majority viewpoint even inside the British government whereas the previous version made it sound like a minority viewpoint held by one person. Please read the independent sources instead of editing the article based on what Thatcher said. Years later when asked whether the government would have been better off giving the prisoners their own clothes, Kenneth Stowe replied "Probably, yes". See also Ten Men Dead page 331 - "The British Foreign Office, among others, holds a different view: when young diplomats are briefed on contemporary Irish history, in preparation for postings to Dublin, the hunger strike is held up as an unmitigated disaster for the Government". The views of Thatcher herself on who "won" are not relevant to this article in terms of who "won", and neither are the opinions of the Republican Movement. Rather than use primary sources, secondary sources have been used that have analysed what happened and who "won", rather than have each side claiming victory from their own biased perspective. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

So why remove the name of the historian who wrote the book citing the thing as a Pyrrhic victory? Why not simply say Richard English says XYZ? His name doesn't seem to be on the references entry either. If the name of the historian is left in place, then people can decide for themselves whether they consider him neutral or not. (In fact, most of the books here seem to be cited by title only, and not author.) I actually don't really see how this article got Feature Article status at all: the references have different formatting throughout, and there seem to me at least NPOV issues in the sense of the article being sympathetic to the hunger strikers and dismissive of the British government. But that's something to ask Admins about elsewhere. Cheers, Neale Monks 14:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Because otherwise it would have to read "a, b, c, d, e and f say". None of the books are cited by title only. The first time they are cited they are cited in full including author, published and ISBN number. Thereafter they are simply title and page number only, which is a perfectly acceptable way of referencing. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

People's Democracy is Trotskyist?

People's Democracy is called "a Trotskyist group" in the article. This is a new one for me, I have never heard that before. There may have been a few people in PD who liked Trotsky or who were Trotskyists or whatever, but the majority of PD was not. So I'm removing this, although I'd be interested in hearing more if someone has citations that show otherwise. Ruy Lopez 08:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, the IRSP is called the INLA's "political wing", which is rather silly, I changed it to say there is an association, which of course there is, but wing implies a false nature to the relationship. Ruy Lopez 08:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted Ruy Lopez's last change. People's Democracy started out as a loose radical wing of the Civil Rights movement, but by this time they had evolved into a clearly defined Trotskyist group, they had been recognised as the Irish section of the United Secretariat of the Fourth International, there is plenty material on this. The INLA and IRSP may have been a bit coy in public about the exact nature of their relationship, but "political wing" seems legitimate. PatGallacher 15:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like this Wikipedia Irish Hungerstrike section is directly taken from my Irish Hungerstrike site, including titles, without my permission: http://www.irishhungerstrike.com

Rename this entry

Unless I'm mistaken the convention in wikipedia entries is for lower case text - shouldn't this article be renamed "1981 Irish hunger strike" ? beano 18:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I moved this today as suggested above. beano 15:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes

I've made an infobox template for the hunger strikers, that can be found detailed here. I'm going to roll these out to the individuals soon, so long as no one has any objections or suggestions. Pauric 22:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

They look good. The only question I have is whether there are articles on Wikipedia on those who went on hunger strike but were taken off? This box wouldn't suit them as they didn't die on hungerstrike. Also, do we want it to be limited to 1981, what about the many other Irish hunger strikers, such as the two in the 70's? Perhaps the year should be a parameter too? Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 20:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I could extend it to cover hunger strikers in general, adding in a place to link to the hunger strike in question. Or less open ended to just Irish hunger strikers. We could change "died" to hunger strike ended, and somehow work in a key to show if they died or not. Any thoughts on what the overall coverage should be? Pauric 21:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've sort of changed my mind. For the moment it should just be for those that died - they are much more likely to be written about in Wikipedia. But it should cover hunger strikes in general, I'd be interested in updating the articles on Frank Stagg and Michael Gaughan. Perhaps the template should have 1981 as the default year and strike, but have the option for specifying otherwise if necessary? Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 21:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added the infoboxes to the 10 from this stike that died, and those two you mentioned. Hoping there's no big outcry over them in some way. Pauric 21:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, I created a Category:People who died on hunger strike to encompass the people we're talking about here. I was pushed into doing so after I realised that someone had categorised these people in Category:Activists who committed suicide and other categories along those lines. That's POV and I don't think it was helpful. Whatever one's political sympathies, fact of the matter is that these people died on hunger strike. --Damac 21:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Earlier on I added the same infoboxes to some of those users you had grouped into that category, although I didn't finish as wikimedia was having server troubles at the time. Pauric 21:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

TD

'scuse my ignorange, but in the table with all the info, what does the TD beside Kieran Doherty represent? -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 01:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

He was elected a Teachta Dála for Cavan Monaghan 00:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Paddy Quinn (Irish republican)

I suggest we merge this stub on a hunger striker into the main article. Astrotrain 13:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow!!! you on a talk page!!! It's great to see I must say. Well after you have redirected the Paddy Quinn page three times to 1981 Irish hunger strike and put articles for numberous IRA Volunteers put for deletion I half to say that again this could be percieved as bad faith. The Paddy Quinn article needs expanding not merging imo. I am going to do a bit now but please feel free to help/edit/copyedit my poor spelling/etc.--Vintagekits 13:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Vintagekits in that the Paddy Quinn article asserts notability and should do with it's own article. I'd like to see the article be expanded, however, if at all possible, by anyone who knows more about the topic, as it's a very interesting subject. Cheers Gaillimh 21:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with merge proposal. This article is about the hunger strike, merging a biography in would be ludicrous.GiollaUidir 12:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree 100% with GiollaUidir on this. Why would this be merged with an article on the 1981 hunger strike? Instead of just suggesting it couldn't you at least state one or more reasons as to why you want to follow this course of action... other than your blatant bias against Republicans having pages on wiki.Irish Republican 18:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

GA Hold

It seems no one was interested in reviewing this one (perhaps because it delves into that nightmare from which people are trying to awaken), but it's been on the list long enough and perhaps it needs someone an ocean away from the arena to look at it.

Basically, this touches all the bases. It's well-written, well-organized, comprehensive, reasonably balanced, and well-illustrated. There are a couuple of places I might want to see citations were this being nominated for FA, but they're not that big a deal

I just have one little concern that keeps me from passing it: under "Commemorations", we read this: There are memorials and murals in memory of the hunger strikers in towns and cities across Ireland including Belfast, Derry, Crossmaglen and Camlough. I know this is an article about the Irish republican cause and put under that particular project, but I know about the first two and I had to manually type the last two into the search field (IOW, they need to be wikified) ... and they're all in Northern Ireland.

I found nothing here explaining this, and since the rest of the article uses Northern Ireland when appropriate, I would like to believe this is an oversight on the editor's part. Whatever one desires for the future of the Irish island politically, the fact remains that from 1922 until now there has been Northern Ireland, a constituent country of the United Kingdom, and the Republic of Ireland, usually referred to as just "Ireland" outside the British Isles. Using that term to refer to several locations in Northern Ireland is POV, and to make it worse it's POV in a category of articles we have to work very hard to keep free from POV. So let's change that, unless there actually are some memorials to Sands in the Republic of Ireland/Eire/Auld Sod/26 counties/Mother Sow That Eats Her Farrow/whatever.

Once that's done, it's a slam-dunk pass. Daniel Case 03:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

All done. It wasn't a political decision, there are memorials across the entire island. However until I've found a verifiable location of one I can add in "the Republic of Ireland/Eire/Auld Sod/26 counties/Mother Sow That Eats Her Farrow/whatever" I've changed it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Good. It passes. Daniel Case 04:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes

Reverted. Seven words does is a short stubby sentence and poor prose, it needs to be part of the existing sentence not split. It wasn't "known as Special Category Status", that was the proper name of it. Also it's basic common sense that you can't change the actual text of the prisoners' "five demands". Information about the timing of the additional hunger strike in 1980 is also being removed, not acceptable. The last change is equally bad, creating two unnecessarily short sentences which is poor prose. This isn't a case of ownership, it's a case of an editor with limited knowledge of the subject matter making incorrect changes (see also the weasel wording that was originally added the lead) and creating stubby sentences. This article passed GA and peer review in its current state, so if you really want to improve it nominate it for FA and see what they say instead of edit warring?--Domer48 10:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Good points, mostly. My intention was simply to make the article more easily readable [3]- I disagree with you about the "stubby" sentences, as I think the ones I changed were overlong. I didn't remove information about the timing? Not much difference between "a few" and "several" - they're both vague. As to "Limited knowledge of the subject matter..." - perhaps the less said the better... Cheers, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest splitting one particular sentence, which is a bit long. It would become:

Sands' election victory raised hopes that a settlement could be negotiated, however Margaret Thatcher stood firm refusing to give concessions to the hunger strikers. She stated "We are not prepared to consider etc etc --Domer48 11:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Bonfires

There's a fairly large bonfire at the Markets in Belfast. Is this in commemoration of the hunger strike? Or the Rising? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 12:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Atstrotrain

Try reading this [4] Hungerstrikes are not sucide.--padraig 21:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Force-feeding

The above article could do with an expert eye and some context of the debates around the Northern Irish hunger strikes. Any contributions much appreciated, thanks. Itsmejudith 21:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Any more info, just ask. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit reverted

This edit has been reverted. Firstly it doesn't comform to the manual of style for pretty much everything, but that would be fixable. However it uses a source that to the best of my knowledge does not even exist, and certainly isn't verifiable. "Northern Ireland, The Local Government Elections of 1981: A computer analysis" is not traceable on any online search. It's not listed on Sydney Elliott's profile, nor do Google searches return any trace of the source in question. As such, I am reverting the edit as the information is completely unverifiable. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

My bad. The title of the book is The *district council* election results of 1981: A Computer Analysis. It's listed here on page 10 [5] and here at the bottom of the page [6]. Can we reword to include this info as it is certainly relevant to the article? Valenciano 19:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate it may exist, but its publication sphere is clearly very limited so it's unverifiable. Are the existing councillors holding their seats actually relevant? Surely the important part is the gains made by pro-hunger strike candidates? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem there is it's very difficult to measure 'gains' as the issue didn't exist at the previous elections in 1977. It would be possible to work out but that would then fall under the heading of original research. Furthermore, if incumbent councillors are an issue then doesn't this need mentioned in relation to the IIP vote as at least 9 of their 21 councillors held seats they'd already won in 1977? Valenciano 19:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've had another look at the source, and this is what it actually says (with emphasis added).

Paisley's Democratic Unionists nearly doubled their seats to 142; the Official Unionists won 152; SDLP won 105. In support of the hunger strikers, the Irish Independence Party won 21 seats, IRSP 2, People's Democracy 2, and a dozen seats went to independents.

So given what the other source says, I'm thinking the dozen independents need to be included, as they are specifically included under hunger strike support not seperate from them? That would bring the total up to 35? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes they should be included - the Elliott source mentions 36, which I guess would make it 13 independents, so it's worth checking the figures. In Magherafelt for example the two independent councillors were elected on a pro-hunger striker vote and no other issue. By the way, the same source refers to a number of councillors complying with a H-Block committee request to withdraw from local councils in early 1981. Have you come across that in any other sources? Valenciano 20:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Not come across that in any other sources that I recall, although they don't tend to mention the intricacies of the council elections much. I've included the twelve anyway, it doesn't particularly matter whether it's twelve or thirteen, especially as the other source can't be easily verified. I generally tried to keep the article focused on the main important issues rather than have it get too bogged down with subtle things that went on that weren't that important in terms of the big picture. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd disagree with the 'easily verified' comment. In fact I'd say it would be much easier to verify that source than many of the others which are already on there, simply by e-mailing the author whose homepage you've helpfully linked to earlier. How would someone go about verifying such a source such as the Berresford Ellis one which presumably is long out of print? The point about the Elliott source is that it contains a great deal of detail on who walked out. It caused considerable problems for the SDLP when a few of their councillors broke with the party on the issue, with relevance to their later eclipse by SF. Valenciano 23:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Found this In the district council elections of May 1981, candidates from several parties campaigning on the H Block issue polled 51,0000 votes and won thirty-six seats. from A History of Northern Ireland 1920-1996 by Thomas Hennessey ISBN 0-333-73162-X p262.--Padraig 01:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

A History of the Irish Working Class is in print as a quick check on Amazon would have shown, and you can see the relevant page right here on Google books. The Elliott source doesn't even seem to be published at all. While the hunger strike was key in the rise of Sinn Féin thanks to the success of Bobby Sands, I find it difficult to believe that the loss of a few councillors in 1981 was the key to the SDLP being eclipsed by Sinn Féin over 20 years later, especially from the SDLP's point of view considering they had 105 seats. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I never said that it was the key but it was a factor and the beginning of the rot setting in if you like. The Elliott source (which clearly does exist as has been demonstrated earlier) mentions 36 councillors endorsed by the H-Block committee being elected which is backed up by Padraig's source above, making 11 independent councillors. We should include that info and not the more vague 'dozen councillors.' Valenciano 10:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The source exists, but is it published? There is no record of it being published anywhere, we should not have to email the author to obtain it. And no it doesn't make 11, it would make 13 if anything, but that cannot be confirmed. The affiliation of the remaining one is completely unknown. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I've already supplied the record of it being published [7] and it is backed up by Padraig's source. You say I'd have to e-mail the author to get a copy, well I'd have to e-mail amazon to get a copy of the others so what's the difference?

As for "And no it doesn't make 11, it would make 13 if anything" Where do you get 13 from? By my maths, 36 minus 21 IIP, minus 2 IRSP, minus 2 Peoples Democracy makes 11 independent councillors. There were no other Nationalist political parties elected in that election who supported the hunger strikers see [8] for proof. Valenciano 10:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Feh, it's early. And no, you've provided no proof of it being published you've proved it exists only. Who published it and when? Berresford Ellis provides a breakdown of which candidates won seats, and 12 is the stated figure for independent candidates. Padraig's source provides no breakdown. And no you don't have to email Amazon, I provided you a direct link to the page on Google books. The difference is that your source seems to be an unpublished source that is only available from the author.

And furthermore. Berresford Ellis and any other published books are available in various different places, be they online retailer, bookshops, libraries etc. A source that is only available from the author is of no use, as if the author dies tomorrow the source becomes instantly unverifiable. The source is not published, and should not be used under any circumstances. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The SDLP lost 9 seats compared to the 1997 election result.--Padraig 11:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The previous source already stated that the book had been published. The books publication details are here [9] Author Elliott, Sydney. Title Northern Ireland : the District Council elections of 1981 / by S. Elliott and F.J. Smith. Published Belfast : Queen's University, 1981. Bib Id 571055 ISBN 0853892032 and can be obtained by contacting Queen's University.

I also emailed the author and received the following reply/clarification: "Sorry about the delay – put it down to the start of teaching and a university external event last night. The book you refer to is S. Elliott and F.J. Smith, Northern Ireland: The District Council Elections of 1981, Queen’s University, Belfast , 1981.pp 201 and 6 maps. The most significant part for your argument is Appendix A where I attempted to calculate the ‘H Block Vote’. It attempted to distinguish between Independent candidates officially endorsed by the National H Block Committee – 15 candidates, new candidates – 7 asserting their stand in support of the hunger strikers and members of other parties such as IRSP, PD and IIP. The total number came to 36. The Appendix contains a table of H Block support by party/Ind by District Council and a map."

I’ve also had a look at WP:VERIFY. It says nothing about Amazon or Google books but it does say the following “the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses”. The book is published by Queen’s University. “Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available” In this case we are discussing the elections and this is a book specifically about those elections, written at the time. The Berresford book isn’t – it’s written four years after the events and is about a different topic and tellingly uses the slightly more vague “dozen councillors” which sounds like it might be a rounding up. Berresford is a historian who is not reknowned as an elections expert. Elliott is and has been used for example by the BBC [10] and others to comment on elections.

Furthermore, the Berresford source is supported by no others and unlike the Elliott one doesn’t contain a breakdown by district council. The Elliott source is supported by the Hennessey one. Accordingly I’m amending the article to reflect that.Valenciano 11:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You might want to have a read of NPOV before making any changes of that nature. This is not the right time for making edits like that. As you've clearly demonstrated above you haven't actually seen the source in question either. You removed a source that did source information, and replace it with a source that may not as the email above does not contain the information that you left in the article. I'm happy to discuss an alternate wording, but I'm reverting your edit until that wording is agreed. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've demonstrated nothing of the sort. The author incorrectly assumed that I was making the query since I don't have a copy - a mistaken assumption that you have also made. As it happens, I own a copy of all the volumes 1977-1993. Is there a way to put this online on wikipedia in a scanned page in pdf format? I'm sure that we can get the author's consent. However for now, to resolve the issue can you propose a wording that will cover all sources on the issue? Valenciano 11:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If you owned the book, why did you spend so long attempting to prove the "computer analysis" was a published source instead of just citing the book? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just done so. You reverted the edit. Propose a wording that covers all sources rather than procrastinating please. Valenciano 11:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, after receiving an email from the author with the publication details in. Which brings me back to my previous question, why after your edit was initially reverted as an unverifiable source didn't you immediately cite the book? I'll have a think about wording and get back to you, feel free to propose something in the interim. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You first doubted the existence of the book. That was proved to you. You then doubted that it was published. That was proved to you. So given that we've established the key facts that it exists and is published, the question of my ownership of the book is totally irrelevant but for what it's worth, the answer's very simple - I didn't have it to hand when I made the first few posts. You also didn't answer my question. Is there a way to scan the relevant page and put it on wikipedia? I also suggest you have a read of WP:AGF. Valenciano 12:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've yet to see any evidence the initial publication used and the book are in fact the same publication. WorldCat doesn't include the term "computer analysis" in the title, and in fact contradicts what you claimed (at the second time of asking, you also gave an incorrect title the first time) the title of the book is. You say the "title of the book is The *district council* election results of 1981: A Computer Analysis", WorldCat says "Northern Ireland: the district council elections of 1981", so where did the word "results" appear from? You didn't have the book to hand right after you added the information? Where did you add the information from then, memory? You could easily have produced the ISBN and publication date at any time, but were unable to do so until the information was provided to you by the author. Given this, and the contradiction over the title, my good faith is rather lacking. Also I answered your question above, perhaps you'd like to answer mine? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd really prefer not to get into a sniping match over this ONiH, particularly when there are meatier issues like the Chelski game on the horizon. Yes I added the original figures from memory, not having the book to hand - quoting who won exactly which seats and when is not that difficult if you are interested in psephology. I suspect that the computer analysis / results part of the title came from me confusing it with other volumes in the same series. I got the ISBN and book details not from the author but from the Queen's Uni library which is linked above as this was much quicker and easier than hoking around in my mother's attic. This is appendix A

APPENDIX A While the H-Block protest coloured the whole period and atmosphere or the District Council elections it is very difficult to assess its impact on the results. Convicted prisoners were debarred by law from standing in District Council elections. The National H-Block Committee, which co-ordinated the campaign on behalf or the prisoners, did not stand for election as proxies or sponsor candidates. It had demanded that nationalist councillors withdraw from District Councils because or the H-Block crisis. It had published a list of 15 councillors from Dungannon, Fermanagh, Cookstown, Newry and Mourne and Omagh who had responded and withdrawn: they included three SDLP councillors, 5 IIP and 7 Independents (1). On election day the Committee said of those who had not withdrawn,

                                     "we do not think they are entitled to support".(2) 

Some local committees, such as in Fermanagh, were more explicit in their recommendations and asked supporters to vote only for nine named candidates (3), or which 5 were sitting members. One method or assessing the impact of the issue on results would be to examine the performance or the 15 councillors who had withdrawn in support or the protest. To do so one has to assume that the negative recommendation of non with drawers was used by H-Block campai.gn supporters as a positive recommendation for counci.llors who had complied. Fourteen or the named councillors faced the electorate on 20th May (4); twelve were re-elected, seven topped the poll in their area; ten improved upon their performance in 1977, five or them improved sharply. Some or this improvement might have been due to their work as councillors over the previous four years. However, some new candidates also presented themselves to the electorate and asserted their support for the prisoners and their demands. Some were independents, some were members or political parties and groups, such as IIP, IRSP and PD, who were closely identified with the prison dispute. A number or these candidates, as in the case of Fermanagh, had been endorsed by a local H-Block Committee. New candidates, who were independent of party, were most clearly identified in Magherafelt and Newry and Mourne. Out of seven candidates, five were elected and three topped the poll in their area. Of the parties promoting candidates, IRSP and PD in Belfast and Londonderry, were most clearly single issue parties. Both PD candidates were elected but while two out of three IRSP candidates were elected in Belfast, their two candidates in Londonderry received minimal support. IIP most closely identified itself with the prison protest - "unequivocal and unapologetic support" - of the parties promoting a sizeable number of candidates. With 49 candidates in 10 District Councils its candidates were most numerous and most available. But IIP was also associated with other causes, namely British withdrawal, and challenging the right of SDLP to speak for the nationalist community. The party polled 25859 votes, 3.9 per cent, and won 21 seats; only five candidates topped the poll. The further one goes from the original group of 15 councillors the further one moves from direct guidance to voters from the National H-Block Committee. This original group polled 14554 votes, 2.2 per cent of the total valid vote and had a very good record of election. The second group of new candidates, those independent of party, polled 5674 votes, 0.85 per cent. The third group, could be divided into two: first, the IRSP and PD in Belfast and Londonderry polled 8388 votes, 1.3 per cent of the total; the second, IIP, polled 25,859 votes, 3.9 per cent. If all these groups were combined and the overlap of four IIP candidates removed from the first group the total vote would be 51453, 7.7 per cent. If this performance had been achieved by a single party it would have been the fifth largest party, just behind APNI; with 36 seats it would have had two seats fewer than APNI. Notes 1. Irish News 25 April 1981. 2. Irish News 20 May 1981. 3. Fermanagh H-Block Committee recommended supporters to vote for

  IIP candidates and three independents J. J. McCusker, P. Flanagan and T. Murray. 
   Fermanagh Herald 16 May 1981. 

4. One councillor, J. Donaghy, Dungannon D did not stand again.

THE H-BLOCK VOTE

DISTRICT COUNCIL PARTY VOTE ANTRIM IIP 1040 ARMAGH IIP 493 BELFAST IRSP 3418 PD 4734 COOKSTOWN IND 1073 DUNGANNON IIP 1062 IND 7693 FERMANAGH IIP 6867 IND 2766 LIMAVADY IIP 643 LONDONDERRY IIP 4553 IRSP 236 MAGHERAFELT IIP 1961 IND 2805 MOYLE IIP 487 NEWRY AND MOURNE IIP 3944 IND 2869 OMAGH IIP 4809 TOTAL 51453

I'll leave it up to you as to how the 36 councillor info is to be incorporated - the author does list sources above for his information from the Irish News and Fermanagh Herald. As I say the 36 councillor figure is confirmed by another source which contradicts your source. I will ask BrownHairedGirl to comment on this as she's good with elections stuff and you seem to trust her judgement. Valenciano 13:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Just popping in after the msg on my talk page. There are a lot of issues in this thread. Please could you clarify what exactly I'm being asked to comment on wrt "the 36 councillor info"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The acceptability of the Elliott source as evidence, (especially since it's backed by a second source) ? Its worth versus the vaguer Berresford source? Valenciano 14:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Berresford is not vague, he gives an exact breakdown. The second source does not. As I said ages ago, I'm happy for you to propose an alternate wording taking all sources into account, yet you have not done so to date. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, if the issue is the acceptability of the Elliott source as evidence, I'd hope to see some evidence of publication other than the author's email. ISBN number? British Library catalogue reference? TCD catalogue? (It's nice to see the email from Elliot, but I some third-party evidence would help remove any doubt)

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this BHG. As above, the book details are Author Elliott, Sydney. Title Northern Ireland : the District Council elections of 1981 / by S. Elliott and F.J. Smith. Published Belfast : Queen's University, 1981. Bib Id 571055 ISBN 0853892032 , information that can be verified by entering the author's name here - it's about the ninth item down. [11] Using Trinity's library to search for elliott sydney show's it here search as item number six, 6. Northern Ireland : the district council elections of 1981 / by S. Elliott and F.J. Smith.

Author: Elliott, Sydney.

Date: 1981.

Location / Call No. / Status

Santry (use call slip or place request) / PX- 37-211 / In

Hope that helps. Valenciano 14:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, that checks out as a genuine publication, and I'm happy to assume that you are using the data fairly. I suggest that since you seem to have a good grasp of the relevance of the new info, that you should take up ONIH's invitation for you to propose an alternate wording. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'd suggest the following additions and amendments. First I think we should include the info about Nationalist councillors obeying the instructions of the H-Block committee to walk out and those same councillors being backed by the H-Block committee in the subsequent election. Refs for this are Elliott: Appendix A (above), Irish News 25-4-81 and AnPhoblacht [12]. We could then point out that the 14 councillors who did withdraw were backed by the H-B committee in the elections (refs: Elliott and Irish News 20-5-81). As for the results and the contentious section we could change the wording while pointing out either in the main article or in a supplementary note that there is a dispute in the sources over the number of independents elected. Wording could be something like: "A number of councillors were elected supporting the hunger striker's 5 demands. 21 IIP were elected, together with 2 IRSP and 2 Peoples Democracy. Several independent councillors were also elected supporting the hunger strikers.^

^Supplementary note along the lines of: "Hennessey and Elliott state that 36 councillors were elected. Hennessey states that pro-hunger striker candidates polled 51000 votes. Elliott states that 11 independent councillors were elected and that the total pro-hunger striker vote was 51453 or 7.7% of the total. Berresford states that 37 councillors were elected, including a dozen independent candidates."

That or something similar represents all views and leaves it to the reader to judge which is the more reliable source. I'm open to other suggestions though. Valenciano 14:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the first part is particularly relevant to this article, if anywhere it belongs in an article about the council elections not this article. The An Phoblacht source refers to different events in September, and the elections were in May. The fact that this information is in a book on the council elections yet doesn't appear in books on the hunger strike tells you how relevant it really is to this article - not very. As for the rest, as far as I can see all that is required is the changing of a couple of words in an existing sentence and the addition of a footnote. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

For the first part, fair enough. For the second, can we then go ahead and change the wording? Valenciano 08:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Just looking for a quick clarification on the total vote first. Was the 7.7% a percentage of the total vote across Northern Ireland, or a percentage of the total vote in the wards contested? It's slightly ambiguous at present. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It was 7.7% of all the votes cast across NI. Valenciano 15:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a percentage just for the wards they stood in? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

No - nothing in the appendix A above. I could work it out but it would be original research. Valenciano 17:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really, I think it falls pretty well under the exemptions - An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions. I'd wouldn't say it falls under anything under (2) and any "reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" should be able to work out a percentage. I just think that a percentage is only really relevant with respect to the wards they stood in. I'm not overly convinced a percentage is that necessary anyway, so it might be easier just to leave the percentage out? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the point about the percentages would be for those who want to compare a "Republican vote" in 1981 to that in 1985 but it's probably more an issue for an article on the council elections so we could just leave the percentage out. Valenciano 17:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I think too much is being made of this, there were other factors in that election that influenced the vote as well, mainly tthe fact that the IPP was a veryly new party replacing the nationalist party and Unity and this was their first local election to contest as a party, therefore they got a got a bounce for that along with their support for the hunger strikers. Also 17 of the 21 seats they won were in just four council areas, so there support was not widespread, so it would be better if all this info was included in a article on the local election itself.--Padraig 17:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

True and that's exactly the point made in Elliott's appendix A which I posted above, however you could argue the same about the hunger strikers who were elected to the Dail as well - they got votes for other reasons apart from the hunger strike. But candidates rarely get a single issue vote anyway and all we would be saying by including this issue is that candidates supporting the hunger strikers got x number of votes and won x number of seats based on the sources. Valenciano 17:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Contrived Title

I've not heard the events referred to using the specific phrase here on Wikipedia - "1981 Irish hunger strike". At the very least it should be "Irish hunger strike of 1981" to be more readable English. Even so, using "Irish" as the disambiguation is rather general and unspecific; it makes it sound like it was some nationwide undertaking. H-Block or somesuch might work better.

Here's the crazy thing though - this article isn't even specifically just the 1981 events! Seriously - the page needs moved considering it deals with the earlier hunger strike as well.

All in all, pretty pathetic for the article to get on the main page with such a made-up imprecise title.

zoney ♣ talk 11:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ten Men Dead: The Story of the 1981 Irish Hunger Strike - made up title you say? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course this article isn't even specifically just the 1981 events. Quite true! And quite right too: the article includes a brief description of the background. But its main focus is clear;y on the 1981 hunger strike. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Unlike the blanket and dirty protests which do merit seperate articles (especially after the brief expansion I gave them in anticipation of them being linked from the main page, but there's still plenty more that can be done with them), there isn't really that much that can be written about the 1980 hunger strike that doesn't belong in this article. Due to the seven all being on strike at the same time, there's only really the start, the negotations, the additional short-lived strikes in solidarity and the finish. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Dirty Protest

This article says there were a number of attacks on prisoners leaving their cells to slop out which sparked the dirty protest. The related articles all claim a single incident of a rumoured beating on a prisoner in solitary. Can this be corrected either here or in the associated articles? I'm unable to do it myself as I don't have access to the sources. Adding "by prison officers" may also help clarify that statement (if that is the case). Andplus 12:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Both related articles talk about the build-up to that incident (see the March 1978 build-up), which was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but the impression given by this article is different to that in the related articles. Here we have "attacks" and the other articles the more general "ill-treatment", a fight and a rumour of a beating. Also because the operation of the Maze is not dealt with in any depth in this article we don't know who was attacking the protesters here (that's why I went looking at the other articles in the first place). Maybe "ill-treatment by prisoner officers" would serve here if that is used as a synonym for attacks in the other articles, or conversely "ill-treatment" could be replaced with "attacks" in those articles. Andplus 13:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the sources later and reword whichever articles need rewording. "Ill-treatment" is a bit of a euphemism, but if that's what the sources say (assuming they do) it's best to stick with that. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Outcome in introduction

Why does the introduction not say that the protest essentially failed? On two grounds: (a) because it stopped internally as a result of families being willing to take people off hunger strike; and (b) explicit political status as such was not achieved. I find it suprising that this reached FA status. It had the side effect of making the IRA and Sinn Fein look again at the possibilities of serious electoral politics, but that was not the essential issue at the start of the protest. --Rumping 16:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It didn't fail. Partial concessions were granted within days of the strike ending, and following the 1983 escape the prison workshops were closed and prisoners no longer had to work, so the "Five Demands" were in fact quietly conceded. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If it didn't fail, how could Thatcher have had a pyrrhic victory, i.e. a real but excessively costly one? Partial concessions after the event do not look a success, but instead an attempt to reduce tensions. Your apologist stance reads very much like a Gerry Adams POV; one which would not be universially shared even in Republican circles. --Rumping 16:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Both sides claimed victory, as you would know if you had read the sources which the article is written from. So why don't you read those, and WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL as well? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Pots and kettles. You are defending the introduction which I think fails an encyclopedic and NPOV test. So you accuse me of being uncivil and launching a personal attack. Probably best for us both to stop there. --Rumping 16:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Why were the men convicted in the first place?

This is a great article - worthy of it's FA, but I think it would help the balance of the article greatly if the reason each man was imprisoned in the first place were included in the tables. It's hard for the layman to judge whether their fate was in any way deserved without knowing what it was that they did to get in jail in the first place. SteveBaker 16:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It is for the participants who died, information is more limited for the other strikers. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Your article states the ending of the strike was a pyrrhic victory for Margaret Thatcher. While the truth of this can be debated from both sides( Republican and British ) what must also be pointed out is that republicans faced the devasting prospect of Mrs Thatcher allowing more and more prisoners to die: she was, for better or worse, an unusual politician- one whose convictions matched her those of her foe. Bashereyre 18:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Not the "ending" of the strike per se, but the consequences of the hunger strike in terms of the support gained by the Republican Movement, increased IRA recruitment, the rise of Sinn Féin, civil disorder, condemnation of the British government etc. Years later when asked whether the government would have been better off giving the prisoners their own clothes, Kenneth Stowe replied "Probably, yes". Yes, Thatcher faced down the hunger strike but the long term gains were made by the Republican Movement. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Tables

How about another column in the tables to indicate the date on which each prisoner began his strike? OK, it's implicit with the column giving the duration in days, but it'd make the staggered starts a lot clearer. Sgt Pinback 22:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If you can make it fit without messing up the size too much go for it. Dates are here. If you're doing that it might be an idea to put the second table into date order with the last few strikers, I forget why I put them in that order actually. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

First one done. It looks fine on my screen, but if space needs to be saved, I suppose there's some trimming of the %s could be done on the narrower columns, or the last column could be put in a smaller font. Sgt Pinback 23:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me, feel free to do the other. Don't think a smaller font just to make it fit would be appropriate, and I doubt you'll be able to trim the columns enough to get everything on one line anyway. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You might want to reword Liam McCloskey's reason for ending the strike, as it's a bit long and unwieldy. I can't think of anything better right now, so if you can please change it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"Reluctantly ended his hunger strike... after [his mother] convinced him that [she] would not let him die."[13] But that's even longer. Can't think of a snappier way to express it -- they all sound either glib (not telling the full story) or clumsy. Sgt Pinback 23:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't really think it's that urgent anyway. Anything up to two lines should be ok, don't really want it on three lines as it seems like overkill. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Title very misleading

Why is this the IRISH hunger strike? The people on hunger strike weren't citizens of the Republic of Ireland. Surely, they were UK citizens (legally anyway, whether or not they liked that fact). If the title was "Northern Irish Republicans on hunger strike" or whatever, that might make sense. Cheers, Neale Monks 10:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually some of the protesting prisoners were citizens of the southern Irish state, notably Paddy Agnew. PatGallacher 12:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"Northern Irish Hunger Strike" returns 16 "unique" hits, and as you can see they aren't very unique at all. The participants were Irish people, and you also might want to have a look at Irish nationality law. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

These two points don't strike me as all that impressive. Ethnicity as "Irish People" certainly can't be used. Using the same logic, then only people with English ethnicity rather than Afro-Caribbean or South Asian ethnicity would count as English. As for Irish nationality law, that's fair enough up to a point, but the fact was that whether or not they personally considered themselves part of the Irish state, in the eyes of British law they were British citizens. To be honest, I don't really care that much either way, and I certainly don't have an axe to grind, but the title just strikes me as non-Wikipedia:NPOV since it subscribes the perspective of the Irish Republican movement more than anything else. Oh, and as for Google hits, that can be played any way you want: "northern ireland" plus "hunger strike" gets you over 120,000 hits [14] and "hunger strike in northern ireland" almost 5000 hits [15]; "irish hunger strike" gets you almost 20,000 [16]. Cheers, Neale Monks 16:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I was merely setting my stall. Regardless of any British citizenship they may have held, the participants in the hunger strike were Irish people and Irish citizens. My Google search was demonstrating how "Northern Irish hunger strike" (or any variation including a year) as a title is right out of the window. A completely neutral source is titled - Ten Men Dead: The Story of the 1981 Irish Hunger Strike. If you can sugest an alternative title go for it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"Hunger strike in Northern Ireland"? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The title of this section is very misleading. It only assumes there to be a problem in the feigned opinion of an editor, and then it’s becomes something that has to be addressed? This is a Featured Article! There is not very much higher accolade, the article can receive. So it appears the only way it can go, is down. All this nit picking will only aid its decline. Why do I say nit picking, because the editor who raised the question, knows enough about the subject and yet displays ignorance. I may be mistaken, and if I am, I will remove “contrived.” --Domer48 18:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not nit-picking. Answer the following questions, using the tick boxes if it helps:

• By which country's legal system were the hunger strikers indicted? United Kingdom [ ] Republic of Ireland [ ].
• By which country's legal system were they found guilty and imprisoned? United Kingdom [ ] Republic of Ireland [ ].
• What were the de jure nationalities of the hunger strikers? United Kingdom [ ] Republic of Ireland [ ].
• In which country did the strikes actually take place? United Kingdom [ ] Republic of Ireland [ ].

I hope this clears things up. Cheers, Neale Monks 19:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Answer to your first and second question the UK has 3 distinct legal systems so no tick box can be used there, and the third question the hunger strikers were all Irish nationals by birth and fourth there is no country called the United Kingdom hope that clears things up. BigDunc 19:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. Obviously having been educated to the level of a doctor of philosophy I am, as you realise, incredibly stupid. The point, as I'm sure you understood, was that they were within *some part* of the UK as far as law and imprisonment went, and in terms of physical location at the time, they were also within the UK. Splitting hairs about which precise legal system was involved or what name you give Northern Ireland doesn't resolve my quandary. The strikes *did not* take place in the Republic of Ireland and they were not prisoners of the Irish Republic or condemned by its legal system. Hence, calling this an "Irish Hunger Strike" falsely removes it from what it actually was, a hunger strike within a part of the United Kingdom by prisoners indicted by (one or other part of) the legal systems of the United Kingdom. Cheers, Neale Monks 19:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well with the patronising tone of your question it was asking to be answered that way just because you know what a fossil is does not mean you are an authority on everything now does it Doc. BigDunc 19:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

As suggested on my talk page, it should really be at Localised incident in the Maze prison in 1981 involving a number of prisoners who refused to eat. Or alternatively, people could stop objecting to the wholly legitimate use of the word "Irish" and stick to the accepted title that neutral sources say. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Go ahead and make the move. As for "legitimate", that implies some legal standing with regard to their national identity. Were the Hunger Strikers tried as foreign nationals or UK citizens? Cheers, Neale Monks 21:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, it seems Irish people are not allowed to be described according to their ethnic background any more. Let's take for example Bradford Riot, I don't see any fuss there over the repeated use of the word "Asian". Those people were born in Britain (not all of them necessarily), lived in Britain, and convicted in Britain (where appropriate). Surely then they can't be described as "Asian"? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If I had the time, I'd object to that too. But it isn't a Feature Article, so I don't care so much. I dislike the use of ethnic terms in lieu of what it says on their passport. The people in that riot were British, and I'd personally call them such. If you wanted to called the Asian-Britons or some such for the sake of some demographic analysis, that'd be fine. But using ethnic terms on their own causes all kinds of problems, since the law doesn't see individuals as anything other than subjects of the Crown (or whatever the term is these days). Look, I have nothing against the article. I'm not even anti-Republican. If it was my call, I'd deliver Ulster to the Dublin government in a nice box with a big red bow on top. But as a simple fact of historical record, I fail to see in what sense the hunger strikers were *unambiguously* and *exclusively* "Irish". Assuming they all had passports, I'd expect to see the UK logo thing on the front, and where it says Nationality, I'd expect to see British. Correct me if I'm wrong here. Maybe that's worded differently for the Northern Ireland population, I genuinely don't know. Anyway, they were certainly on UK territory when striking, and they were certainly guests of Her Majesty's prison system. So by those standards, the strikers could justifiably be called British. They certainly wouldn't have liked that idea, but that's a different issue. Surely, as a matter of simple fact the strike took place in the UK and was carried out by UK citizens against the UK government. What am I missing? Cheers, Neale Monks 21:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You're missing your empire it seems. This has been tried before and expressly rejected. Were Michael Collins and Daniel O'Connell British? No, they were Irishmen as were the hunger strikers. The strike is commonly known as the "Irish hunger strike", and 1981 is there for disambiguation as there were others. Unless you're planning to rid Wikipedia of every single instance of English, Scottish, Welsh etc (which was rejected, see above) I fail to see where this discussion is going. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Empire has nothing to do with. Michael Collins can be argued to be Irish from the point of view that his cause won, and the southern part of the island of Ireland became the Republic of Ireland. That would be entirely in keeping with calling, say, Garibaldi an Italian despite Italy not existing at the time, or Washington as an American. But Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom. Oh, and WP:MOSUK doesn't really provide anything useful here. All I'm saying is that surely this was a 1981 Northern Ireland hunger strike or similar. Cheers, Neale Monks 07:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOSUK has everything to do with this, see the history of the guideline and the article talk page. The attempt to stop people using English/Scottish/Welsh/Irish was expressly rejected. It would lead to stupidity such as Daniel O'Connell being described as British. "Irish hunger strike" is the name of the event, in the same way that World War I and World War II are called that despite not taking place globally. Northern Ireland has absolutely nothing to do with this, it's completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter which country claims jurisdiction over Northern Ireland, be it America, Australia or Antigua - the inhabitants of the country would still be Irish above all else. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You think? So the inhabitants of Northern Ireland are Irish "above" being British? Somehow I doubt the First Minister of Northern Ireland Ian Paisley would agree, and the majority of people in Northern Ireland *still* consider themselves part of the United Kingdom, i.e., British. While I can respect that you have a pro-Nationalist viewpoint on this issue, and have every intention of keeping this article somehow "Irish" rather than "British", I don't see how that is a fair means for naming a Feature Article. You're dismissing the fact that Northern Ireland is *part* of the UK by likening it to a "claim" on the territory. That's bias right there. Finally, since there is NO political entity called simply "Ireland", referring to this as an "Irish Hunger Strike" is sleight-of-hand, implying the thing took place in Ireland (which it didn't, it took place in part of the UK). To me that is simply not an accurate representation of the facts, it's a spin on the facts to support your particular political beliefs. Cheers, Neale Monks 16:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Taking each point in turn:

• So the inhabitants of Northern Ireland are Irish "above" being British? - Yes, obviously. If Northern Ireland ceased to be part of the United Kingdom tomorrow the inhabitants would still be Irish. You're confusing nationality with ethnicity, again....
• While I can respect that you have a pro-Nationalist viewpoint on this issue - I don't, try playing the ball not the man.
• I don't see how that is a fair means for naming a Feature Article - As explained repeatedly above, the event is known as the "Irish hunger strike", so it's given that name. I don't see you objecting to Great Irish Famine saying it should be called Great Famine that happened in Ireland which was part of the United Kingdom until 26 counties of it gained independence.
• it's a spin on the facts to support your particular political beliefs - No, as you don't even know what my political beliefs are as we've already established. The name of the event is the "Irish hunger strike", simple as that.

Now I think everyone here is bored of this repeated missing of the point in what the name of the event is and what, if any at all, implications are made as a result of that name. The participants were Irish, and the name of the event is the "Irish hunger strike". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not put yourself down, I do not for one minute think you are stupid? In Ireland we call it thick, its not that at all. I have put a little something together for another article which might broaden your understanding of Irish Republicans view of “law.” [17] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domer48 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this Republican view has not changed, has never changed [18] and probably never will. --Domer48 20:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

So is it the 1981 UK Hunger Strike you would like this article called?? This was a protest taken by Irish men in Ireland against the British. I know that I will be accused of POV with that statement. But as far as these men were concerned that is what they were doing. I will assume good faith and not assume you are being pedantic. BigDunc 22:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Simply because I have a different point of view doesn't make me a pedant necessarily, but given this is an *encyclopaedia* a bit of pedantry isn't a bad thing. You might consider the participants to be Irish, but that's an ethnic statement, not a legal one. They were Northern Irish, i.e., citizens of the UK, regardless of whether or not they were *also* able to gain Republic of Ireland citizenship as well, and especially regardless of whether they considered themselves UK citizens or not. They were tried in the UK, imprisoned in the UK, and in some cases died in the UK. Intent of the participants is irrelevant. Adolf Hitler considered Poland, Austria, and parts of Czechoslovakia as Germany; should we concur? If I suddenly decide to call myself a Fijian, does that make it so? Neale Monks 07:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you know for fact that they were British passport holders if so could you give me the reference please. And as regards to being Fijian, if by birth you are entitled too, then like these men who were Irish citizens by birth then you can call yourself what you want. BigDunc 09:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This is getting (a long time ago) stupid. Even after following this talk from start to finish, it's clear that the title breaches NPOV. It's not unexpected, but it is avoidable. To have that as a featured article, with its less than neutral standpoint, is embarrassing for the project. Hugorudd 20:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really, the sources call it the "Irish hunger strike". And your lack of neutrality is a bit obvious. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

What's an OC?

In the Consequences section, it says "Brendan McFarlane, who was OC inside the prison...". For those of us who aren't up to date with such things, can this be explained or linked to the relevant article? Thanks, Neale Monks 11:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

OC is in full and linked right at the start of the previous section. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Article name, request for Arbitration

Article title is misleading given this is a Feature Article; 1 the events occurred geographically in the UK (specifically Northern Ireland); 2 the legal system involved was that of the UK; 3 the participants were not extradited or tried as foreign citizens but as British citizens regardless of their personal allegiances; 4 there is no geopolitical entity "Ireland" after which the event could be named; 5 if the name is taken to imply the Republic of Ireland, the title is completely misleading, given the event did not take place there at all, but in the UK. Neale Monks 17:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The event is called the "Irish hunger strike", just a few examples - [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]. And that's not even taking into account the offline sources. The participants were Irish, and internationally recognised as Irish. <font face="Verdana";One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

And how many of those books are written by neutral historians, or historians sympathetic to a British or Unionist side of things? The first author (Tom Collins) for example has a book called "Centre Cannot Hold: Britain's Failure in Northern Ireland"! Anyway, this is the point of Arbitration; you and I clearly have very different points of view on this. You won't be able to convince me that events in Northern Ireland took place in someplace called "Ireland" that doesn't exist as a political entity on any map I have to hand, and I don't seem to be able to convince you that the events described in this article took place within the United Kingdom as opposed to this place "Ireland" that you prefer to use. So for now, lets both back off, and let others have some time to ponder the argument. Cheers, Neale Monks 17:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

As before, your point of view has been expressly rejected. The attempt to deny people the right of self-identification and describe them as British was shot down in flames. It doesn't even matter how they self-identified, neutral sources describe the event as the "Irish hunger strike" and the participants as "Irish". With the abundance of said sources in any sane world you won't be able to gain a consensus to change the title to anything else, so please stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Daniel O'Connell was Irish, Michael Collins was Irish, Patrick Pearse was Irish, and so were the hunger strikers. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I am not disrupting things to make a point. Feel free to look through my contributions elsewhere on Wikipedia to see reverts of vandalism, contributions to articles, donations of images, etc. I've made a pre-emptive apology on Big Dunc's talk page in case one of my posts here offended him. A little reciprocal politeness would be nice. Cheers, Neale Monks 18:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This seems particularly relevant here. The person there (who seems uncannily familiar, it has to be said) doesn't seem to have a particularly high opinion of the editors who wrote this article. As before, the attempt to label everything and anyone in sight as "British" was completely rejected. The sources call the event the "Irish hunger strike" and so should we. We've got all the way through GA and FA, and now because of one single editor everyone's time is being wasted. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... you similar to be implying that Google post is from me. It isn't. I agree it's similar in subject. But perhaps all that implies is that I'm not the only person on the planet who doesn't entirely agree with the title of this article. Again, please assume good faith. I have been trying very hard to do so, in spite of consistent hostility. All I ask is you do likewise. I don't see this as a waste of time. You might, and that's your opinion and I respect that. If that's the case, then don't participate. Sit back, and let others say what they're thinking. You and I have entrenched positions. Surely you can accept that? We need fresh eyes from people who don't have a personal capital (or personal beliefs) tied up in this article. If I'm wrong, and Admins and the Arbitration committee are happy with things as they stand, then that's that, end of story. In the meantime, can we please refrain from personal attacks? They don't achieve anything but ramp up the tension. One look at my contribution history will demonstrate I haven't gotten involved in any articles about Northern Ireland. I don't have strong opinions on Northern Ireland either way. Couldn't really care less what happens there. Much more interested in my fish and fossils. I'm just a plain vanilla editor who can't understand why this particular historical event is being described as "Irish" given it didn't happen in the Republic of Ireland but in the UK. It may be obvious to someone with Irish Republican politics, but for this reasonably well educated Brit, it seems inaccurate. Please note I haven't criticised the article itself except in one minor way. I haven't said it's biased or whatever. It's just the title I have an issue with. Pure and simple. Yours etc., Neale Monks 20:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The Hunger Strikers were not British citizens, because there is no such thing. They were Irish Citizens, the British are not citizens, they are subjects! You can be born in the north of Ireland, and have an Irish passport. Did you not know that? Irish Citizens! Someplace called "Ireland?" Don't make me laugh!

• Now provide references to show that these authors are not neutral historians?
• Provide sourced references that show that these authors are pro-Republican / Nationalist?

Otherwise your just spouting off, now back up your limited opinion with references. --Domer48 18:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is that funny? Find me the nation state called "Ireland". It isn't on any map I have. Neale Monks 18:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Neale Monks, regarding your comment above sympathetic to a British or Unionist side of things? are you aware that the Loyalist prisoners in the H-Blocks issued a statement in support of the Hunger Strikers demands.--Padraig 18:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

don't edit my comments again --Domer48 18:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Are we learning anything yet [26]. Ignorance is bliss. --Domer48 18:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an argument that has been had before as ONIH says above Neale Monks have a read of this WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT--BigDunc 19:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately Neale Monks does not understand or appreciate the nearly 800 years of oppression of the people of the island of Ireland. I think he expects this article to be named after the geographical location in which the hunger strike(s) took place rather then the aspiration of those who were on hunger strike. Either way he looks at it, he is dead wrong. This was a hunger strike by Irish people or people who considered themselves Irish, who may, or may not have been British citizens, but that is irrelevant to the naming of the article. If he keeps this up then I suspect he is really only trolling or as BigDunc suggests he is just trying to make a point as he basically admits to by stating he is entrenched in his POV. ww2censor 22:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This whole dispute is utterly POV. The title is wrong not because these were British or Irish citizens, nor because this was either the 'Occupied Six' or 'The UK'. The title is wrong because the choice of title is based on a political POV and can't be labeled NPOV simply because a group of similarly minded editors decide so. There is a controversy over which nation could legitimately have a claim over these people as citizens, but again not germane to the issue of title. A much better title would have been the titles I have always been taught for the event ; 'Republican Hunger Strikes' or 'IRA Hunger Strikes' are entirely NPOV and ought to be entirely uncontroversial (well one of them anyway). As for the ridiculous argument about the nonexistence of British Citizen status, Domer 48 ought to read the definitions of British Citizenship. It's almost certain that the strikers were either Irish Citizens or CUKC (Citizens of the UK or Colonies) pursuant the 1948 British Nationality Act (although it's possible for them to be British Subjects without Citizenship. Some may have been subject to s.2 of the act, though that seems less likely. In any case, British Subject status is not open to citizens born in Northern Ireland after 1948 as a statement of citizenship, as they would all have been born (between 1949-1983) Citizens of the UK or Colonies. They might have been considered Irish Citizens in the context of the Irish Constitution, but this had, of course, scant de facto effect in Northern Ireland.

Anyway, this POV discussion gives rise to another interesting issue, which may be off-topic but is certainly informing the debate; the objective of the IRA was to remove the British jurisdiction from Ireland, which they may have seen as illegitimate. Taking action to remove a jurisdiction must logically accept the de jure existence of the jurisdiction, hence it's very likely that, though they were fully Irish, the Hunger Strikers are very likely to have been legally considered British Citizens. Either way, wouldn't the concept of the incomplete provisional state mean that 'Irish Citizenship' is also provisional in the purview of the Irish Republican movement? Perhaps the argument might be that 'Irish Citizenship' can only be made real in the realisation of Irish Republicanism, similar to the argument that the only legitimate government of Ireland is the IRA. Ho hum... Hugorudd 21:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

'IRA Hunger Strikes' is uncontroversial and NPOV? You really should read the article first in that case. The sources call it the "Irish hunger strike", so that's what we call it. We don't manufacture a contrived title. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Considering the sources, that isn't a massive surprise, IMHO. I note no problem with 'Republican Hunder Strikes'. Wikipedia is quickly becoming a poor source of information on issues pertaining to the troubles, thanks to articles like this. IMHO. Hugorudd 15:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not known as "Republican Hunger Strikes", simple as that. It is known as the "Irish hunger strike", as that's what neutral sources call it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Irish language

I removed this (Irish: Máirtírigh an Stailc Ocrais) as "Máirtírigh an Stailc Ocrais" would be "the Martyrs of the Hunger Strike". jnestorius^(talk) 16:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes...? And why is that a reason for deletion? I have reverted your deletion until you provide a good reason for same. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Máirtírigh an Stailc Ocrais" does not translate "1981 Irish hunger strike". That would be something like "Stailc ocrais Éireannach, 1981".
• "Martyrs of the Hunger Strike" is POV
• (BTW, non-English terms should be in italics)
• For parity of esteem, why not also give the Ulster Scots ("Fenians wha stairved"?).
• Why give the Irish name at all? I see there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Gaeilge, which defines its brief as

The Gaeilge task force covers:

• Providing Irish-language versions for Irish place names
• Providing English-language translations for Irish-language versions of Irish place names
• Providing similar support for Irish people, events, institutions, etc. where appropriate according to the manual of style

• I'm not even sure the hunger strikes are encompassed by the sense of "events" (as opposed to, say, the Oscars as an event). Assuming they are, neither the project nor the Irish manual of style currently have any guidelines about "where appropriate" for events to have an Irish gloss; but extrapolating from the "Other articles" section suggests the Irish name should only be given at all if it has some currency in English-language text (like when people say Gaeilge instead of Irish ;) While Irish Republicans do speak a fair amount of Irish, and do speak about the hunger strikes a fair amount, I see no evidence that they (or anyone else) refer to the hunger strikes in Irish while speaking English.
• Where something has a definite proper name, as with a person or place, the Irish equivalent to the English is usually uncontroversial (though whether to include the Irish equivalent in Wikipeida may still not be). However, where something is referenced by description rather than by name, translating that description is a more matter of opinion. Whether "Irish hunger strikes" is a name or a description has been debated here already.
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)/Archive 1 also shows users' concern about Irish aliases being added intrusively in the intros of articles. If this is not to be (mis)interpreted as a small cabal of users with a political agenda, it will be essential to get a consensus broader than Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Gaeilge#Participants about what articles it is and is not appropriate to have an Irish name-gloss for.

In summary, let's get a bit of consensus before rushing in and rubbing people the wrong way. jnestorius^(talk) 17:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm re-removing the Irish alias tomorrow if nobody objects. jnestorius^(talk) 10:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I do object to your removing the Irish alias.--Padraig (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's take this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Gaeilge#Events jnestorius^(talk) 15:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

My experience has been that many of the people adding these "Irish names" of events, people, etc., have a very poor command of the language, and "Máirtírigh an Stailc Ocrais" is another fine example. It's not Irish; just pure nonsense. Apart from the phrase ignoring the basic rules of Irish grammar ("stailc" is a feminine noun, so why is "an" used? "Máirtírigh" is not the plural of anything) Nobody refers to it as that, and its not even the translation of "1981 Irish hunger strike". No Irish speaker refers to it as ""Máirtírigh an Stailc Ocrais", and, indeed, the term only surfaces on once on the whole internet, and that's here.[27]

If people really want to support the Irish language, then they should visit ga.wikipedia.com and write up the article on the stailc ocrais , there. Then we can provide a link for those who want to read about it in Irish.--Damac (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear. I know this has been an area of friction in the past. Irish (or any other) translations should be given only where they are verifiable and grammatically correct. It is better to have nothing at all in Irish (or any other language) than to have something which is apparently made up by someone who doesn't know the language very well. That is the sort of thing that gets us a bad name. Be bold, but also remember we can't make things up.--John (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Doctor to the hunger strikers.

I attended an art exhibitio at the Triskel Theatre, Tobin St, Cork, Ireland which focussed on the people working with the hunger strikers. There were audio recollections from the wardens on how the hunger strike affected them. The exhibition also stated that the doctor to the hunger strikers committed suicide shortly after cessation of the strike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.70.106 (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent removal

It's poorly written, poorly spelt unsourced irrelevance. There's been at least five documentaries that covered the hunger strike including interviews, it's the nature of TV documentaries - they cover news events. Films do so much less often, that's why they are mentioned. Articles about news events do not include details of every documentary that talk about the event. BigDunc^Talk 15:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice... opinion? Its written in the same style as the preceding section, contains no spelling mistakes, and is now referenced. Surely if people want to find out more about an event then a documentary is more use than a film. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 18:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There are spelling mistakes, please read properly. I agree with Dunc, documentaries aren't relevant as there's been plenty made. Films are relevant, as many events that get documentaries made about them, but not many get films made about them. Domer48 (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the BigDunc and Domer tagteam... In answer to BigDunc's edit summary - yes, putting a list of every documentary made about the Hunger Strike would indeed be a useful addition to the article. Domer - if there are spelling mistakes, fix them! Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 18:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help if you didn't add spelling mistakes to the article in the first place? Would you like to counter the other point? I see many articles about events, I do not see lists of documentaries about the events included. However it is relevant when films have been made about events, which is far rarer are worthy of mention. Domer48 (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Touché, one spelling mistake. (And I didn't add, just restored). As to your other point - this is an encyclopedia, yes? Not IMDB? Are people coming to this article likely to be looking for a drama, or for information about the Hunger Strike? Personally, I think the latter. In which case, if there is other relevant material available or published, it should be mentioned. A documentary featuring hunger strikers themselves, and politicians from both sides of the border is surely more relevant than a film "based on a true story". But whatever, have it your way, 2v1 wins 3RR by default (though I can't help feeling that if it had been added by a WP:IR member, it'd have been corrected and expanded). Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 18:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop with your paranoid rants would you they are getting very tiresome. And if as you say it had been added by a WP:IR member I would have expanded it, then why would I not do it now? Unlike yourself I assume good faith with editors even you. BigDunc^Talk 18:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Genuine lol here. Do you also think irony is a metal like goldy and bronzey? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 19:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. BTW, anyone has the right to object, and I have no intention of arguing with people's feelings on the issue. Tony (talk) 12:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've no objections to removing them tbh. For what it's worth! :P GiollaUidir (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

References section

I'm thinking of splitting the References section into a Notes section with short notes like "Ten Men Dead, p. 332.", and links from there to a References section with full bibliographic details of the book, as at Che Guevara and as described/discussed here. I'm inclined also to change it from "Ten Men Dead, p. 332." to "Beresford 1987, p. 332." Comments? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, based on a suggestion by Kevin Myers at Talk:Samuel Adams#References section, I think I'll change it to Chicago style, i.e. "Beresford, Ten Men Dead, p. 332.", if that's acceptable. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Convictions column in table

Is this actually relevant to people's understanding of the article? If people want to know exactly what specific reason the H/Sers were imprisoned for they can look at the separate biography pages surely. The background of they were members of paramilitary orgs that were fighting the British covers the reasons they were in jail in the first place. Thoughts?GiollaUidir (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Its very relevent and including it makes the article (slightly) less biased. 213.40.119.11 (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

How so? GiollaUidir (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The individuals in question insisted that they were "political prisoners". The Government insisted they were in prison for criminal activities. Supporters of the prisoners like to play this aspect down and attempt to create the impression that they were locked up merly for being "republicans". By including details of the crimes the prisoners were convicted of readers get to see that there may be another side to the story even if the overall article still glorifies the prisoners. 213.40.99.22 (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Totally disagree the table adds nothing to the article each prisoner have their own article and readers can follow links to find out more. BigDunc^Talk 00:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"including details of the crimes" "the overall article still glorifies the prisoners" I have to agree with both GiollaUidir and User:BigDunc rather than lending itself to being less biased if offers the reverse. I will remove the POV pending the outcome of this discussion. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The convictions were factual information. It is impossible for factual information to carry bias. The interpretation can lead to bias, however that is no reason to withhold the information. It should be put back up. If many of the prisoners were actually convicted for semi-political reasons such as IRA affiliation, then that is an objective historical fact and covering it up is simply propaganda. Stop being biased and put the objective information back up.

Title okay?

This may sound stupid, but is the title not a bit misleading? I don't know if the actual events are still referred to as the 1981 Irish hunger strike, but now it seems to me that in 1981 the Irish people or the citizens of Ireland went on a hunger strike, instead of the PIRA inmates. Any thoughts? --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 11:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This (among other things) has already discussed ad nauseum, the consensus is clear. Neale Monks tried, he failed miserably. Please stop.Anoderate1 (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

What's with the attitude, Anoderate? Personal feelings standing in the way or something? You've been here since October and you have an amazing total of 18 edits, 10 of those on talk pages. It was just a question, geez. You could've just said "This has been discussed before, didn't you read the discussion above?" If WP:LIGHTEN UP would exist, I'd be citing that. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 12:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Good enough but even though I'm new on wiki, I still read the above discussion. Bottom line: this is a hugely controversial subject, and when a consensus has been reached one should never pose ill informed questions. For obvious reasons Anoderate1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC).

Of course no Wikipedian is better than the other, I just thought your somewhat hostile stance was a bit overzealous for a relatively new Wikipedian. Besides, I didn't mean anything by my question, other than I thought that the title could be more precise (and I stand corrected, by the sources above the 1981 Irish hunger strike is referred to by that name). It might be controversial for you, not for me: my aim is to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, that's it. Just keep WP:CIVIL in mind. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 12:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

O Fenian edit-warring on special category status

Your edit-warring is tedious. There are no capitals necessary in "special category status". The three references in the Special category status all support this:

• "In 1976, the British government also removed the 'special category' status of paramilitary prisoners" - http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/recent/troubles/the_troubles_article_07.shtml
• "The introduction of special category status for convicted prisoners was a serious mistake." - http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/hmso/gardiner.htm#1
• "It should be made absolutely clear that special category prisoners can expect no amnesty and will have to serve their sentences." - http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/hmso/gardiner.htm#1
• "The earliest practicable opportunity should be taken to bring special category status to an end." - http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/hmso/gardiner.htm#1
• "In 1972, following a hunger strike and a major campaign by both republican and loyalist prisoners, the then Government granted special category status to prisoners convicted of offences connected to the civil disturbances" - http://www.niprisonservice.gov.uk/index.cfm/area/information/page/The1970

Plus

• Flackes & Elliott (1994) Northern Ireland: A Political Directory, p.310 - "At the time there were 545 male special category prisoners. ... The Gardiner committee, in 1975, came out against special category status", et.c.
• Bew & Gillespie (1993) Northern Ireland: A Chronology of the Troubles, p. 53 - "Whitelaw conceded 'special category' status".

Now, put it to bed. Mooretwin (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

There are dozens of sources that prove you wrong. Like http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/northern_ireland/7162894.stm to name but one. You want to change it, you get consensus. Your copy and paste moves are copyright violations. O Fenian (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't "prove me wrong". It just shows that other people have incorrectly used capitals. The Government report referenced in the Special category status article clearly refers to "special category status". I'm going to have to look into reporting you to get you to stop your tiresome nonsense. Mooretwin (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No need to state the obvious

The hunger strikers died of "starvation, self-imposed" or "starvation", what a startling revelation! The addition is misplaced (it splits two sentences, the latter of which follows on from the former), grammatically incorrect, contains incorrect spelling, and has shabby reference formatting. If you're going to edit featured articles, I suggest improving your editing first instead of butchering an article. I can't think of anywhere convenient to place the information and it isn't that relevant to the article so I'm removed it. Before any of the usual suspects start, this isn't an attempt to censor any information. There's a significant amount of information about the hunger strike that isn't in this article. When you're dealing with an event that's been covered in detail by several 200+ page (that's the minimum by the way) books, information is always going to be left out to keep the article focussed. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. It could easily be worked into the previous section, once any grammatical or formatting problems have been corrected. Of course not every minute detail of the hunger strikes should be covered but this is relevant, especially as the pathologist's report was changed. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 13:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree 2 lines of K. This is a featured articles, and this type of butchering an article add nothing. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If any grammatical or formatting problems have been corrected, then it's not butchering. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with the addition in the place it's been put. As I said, the problem is that it's not easy to simply add the sentence somewhere, the existing it may need a small amount of rewriting if it is to be included. The previous end of that section was a natural end to the section, and it doesn't flow well if a small stubby paragraph is added on after that. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I added it after reading Talk:Bobby_Sands#Category:_Irish_Politicans_who_committed_suicide, where BigDunc brought it up as a seemingly important source. The form of grammar or referencing or whatever that complaint is about, was no doubt because I went to great pains to accurately attribute the source and information in it, because I know how people on these Irish pages get all bent out of shape over such things if done wrong. (and I would note the switch to {cite journal} now contains no link to http://www.jstor.org/pss/3750951). As for 'butchery', when I came here and saw it was an FA, I was going to mention the glaring ommission it seems of any information relating to any kind of official inquest/inquiry into the strike, but forgot about it (or more likely just thought, screw that for a game of soldiers). However, if, as the source suggests, there were official inquests, and there was a dispute at the time over how to describe the causes of death, then quite obviously that is not going to be simply irrelevant to the article. There must be something in all those books you have to be able to write a paragraph at least, if you don't like my fuckwitted efforts to improve it using sources simply being bandied around on talk pages without ever being added to articles. MickMacNee (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The reference does include a link to jstor.org, look at the end. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 22:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. I won't even get involved in your poor spelling, grammar and reference formatting. If it's such an important fact that's *so* relevant to the hunger strike, then perhaps you could explain why none of the books I own that are either dedicated to the hunger strike or cover it in significant detail actually include it? It's tucked away in a footnote in a work dealing with hunger strikes in general isn't it? Now for the actual content of it. People who die on hunger strike die of starvation? No way, really? People who die on hunger strike die of self-inflicted starvation? No way, this is *brand new* information! 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Whose post are you supposed to be replying to here? Because it certainly isn't mine. MickMacNee (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Irish Republican

Is this a clear enough definition? It seems to be the default method of describing members of the RIRA, PIRA and INLA, but by definition, Irish republican means just someone who's nationality is Irish, and who holds republican beliefs. Whilst it is, within Ireland, a by-term for terrorism/para militarism, as an encyclopedic term, perhaps it should be redefined as Irish republican militant(s)?

P.S. in the same way in which Unionist paramilitaries are not called Irish unionists or Northern Irish unionists within the encyclopedia, but rather, 'loyalist paramilitaries'. --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Amended one sentence to word better. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Irish/Northern Irish Hunger Strike?

This discussion has already been had apparently but by very biased users on both sides. From what I've read I can't see that any one of you made rational argument for why the title should remain the same or be changed. None of the arguments were balanced and the consensus seemed to be that those who wanted to keep the name the same were in the majority and therefore the name should not be changed. This was the wrong decision to reach. No well thought out argument was presented for either side and I'm afraid facts are not subject to democracy. There should be a new discussion started and the most rational argument should decide on the title.

My own 2 cents would say that the title shouldn't be able to cause offense. It would seem more logical that the title should be altered from "Irish" to "Northern Irish". This is an encyclopedia - not ground for opinion. If the title is currently causing offense then it should be changed to avoid offense. Using Northern Irish instead of Irish means that we can keep things on common ground. Remember, not everyone thinks like you do and quite often the majority is wrong.

Unfortunately rational arguments were made by editors on one side of the argument, and those were that the event is known as the "1981 Irish hunger strike" or just the "Irish hunger strike" by many reliable sources, and the 1981 is needed in the title for disambiguation purposes. None of your hyperbole is relevant to what this article should be called, the naming conventions are followed. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.irishecho.com/search/searchstory.cfm?id=8710&issueid=184
  • In 1981 Irish hunger strike on 2011-05-25 04:58:35, 404 Not Found
  • In 1981 Irish hunger strike on 2011-06-07 02:18:32, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

This still is an encyclopedia right?

I ask because an IP editor seems intent on adding information to this and related articles which has no basis in reality, it is utter deluded fantasy. For example "Despite prisoners' belief that their demands had been met, one further murder of a prison officer occurred just 12 days later, when Officer William Cecil Burns of HMP Belfast was shot and killed outside his home" is so laughably wrong I'm not even going to waste time explaining exactly what's wrong with it, since it's self-evident to anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the Troubles. Similarly "The IRA shot and killed eighteen prison officers and one family member, as well as injuring at least four other individuals" is wrong. These things happen when you use unreliable primary sources and draw your own conclusions from them. This isn't the standard of editing I'd expect in any article, and it certainly isn't an acceptable standard of editing for a featured article. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

A clear guideline

From above: "There is a clear guideline on Wikipedia about the use of the word Terrorism. Please read it before editing". How are new users to read it if no clue is given about where it can be found? WP:TERRORISM redirects to a wikiproject, a little research leads me to think that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch is the guideline referred to, but I am not sure. Perhaps someone who knows could link to the relevant guideline? Quasihuman | Talk 11:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

4 July 1981 Brittish Concessions

why is there no mention of this date where the British Government offered Concessions to the IRA committee which was rejected – against the wishes of the prison leadership? Surely this is off some relevance to the article, this was stated by former IRA commander in the prison blocks and shows that the IRA was prepared to create martyrs for political gain

see link http://thebrokenelbow.com/2013/04/08/adams-not-thatcher-culpable-for-last-six-hunger-strike-deaths-says-former-ira-prison-leader/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 19carson90 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)