Talk:Siege of Derry

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating 

message: I don't intend to make an issue of it at this article, but I do wonder why there has to be an Irish translation of the title in the lead. I noticed this more when I looked up Livonia which had a whole line of translations into different languages from the region and it made the reading more difficult. I thought this was the English Wikipedia. Why do we need ledes to be translated into other languages? Have a look at Livonia to see what I mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livonia All I wanted to know was where Conrad Rosen came from. I don't need to know how to write Livonia in the Russian alphabet. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 11:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It is common on articles where there is a bilingual aspect ----Snowded TALK 19:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-English translations 

message: Snowded, Was there any need for a wholesale revert of all the edits? You said that I had made the lede too long. You could have been more specific. The important thing in the lede is to make sure that confusion over the two starting dates is made clear. 7th December (Julian) for the closing of the gates and 18th April for the arrival of King James and the beginning of the siege in earnest. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Just looking at the latest set and there are a mass of POV edits.  I'm tempted to simply revert again but I'll do my best to simply get it back to a neutral state.  I suggest talking about changes first ----Snowded TALK 06:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

text: That is relevant to other articles (possibly) but it does not seem particular to this article.  The Siege of Derry was one part of a wider strategy but did not drive it per say.  We need to avoid bloating articles with material even if referenced.  The fact that a statement is referenced does not of itself justify inclusion, there are criterial of weight and relevance that have to be taken into account. ----Snowded TALK 18:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me remind you one more time what exactly the edit said. It said, 
 King James II (VII of Scotland) wished to use Ulster as a base to reconquer Scotland while King William of Orange wished to use Ulster as a base to reconquer Ireland. 
This statement couldn't be more relevant as background information to the siege. I even went to the trouble of specifying that King James was King James VII of Scotland, and you came along and removed the edit just because you think it isn't necessary. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy to accept it is relevant to the Jacobean conflict with William and I am sure it is in those articles and linked.  I think it is too much detail here.  Each battle could have been critical ... ----Snowded TALK 19:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Snowded, What it all comes down to is that you hold the opinion that this statement isn't important background information. I beg to differ. You followed me here from another article and you don't appear to have edited here before, while I am well read on the subject material. Was it absolutely necessary for you to make an issue over this statement by deleting it without first discussing it on the talk page? Centuryofconfusion (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  the recent reverts 

message: Snowded, In the meantime I'm restoring the Macaulay source which was removed earlier today along with your other reverts. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Derry&diff=724276985&oldid=724276917  And then you told me that one of my edits needed a source. The very source that you had just removed. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I said that was one reason.   It has been reverted you do not yet have agreement on the talk page to reinsert it.  Show some patience please and explain why it is specific to this article (not to the wider conflict).  I'm open to argument as to why it is particularly relevant to this article (but not to it being in there twice) ----Snowded TALK 20:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Because one of the most famous accounts of the siege is in Macaulay's "History of England". And you have removed that source without even asking why the source was there in the first place. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You are confusing sourcing with relevance to the article ----Snowded TALK 10:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoring the Macaulay Source 

message: Snowded, You reverted again. You reverted this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Derry&diff=724419678&oldid=724390586 You said it is not neutral. Can you please explain to me exactly the opinion that is being expressed which you contest. The edit contained exactly the same information as the one it replaced. It was re-worded in order to make contrast with the situation in England and Scotland. And don't tell me it's not sourced, because you have already removed the source and told me not to restore it. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 09:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You should read WP:BRD in respect of the process.  To say 'major' is very different from 'some real' so it needs to be justified.  It seems a POV to me but I open to evidence. ----Snowded TALK 19:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll need to try much harder than that. You said above that I made a mass of POV edits but you haven't yet been able to show me a single example. Tell me in all honesty, where any of your reverts really necessary? Perhaps it might help if you could elaborate on the point of view which you are contesting. Only then can I address your concerns. If you're going to follow someone to an article that you've never edited on before and do wholesale reverts, you really need to be able to defend your actions, and you appear to be on very weak ground in this case. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

text: I've explained what I was concerned about there on the point you raise.  If there are other reverts you want more detail on ask me.  Otherwise calm down, I edit in this field and have done for years so don't be surprised if a new article comes on my horizon.  Gob Lofa started a series of controversial edits some time ago (and he is on the opposite political side of the fence for you) and several us then checked other edits to make sure the same PoV position was not being taken.  Its the way Wikipedia works.  ----Snowded TALK 10:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

text: We probably need more modern sources.  There are two issues (i) POV phrasing and (ii) relevance.  I've explained one of the reverts above in respect of wording and you haven't contested that.  Otherwise I have contested relevance to this article - which is about the siege not the whole conflict which is covered elsewhere----Snowded TALK 00:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Snowded, The one bit which you think wasn't relevant was the bit where I said that Londonderry was the intersection point between William's plans to reconquer Ireland and James's plans to re-conquer Scotland. The background section in the article as it stands at the moment, lacks this connecting sentence. We have James arriving in the South of Ireland from France, having fled from England. A reader will want to know why he heads straight to Londonderry with such urgency. It's not just to secure his hold on Ireland. He's looking farther ahead than that. He's looking at the Scottish Highlands where some of the clans north of Argyllshire are Catholic and Jacobite. In fact his grandson jumped straight to that stage in 1745 and by-passed the Ireland bit altogether. Why does William give such a priority to relieving Londonderry? Because he plans to use Ulster as his base to reconquer Ireland. Remember that Schomberg recaptured the east coast of Ulster the following spring. The connecting sentence that you removed is highly relevant as background information regarding the importance of the siege. As for the source, it was actually the editorial introduction to the siege chapter in my own paper copy of Macaulay, written by Hugh Trevor-Roper. That's 20th century. This shouldn't be something that needs to be argued over because you should surely see now that the contentious sentence is a highly relevant fact for the background section as a prelude to where it mentions James's arrival at Kinsale. James would have known that the garrison at Londonderry was holding out for the arrival of William's army. The only issue of contention in any of this is the issue that caused the war itself which was James's belief in the arbitrary power of Kings versus the Williamite belief in constitutional monarchy. As regards your example of POV phrasing, please explain to me the difference between writing 'major concessions' and 'some real concessions'. What point of view is being pushed by the former, which was my choice? The latter if anything is more POV because it implies that previously there had been concessions that weren't real, whereas the facts are that it was a simple case of James granting major concessions to the Catholics. Did you really see a POV in the former that required reverting? Centuryofconfusion (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  What point of view is being contested? 

message: French sources can give a different point of view of the siege that avoid the bias against the Jacobites prevalent in many of the sources, e.g. Walker and Macaulay. One must however convert the dates mentioned in the French as they are new style, whereas the dates in the present article follow the contemporary British use and are therefore old style. For example James entered Dublin on 24 March according to English sources but on 3 April according to the French. The Count d'Avaux was France's ambassador to King James. His correspondance was published as Négociations de M. le Comte d'Avaux en Irlande 1689 in Dublin 1934. However, I did not find an accessible copy of this publication on the Internet, only citations in other texts.Johannes Schade (talk)
202.142.63.126 (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: French sources