Talk:2006 Dublin riots

message: I've added in that there were reports of fireworks and that Bertie Ahern condemned the riots, but i haven't been able to get a source (I heard it on the radio).
If you heard it on the radio your able to get a link to an area in rté where it has the broadcast saved. the link to yesterday's RTÉ's news broadcast You need Real Player. Shoot The Moon 22:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I was present at this riot and I can confirm that the report here is nonsense. The protesters and marchers never caught sight of each other. All the rioting was between Gardai and republican protesters, mostly pretty young.
Jdorney 17:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was talking to my friend by text (who was also there), who said the same as you. But nonetheless, I was reluctant to do anything about it, due to not having been there myself (other than fix how it was formatted) - RHeodt 17:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: As someone who was present at this so called rally, I can tell you that those who smashed windows and looted were not Republicans, but a group of scumbags. These are the kinds of people who are anti-government and grafity areas with slogans such as smash the state. These people want any excuse to fight anything related to the government i.e. the Garda Siochanna. They are about as Republican as Edward Carson or Ian Paisley.--Play Brian Moore 01:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  They were Republican in the sense that they were running around with Irish flags and shouting "up the IRA". Ian Paisley doesn't do that so often. News flash: "Scumbag" and "Republican" are not, alas, mutually exclusive categories. Babajobu 02:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You Could see them - their was loads of them at the wrong end of O'Connell Street.  I was told that Yellow Regged cars were the ones burned out in town, any truth to this? --Irishpunktom\talk 18:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've heard different things about the cars that were burned out on Nassau street...they were Mercedes, or they were Northern Irish, or English, whatever. I doubt it's true. Those guys were just f**king s**t up, I don't think they focused on any type of car in particular. Babajobu 18:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, they were all English cars that were burned out on Nassau street.--Play Brian Moore 21:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not according to Newstalk 106 at the time.  They announced that both cars had Dublin plates.  The point they were making is that these were 'random acts of violence'.  Every criminal and scumbag in the city showed up because they knew there would be a riot.  Everyone I know predicted this riot would occur.  No organisation was required. 62.254.168.102 13:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, having been in town myself, I can confirm the burnt-out BMW(the picture I added to the article) at the end of Nassau street had an English reg while the fancy Jag they decided to destroy near the Celtic music shop also had an English reg. So it appears Newstalk were just reporting rumours,n ot fact.--Play Brian Moore 17:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the 6 o'clock RTE news both vehicles were Mercedes.  No jags and no bmws and both had Dublin plates.  Are they reporting rumours too?  And did they invent the video footage I saw on tv saturday night? 62.254.168.102 11:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well I believe you are mistaken. I was in town and I no what I saw, a smashed up 'Jag' outside Celtic Note, the music shop on Nassau street. So get over yourself.--Play Brian Moore 18:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Surely there are pictures or video footage available of the cars?  That ought to sort this question out. --Mal 15:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there are.  Lets start with this article which specifically mentions that two of the cars were mercs... 'One 20-year-old man is charged with arson, causing €20,000 worth of damage to two Mercedes cars.' http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0225/loyalist2.html 62.254.168.102 13:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: A jaguar was smashed up outside Celtic Note on Nassau street. Do you simpletons understand this 'FACT. I know exactly what I saw. So face facts.--Play Brian Moore 00:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me get this straight, we're simpletons because we won't automatically accept the word of someone we know as text on a screen who resorts to petty insults over trusted media sources...  Makes senseFactoid Killer 14:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You got it in one, well done lad. Anyway, I know exactly what I saw. Why would I bother lying?--Play Brian Moore 23:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem is video tape is more reliable than human memory and video cameras can be in more place than 1 at the same time.  And the problem is the video tape contridicts your version of events.  Sorry. Factoid Killer 03:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Im after finding a video on Youtube which backups exactly what I said. I'm right, you're wrong, face FACTS, look at 9 minutes and 48 seconds and you can clearly see a smashed up Jaguar outside Celtic Note music shop on Nassau Street. If you think thats a Merc then your are more stupid than you previously showed. Ignorance is bliss.--Play Brian Moore 02:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: And in fact, the others cars are Nissans and BMW's. Turns out our national broadcaster is mistaken.--Play Brian Moore 02:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rubbish 

message: Re th edit that said "thousands of shoppers ran for cover", in fairness, most people just stood around and watched when the violence started. There were several times when the crowd scattered in all directions alright, but these happened when the Gardai charged the rioters. People then ran away to avoid getting caught up in the violence.
Jdorney 21:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Running for cover" 

message: I don't think the kids who got involved were particularly "Republican" or pro Continuity IRA or anything like that -- but I do know they were Dubs. It seems pretty obvious to me that a nation must never allow foreign citizens with openly declared ill intentions and terrorist sympathies to enter its borders. If it took a crowd of Dublin's finest skangers to do the job their government wouldn't and send the UVF mob packing, then here's to them. Ben-w 00:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eamonn said 'There were only around 1,000-2,000 rioters in a city of 1.2 million. '.  In fact there were only 300 rioters. 62.254.168.102 13:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmm, a while ago there was less than that where idiot Muslims held signs that another idiot Muslim wrote and the entire world balked.  Back home Christians can riot against fellow christian and the world giggles. So it's obvious - Christians are terrified of cardboard. --Irishpunktom\talk 21:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The rioters were obviously Republican because no-one else would have a problem with the Love Ulster march. Though most of the rioters were probably Dubs who just decided to join in there was a core of Republicans who organised the violence. A number of buses of protesters/rioters came from Newry (or somewhere like that). St jimmy 15:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Republican" Riots 

message: In adding references, I have included my own eyewitness account. I hope this is acceptable? 
Jdorney 01:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Babajobu 03:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was nearby when it happened and I can verify J's account as absolutely correct. It is also corroborated by reports on RTÉ News, BBC World and Sky News all of whom gave the same description. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 04:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was on O'Connell Street and then on the Quays, where there was also a lot of action. I agree that his account is correct, I'm just saying we can't use him as a source, which the article previously did, identifying him by his username. Wikipedia doesn't include original research or unverifiable sources. The other sources you mention are the ones we go with. Babajobu 04:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: The article suggests that the march actually happened. It didn't. The march was cancelled by the Gardai. I'll change it. Babajobu 02:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure they never even got off the buses except briefly at Leinster House. Babajobu 18:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  From what I understand, they were unloading the buses when the guard moved to disperse the Counter Demo.  There were SWP folks there as well as RSF. --Irishpunktom\talk 18:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe a few posh SWP kiddies stood at the margins for a couple minutes and then ran home and then breathlessly told their friends they were in the riots, but the guys actually rioting were real lumpenproles, definitely not SWimmers. Babajobu 19:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Jeez.  Don't you people watch the news before you comment.  They were all set up ready to march.  They were playing their instruments and were all lined up on a side street just off o'connel st.  But the protesters were blocking their path.  As the Gardai tried to move them out of the way the riot broke out. I wish people would stop making stuff up and simply not comment if they don't know.  62.254.168.102 15:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: March never happened

message: this article seems to be biased towards republicans
: How so? Also, please place four tildes after your comments, like this:  ~~~~  Babajobu 03:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you clarify what you meant by that? I see two ways of interpreting what you said. Do you mean biased in favour of republics, or biased against them? Also, I personally think that the article is a small bit (I emphasise small) biased in favour of the Orange Order. Don't get me wrong, what the "republicans" (in this case, just a word for people who took advantage of a bad situation) did was disgraceful, but, it should also be asked: What did the Orange Order hope to achieve by marching down here instead of in Belfast? If they're in favour of union with the UK, they hardly expect the Irish government to care, do they? There is only one answer I can think of, as to why they would choose Dublin: provocation. Unless someone can give me a better reason I think there should be something about this in the article, because, yeah unionists (sometimes innocent) have been killed by republicans, but nationalists (again, only sometimes innocent) have been killed by loyalists, but you don't see Nationalists staging (or attempting to) protests in Belfast! - RHeodt 12:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Looking back, I phrased part of that terribly, I won't even bother fixing it. But my other point stands as is: What were they hoping to achieve by marching here? - RHeodt 19:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: They wanted to say "We are victims of republican thugs yet people in the Republic don't realise what we have to put up with." So they come down to march, and republican thugs stage a riot. Talk about stupid imbeciles. The rioters gave the Loyalists a game, set and match victory. The Loyalist claim may be debatable, but the riots in Dublin have given the Loyalists a cast-iron PR case. Every time they complain about being prevented from marching in the North, and republicans claim it is simply because of where they want to march, not the right to march, Loyalists can simply say "No. You want to stop us marching anywhere. Remember O'Connell Street". Millions of people in Ireland, Britain, and the world will simply nod and say "they have a point." Republicans could not have behaved more stupidly if they tried. They have boosted the credibility of their opponents and destroyed their own. Jeffrey Donaldson came up with a great line when he said how republicans wanted Northern MPs to have speaking rights in the Dáil chamber, yet wouldn't even allow him to speak outside the Dáil. Even though Sinn Féin appear to have nothing to do with the riots, as the main republican electoral force associated with physical force republicanism, they probably will lose out bigtime. The sight of republican riots will probably kill off the transfers they need to win seats, the Ahern will probably now have to make it explicitly clear to avoid collateral damage to his own prospects that any co-operation with SF electorally, and any possibility of taking SF into government, is a non-starter in the next Dáil. The riots were a PR disaster for the whole republican family and will be used as a stick to beat republicans by all their opponents north and south for years to come. Tactically it was the most stupid thing possible to do. It proved the message the Loyalists were trying to communicate to the Republic and made the Loyalists seem like the good law-abiding people who followed Garda advice, while making republicans seem like thugs and bigots. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That's almost EXACTLY the answer I was thinking of. I realise I just said provocation, but I had also been thinking that it was to provoke them, IN ORDER to "prove" a point like that. Glad I'm not the only one. - RHeodt 22:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Loyalist Bias

message: I've got to say, guys, by the way, that while sometimes WP can be a right pain in the bum (edit wars, vandalism, etc) there are moments where it is so impressive as a source. The work done on WP to cover this riot is really top class. It is for moments like this that I joined WP. I do know from a friend in a British station that they are using us to get a feel for what happened, as they didn't have anyone there and are just getting snippets of info from AP etc. They are reading our stuff to get background and were very impressed. We had better information than the news agencies. And when they double-checked the facts with their own reporter (who flew in later) he told them we were spot on. So well done. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 05:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. As for the strong Wikipedian presence near the riots and the cultish nature of it all, I also completely agree. While everything was happening I kept thinking, shoot, why didn't I bring my camera to upload some pics to Wikipedia? Little did I know there were several people nearby who were thinking along the same lines, but had brought theirs...funny. The world shrinks, and the wikicult expands. Good stuff. Babajobu 05:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tell me about it. Waking up at 4 am and logging into Wikipedia instead of going back to bed is a very bad habit! Must stop! Babajobu 15:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good work with a developing story 

message: I walked down Parnell Square at c. 12:50 on Saturday and saw eight buses leaving Parnell Square (I counted). There were at least 400 loyalist marchers assembled outside the Hugh Lane gallery so I think what happened was that three buses only left for the small rally outside Leinster House, presumably the other five returned north.  --213.94.205.109 16:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article currently states "only three coach loads turned up in Dublin, indicating a far smaller number, in the region of 300." Most coaches hold only a little over fifty people AFAIK which might suggest closer to 150-175? -- Blorg 22:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Could the article be rephrased in some way then? Three coaches _doesn't_ suggest the region 300 but more like half that. So we would have to imagine either that the gardaí were wrong or (more likely) that there were more coaches or that people came under their own steam? -- Blorg 10:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Just a couple of suggestions here.  Firstly, is it not conceivable that some of the paraders had come down to Dublin prior to the weekend, separately from the coaches?  Also, as JD pointed out, if some were standing in the coaches, I've seen the number quoted inside the buses as something in the region of "103 people (50 standing)" or words to that effect. --Mal 17:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of marchers 

message: I'm not sure it adds so much, and I think it's also mislabelled. That doesn't look to me like O'Connell Street. It looks like the photographer was on Parnell Street, facing east; at the end is Parnell Square with O'Connell street off to the right, but it's not really "a picture of O'Connell Street". Anyway, it doesn't show much, I think it should probably be removed. Babajobu 15:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, it is from Parnell Street, but it appears to me to show a good amount of O'Connell Street. I guess it could be renamed "View near Parnell Statue", and I added it because it shows a good amount of rubbish in the streets after the riots left the area, and also goes along with the point stating O'Connell Street was cleared. I won't add it back unless someone else agrees, but I thought it was at least slightly informative. Toofishes 17:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, it is, and thanks for uploading it. The camerawork is good, I'm just not sure you got quite close enough. Babajobu 17:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was about as close as I could get without crossing the police line, but thanks. THe thumbnail doesn't quite capture it well, you have to blow the picture up to see it, so I get the problem. Toofishes 19:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the person who removed it just thought it was a random Republican leaflet. To avoid removal it might just need to have the relevance explained more clearly in the caption. Babajobu 17:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, that's what I thought. I was the person who originally removed it (diff), the caption wasn't particularly clear as to the relevance of the image and I [wrongly] thought it was just POV-pushing Cynical 18:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3rd picture

message: I object to the use of the term "The Irish Police" in reference to An Garda Síochána. They are not police. People wishing for an explanation can click the link. For the mean time I will revert this and wait for discussion.Jamesnp 22:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they're not police, why does everyone call them "coppers"? Babajobu 22:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: They are the an garda síochána and nothing else. It's like calling them NYPD, because they are a police force. The NYPD are a police force monitoring New York. To call an Garda Suíochána anything else would be labeling them something else. Shoot The Moon 22:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Surely objecting to the term "police" when referring to Gardaí is  a case of splitting hairs? They're not being referred to as NYPD, LVPD, MDPI, PSNI or anything else - it's a generic term, which, as far as I know, doesn't imply being armed.Autarch 15:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, fine, but the first time we use it can we include a parenthetical appositive phrase like "the police force of the Republic of Ireland" or something? I think that's perfectly accurate and very helpful to our non-Irish readers. To pretend the Gardai aren't cops is a posh affectation, really. At the very least we should be able to describe them as that once so people won't get confused and lose interest in the article. Babajobu 22:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, put something like "an Garda  Síochána (The Irish Police force)". I understand that non-Irish people wouldn't understand the meaning, i just don't agree to call them The Irish police force for the whole article as the whole point of the Irish name was to show the difference of the Irish free state (at the time) to the English. Also, the translation of An Garda Síochána is the Peaceful Police, this is due to the gardaí non carrying a weapon. Shoot The Moon 22:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It is prabably worth pointing out that if the link is clicked then the viewer will see that An Garda Síochána "is the national police agency of the Republic of Ireland" (and, in fact the original act setting it up called it a police force).  Incidentally, the page also translates the name as 'The Peace Guard of Ireland"- havn't a clue which is rightMAG1 22:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The Gardaí were set-up as a peace force, i.e., they dont carry any guns. This was due to fears that extreme republicans would kill some patrolling Gardaí and take their guns and use them against the government. So there the peace guard of Ireland is a loose translation of an garda síochána because the english of an garda síochána is an garda síochána. But translating it word by word you get something like "The Peace Guard of Ireland". The gardai are the national police agency as it enforces the law but without the use of guns.
The Garda's web site ('Ireland's National Police Service') clarifies it:  'The Guardians of the Peace'MAG1 23:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Garda Síochána 

message: Should it be worth to note that there wouldn't be a tribunal into the matter? Shoot The Moon 22:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tribune 

message: While I have no sympathy for the rioters, a couple of things need to be cleared up.
First of all the initial violence was not just the protesters attacking the Gardai. The Gardai tried to disperse the protesters who were blocking the route of the march and scuffles broke out. The protesters then startd to throw things and the riot developed. Quite a few of the protesters were also battoned at this point. i saw them with bloodied heads. Secondly its not true to say that the rioters were attackign the public at random. As far as I could see, on O'Connell st at any rate, this was not the case, thousands of onlookers were intermingled with the rioters and were unmolested by them. Some of the public even expressed sympathy for them. 
Secondly the mob attacked at least one journalist - Charlie Bird - but they were not just attacking every jouranlist they could find. Plenty of them were wandering around behind the rioters "front lines" with notebooks and cameras etc.
Thirdly, whoever wrote that they were urinating in bottles and throwing them at random needs to provide a source. Just because you dissaprove of something doesn't mean that you can repeat every rumur about it.
Jdorney 23:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to agree with that statement. According to the SIndo, my home area was overrun by IRA Drug barons who forced us all to vote for Sean Crowe. The Phoenix regularly lampoons the Sindo and indeed the entire indo group for this. --Irishpunktom\talk 12:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, the Indo still counts as a reliable source. If you doubt something they said, then just preface it with "According to the Irish Independent,". FWIW, if I'm not mistaken the Star actually had a picture of a rioter pissing into a bottle. Babajobu 15:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Why do people keep reverting Sinn Fein to "the largest militant Irish Republican party..."?--Jersey Devil 09:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Traditionally they've been described as militant republicans because of their support for the physical force tradition. Since 1998 or so, they've rebranded themselves as nationalists rather than republicans, if memory serves me right. Autarch 20:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, dont mean to be a pedant but they were declared "illegal" in 1936. Check Talk:Irish Republican Army (1922–1969), I updated my comments there with confirmation.  Thanks. Fluffy999 00:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Militant

message: Protestant Unionists are constantly told that they are Irish and are being manipulated by the UK govt. to maintain their empire. Of course, this is all bulls**t, but now the proof of that has been manifested for almost any rational-minded person (which excluded plenty of die-hard republicans, and a few people on this Discussion Page, they know who they are).
The 26 County region (I don't regard it as a true republic, not because of the missing 6 counties, but b/c it has rarely behaved like a republic, although it is getting better, I have to admit) is regarded as a Roman Catholic preserve freed forever from "internal enemies" (e.g. those labelled "West Britons" who were loyal to the UK) and is expected to remain that way. Of course British tourists or (sometimes) those intermarry with Irish people are welcome, but for the most the Protestant community has been whittled down from approximately 16% of the population in the 26 Counties  (circa 1922)to 2% or so, through persecution, cultural annihilation, intermarriage (Ne Temere), death and taxes. Try to fly a Union flag in the 26 Counties and see what happens, while Irish fifth columnists in Britain (Glasgow, Liverpool, etc.) have no fear of flying the Irish tricolour.
That shows the difference between freedom and lack of freedom!!
63.164.145.85 06:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I look out my back window to see a Muslim mosque, a Church of Ireland, and a Catholic church, I am brought back to reality to find out how wrong you are. Get a life, foreign flags shouldn't be flow except on embassys. People who fly them for other reasons are just asking for trouble. End of discussion.--Play Brian Moore 23:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, those riots actually occured in retrospective justification for the flaunting of the union flag by those British Rugby fans last year- They thought they could get away with it, but now, 12 months later they have felt our wrath. Apparently there was some sort of unionist march planned too - who knew?--Irishpunktom\talk 11:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Brilliant, well done.--Play Brian Moore 19:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Because the word tricolour in reference to a flag means it has three horizontal or vertical stripes of different colours about the same size and without any other markings, not just three colours. What exactly does this rant have to do with improving this article? - dharmabum 22:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The tricolour's colours and meanings are...
*Green - Irish/Nationalists/Republicans/Catholics.
*Gold/Orange - British/Unionists/Loyalist/Protestants.
*White - Either peace (yeah right...) between the two sides or else dividing the two sides.
There's why the flag is the way it is. Jvlm.123 07:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  A little note here- I guess Jvlm was trying to be diplomatic but there is no Gold in the Irish tricolour. The official colours from the flag staff are Green, White and  Orange. The word gold is used either for it's poetic qualities or, more often, by people who want to forget what the orange represents. Afn 18:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My (maternal) grandmother, who wasn't known for being tolerant, used the word Gold rather than Orange. Autarch 20:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  The origin of the tricolour is less than certain.  The popular story about the green representing nationalists, the orange representing 'Protestants' and the white being the 'peace' between the two was invented after the creation of the flag.  What is known is that the flag was based on the French tricolour, as per the French Revolution.  Other theories are that the green represented agriculture and the yellow represented wealth (or the hope for wealth).  Is it coincidence that the white and gold mirrors (literally) the flag of the Holy See? (see Flag of Vatican City).  Most of the older versions of the flag are distinctly yellow. --Mal 10:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh? Surely you're joking about having a similarity with the Vatican Flag! Autarch 20:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Have you seen the flag? --Mal 21:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  The Union Jack is the flag of the UK - not of any other country, though it is used in some other country's flags.  The RoI's flag is called a tricolour because it contains three solid blocks of colour.  Other tricolours include the French flag (on which the Irish tricolour was modelled), the Italian flag and the Belgian flag.  I'm not sure whether the same terminology applies to horizonally striped flags. --Mal 17:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume the Ivory Coast isn't the answer! ;-) Autarch 20:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2006 riots

message: From this edit by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com and this subsequent one from 65.88.88.45:
:However it should be pointed out that while FAIR may be sympathetic to loyalists, there are several organizations given respectability who deal ALMOST exclusively with Catholic victims (from innocent civilians to terrifyingly efficient bombers), such as Justice for the Forgotten, the Pat Finucane Center, and the Relatives for Justice who also make no distinctions between the nature and causes of death of the almost exclusively Roman Catholic "victims" whose memories they keep alive, while victims of republican groups, especially the PIRA who killed 50% of the total number of victims (around 1800 people) from the late 1960s until the original ceasefire of 1994, have few effective advocates. Peter King, a poweful U.S. Congressman who supporter the PIRA is now the head of the U.S. Subcommittee on Homeland Security. He claimed he was inspired to pursue the position because "friend and neighbors died on 9/11".
How much of the finer details of this are true or not, I haven't a clue, but two things are evident: the language of this piece is teeming with POV, and its content is almost entirely irrelevant to the subject of this article. --Kwekubo 02:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apparently at least one woman, from a Roman Catholic background, was with the Love Ulster parade. --Mal 17:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New paragraph 

message: An old idea came to mind when we saw the riots. Its a slight edit of something some bloke once said. 
"... while Ireland holds these graves, Ireland ... shall never be at peace."
So maybe its time to let them, and so much other baggage, go. 
Ever notice how in contrast to the rest of us, everyone in the graveyard votes the same?
Fergananim 11:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thought for the Day

message: According to this story in the Sunday Independent [], organized groups of football hooligans may have been involved in the riots.  Should this be added to the article?  Does anyone have more information on this?
--M.Lane 07:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Football hooligans? 

message: #Beta 21:13, 07 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep Pregnant Woman bit:

message: #St jimmy 13:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Get rid of Pregnant woman bit:

message: The details about this organisation in the background section are too lengthy (with a fair bit of posturing) - they should be put into a linked sub-article.--shtove 12:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Love Ulster background 

message: Hello, I like this article and look forward to all riots being covered like this, but I think it is a little POV or at least dominated by 1 view of things ie. angry provisonal CFC supporters storm loyal victims.  
2 quick examples; the images are all from 1 POV- behind police lines. Compare to this image of the Dublin EU riot 2004.  Although you will say there probably arent many images of the police baton charges for the 2006 riot. Fine. So why doesnt the word "baton" get a mention?  Nor any description of how the Guards moved the rioters on.  No mention of horses, dogs, helicopters, etc. either, examples (notice the flute bandmembers, I wonder what they were playing?). More pics of the marchers here, (which confirm the fireworks & petrol bomb theories).  Not much, if anything about the threat assessment the Guards made in allowing the parade to go ahead- its presented as an entirely natural decision to make, although try putting a march like this through Nationalist parts of the North and you would get the same result.
There are alternative views on the causes of the riot also. So far I see sectarianism and republican V unionist represented. See this article for a social analysis. Might be baIIs but again, the focus of the article is on northern political matters, while southern matters arent mentioned. Its framed in terms of "the troubles" with all the POV baggage that accompanies that.  I'm wondering why that POV is the only one currently appearing. Fluffy999 01:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Inserted a quote which shows the Orange Order is a sectarian organisation. --BigDunc 19:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed dubious tags 

message: 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://dailyireland.televisual.co.uk/home.tvt?_scope=DailyIreland/Content/News&id=24575&opp=1
** In February 2006 on 2011-03-19 04:29:00, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
** In 2006 Dublin riots on 2011-05-26 01:59:28, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
** In 2006 Dublin riots on 2011-06-13 17:04:22, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
--JeffGBot (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: 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.irishtimes.com/newspaper/front/2006/0227/2511352407HM1DUBLINLEAD.html
** In 2006 Dublin riots on 2011-05-26 01:59:50, 403 Forbidden
** In 2006 Dublin riots on 2011-06-13 17:04:29, 403 Forbidden
--JeffGBot (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: 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://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=174172318&p=y74y73xz4
** In 2006 Dublin riots on 2011-05-26 01:59:49, 404 Not Found
** In 2006 Dublin riots on 2011-06-13 17:04:41, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 3 

message: 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://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=173985228&p=y73985934&n=173985988
** In 2006 Dublin riots on 2011-05-26 01:59:49, 404 Not Found
** In 2006 Dublin riots on 2011-06-13 17:04:52, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 4 

message: I've remove the POV tag from 2006_Dublin_riots#Background. I've tweaked it a bit, added a ref, and removed dubious tags. Please use  for sentences, then detail issues here. This will help address them in a timely manner. - RoyBoy 17:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV removed