Talk:Unionism in the United Kingdom

message: What is the origin of all these books? The Further Reading section is almost as long as the article itself. Indeed, when they were first added, it actually was longer.
Can someone explain why these books were chosen as suggested further reading, esp. when the article itself remains essentially unwritten? --RA (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources are mostly sources that cover in detail the history of unionism, as opposed to many other books which are more general history of the politics of Britain/Ireland/etc. Several of them I am familiar with, but most I have not yet read; I'm trying to source books from my local library now to fill out more sections of this article; I am using a snowball approach, i.e. finding key sources and then seeing what sources those sources used. Your help is appreciated - I do hope that many of those sources will eventually turn into references instead of further reading, but for now the section is useful. --KarlB (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. But can we really recommend books as Further Reading if we have not read them? --RA (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have other good sources that you're familiar with, please add them - this is a complex area so the more help the better.--KarlB (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

text: For example, the Kanter book I selected in part because of this review, but still haven't found a copy. But I think it's particularly germane to this article, which should cover the unionist sentiments in the UK (or proto-UK), and especially england/Wales/etc since Scotland and Ireland which will be more deeply covered in the other articles --> "In this book Douglas Kanter charts the emergence of a unionist consensus in Britain between 1740 and 1848, and in so doing challenges the common assumption that this had already been achieved (at least on the mainland) by 1800. In following this line Kanter makes a major contribution, as coverage of British, as opposed to Irish, political and public opinion on the union has been limited."  --KarlB (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Further reading section

message: From your history here you are more than familiar with the way Wikipedia works.  You inserted a broad statement without any supporting references and it was reverted.  That means you have to go to the talk page to make a case.   In fact, although there was collusion between Unionist paramilitaries and some parts of the British security forces that is not the same thing as saying they were engaged in a joint campaign.  If you really think you have a point make the case on the talk page and I will respond there.
''
The above comment was posted on Gob Lofa's talk page by me and reposed here by him.  I've reformatted and added this comment to avoid any confusion. ----Snowded TALK 08:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say "they were engaged in a joint campaign", I pointed out they had a common enemy. Stop putting words in my keyboard. Gob Lofa (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Its how it read and the error is compounded by talking about a 'common enemy' ----Snowded TALK 07:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly didn't read it that way. What error? You don't believe they had a common enemy in the Provisional IRA? Gob Lofa (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

text: I've clearly explained it above and you don't have (nor will you find) a reliable source which supports your wording. ----Snowded TALK 21:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid you're being far from clear and you've completely avoided my second question. There's no shortage of reliable sources which can answer it for you. If it's the wording that's your problem, why didn't you reword it instead of blanking it? Gob Lofa (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The suggested wording - "....state security forces and unionist paramilitaries fought a bitter conflict against  Irish republicans" - is, at best, a gross over-simplification of a complex situation, clearly open to misinterpretation, and utterly unhelpful.  It should not be included.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I consider the suggested blanking unhelpful. What wording would you suggest? Gob Lofa (talk) 08:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: None.  Better left to the linked articles.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not easy to link from blanked text. Here's the text before I edited it: "During these conflicts, unionist paramilitaries waged a violent campaign against republicans and the Catholic community." You see the problem: the biggest armed group had been excluded. Gob Lofa (talk) 10:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph already links to Unionism in Ireland.  There is scope, perhaps, for a link from this article to the article on Ulster loyalism (possibly under "See also"), but not for a link to a subsection of that article, and especially not using the misleading language that you suggested.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The British army and paramilitary efforts were the greatest expression of armed unionism in the 20th century. I'm not sure I can agree to a total blanking of these efforts. If you believed the language was misleading, you could propose an alternative version. Gob Lofa (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The current phrasing is more than adequate.  There is no obligation on other editors to propose an alternative to a misleading text inserted by another ----Snowded TALK 07:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not adequate enough to cover armed unionism, in fact it glosses right over it. I don't agree it's misleading and I didn't insert it, I altered text inserted by another. Even though there was no obligation on me to do so. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, its still wrong.  Please do not insert again until you have consensus----Snowded TALK 03:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unionism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Unionism in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140913063536/http://www.georgianewsday.com/news/regional/288603-7-in-10-english-want-scots-to-remain-part-of-the-uk%2C-reveals-mail-poll.html to http://www.georgianewsday.com/news/regional/288603-7-in-10-english-want-scots-to-remain-part-of-the-uk,-reveals-mail-poll.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified