Talk:History of the Orange Order

message: The article Daniel Winter is a pathetic sub-stub.
Would someone like to check it over and see whether it can be expanded?  If not, it should just be redirected to this article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daniel Winter 

message: The line, "...who were to reorganise under a new name, the Orange Society" makes little sense in a page about the said society!
The Peep O' Day Boys never reorganised under a new name. They were undoubtedly present at the Battle of the Diamond, but they continued their activities after that event under the same name. Have references for this if needs be.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corvus cornix 1958 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be helpful if you are adding content could you please supply sources to back up your edits thanks. BigDuncTalk 19:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Peep O' Day Boys

message: I've removed the line about Presbyterians being allowed to join in 1834. Presbyterians were in the OO from the very beginning. James Wilson's Orange Boys society was predominantly Presbyterian.
Will put in a referenced line regarding this somewhere else.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corvus cornix 1958 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Presbyterian involvement

message: I've added some referenced text, and tried to put the section in some kind of order. This reference here I don't think could be considered a WP:RS at all and have removed it. I'll put some more detailed referenced text together, and with the possibility of differences among sources such all text be attributed. --Domer48'fenian' 20:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Formation

message: Somebody has added a lot of nonsense about the United Irish lowering sectarian tensions in Ulster which I'm afraid is romantic nationalist tripe. I have plenty more sources (A.T.Q. Stewart, J. Bardon to briefly name two) which would tear this argument to shreds, but I don't believe it has anything to do with the Formation of the Orange Order which is the point of the sub-section. Then there's a lot more nonsense from one author T.A. Jackson. I don't see how this fits in with the page when I have given three sources which directly contradict the biased view of Jackson.--Corvus cornix 1958 (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Coming from an editor who can't even work out who added the text, the claims of "Nonsense" and "romantic nationalist tripe" makes one feel like one has been savaged by a blind toothless hamster. As to tearing arguments to shreds, please tear away, I enjoy sourcing references to contradict puerile and biased views. Since Jackson’s views have not been directly contradicted however, I'll need a bit more motivation before I add them. Not believing that the United Irishmen lowering sectarian tensions in Ulster had anything to do with the "Formation of the Orange Order" while showing a profound lack of knowledge, or even a basic understanding, this ignorance can not be considered a mitigating factor to use terms like "romantic nationalist tripe" to describe either an Editor or Author unless supported by references. Having tried to change a source by Jackson to support your opinion, and tried to remove the opinion of another noted Author , , , , I hope this is not how you will attempt to tear this argument to shreds. --Domer48'fenian' 13:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Nonsense

message: Since both William Blacker, Robert Hugh Wallace are authors of The formation of the Orange Order, 1795-1798 published by the Education Committee of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland, for correct attribution we need to know which one said what. At the moment we are using Wallace because of the misleading reference since corrected, but we need now the correct attribution. Since William Blacker, Robert Hugh Wallace and  Ruth Dudley Edwards can hardly be described as impartial, were a third party source such as Mervyn Jess is available I'll remove the others. --Domer48'fenian' 16:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with your assement dubious and biased sources have been used and at most attributed or at least removed. BigDuncTalk 16:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct attribution 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of the Orange Institution. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20120204232813/http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Home_RuleThe_Elections_of_1885__1886 to http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Home_RuleThe_Elections_of_1885__1886
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified