Talk:1981 Irish hunger strike/Archive 1

message: "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)
thread_title:  older entries 

message: 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)
thread_title:  People's Democracy is Trotskyist? 

message: 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)
replies: text:  I moved this today as suggested above. beano 15:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename this entry 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Infoboxes 

message: '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)
thread_title:  TD 

message: I suggest we merge this stub on a hunger striker into the main article. Astrotrain 13:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[Paddy Quinn (Irish republican)]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Good. It passes. Daniel Case 04:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Hold

message: 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)
replies: text: Good points, mostly.  My intention was simply to make the article more easily readable - 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, BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: 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)
thread_title: Bonfires

message: Try reading this  Hungerstrikes are not sucide.--padraig 21:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Atstrotrain

message: 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)
replies: text: Done. Any more info, just ask. One Night In Hackney303 21:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Force-feeding]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Contrived Title 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Dirty Protest

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Outcome in introduction

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Why were the men convicted in the first place? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Tables

message: 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)
replies: text: OC is in full and linked right at the start of the previous section. One Night In Hackney303 12:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's an OC? 

message: 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)
replies: text: The event is called the "Irish hunger strike", just a few examples -           . And that's not even taking into account the offline sources. The participants were Irish, and internationally recognised as Irish. One Night In Hackney</span>]]303 17:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: '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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Article name, request for Arbitration

message: 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)
thread_title:  Doctor to the hunger strikers. 

message: 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. BigDuncTalk 15:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 18:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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). BastunBaStun not BaTsun 18:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. BigDuncTalk 18:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Genuine lol here.  Do you also think irony is a metal like goldy and bronzey? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 19:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent removal 

message: 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:
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)
replies: text: I've no objections to removing them tbh. For what it's worth! :P GiollaUidir (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to remove date-autoformatting 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  References section 

message: 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)
replies: text: Its very relevent and including it makes the article (slightly) less biased. 213.40.119.11 (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How so? GiollaUidir (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Totally disagree the table adds nothing to the article each prisoner have their own article and readers can follow links to find out more. BigDuncTalk 00:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Convictions column in table 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Title okay? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: O Fenian edit-warring on special category status

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: The reference does include a link to jstor.org, look at the end. Stu ’Bout ye! 22:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Whose post are you supposed to be replying to here? Because it certainly isn't mine. MickMacNee (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: No need to state the obvious

message: 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)
replies: text: Amended one sentence to word better. Thanks. 2 lines of K303 14:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Irish Republican

message: 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)
thread_title:  Irish/Northern Irish Hunger Strike? 

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.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)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: 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)
thread_title: This still is an encyclopedia right?

message: 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)
thread_title:  A clear guideline 

message: 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)
thread_title:  4 July 1981 Brittish Concessions