Talk:Free Derry

message: I think this article is highly POV. To say "equal voting rights did not exist" is technically inaccurate, although the system was generally considered to have been weighted in favour of the Protestant majority. I don't believe any of the civil rights associations were ever 'banned' by anyone, nor do I believe 'beaten on the streets' is reflective of the situation, not to mention that it is highly emotive language.
The first half of the article needs a rewrite that is more balanced... --Breadandcheese 17:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue mentioned above no longer appears to be present in the article, so I removed the NPOV banner. -- Hux 21:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: This is a massively important event in irish history , it needs to be expanded greatly (Gnevin 22:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding British is indeed entirely NPOV (although I suspect you meant to say POV). At the time we are talking about Northern Ireland was essentially self-governing and had its own Home Secretary and its own security forces, the (armed) Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Ulster Special Constabulary (B-Specials). The deployment of troops from the regular British Army, and the visit of Jim Callaghan, were the result of a decision by the British Government to get involved in Northern Ireland, which it had not done in the 40-odd years since the creation of the state. Also, in the case of the army, regardless of your POV it is essential for clarity to distinguish it from the Irish Republican Army. Scolaire 07:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should talk about Ireland, and not The Republic of Ireland - Northern Ireland is part of Ireland, hence the name- it's also part of the UK, but it's not strictly British in that it's not part of Great Britain. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 19:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massively Important  

message: I have edited and expanded the paragraph on the Samuel Devenny attack as the original text was written with a political slant and not in an encyclopedic way. In editeing and expanding it I have added the official documented statements of the reason why RUC officers decided to try and enter the property and what is alledged to have caused the resultant attack on the family. It is also wise to point out that officially Mr Devenny's death remains by natural causes and the statement in the article which used the term murder, while highly emotive, is not officially accurate. As an article wiki Free Derry is not supposed to present opinions on what happened as seems to have been the case in the Mr Devenny paragraph. Instead it can only present encyclopedic fact. While appreciating that the deaths of victims in the Northern Ireland troubles is, as stated before, highly emotive and often tinted by political opinion, within wiki it should remain purely factual.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.202.136.227 (talk • contribs).
:It's a well-written paragraph but, to be honest, I think there is way too much detail for this particular article. The death of Samuel Devenny, while it may have been one contributory factor in the building of barricades, was not in any way related to Free Derry per se.  Scolaire 14:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  That much detail would be good for an article about Mr. Devenny, or an article about that incident (especially in relation to the NICRA and the Civil Rights movement in general), but not in the Free Derry article.  In general, this article is in need of a great deal of work. ---TheoldanarchistComhrá 16:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The work has begun :-) Scolaire 18:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Samuel Devenny

message: I am moving the following paragraph to here. I have been unable to find any mention of the story elsewhere. It can be restored if a verifiable source is cited:
One major issue of the time was the inclusion of the Foyle Road area, which was considered to be approximately 25% Protestant. Some simply packed their bags and abandoned their homes in the hope of being given housing in the Waterside of the city but others, who owned their homes or held mortgages, were either unwilling or unable to leave. The action came to a head in January 1970 when members of the Provisional IRA burst into the dwellings of the remaining Protestants and issued them with a warning that if they did not leave within twelve hours they would be shot. The attacks infuriated the members of the Official IRA, many of whom had regarded the Protestants of the Foyle Road as neighbours and friends before the troubles. During the next day members of the Oficial IRA visited those who were still in their homes and assured them that no harm would come to them but that wider events had made their staying in Foyle Road impossible. Despite the dwindling power of the Official IRA the residents were protected from attack during a protracted negotiation with the council who between 1970 and 1976 compulsarily purchased the properties, for a fraction of their value, and rehoused the residents in the Waterside.
Scolaire 18:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take a look in Tim Pat Coogan's book, and see if he mentions this.  It sounds awfully damn speculative to me.  Good call, Scolaire. ---TheoldanarchistComhrá 16:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protestants in the Foyle Road

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 16:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: The Gay Pride story is now eight months old.  I'm moving it from its current place to a footnote, including the link to the BBC story.  It's definitely time that the pink wall pic was removed; it gives the impression that the article is about Gay Pride.  Scolaire (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the footnote as part of a copyedit, but it's still there.  Scolaire (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gay Pride

message: More to follow...
*Troops from 1 Para then moved into Free Derry and opened fire, killing thirteen people, all of whom were subsequently found to be unarmed
Perhaps include the death of the fourteenth somehow? I'm aware he was killed before 1 Para moved in. (Done. Scolaire (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Scolaire (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Very quick review

message: There is an automated peer review at Talk:Free Derry/Automated peer review.  Scolaire (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automated peer review 

message: I've semi-protected this article due to the roving IPs that are causing edit wars on non-consensus, non-referenced changes. Canterbury Tail talk 23:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, a good decision considering the editor's first edit after a 55 hour block was to make the same edit that got them blocked to begin with. Given this edit included "The regular dole queues outside the Crown Buildings at Asylum Road however were testament to the willingness of these same people to take the British Pound irrespective of their political beliefs" which is unsourced and grossly point of view, it seems the editor is unwilling to make their edits conform to policy despite warnings and blocks. O Fenian (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected 

message: Obviously, "It has always had a majority nationalist population" was wrong, and needed to be corrected.  I have some issues, though, with the current version.  Firstly, and most importantly, "nationalist majority" has been changed to "Catholic majority".  This article has consistently made the point that communal strife in Derry was based on the opposition of nationalist residents to the unionist system and was not religious in nature, and of course one of the key figures in the 1969 Free Derry was a Protestant, Ivan Cooper.  Secondly, the insertion of details about the 1920 election and Hugh O'Doherty's election as mayor breaks the connection between the nationalist majority among the population and the unionist majority on the corporation, making the paragraph difficult to follow.  I propose to edit the paragraph as follows:
*Derry City lies on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.  It has a majority nationalist population, and nationalists won a majority of seats in the 1920 local elections.  Despite this, the Ulster Unionist Party had a  majority on the local council, Londonderry Corporation, from 1923 onwards.[1] The Unionists maintained their majority...
Any objections?  Scolaire (talk) 10:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I only changed it to "Catholic majority" to match the source I added. O Fenian (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I realise that.  That's why I would rather not cite that source, nor make reference to the 19th century, since it is not directly relevant to the point being made.  BTW, my reference [1] is to the Museum of Free Derry website cited by Valenciano.  Scolaire (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that "the Ulster Unionist Party won a  majority of seats" would be more accurate. Few would dispute the fact that gerrymandering led to the Unionist majority on the council for most of the period. Valenciano (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point.  But can you think of a wording that would avoid using the identical phrase "won a majority of seats" in successive sentences?  How about "the Ulster Unionist Party controlled the local council, Londonderry Corporation, from 1923 onwards"?  Scolaire (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Comments on these edits. The term "gerrymandering" is used by many people, so to try and portray it as a nationalist term without any evidence to support that is incorrect. Secondly what Whyte has to say about the Parliament of Northern Ireland electoral boundaries is wholly irrelevant to Derry's council election boundaries. Indeed, Whyte's conclusion is "Charges that parliamentary constituencies were gerrymandered against the nationalists have only slight validity, whatever other criticisms might be made of the effects of abolishing PR. The peculiarities of local government franchise were also of little effect. But when it comes to gerrymandering of local government boundaries, criticism is much more firmly based. Nationalists were manipulated out of control in a number of councils where they had a majority of electors. This is one of the clearest areas of discrimination in the whole field of controversy." So Whyte does not disagree at all! O Fenian (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some comments on recent edits 

message: Lets consider my edit to...Free Derry () was an illegal self-declared autonomous nationalist area of Derry, County Londonderry, Northern Ireland, between 1969 and 1972. 
Free Derry was an illegal entity. Civil disobedience, street violence towards the legitimate autorities, threats, intimidation and evictions for anyone who opposed the situation was the order of the day. This was a no-go zone for the Police and British Army for much time because of the level of violence being generated by those whose wishes they wanted to impose on everyone else regardless of their religion and creed.
The city lies in the County Londonderry, it is quite correct to add this label. Please discuss if you can.  --The Maiden City (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Prove it. O Fenian (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Prove it. O Fenian (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

text: That does not support your assertions, and is not a reliable source. O Fenian (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

text: That does not prove Free Derry was itself illegal. O Fenian (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

text: If you want to add the word illegal, the burden of evidence is on you to prove it. Do you have reliable sources that prove it? I will not reply to any further messages regarding this unless you provide reliable sources. O Fenian (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Free Derry was an illegal entity...... 

message: Lets consider my edit.....It currently has a majority nationalist population. The nationalists first won a majority of seats in the 1920 local elections. Despite this, the Ulster Unionist Party regained control of the local council, Londonderry Corporation, from 1923 onwards.
This is fact, the city did not always have a majority Nationalist population, we have already had this argument apparently. The rest of the edit is proper English paragraphing wit no content changes.  Please discuss if you can.  --The Maiden City (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:DATED. O Fenian (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I disagree. O Fenian (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Currently has a majority  Nationalist population 

message: Lets consider my edit.....1. legally redrawing the constituency boundaries, refered to by Nationalists as gerrymandering, ensuring that the South Ward, with a nationalist majority, returned eight councillors while the much smaller North Ward and Waterside Ward, with unionist majorities, returned twelve councillors between them. The term gerrymandering is commonly used by Republicans and Nationalists to support their views on Northern Ireland election results. Many noted geographers and historians including Professor John H. Whyte have disagreed http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/discrimination/whyte.htmhttp://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/hnihoc.htm. They have argued that the electoral boundaries for the Parliament of Northern Ireland were not gerrymandered to a greater level than that produced by any single-winner election system, and that the actual number of Nationalist MPs barely changed under the revised system.
The term legally has been inserted to show to the reader that this was not some illegal method used by the Unionist Authorities. They were entitled to use any legal means at their disposal and did so.
The phrase refered to by Nationalists as gerrymandering has been inserted to show the reader that this term is unique to Catholics and Nationalists in Northern Ireland. No self-respecting Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist would ever refer to such a term or accept that it ever applied to them.
The phrase The term gerrymandering is commonly used by Republicans and Nationalists to support their views on Northern Ireland election results has been added to show the reader that only Republicans/Nationalists complain of such activity. Maybe they should consider the fact that the Catholic vote was split between the SDLP and Sinn Féin which accounted for some lost seats in the elections.
The comment Many noted geographers and historians including Professor John H. Whyte have disagreed http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/discrimination/whyte.htmhttp://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/hnihoc.htm. They have argued that the electoral boundaries for the Parliament of Northern Ireland were not gerrymandered to a greater level than that produced by any single-winner election system, and that the actual number of Nationalist MPs barely changed under the revised system gives the reader confirmation that the so-called gerrymander effect wasn't all that it was supposed to be.  --The Maiden City (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That Unionists would not use the term to describe what they did is irrelevant, the term is used by countless independent sources from Paul Bew to Conor Cruise O'Brien to Marc Mulholland to Ruth Dudley Edwards to name several who are not nationalists or republicans. That is was legal is not relevant, there is no need for the word to be inserted in every article any time something controversial is mentioned, the absence of the word "illegal" is sufficient.
Oh but there is because your edit implies that it was an illegal act intended to disenfranchise the Catholics. Any stramnger to NI politics would not necessarily know that it was a legal act.  --The Maiden City (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I ask the same question I asked earlier. What has Whyte's analysis of Northern Ireland Parliament electoral boundaries got to do with the Derry council electoral electoral boundaries, especially when his conclusions regarding the two are different? This article is not about gerrymandering in general but about Derry, so irrelevant information about other electoral boundaries does not belong here. O Fenian (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Except that the bigger picture is not relevant to this particular incidence of gerrymandering, and Whyte does not disagree at all. He says "But when it comes to gerrymandering of local government boundaries, criticism is much more firmly based. Nationalists were manipulated out of control in a number of councils where they had a majority of electors. This is one of the clearest areas of discrimination in the whole field of controversy" and "Yet unionists won back control under the ward division imposed in 1923, and when, after some years, it looked as if the nationalists might capture one of the unionist wards, the boundaries were redrawn so as to perpetuate unionist rule". Also, who are the "Many noted geographers and historians"? Name them please, if you assert that sentence is true. O Fenian (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial terminology 

message: I see there have been multiple attempts by an editor to claim the sentence "Both IRA's were asked, and agreed, to suspend operations on that day to ensure the march passed off peacefully" is contradicted by Saville, this is not the case. Saville found the British Army fired first, contradicting the long-held belief that the first shot was fired by an Official IRA sniper acting against orders, someone who was immediately told to stop firing from memory. That one or both IRAs opened fire *after* the British Army started stooting people has no bearing on the sentence in question. They were asked to suspend operations so the match could pass off peacefully, they agreed to do so, and when the British Army started shooting people (ie - when the chance of the march passing off peacefully had vanished) they returned fire. No contradiction there, although I will say the article could possibly benefit from a sentence explaining that the IRA did open fire after the British Army.... 2 lines of K303 11:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: December 2011 edits

message: I don't know when those "former country" and "states and territories" categories were added. They didn't do any great harm, but the former country infobox is inappropriate. Free Derry wasn't a country. It didn't have a declaration of independence, it didn't have a government and it didn't have a capital (how could a section of a city have a city for a capital?). I am removing the infobox, and I don't think it needs to be replaced with anything. I am replacing the cats with "establishments" and "disestablishments" for the moment. If anybody knows of an appropriate cat for no-go areas, that would be better.  Scolaire (talk) 07:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It truly never was a "country" but I used the infobox because I believed it was the best for the job. The capital thing was useless but was unfortunately required by the infobox. It did have a quasi government that mainly consisted of a council and patrols. I would recommend this page having an infobox of some sort. The purpose of an infobox is to have a quick summary of an article and I believe this lengthy article could use an infobox. Perhaps instead of a "former country" infobox we could use Template:Infobox former subdivision, or Template:Infobox UK place? Mangokeylime (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, I don't believe this article would benefit from an infobox. A proper country article, United States for example, has sections for geography, demographics (including languages), government etc. An infobox summarises this information from the article. This article doesn't have this kind of information. There is no infobox designed to summarise an article like this, because the article is essentially a chronology. Looking for an infobox to shoehorn into it is not the right way to go. Not all articles need infoboxes. For what it's worth, I think this also applies to articles such as Revolutionary Catalonia. However, I'm not going to meddle in articles I'm not already involved in.  Scolaire (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: My final idea for an infobox would perhaps be the Template:Infobox military conflict. As you said this article mainly defines the events of Free Derry, not the actual territory, the conflict box is better fit for that. This article incredibly resembles the Paris Commune article, both are about the events of a rebel area, and the Commune article uses the Template:Infobox military conflict infobox. If you don't like that idea then lets just leave out the infobox. Also, if you want you could bring this issue up in the Revolutionary Catalonia article, you do have a case that should be heard.Mangokeylime (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I remember looking at the Paris Commune article before, thinking it would be similar, and being disappointed that I couldn't use any of the cats. I'd say I ruled out the infobox at the same time. Again, unlike the Paris Commune where battalions of French Army and National Guard fought military engagements, Free Derry was initially ordinary citizens holding barricades against a civil police force, and the British Army, when it came to Derry, took no action against the enclave until the very last day, when it launched Operation Motorman (I wouldn't count Bloody Sunday). Even the third manifestation of Free Derry (1971-2), when the two IRAs were involved, doesn't fit the bill. I just don't think this is an article that lends itself to an infobox. Thank you for trying, though, and for a useful talk page discussion.  Scolaire (talk) 08:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former country infobox 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Free Derry. 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/20100325074037/http://www.museumoffreederry.org:80/history-bogside01.html to http://www.museumoffreederry.org/history-bogside01.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150731031114/http://www.museumoffreederry.org:80/history-battle01.html to http://www.museumoffreederry.org/history-battle01.html
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) 07:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Free Derry. 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/20070630143958/http://www.museumoffreederry.org/introduction.html to http://www.museumoffreederry.org/introduction.html
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) 12:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified