Talk:The Troubles (Ireland)

we have a problem

Please start with the mid 20th century--we already have histories of Ireland-- and give the why-when-why summary first

I think of "the troubles" as one event (with multiple episodes) with the name "Irish Troubles". Hence the singular. This seems to be reinforced by a discrete beginning and end. Thus in one journal "Over the last three decades the Irish Troubles as by-product has inspired an enormous library—instant history, social science tracts, memoirs, collections..." Richard Jensen 19:06, 13 January 2008 (CST)

I certainly agree with you that it should be considered as one event. I can't put my hands on a really definitive source one way or the other. My 1941 EB devotes many pages to the "civil war" beginning about 1920 but doesn't use the word "Troubles" at all. To me it simply *looks* strange to use a singular for a clearly plural word. As you may recall, in American English, Charley Dressen's old declaration, "The Giants is dead!" is frequently brought up, but only to say that the plural should be used. On the other hand, in British English, it is said that "the govenment are about to take action....etc." So I'll go along with whatever other people decide to do....Hayford Peirce 20:22, 13 January 2008 (CST)

I agree it's a puzzle (or they are a puzzle). Richard Jensen 20:38, 13 January 2008 (CST)

The plan I was running with was a brief outline of the first English involvement on the island (IE, the Anglo Normans) then move on to the Ulster Plantations, and how the Protestant Ulster Scots community got there, then I would fast forward to the details mentioned in the Ulster Unionism article.

At most, the origins section would contain around three paragraphs of historical context. Denis Cavanagh 06:10, 14 January 2008 (CST)

Denis--This is part of a multiple-article series on Ireland and Northern Ireland. This one should deal only with the late 20th century. I recall Bill Buckley's story of his visit to Belfast. He was told, "Everyone here is Catholic or Protestant." Buckley snapped, "surely there must be athiests in Belfast." "Oh yes, but they are either Catholic athiests or Protestant athiests." Richard Jensen 06:49, 14 January 2008 (CST)

Yes, thats a good one! Another joke I've heard is when a man was corned on a street by three men, one of them was lurking in the shadows. He was asked 'Are you Catholic or Protestant?'. The man thought for a second and outsmarted them. 'I'm neither. I'm Jewish'. Out of the shadows came a Muslim man saying 'I must be the luckiest man in Belfast'

Anyway, I'm not sure on how to write the origins section without mentioning the Ulster Plantation, Strongbow and the Anglo Irish war. Denis Cavanagh 07:03, 14 January 2008 (CST)

Good joke! the solution re origins is to just put in links to the other articles. To assume there are 150 year old causes for fights today is pretty strong, let alone 500 or 800 year old links. The Irish Catholics, for example, fought each other (Irish Civil War in 1920s) much harder than they ever fought the Protestants. (see Michael Collins). Richard Jensen 07:15, 14 January 2008 (CST)

Hmm - we need a Terminolgy section - or article... the Civil War was not Catholic vs. Catholic exclusively, but moreso Republican vs Nationalist (both of those should have an 'Irish' in front of them to distinguish from international norms for those words :P ). This should cover the difference between Republican, Nationalist, Loyalist and Unionist, etc., and outline that although in the main Republicans and Nationalists are Catholic (or at least nominally so) and Loyalists and Unionists are Protestant (or at least nominally so), this is not always the case and cannot be assumed. The first president of Ireland, Douglas Hyde, for example, was Protestant, as were many prominent rebel leaders in the preceding centuries.

As regards this article, I broadly agree that it should concentrate on the last few decades, 1969 on. The lede can allude to the ancient origins of the conflict and link to other appropriate articles, with further links included in the Related Articles subpage. Denis - I don't think what you had written here on McMurrough et al is covered anywhere else yet? Maybe take it from the page history and put it on a new Ireland, history page? Anton Sweeney 08:25, 14 January 2008 (CST)

Anton was right about Protestant nationalists in 1920s but my statement that Catholics spent more energy (in 1916-23) fighting Catholics was also correct. In any case we're chatting here, not inserting stuff in the article. Richard Jensen 13:33, 14 January 2008 (CST)

'Irish' is taken as understood

I think this should be moved to The Troubles. I have never heard the expression with 'Irish' in it. (I was a teenager living in London when they began.) Ro Thorpe 17:52, 14 January 2008 (CST)

well it's understood if you're in the UK. But "the troubles" is used for long-term systemic violence in other countries too (like Beirut [1]); Kansas in the 1850s [2]; cities in the Protestant Reformation at [3] and colonial American Indians wars (William Hubbard, Narrative of the Troubles with the Indians of New England (Boston, 1677). Richard Jensen 18:08, 14 January 2008 (CST)

Ah, I didn't know that. So how about The Troubles, Ireland, then? Ro Thorpe 18:45, 14 January 2008 (CST)

that works :) Richard Jensen 20:26, 14 January 2008 (CST)

Good, I'll move it forthwith - Ro Thorpe 01:37, 15 January 2008 (CST)

The problem is that you're using a comma when you should use parentheses. We use parentheses, not commas, to clarify and disambiguate; commas are used for that only with place names. So, for example: Paris, France. But: Paris (Greek hero). Hence, to be in keeping with our Naming Conventions, this should be written: The Troubles (Ireland). --Larry Sanger 10:01, 15 January 2008 (CST)

Indeed, I wasn't sure which to use - Ro Thorpe 11:15, 15 January 2008 (CST)

The Troubles (Ireland) is right, I think. Denis Cavanagh 16:14, 15 January 2008 (CST)

Proposed outline

I can see two possible ways of covering the topic in the detail it needs. Either 1) a timeline, outlining everything in chronological order; or 2) breaking it down into topics (a possible outline below). There may be a better way than either of these!

Topics:

• Another (longer) paragraph on background, especially covering the immediate runup to the outbreak of the Troubles.

New sections covering:

• The principal protagonists
  • Unionists and Loyalists

Political parties and paramilitary organisations

• • Nationalists and Republicans

Political parties and paramilitary organisations

• • British/Crown forces

RUC, British Army, UDR

• Major acts of violence

The major violent events - Bloody Sunday up through the various major bombings/killings

• Major acts of violence outside Northern Ireland

Dublin/Monaghan bombings, Birmingham, Guildford, Woolwich, Brighton, Canary Wharf, West Germany, etc.

• Other significant events

Hunger strikes, the Peace People, Drumcree, etc.

• Political events

Timeline of political events related to the Troubles during the period

• The peace process

Ceasefires, Good Friday Agreement, Decomissioning Body, Stormont I, suspension, Stormont II

Thoughts? Anton Sweeney 17:59, 16 January 2008 (CST)

outline looks good. I tend to favor topic (rather than straight chonology) in this case. Richard Jensen 18:01, 16 January 2008 (CST)

I made a start at trying to get a chronological sequence of the Civil Rights movement up and going. I like this idea better though Anton. P.S- Should we go much into detail on the Civil Rights movement, or should that be included in the origins section? The Battle of the Bogside may be the start of the Troubles itself, but it was a result of the Civil Rights movement. Denis Cavanagh 16:20, 18 January 2008 (CST)

Stroke City?

Although strictly this is a PR issue, what exactly should we call Derry? I'll be six feet under the ground before I call it Londonderry. Denis Cavanagh 16:18, 18 January 2008 (CST)