Talk:Timeline of the Troubles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a timeline[edit]

How about a page move to Timeline of the Northern Ireland Troubles? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why.. is that a standard naming convention? --Mal 20:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derry shootings[edit]

Why haven't the shooting of the PSNI officer outside the school in Derry by the RIRA in 2008 been added to the timeline? --193.61.159.26 (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because we have to be consistent with what we consider a "major incident". In the 1970s and 1980s there were RUC officers being shot every other day. ~Asarlaí 18:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So why is the RPG attack in Fermanagh included? Whats the difference between and RPG injuring PSNI and a shotgun injuring them? --193.61.159.26 (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dates[edit]

Superfopp can you cite some source(s) for the dates (see The Troubles)Wgh001 (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The citations can be found on the main article and in the 1968 section, but I'll include them in the introduction too. ~Asarlaí 16:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1960s[edit]

The lead says that "The duration of the Troubles is conventionally dated from the riots of 1968 ...". Why, then, are events prior to the riots of 1968 included in the chronology? The chronology should surely begin with the Derry riots of 1968. Mooretwin (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because they're directly related to the beginning of the Troubles – the formation of the UVF and start of the civil rights protests. It's perfectly fine to have a bit of background info. ~Asarlaí 17:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Background info should be in the lead: not the actual chronology. In fact, it should be in the main Troubles article. If they're in the "chronology of the Troubles" then, by definition, they must have been part of the Troubles. Mooretwin (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well if we use that logic then everything after 1998 should be removed. No sections should be removed from this article unless there is a consensus to do so. ~Asarlaí 23:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps they should. But then the lead leaves open the possibility that the Troubles continue after 1998. Mooretwin (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction explains that 1968-1998 is the majority opinion. This means that some people believe the Troubles began before 1968 and continued after 1998. Therefore, this chronology includes significant events before and after that period. ~Asarlaí 23:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So why not include events before 1966, such as the end of the IRA border campaign? Mooretwin (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because nobody believes that the Troubles began with the end of the Border Campaign. ~Asarlaí 23:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who believes they began with the 1966 UVF murders? Mooretwin (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously some people do. It was the start of sporadic sectarian killings by a paramilitary group. There's more info and citations on The Troubles and Talk:The Troubles. I think that'd be a better place to debate this. ~Asarlaí 23:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BBC, various authors including Peter Taylor, Tim Pat Coogan, Ian S. Wood (author of "Crimes of loyalty: a history of the UDA"), "Lost Lives" begins with Scullion, I am sure there are some others if I check. It seems odd that we're going up to 2009 without sources for the Troubles still going on, yet we were excluding pre-1968/9 when there are many reliable sources that consider 1966 to be when it began. O Fenian (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some authors, however, (possibly most) believe that the Troubles began in 1968 or 1969. To have 1966 as the starting point here is to side with that particular POV. Mooretwin (talk) 12:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 and so on[edit]

If these events are to be included, this article should be moved back to Chronology of the Northern Ireland Troubles and Peace Process. Where are the sources that say the 2009 events are part of the Troubles? There are none. This article currently consists of nothing more than editors' opinons that the Troubles are still going on in 2009, if it is moved back to the other title all the problems are solved immediately. I should also add that just because the majority view that the Troubles ended in 1998 does not necessarily mean a view exists that they are still going on in 2009, that is a logical fallacy. Others would date the end to a different time, such as 2005 when the IRA formally called an end to their armed campaign, or when devolved government was restored to Northern Ireland. O Fenian (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible, however, that some do consider the Troubles to be ongoing. We just don't have the references yet. Mooretwin (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another problem is - do we have a source to say that the peace process is still ongoing? If the Troubles are over then surely the peace process must also be over. If the peace process is not over, then how can the Troubles be said to be over? Mooretwin (talk) 12:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many sources are calling the latest incidents an attack on the peace process. The peace process began during the Troubles, yet continued after the generally accepted end of the Troubles. O Fenian (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what is the peace process if not a process to achieve peace? If the process is still ongoing then peace cannot have been achieved. If peace has not been achieved then the Troubles are not over. Mooretwin (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The troubles are considered over since 98, see the refs on page, this page should go back to Chronology of the Northern Ireland Troubles and Peace Process Gnevin (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone considers them over since 98. Mooretwin (talk) 01:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're still presenting a logical fallacy. Sources that say most people consider the Troubles ended in 1998 do not mean that people consider the Troubles to still be going on in 2009. O Fenian (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a logical fallacy if I were saying "because some people do not consider the Troubles ended in 1998, therefore some people must consider the Troubles to be continuing in 2009". I am, however, not saying that. I am saying (a) it is possible that some people consider the Troubles to be continuing in 2009, and (b) if people are saying the peace process is still ongoing then, logically, so must the Troubles, because the peace process was designed to bring an end to the Troubles. Mooretwin (talk) 09:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Put it this way , My 3 WP:RS out weigh your none . Also the Troubles and the peace process can and did run side by side. This article and Northern Ireland peace process should possibly be merged Gnevin (talk) 10:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the Troubles and peace process ran side-by-side! That is my point: if the latter is still ongoing, then so too is the former. Mooretwin (talk) 11:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you support a merge ? Gnevin (talk) 11:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, because the peace process is part of the Troubles: not distinct from them. Therefore the construction "Troubles and peace process" doesn't make logical sense. Mooretwin (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it makes sense. It's part of it but a distinct branch just as the Civil rights is part of the troubles but a distinct branch Gnevin (talk) 11:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a distinct branch of the Troubles then it is not distinct from the Troubles and so the construction Troubles and peace process does not make logical sense. Civil rights as an issue, however, is not confined to, or dependent on, the Troubles, although it is connected to them. Mooretwin (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless sources are provided for the inclusion of events past the generally accepted end of the Troubles, I am moving this page tomorrow. O Fenian (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody has provided sources or disagreed despite plenty of advance notice, I have moved this page. O Fenian (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the Troubles are over, then how can the peace process still be happening? This makes no sense. Mooretwin (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that the violence and the politics are linked to each-other, but surely there should be one article focusing on the violence and one focusing on the peace process. This article is a chronology of the violence (mentioning the politics where necessary), while Northern Ireland peace process is a chronology of the politics (mentioning the violence where necessary).
Therefore, I propose we rename this article and avoid using the terms "Troubles" or "Peace Process". The name I suggest is "Chronology of the Northern Ireland conflict". The introduction can explain that it's a chronology of the violence (mentioning the politics where necessary) from the late 1960s to the present.
Opinions? ~Asarlaí 00:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the Troubles are over, then the conflict is over, and so that title also makes no sense. Mooretwin (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the conflict isn't over. Republican and loyalist paramilitaries are still active, as the main article notes. "The Troubles" was the period when the violence was most serious and sustained. ~Asarlaí 23:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the source that the Troubles "was the period when the violence was most serious and sustained". If the Troubles are over, then the peace process is over, since the raison d'etre of the peace process was to end the Troubles. Mooretwin (talk) 08:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "Northern Ireland conflict" did not begin in the late 1960s though. I have no objection to this article going back to just "Troubles", however if that happens then the recent non-Troubles information has to be removed from the article. O Fenian (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're not dealing with the logical fallacy of your own preferred title. Personally, I have no difficulty with the title "Troubles" remaining, and the chronology continuing until the present, because I think it is arguable that the Troubles are still ongoing. If, however, the Troubles are considered to have ended, then our problem is that there is no adequate description for the violent events that have continued after their end. Mooretwin (talk) 09:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which reliable sources have argued the Troubles are still ongoing? O Fenian (talk) 10:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. I'm unaware, however, of any consensus as to when they ended, if they have ended at all. Why do you ask? Mooretwin (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You claim it is argued the Troubles are ongoing. I ask which reliable sources are arguing that. You answer "I don't know". So I can only assume it is your own argument that the Troubles are ongoing, and is therefore not relevant to this discussion. O Fenian (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't "claim it is argued": I said I thought it was arguable. The point is that you're not dealing with the logical fallacy of your proposed title: if the Troubles are over (as you say), then so too is the peace process. Therefore adding "and peace process" to the title no more justifies the inclusion of post-Troubles events than does the previous title without "and peace process". Mooretwin (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be the only person incapable of realising that although the peace process began during the Troubles, it is a distinct process that is continuing after the Troubles have finished. People have explained this more than once but you keep ignoring it, please do not do so again. O Fenian (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's simple logic. The purpose of the peace process was to end the Troubles (it even says so on the Northern Ireland peace process article (which, incidentally, cites the end of the Troubles as 2007). If it's still ongoing then the Troubles haven't ended. Comprende? Mooretwin (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Last month's violence on behalf of the so-called 'dissident republicans' added three more names to the grim list of deaths as a result of the Northern Ireland troubles. (Kacper Rekawek (2009), 'The IRA is dead. Long live the IRA?', Fortnight, No. 465, May/June 2009. Belfast) At least one writer reckons the Troubles are still ongoing. Mooretwin (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He is a student. And the wording is not clear either, he does not capitalise "Troubles" so could just be referring to them in general terms. Even if that source was acceptable, it is only one source and therefore it is a fringe view. O Fenian (talk) 11:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to suggest a compromise – if we end the chronology in 2007 can "peace process" then be removed from the title? After 1998, that seems to be the most realistic end-date. The St Andrews Agreement was implemented, devolution was restored, Operation Banner officially ended, and the UVF & UDA ended their campaigns. ~Asarlaí 04:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have reliable sources that say the Troubles ended in 2007 then please provide them. O Fenian (talk) 11:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have to acknowledge that there isn't an end-date accepted by everyone. This is addressed in the CAIN FAQ which notes "It may prove as difficult to agree on a date for the end of 'the Troubles' as it is to agree on the date of beginning of the violent conflict". It suggests the most common end-dates are 1997, 1998, 1999, 2005 and 2007. Notice how the latest end-date is 2007. If we end at 2007 we're covering all of them. ~Asarlaí 02:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do acknowledge that there isn't an end-date accepted by everyone. However that does not mean you can make your own end-date up, which is exactly what you are doing now. That link does not say that 2007 is an accepted end-date. O Fenian (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The CAIN FAQ suggests that 1997, 1998, 1999, 2005 and 2007 are the most commonly-cited end-dates, due to the events that happened in those years. If we end at 2007 we're covering all of them. ~Asarlaí 18:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreadable[edit]

This is unreadable for anyone who doesn´t know the involved groups. Loyalists? RUC? People`s Democracy? All are just mentioned without anything explaining to what side they belong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.57.243.129 (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a more prominent link to Directory of the Northern Ireland Troubles in the introduction. ~Asarlaí 18:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

13 & 14 July 1972[edit]

These appear to be duplicated. Does anyone know which is the actual date or was it an overnight gun battle? GiollaUidir (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

date missing[edit]

there is a bit missing dated 2nd February 1992 which can be found in another article the two should be tied together Paddy Clarke was killed at his north Belfast home by members of the UDA West Belfast Brigade.[2]

source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Graham_bookmakers'_shooting#cite_note-McDon222-2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fclarke (talk • contribs) 13:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Best[edit]

Hi Snowded, why do you feel it was better with the prior wording? Gob Lofa (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalism and republicanism are not synonyms ----Snowded TALK 19:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but you realise one is a sub-set of the other, right? Gob Lofa (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily ----Snowded TALK 06:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Who are these Irish republicans that are not Irish nationalists? Gob Lofa (talk) 08:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there are people who would like the UK to be a republic without wanting Northern Ireland to be reintegrated into Ireland as a whole. But it really is not an issue as having both terms in the article helps understanding. ----Snowded TALK 10:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certain there are these people, and if the Special Powers Act was used to intern them, I'll make sure they're not confused with your run-of-the-mill Irish republicans. In the meantime, you're detracting from understanding by implying supporters of Irish republicanism are not Irish nationalists. Gob Lofa (talk) 10:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No such implication, just using both words to increase understanding and not make assumptions ----Snowded TALK 13:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're decreasing it, in my view. Assumptions about what? Gob Lofa (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No further comment, you need other editors involved to make that change. ----Snowded TALK 20:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gob Lofa already knows that this edit is contentious having tried it elsewhere so why they think it is suddenly alright to try it elsewhere smacks of disregard for other editors. Mabuska (talk) 11:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the talk page where this issue also surfaced, where Gob Lofa was told TWICE to open a RfC yet didn;t, but decides to go elsewhere and try his hand again despite knowing it is contentious. Mabuska (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Irish nationalists who reject violence (e.g. the SDLP) are known as constitutional nationalists; that's generally how they're differentiated from republicans. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Burning of Bombay Street[edit]

Is there any particular reason the Burning of Bombay Street is not on the timeline? It strikes me as a fairly significant omission. --Drmargi (talk) 10:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Timeline of the Northern Ireland Troubles and peace process. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Names[edit]

Are there any guidelines for including names of victims, e.g. are attacks with many victims intended to have the names left out for space reasons? It seems a bit haphazard at the moment. Gob Lofa (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

POV section[edit]

The intro paragraph for 1960s decade appears to treat a political opinion as an indisputable statement. There is more than one aspect to this: one is that discrimination had taking place in one direction only; two is the level to which discrimination may have taken place; three is the inference that all "Ulster Protestants" were taking part in discrimination against Roman Catholics and/or nationalists. Various reports have suggested that there was no extant institutionalised discrimination in, for example, housing. Also that discrimination was less a conspiracy, and more a natural process of identity - with Roman Catholics tending to employ and recommend Roman Catholics and family members, and various Protestants tending to employ and recommend fellow Protestants and family members.

The end to "one man, one vote" issue was confined specifically to local council elections - the general elections were the same as in the rest of the UK (and the overall results were often similar). --24.182.92.247 (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Timeline of the Northern Ireland Troubles and peace process. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 January 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: pages moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 14:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– I would prefer to replace the "Northern Ireland Troubles" with simply Troubles to match the parent article located at The Troubles, however I wouldn't mind if people wish to retain "Northern Ireland". The main point is the removal of "and peace process", which will also change the scopes of the articles slightly. Again the parent article is located at "The Troubles" not "The Troubles and peace process", so it makes no sense for spin-off articles to have an entirely different scope. FDW777 (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support move. Spleodrach (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move. Yes, the titles are far too long, The Troubles period already includes the 1988 - 1998 peace process. I would prefer to remove both "and peace proces" and "Northern Ireland" as well from the title, around 250 people were killed outside of Northern Ireland, 110 in the Republic of Ireland, 125 in England and 18 in in mainland Europe, which is about 11.5% of total deaths. TommySocialist 09:21, 29 January 2020 UTC±00:00 (WET)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Colour Key[edit]

I feel like the key is not very accessible. The colours are not colourblind friendly and also way too light to be easily distinguishable. I am not really sure how to go about changing this, but maybe:

instead of:

Political action or event
Political or civil violence
Paramilitary killing, bombing or assassination attempt

something more like this?:

PA-Political action or event
V-Political or civil violence
K-Paramilitary killing, bombing or assassination attempt

providing not only (more clearly distinguished) colours, but also a letter indicator.

Aside from that, I am not entirely sure there is a need for a colour key at all?

Any ideas on this? Anboersma (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd remove it completely. FDW777 (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_the_Troubles&oldid=1212410019"