Talk:Billy Fox (politician)

Murder

According to Domer48, this appears to be the conclusion from this:

• For clarity (1) we use legal precedence as the defining policy (2) Until a person is convicted of a murder, the article on the killing is referred to in it's intro section as a killing or unlawful killing, depending on present legal status (3) in the sub sections (which normally firstly give background on the victim, and then a portrait of the incident of killing), we use the term killing or unlawful killing UNLESS there is an ongoing and referenced police investigation under the heading Murder Hunt OR there are three journalistic references which comply with WP:RS (4) we expand the article Unlawful Killing (5) we create two new categories called Unlawful Killing and Open Murder cases, and (6) the opening para uses precedence murder once someone is convicted of the crime of murder. That's the present proposal. We could go a little further and add a category Appealed Murder Cases for those which are being disputed. Hope that clarifies the proposal. Rgds, Trident13

So, Fox's murder should be stated as such in the intro. Why have Domer48 and O Fenian reverted? Mooretwin (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Where does Domer state that is the conclusion? That appears to be in the middle of the discussion, it is not a conclusion. The more relevant question is why are you reverting under the claim that you are describing a conviction, when you are describing the circumstances of someone's death? O Fenian (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If you read the discussion, it's the only thing that comes close to a conclusion, and Domer48 cites the discussion as the basis for when to refer to murder and when not to. In this case, persons were convicted of the murder of Mr Fox, therefore there is no doubt that it was a murder. Mooretwin (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The circumstances of the person's death are that he was murdered. On what basis do you dispute that he was murdered? Mooretwin (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

He was killed, and people were convicted of murder. Those are the *facts*. O Fenian (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Mooretwin if you have to mention me, please don't misrepresent my opinions. I've told you already what way this issue is addressed. O Fenian has already said as much, and despite our previous discussion you still try it on here? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, so where does the discussion reach that conclusion? Mooretwin (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Where does the discussion reach that conclusion? Mooretwin (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Where does the discussion reach the conclusion you claim? O Fenian (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not claiming it reached any conclusion. Domer48 is quoting the discussion. The above-quoted passage, however, is the only part of the discussion that appears to be a conclusion. Mooretwin (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be the only conclusion that fits with our neutral point of view policy. As an example, let us take the case of Lee Clegg..

• Even before his appeal "Lee Clegg murdered Karen Reilly" would be a point of view statement. "Lee Clegg killed Karen Reilly [add circumstances], and was convicted of murder" is a factual statement.

So not only is it not neutral to use "murdered", only being able to use "murdered" to describe cases where convictions occurred creates inconsistency across articles. "Murdered" can almost always be sourced, but using it in an unattributed way is not neutral. It can be sourced to the coroner in the case of Bloody Sunday, but it is not neutral to state that the Paras murdered the civil rights marchers. O Fenian (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Circumstances surrounding murder

The article states that "On 12 March 1974, while visiting the home of his fiancé in rural county Monaghan, he accidently stumbled across an IRA arms dump and was shot dead." I recall reading in an article in Magill that the IRA raided his fiancé's home because they suspected that her family were storing weapons for the UDA or the UVF. They didn't find any weapons stored there, but shot Billy Fox as he approached the house. I don't have that article handy (or access to back issues of Magill or newspapers from this period) so I won't make any edits in case my memory is faulty. Can somebody who has access to reliable sources of information check this? Additionally, after this is checked, this part of the article should be reworded to make it clear that he was killed by the IRA.(posted by M.Lane 30 March 2006)

You are correct. There was no IRA arms dump. 13 IRA men lay in wait for him to visit his girlfriend. The IRA falsly claimed that George Coulson (his girlfriend's father) was a quartermaster for the UVF. The IRA burned the house and the mobile home. ClemMcGann 09:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Death

He was killed by the Official IRA, not the provisionals.--padraig3uk 13:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

And who says? Tim Pat Coogan? Padraig3uk, a wealth of evidence points to the perpetrators of this killing. I've provided references which are far more authoratative than Tim Pat, who let's remind ourselves, is a journalist and not a historian. If you want more references on the killing of Billy Fox, they can be provided.

There are also other factors which would discount the Official IRA theory, namely:

1. While it did not mean it stood its units down completely, the Official IRA called a ceasefire in 1972; the Fox killing occured in 1974.

2. The people convicted of killing Billy Fox were all associated with the Provisional movement. There have been very few cases of Officials convicted of particular crimes later going over to the Provisionals and vice versa. An Phoblacht, which championed the release of those involved in the killing of Billy Fox, has never been in the business of supporting Official IRA prisoners.

Your reliance on one author and utter disregard for more authoritative sources reminds me of a previous episode where you tried to convince others that the Nationalist Party (Northern Ireland) was called the "National Party of Northern Ireland" (see [Talk:Nationalist Party (Northern Ireland)]. Again, this spurious claim was based on the claim of one book, and stood in contrast to the actual version of the name the party used as well as every other book on NI politics.

On the basis of that incident and this current one, methings you need to read around a bit and tone down the Provo-revisionism on this site and elsewhere.--Damac 20:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Seamus Costello was killed in 1977 by the Official IRA are you saying they didn't do that either. As for your comment on the Nationalist party, I have since found another source that refers to them as the Nationalist Party of Northern Ireland, but that is a different issue to Billy Fox. If the Provos killed him as you claim then provide a source where they have claimed that they did.--padraig3uk 20:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article fails WP:NPOV by a mile. A reliable source (Tim Pat Coogan) states that he was killed by the Official IRA.

From WP:NPOV

The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.

Specific issues with the article:

• "until he was killed by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) in March 1974" in the lead - gives undue weight to the sources that say he was killed by the Provos.
• "though some dissenting analysts" - I refer you to "pejoratively". Who has claimed TPC is a "dissenting analyst"? That sounds awfully like someone putting their own opinion into the article.
• "widely considered to be the authoritative source" - more opinion. Combined with describing TPC as a "dissenting analyst" is a serious breach of NPOV.
• Republican News link - proves nothing. What was to stop him swapping his allegiance to the Provos after he escaped in 1974? It's a tenuous link at best, but worth a mention in some form.

My proposed solution is to say which sources say what in non-perjorative language, and let the reader draw their own conclusion. Anything else is POV. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Another aspect of this is the fact that Fox knew several leading members of the provisional IRA leadership with whom he had met on several occassions, and he was very vocal about cross border intrusions by British Army patrols and undercover British units. So he hardly fitted the bill as a target for the IRA.--padraig 22:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Based on the above contrabutions, I would agree with ONIH proposel. --Domer48 (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Most sources just state he was killed by the IRA they don't specifiy either the provisionals or the officials. The provisionals also made statements saying that they had no involvement, in fact it was one of the local leaders of the provos that reported the shooting to the Gardai believing in was a cross border intrusion by either Loyalists or uncover British security forces.--Padraig (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Murder

According to Domer48, this appears to be the conclusion from this:

• For clarity (1) we use legal precedence as the defining policy (2) Until a person is convicted of a murder, the article on the killing is referred to in it's intro section as a killing or unlawful killing, depending on present legal status (3) in the sub sections (which normally firstly give background on the victim, and then a portrait of the incident of killing), we use the term killing or unlawful killing UNLESS there is an ongoing and referenced police investigation under the heading Murder Hunt OR there are three journalistic references which comply with WP:RS (4) we expand the article Unlawful Killing (5) we create two new categories called Unlawful Killing and Open Murder cases, and (6) the opening para uses precedence murder once someone is convicted of the crime of murder. That's the present proposal. We could go a little further and add a category Appealed Murder Cases for those which are being disputed. Hope that clarifies the proposal. Rgds, Trident13

So, Fox's murder should be stated as such in the intro. Why have Domer48 and O Fenian reverted? Mooretwin (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Where does Domer state that is the conclusion? That appears to be in the middle of the discussion, it is not a conclusion. The more relevant question is why are you reverting under the claim that you are describing a conviction, when you are describing the circumstances of someone's death? O Fenian (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This article takes weasel words to an extraordinary level. If someone was killed, there is widespread agreement as to who killed him, and people were convicted, then the article should make it clear that the consensus is that they were responsible. It can then mention that others disagreed, with T.P. Coogan saying another organisation did it. Instead following a series of edits the article trips over itself to say the PIRA did not kill him, despite all the evidence and consensus to the contrary. If the consensus says one thing, and the convictions echo that, to turn the article around to keep stressing that they denied it and treat the denials as fact, is by definition POV, as the author is treating his opinion as superior to the external consensus and the convictions.

I have rewritten it to say that the consensus is that the PIRA was involved, and that T.P. Coogan disagrees and says it was the OIRA. That reflects the external view of what happened, based on the evidence. 213.94.210.30 (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I have added Patrick Cooney's view; he had just been appointed Irish Justice Minister. He recalled that Marjorie's family home was being raided (and burnt) when Fox arrived. Fox ran away, was shot in the back and died while crawling away. He described the gang as "neighbours", that it was "sectarian" and that the gang would have known of Fox's regular visits to see her. As several men were subsequently convicted it can be described as murder.86.42.213.48 (talk) 12:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Still biased

This article looks like it was written by some bigoted member of the Orange order who's using this as some sort of grudge against republicans. I've tidied it up and removed some of the more offending bits. Exiledone (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do not use sectarian slurs. Please assume good faith and do not remove referenced material without discussion. Kernel Saunters (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

References

The Bruton link refers to PIRA explicitly e.g. "These attacks on Catholics led to the formation of the Provisional IRA, initially as a defensive organization.". The words of the TD are a significant reference. The RTE link has long been in the article and is valid. To remove them is vandalism, especially if attribution really is 'contentious'. The only link here which is bogus is the Wilmington link. If you follow the link and look at p5 it still has nothing about Fox, but it does have something about Selaisse.--Flexdream (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

If you look, you will see that p. 5 of the Wilmington Morning Star of March 13, 1974 (available at the link in the article) quite clearly references the text in the article. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Click on the http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=rQKKVauEoioC&dat=19740312&printsec=frontpage I see p5 is headed 'Selassie say's he stay on throne'. What do you see?--Flexdream (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that headline on page 5 of the Wilmington Morning Star of March 13, 1974, which is the reference in the article and the one RJ refers to above. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

But it's not what the link points to is it? The Wilmington link is wrong. You removed the RTE link because it was wrong. I'm putting this to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard for advice and have informed you both. --Flexdream (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I will give you one last chance to redeem yourself before you have to be spoonfed. The content in the article is sourced by page 5 of the Wilmington Morning Star of March 13, 1974, which is available at the link provided. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the link from the article http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=rQKKVauEoioC&dat=19740312&printsec=frontpage. You tell me what that links to? --Flexdream (talk) 11:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I already did. I did hope to avoid this, but it seems some people won't learn the easy way. Please answer the following question, starting each answer with either "yes" or "no". Feel free to add as much as you like after "yes" or no".

Question 1. Have you read the information at the link provided? If the answer is "yes", please go to question 2. If the answer is "no", please stop wasting my time and do so.

Question 2. Are you saying that the Wilmington Morning Star of March 13 is not available at the link provided? If the answer is "yes", please go to question 3. If the answer is "no", please stop wasting my time and read the link provided properly.

Question 3. Do you agree there is a story called "Irish Senator Killed - Protestant Extremists claim Responsibility" on page 5 of the Wilmington Morning Star of March 13? If the answer is "yes", please go to question 4. If the answer is "no", please stop wasting my time and read the link provided properly.

Question 4. Do you agree in the story called "Irish Senator Killed - Protestant Extremists claim Responsibility" on page 5 of the Wilmington Morning Star of March 13, there is text that correctly sources the text in the article? If the answer is "yes", then perhaps you could explain what the problem is? If the answer is "no", please stop wasting my time and read the link provided properly.

Over to you. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The link is to the March 12 front page. March 13 follows it. Where in the article does it mention the UDA? Back to you. --Flexdream (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You're editing Troubles articles yet don't know the Ulster Freedom Fighters are the Ulster Defence Association? Give me strength! As for the rest, if you think CAIN is the least reliable of the three links then you have no place editing Troubles articles. The content is sourced by the most reliable source of the three (especially as one link doesn't say what you think it does), there's no need for multiple links when one does the job just fine, so stop wasting your time, my time and the time of other editors. In addition, don't post on my talk page ever again unless specifically required to do so by policy. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

You say the UFF is the UDA. What's unreliable about RTE or the TD?--Flexdream (talk) 11:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"You say the UFF is the UDA" - I, the British government, and every single source going. You still haven't explained this bizarre need of yours to add more references to a sentence that already has adequate references? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Please try to keep a civil tone and assume good faith. May I suggest that this would be a better link to the Wilmington Morning Star article? Also, I see no reason why additional references would not be helpful; however, I think it is not a good idea to have more than one in the introductory paragraph of the article. Could these additional references be moved into the article body? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Scjessey - yes I agree that's a better link and is the proper way to do it. I'd put the multiple references in under one link using
tags - I'd be happy if instead they were put in the article body. The RTE link in particular was previously in the article since 2007 and I think it's a loss to lose it. --Flexdream (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Many of Wikipedia's best articles have no references in the lede at all, since the lede is supposed to summarize the body of the article and so everything in it should be sourced. I see no harm in having these additional sources (including the RTE source). -- Scjessey (talk) 02:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Ulster Protestant

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don't understand the opposition to the inclusion of Fox's ethnicity which has been the cause of recent reverts, anyone care to explain? Gob Lofa (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Because we refer to his religion not ethnicity. Snappy (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

'Ulster Protestant' describes both. It's more notable than simply 'Protestant', because Ulster Protestants are a minority of ROI Protestants. Gob Lofa (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You mean like Leinster Protestants? RashersTierney (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

No need to be facetious/irredentist. Ulster Protestants have a history and demographic position that has given them an identity quite separate from other Irish Protestants. Gob Lofa (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

If Billy Fox considered himself to be 'ethnically Ulster Protestant' you should just supply the sources, and a bit less of the argumentum ad hominem. RashersTierney (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Your contribution is interesting in a number of ways. I'm glad you now accept that Ulster Protestants cannot be categorised similarly to Leinster Protestants, as you attempted (I couldn't decide on your motivation so I put the two likeliest in. I was describing your reply, not you.) Can you tell us why you put 'ethnically Ulster Protestant' in quotes? Because it's not obvious to me who you're quoting. I have no idea if Fox even considered himself a Protestant. I've never known Ulster Protestants to disown the people they came from no matter their politics or which side of the border they came from. I'm not sure why the onus is on me to find Fox's views on his ethnicity. I know for a fact he was from Ulster. You assert he's a Protestant and certainly his people were. I'm struggling to understand where this opposition is coming from. Will you now insist on links concerning his church attendance if he is to continue to be described as Protestant? Gob Lofa (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

If you intend making a case for your edit then please do so. Refs, stats, quotes...factual third-party sources, not 'original research' or 'point of view'. RashersTierney (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree with User:RashersTierney. Please provide reliable thrid party references for your assertions. Snappy (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

What assertions? Fox was a Protestant from Ulster. What part of that do you dispute? Rashers, can you answer my questions? Gob Lofa (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I could but won't (per WP:NOTFORUM) as it is quite obvious that your intention is to misrepresent anything I say in furtherance of your POV, as you have done above. The onus is on you to demonstrate that Fox considered himself ethnically an Ulster Protestant (your stated meaning of the term). My personal view is that people are free to self-identify as anything under the sun. They should also be free not to have an 'identity' imposed on them. You really need to read WP:SYNTH. RashersTierney (talk) 11:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll try again. 'Fox was a Protestant from Ulster. What part of that do you dispute?' I don't believe there's any onus on me, no more than there is on you to give a reference about his church attendance. Gob Lofa (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

In fact Rashers, I can't remember any instance of an Ulster Protestant categorically stating they did not consider themselves to be Ulster Protestant. Why would you assume Fox felt this way? Snappy, you wrote: "Because we refer to his religion not ethnicity." Are you basing this on a particular Wikipedia policy? Gob Lofa (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Any sign of those references? Snappy (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

How glib. Any sign of that policy? Are you seriously asking me for references about Fox's religion and province? Gob Lofa (talk) 01:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I think most readers will be confused if an Irish born politician is described as 'Ulster Protestant'. I think most people would think he then came from the North. I know I would. --Flexdream (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Gob Lofa, *you* cannot describe Fox as ethnically Ulster Prostestant, this is pov and OR on your part. You need to find a reliable source which states that Fox self-identified as same. Also your Ulster Protestant is total OR and should be nominated for deletion. Snappy (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been considering proposing a merge of that article with Protestantism in Ireland. RashersTierney (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Not all of Ulster is in the North. Snappy, that means you can't describe him as religiously Protestant unless you can give references that he self-identified as such. Can you? That article is well-referenced, don't worry. Gob Lofa (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we're done here. RashersTierney (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

While it might be true that "Not all of Ulster is in the North" I do think that many people, including me, think of the North as Ulster and of Ulster as the North. In the same way although not all the 'North' of Ireland is in 'Northern Ireland' (see Donegal) we know what we mean when we say the 'North'. I think calling Fox an 'Ulster Protestant' would confuse people that he came from Northern Ireland.--Flexdream (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The consensus is then is to leave this part of the article as it is. Snappy (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Pity. Ulster Protestants are less than 0.5% of the ROI's population and a distinct part of the cultural life of the ROI Ulster counties so I figured it was notable. Ah well. Gob Lofa (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Any sign of those references? Snappy (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC) - What's the story? Why is Snappy re-adding unreferenced material? Gob Lofa (talk) 14:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You spent ages trying to insert your own wording, so when that failed, you've tried this tactic. You are pathetic!Snappy (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I've added another reference. More can be provided if required. Snappy (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Slow down with the insults there, Snappy! You're the one that insisted on references. You also said *you* cannot describe Fox as ethnically Ulster Prostestant, this is pov and OR on your part. You need to find a reliable source which states that Fox self-identified as same. Your reference doesn't say anything about Fox self-identifying as Protestant. By your own logic, it can't stand. I told you in May I found this hard to believe, do you really stand by it? Gob Lofa (talk) 05:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not need to find any such references for Fox self-identifying as Protestant as you claim, as numerous sources exist identifying his religion. There is no problem with the religion part. It was the ethnicity of Ulster Protestant that needed the reference, and you also tried to link it to your pov article of Ulster Protestant. You kept trying to add Ulster Protestant and when that didn't work you are now trying to remove the fact that he was Protestant. You previously said "Fox was a Protestant from Ulster. What part of that do you dispute?". Are you now claiming he wasn't? Many reliable sources exists citing his religion, no reliable sources exist citing his ethnicity. Snappy (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Anything I've removed I've done it because you set these strict standards. If you've changed your mind about them, why didn't you tell us? Why do you describe the UP article as POV? Is your nationalism so strong that you seek to downplay different traditions in the ROI just because they don't chime with your version of Irishness? Gob Lofa (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You must have run out of arguments if you attacking me personally. I edit within strict NPOV standards, my personal opinions don't come into it. The facts are Fox was a Protestant, this is not in dispute. You claim him as an Ulster Protestant which is something of your own invention and you have created an article on it. This article is however a Pov fork of Unionism in Ireland and should be deleted. This is obviously your little hobby horse, but I won't be party to it. I urge to to please edit according to WP:NOV. Snappy (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Gob Lofa, I do see what you mean but I think you need to accept that on this you seem to be in a minority of one. I don't know if you'd be happier with 'Irish Protestant'? I'm not Irish but I'd find 'Ulster Protestant' simply confusing. I don't think it's about POV. --Flexdream (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You're being more than a little hypocritical now, Snappy. I didn't call you pathetic and you're entitled to your political beliefs. You're correct about the facts but neglect one, that he was from Ulster. You still haven't provided a link about Fox self-identifying as Protestant, which seems strange when self-identification seemed important to you earlier on in the discussion. A quick Google search will show you that Ulster Protestants were doing their thing long before I came along, and your conflation of people with a varied history and a wide range of political views with a single political philosophy (that has adherents of many religions and ethnic backgrounds) is insulting to both. Your urging reeks of hypocrisy; I doubt you believe there's anything literary in an encyclopedia article about the Protestants of Ulster. Flexdream, I've lost debates before and it wouldn't be the end of the world if I lost this one but double standards disgust me. The reason I described Fox as an Ulster Protestant is because they are both an ethnic minority among Irish people and a minority group among ROI Protestants, and for cultural and historical reasons are distinct from both of these other groups, which makes it notable. I realise that Ulster is often taken to mean Northern Ireland but then Ireland is often taken to mean the Republic. This hasn't resulted in a blanket insistence that no Northern Irish people can be described as Irish on Wikipedia, quite the opposite. Gob Lofa (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

So I'm a hypoctite, am I? But I'm entitled to my beliefs, gee thanks! As I already said, there is no need for extra references for undisputed facts like Fox's religion. The references for self identifying was for your dubious ethnicity claims. As User:Flexdream also agrees with the current consensus, you are in the minority of one. You can accept this or you can try and prolong this "debate". Snappy (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say you were a hypocrite, I said you're being more than a little hypocritical here. I have no idea how often you do this so I'm not going to bandy accusations about. You accept as fact Fox was Protestant his whole life despite many people choosing to leave behind the religious beliefs they were brought up with. Have you proof of his religious beliefs, e.g. was he a regular churchgoer? The fact that Fox was an Ulsterman is undisputed, as Monaghan is in Ulster. If he was Protestant, then it's also indiputable he was an Ulster Protestant. You can't have it both ways. Flexdream accepts that his initial opposition was based on a belief that Ulster is the same as NI. Do you have a problem with people from outside NI being referred to as Ulster people? Gob Lofa (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want to re-open this discussion then do so at another forum like WT:IE. Snappy (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

When was it closed? I had a look at the link you provided but I don't see any related discussion there. You still haven't provided a reference for Fox self-identifying as Protestant. Would it be acceptable to you if we described him as being from an Ulster Protestant background? Gob Lofa (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems clear that Billy Fox was Church of Ireland [1], so Protestant, and his being Protestant may have been the reason, or a reason he was murdered. I think the clearest description for the general reader would be simply 'Protestant' for religion, and 'Irish' for nationality.--Flexdream (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Flexdream. I said this before but it still hasn't gotten through, so @GobLofa needs to go back and re-read the previous posts - "I do not need to find any such references for Fox self-identifying as Protestant as you claim, as numerous sources exist identifying his religion." You need to provide references for "Ulster Protestant". Snappy (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Flexdream, I agree it could well have been a factor, and to ignore the fact that most of the sectarian killings in the conflict were perpetrated by Ulster Catholics on Ulster Protestants and vice versa is to ignore a possible important component of this killing. The hatred between the sects that often flared up in Ulster had no contemporary counterpart in the rest of Ireland. Snappy, unless you're disputing Monaghan is in Ulster, that argument is not really at the races here. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Snappy, you haven't been paying as much attention as I would like. Why are you asking me a question about Leinster Protestants on another talk page which I answered above? Gob Lofa (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Please provide the references that were asked for. Snappy (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You want a reference for Monaghan being in Ulster? Or Fox having been a Protestant? Gob Lofa (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

For the umpteeneth time, you need to provide references for "Ulster Protestant". Snappy (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, can you be more specific? Because I believe we've already established his religion and province. Secondly, can you tell us what Wikipedia policy you're basing your need on? Thirdly, do you believe that calling Fox an Ulster Protestant is the same thing as calling him a unionist? Is that why you redirected Ulster Protestant to Unionism in Ireland? Gob Lofa (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you can't provide a reference because you don't understand the difference between religion and ethnicity? Anyway, if you do ever provide them, please let me know. Snappy (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

That's zero questions answered from three. The comment before, I asked a different question about the references you wanted and got a non-answer, which is why I asked you to be specific in my next comment. I find your comment about religion and ethnicity particularly endearing, seeing how determined you are to ensure Ulster Protestants are not categorised as an ethnic group. "Because we refer to his religion not ethnicity. Snappy (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)" What's it to be? Gob Lofa (talk) 11:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

If Fox was "ethnically Ulster Protestant" as you claim, you should just supply reliable sources for this easily enough. Snappy (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

But you said we can't refer to his ethnicity, see your quote above. Did you mean that? Have you changed your mind? Gob Lofa (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

We can't refer to his ethnicity because its your pov. Any references?

That wasn't the argument you made previously. You specified we must refer to his religion, not his ethnicity, although without mentioning what Wikipedia policy you base this on. You made absolutely no reference to anyone's point of view, so what has caused your change of tune? Gob Lofa (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Because only his religion had a reliable reference, unlike the ethnicity which you consistently refuse to supply a reference for. See WP:RS. WP:V and WP:BLP. Will you supply a reference anytime soon? Snappy (talk)

That's a little hard to believe, because you made no mention of references at the time. You have references that Fox was Protestant, and you have references that Monaghan is in Ulster. This is more than enough to describe Fox as an Ulster Protestant, without any reference to ethnicity. Why are you so adamant in describing Ulster Protestant as an ethnicity here, a position in direct opposition to one you've taken at Talk:Ulster Protestant? Gob Lofa (talk) 11:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

That's clearly a breach of WP:SYNTH and possibly WP:OR. I have said here and on other talk pages that they are not an ethnic group. Don't misrepresent my position. I have been asking for reliable references since May 2014. Snappy (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is a breach of SYNTH? You have referred to Ulster Protestants on this page as an "ethnicity". That's your word and you were the first to introduce it to this discussion. If you no longer take this position that's fine, we can still accurately describe Fox as an Ulster Protestant without any reference to ethnicity. If the references we have to Fox's religion are now not to your satisfaction, I despair. Gob Lofa (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Beg your pardon Snappy, looking over the debate I see it was I who introduced the term. Mea culpa. Out of interest, would you agree with my response to Flexdream that "to ignore the fact that most of the sectarian killings in the conflict were perpetrated by Ulster Catholics on Ulster Protestants and vice versa is to ignore a possible important component of this killing"? Gob Lofa (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This discussion has really turned in on itself, and is now a discussion about the discussion itself, which is going nowhere and is very unhelpful. If you provide references that would help. Snappy (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could explain exactly what about the references to Fox's religion and Monaghan's location you find unsatisfactory, or perhaps once in a while attempt to answer at least one of the straight questions put to you. I agree we seem to be going around in circles. It would be good to get fresh eyes on this. Any suggestions? Gob Lofa (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I've have been very helpful by answering all your questions, not just once but on numerous occasions. No matter, you still ask them again anyway, while all the time refusing to provide a reliable references for your POV. Snappy (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gob and Snappy. I think you have both kept your discussion civil but frank. For what it's worth though Gob, I think you've made your point but failed to win any one over. You're free to continue discussing this of course but I don't see you getting any further unless you can either find a clear reliable reference or another editor to support you. Otherwise I'd suggest drawing this to a close. Regards.--Flexdream (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Flexdream. WP:Consensus has spoken, it may change but for now I hope all editors will abide by it. Snappy (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Flexdream. A reference to what? Gob Lofa (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Ugh, I've just noticed Snappy's last reply: "I've have been very helpful by answering all your questions, not just once but on numerous occasions. No matter, you still ask them again anyway". Your hypocrisy is truly outstanding. I've never come across another editor so determined to avoid answering the simplest of questions. Have you any appreciation of how this makes you look? Gob Lofa (talk) 04:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Please stop trying desperately to keep this discussion going. Once again, you are asking the same questions that have been repeatedly asked and answered. Also, please cease with the ad-hominem attacks on other editors, and do try and be civil. Snappy (talk) 11:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It is what it is, Snappy. This is not the only talk page I've noticed your reticence or your curious characterisations of it. Gob Lofa (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

If the IRA statement is true, then Fox's house was raided because he was suspected of aiding fellow Ulster Protestants in the UVF. Given that Ulster's sectarian tensions don't stop at the border, I fail to understand why anyone could object to Fox's being an Ulster Protestant being mentioned in the article. It's definitely relevant. Gob Lofa (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you have the exact reference that uses Ulster Protestant? As you have continually been asked above? And since he was a member of Fine Gael, The Republican Party, would this not be at odds with the definitions of Ulster Protestant that you have added to that page? Murry1975 (talk) 08:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

References for the province Monaghan is in and Fox's religion are easy to get, as I've continually said. Fine Gael is not republican and does not describe itself as such. Just because most Ulster Protestants are unionist, do all of them have to be? Gob Lofa (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and you are right FF are the republican party, always get them two mixed up. WP:POINTY as well. A banana is a yellow fruit, but its not a lemon. Murry1975 (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Glibness doesn't suit you, and you didn't answer my question. Fox was killed by Ulster Catholics, possibly in the belief that he had been aiding a group of Ulster Protestants in their murderous campaign against Ulster Catholics. We've already had a discussion about the mixed loyalties of Ulster Protestants in the Three Counties at Talk:Ulster Protestants. I can't understand how anyone can contend seriously that Fox was not an Ulster Protestant or that that fact wasn't relevant to his killers. It's as if you and Snappy believe this means one can't also be Irish or Irish nationalist. It's an ethnicity, not a political position. Ulster Protestants are very different from most Irish people. They are even different from other Irish Protestants. You must know this. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Its not what you or I know, its what can be cited and referenced. And it cant, can it? You are flogging a dead horse with addition of a relevant reference, find one it goes in, add two together to get what you want and it stays out. Murry1975 (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

You're failing utterly to address any of my points or questions. You're essentially telling me that a banana might be yellow, and it might be a fruit, but to call it a yellow fruit is original research. Of course Fox's religion can be referenced. Of course Monaghan's province can be too. This horse can still go. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, page 69. Let me know what you think: [2]. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it does mention Protestants in Ireland and Ulster, I'll give you that. I see zero mentions of Billy Fox. Snappy (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

So? Gob Lofa (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

So I've removed it. Snappy (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you telling me that some Ulster Protestants are not Ulster Protestants? Gob Lofa (talk) 09:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for you assertions? I've been asking since February 2014 and I'm still waiting. So stop asking the same questions over and over and just provide a relevant reliable reference. Snappy (talk) 10:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Blue skies, Snappy. This has been explained to you in detail by others. Anyways, didn't I give you references for Fox's province and religion? Gob Lofa (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Blue skies is an essay, i.e. another editors opinion piece, and is not a Wikipedia guideline. Hence the need for references. In answer to your question, no, you have never given any reliable references to back up your claim, which is why this discussion continues. Snappy (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue is far closer to a guideline than your personal determination of what exactly a reference should say. We have references that put Fox's home in Ulster, and we have those that say he was Protestant. Your extreme POV on the permissible ethnicities of ROI people has resulted in a fairly mind-blowing refusal to join adjective and noun. What gives? Gob Lofa (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability is something you haven't provided. All you have is WP:Synthesis, adding two separate things does make not a whole. To spell that out, you are combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Snappy (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

You're telling me that if we have a source saying a banana is yellow, and another saying it's a fruit, you don't believe that allows us to call it a yellow fruit? Are you sure that's really synthesis? Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_mere_juxtaposition Gob Lofa (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Stop waffling about about bananas, and provide reliable references to back up your assertions. Snappy (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure that's really synthesis? Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_mere_juxtaposition Gob Lofa (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am. You are now desparately wiki-laywering because despite asking again and again, you have not provided any reliable references to back up your claims. Snappy (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikilawyering? Look to the beam in your own eye, Snappy. I'm not claiming anything, I'm juxtaposing Fox's province and his religion. Do you really believe juxtaposition is synthesis? If so, why? Gob Lofa (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Must be a lot of beams in eyes considering how often your coming out with that statement recently. All this "Ulster Protestant" ethnicity OR is nonsense. Billy Fox is an Irish Protestant regardless if he was born in Ulster or a different province. I also back the call for the reliable sources to be provided, but then again that is Wikipedia protocol. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

There certainly are. Your "Irish Protestant" non sequitur has me confused; when was this in doubt? I have provided sources. Gob Lofa (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see your PDF source does not call Billy Fox an Ulster Protestant. Your newspaper source doesn't either. So its original research where your using (or rather abusing) a geographical-religious descriptor as an actual ethnicity. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

In fact your are slow edit-warring over this on the article despite an on-going talk page discussion and despite a lack of consensus for your edit for well over a year where no-one has backed you as far as I can see. Let's see: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. So your first attempt was on 8th Septmeber 2013 with your latest being 12th July 2015. This must be a record for dedicated unpunished POV pushing and definitely meriting a sanction. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, old boy. The sources give Fox's province and religion which, when juxtaposed, give extra background. Unless you're disputing either of those facts, I don't see the problem. Far from edit-warring, I desisted from editing this article for months on end while honest discussion took place on the issue, unlike others involved, and I'm happy to keep desisting through any debate where all parties are acting in good faith or until a consensus is reached that doesn't breach Wikipedia policy. I can tell you, that took a little restraint; the disgusting POV that all ROI Protestants must adopt the rigid designation of 'Irish Protestant' and downplay any aspect of their culture and history that doesn't chime with ROI nationalism sticks in my craw. Have you warned anyone else here about "dedicated unpunished POV pushing...definitely meriting a sanction"? If not, why not? They're surely entitled to a warning. Gob Lofa (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

What is to the contrary? The sources do not explicitly state that he is an "Ulster Protestant". You admit that you are juxtaposing. Are you that desperate to get articles to have wikilinks to your pet project page to give it some form of credibility?

Where in this source does it state that he is an "Ulster Protestant"? Where in this source does it even mention Billy Fox himself???

No-one else here on this article is pushing a dedicated POV except you. Only you are disregarding the editors above who disagree with your addition which you are intent on enforcing regardless, so only you merit the warning. Snappy is simply reverting the article to the stable version until the conclusion of the talk discussion where nobody agrees with you. The next time you try to force it into the article, off to AN/I we go. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

What's your problem with juxtaposing? Have you not read Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_mere_juxtaposition? I'm not disregarding anyone; that's why I'm talking here and not reverting. I hope we can reach a consensus based on Wikipedia policy and not the bullish whim of proprietorial editors. Gob Lofa (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you read what Synthesis is again: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.". This is what you are doing. I'm looking for reliable references that is not having whims.

Also, as per Mabuska most recent comment above, "No-one else here on this article is pushing a dedicated POV except you". You have been at this since February 2014, and I'd suggest you take time away from this article, maybe a long time. There is no consensus for your changes. Snappy (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

You're pushing your weird 'Ulster Protestants must be unionists' point of view again, as far as I can see. What point of view do you believe I'm pushing? I suggest you read Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_mere_juxtaposition: "SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources. Given just about any two juxtaposed statements, one can imagine that something might be insinuated by the juxtaposition. Don't. If the juxtaposition really does constitute SYNTH, the insinuation will be obvious to everyone." Do you believe I'm trying to insinuate Fox was a unionist? Gob Lofa (talk) 10:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a 'Ulster Protestants must be unionists' point of view, and kindly stop attributing such things to me. I have read Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not (an essay), have you read WP:SYNTH? (Wikipedia policy). No, I don't believe that you are "trying to insinuate Fox was a unionist", more weirdness from you. I repeat that you are combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Any chance of that time-out? Snappy (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd say you'll get a timeout but only until the dust has settled so they can yet again try to sneak it in yet again. Mabuska ^(talk) 09:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Per Mabuska's post on 15th July, Gob Lofa has been at this from Sept. 2013 to July 2015, unsupported by any other editor, and opposed by many. If he tries his pov pushing one more time, then its straight to WP:ANI, and let them deal with it. Also, I like your comment "(ab)using a geographical-religious descriptor as an actual ethnicity", well said! Snappy (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

To be honest Ulster Protestant could be argued as being an ethnicity but only as a former one such as when referring to the Protestants of Ulster in pre-partition Ireland when they were a lot closer. Since then the Protestants of Northern Ireland and the Ulster counties in the Republic have largely drifted apart, with the only term I see being used for Protestants along either side of the border being "Border Protestant". The fact most Protestants in NI live in parts of the country that are nowhere near the border, meant it was inevitable that such a drift would happen over the years. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to go to ANI now. Gob Lofa (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.