Talk:History of the Orange Order

Tim Pat Coogan

I've removed the sentence claiming that Orangemen don't know about the Pope supporting King William, because even though Coogan probably does say that, it's still rubbish. I've heard that claim a lot and have yet to see any evidence for it whatsoever. On the other hand, I do have references from Orange publications in which they mention it. I haven't included them here because my notes are in my office and I'm at home, but I can provide them if anyone cares.

The whole page needs quite a bit of work - expansion, references and so forth - but that last paragraph is particularly dire. --Helenalex (talk) 10:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to contradict Coogan please do so, but you can not remove referenced information because you think it's rubbish. Just because you think that it may be referenced but it's still bollocks, is hardly a good reason. --Domer48 (talk) 10:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Just because you dont like something is not a reason for its removal, the comment is WP:V and WP:RS, so unfortunatly your opinion counts for nothing. BigDunc (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Tim Pat Coogan's opinion doesn't count for anything either. At least mine is based on evidence, which I will provide on Monday. Having said that, if you DO have evidence on Orangemen not knowing about the whole Pope thing, I'd love to see it. And 'Coogan sez so' does not constitute evidence.

Since you both seem to object to my 'bollocks' statement, I retract it, and replace it with 'the statement is unsubstantiated and probably untrue'. Bollocks are at least useful. --Helenalex (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The statement meets the criteria outlined in WP:V and WP:RS. On monday you will no doubt provide evidence on Orangemen knowing about the whole Pope thing, and will include it alongside Coogan's opinion, which dose count more than your evidence to date. --Domer48 (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This kind of attitude is pervasive in articles relating to the Troubles and I feel has a detrimental effect on Wikipedia. Who cares what you think about the author of the reference it is, as stated twice, so once more for affect WP:V and WP:RS. BigDunc (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm also going to have a look at the Coogan book and see what his evidence is. If he has some, fair enough - I have no problem with it saying 'some Orangemen are unaware that...' If not, I really can't see why we should include his unsubstantiated claim. The fact that he's a published author has no bearing on it - presumably you wouldn't say that we should include Ian Paisley's claim that the Pope is the anti Christ on the Pope's page. I don't think this is about my opinion, it's about the claim being demonstrably untrue. I should have waited until I had my sources to hand before deleting the sentence, though, and will let the sentence stand until I have them.

In response to BigDunc's comment, I agree with you that there is an attitudinal problem associated with Northern Ireland-related articles (not just the Troubles ones). I can see how the way I went about deleting that sentence would give the impression that I am contributing to it. Given that I know how fraught editing these pages can be, it was silly of me to delete the sentence without having the sources to justify it, and even sillier to explain the edit in such a flip way. I also realise that there is a lot of totally partisan editing going on, which tends to make people defensive and a lot pickier than they would be in less political situations (I also do a lot of New Zealand related articles, and even on controversial subjects there is NOTHING like this).

Having said that, I don't think that the way you (BigDunc) have responded to this is doing anything to help the situation. It is always a good idea to assume good faith and avoid being rude to people. If you contrast your comments with those of Domer, he clearly has the same opinions as you, but has managed to stay polite and avoided belittling me. I'm a big girl and can handle shit like that, but I'm pretty sure a lot of people with good things to contribute are being put off editing Northern Ireland articles because they've made a good-faith edit and had a whole lot of people jump on them. This is a fairly widespread problem and both unionists and nationalists have been contributing to it. I know that you have been on the recieving end of a lot of crap as well, and if you want to improve Wikipedia you need to make sure you are not contributing to the nasty atmosphere around many of the Northern Irish pages. Even if the other side remain unrepentent dickheads, there's no reason for you not to be civil. As Domer has shown, it is entirely possible to oppose someone's edit without assuming they are some kind of bigoted, over-opinonated vandal.

This is probably an excessively long reaction to something which doesn't even come close to being the worst stuff I've seen on a Northern Ireland talk page, but I'm getting completely sick of the bickering which goes on. I fully realise it's a two sided problem and that there are some people who can't be reasoned with, but assuming that everyone who makes an edit you disagree with is one of them is counterproductive.

I feel better having got that off my chest. :) Can we agree to be civil in disagreement? --Helenalex (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Helenalex for your reply, I in no way intended my reply to seem rude to you it certainly was not my intention. But frustration is a weakness of mine, and we just got off on the wrong foot which is understandable when an editor removes content with an edit summary of its bolox it is hard to assume good faith. So now the air is cleared lets move on in a constructive way. BigDunc (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Helenalex all you have to do with Coogan's opinion is add, "According to..." and if you wish to add an alternative view, after the opinion of Coogan add "however such and such says." In addition, you could put your source first and Coogan's after. As long as both opinions are given equall weight their is no problem at all. All I want is the article to be referenced, and that the references meet the criteria outlined in our policy of WP:V and the guidlines in WP:RS. --Domer48 (talk) 12:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've provided evidence of Orangemen knowing about the Pope and William, corrected some of the Coogan references etc, and hopefully the resulting edit is something everyone can agree with. Having re-read my collection of Orange literature (I'm doing a PhD on the 12th) I've come to the conclusion that 'overlook' is a reasonable word to use - some of the accounts of the Williamite War don't mention the Pope at all. The sentence now conveys that although most Orangemen probably don't want to draw too much attention to the Pope thing, they're probably not ignorant of it.

There are still major problems with that paragraph though. It looks as if someone has read the Coogan book and just tacked on a 'everything Coogan says about the Orange Order' paragraph on the end. I'm still a bit dubious about Coogan's knowledge of the Order - the book is on a completely different subject and to my knowledge he's never written anything specifically about the Order - but the main problem is that the info is in the wrong place, and that it's really badly written. So I'll wait for feedback and then if no one has any objections I'll shift it to more appropriate places. --Helenalex (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Winter

The article Daniel Winter is a pathetic sub-stub.

Would someone like to check it over and see whether it can be expanded? If not, it should just be redirected to this article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Peep O' Day Boys

The line, "...who were to reorganise under a new name, the Orange Society" makes little sense in a page about the said society!

The Peep O' Day Boys never reorganised under a new name. They were undoubtedly present at the Battle of the Diamond, but they continued their activities after that event under the same name. Have references for this if needs be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corvus cornix 1958 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be helpful if you are adding content could you please supply sources to back up your edits thanks. BigDunc^Talk 19:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Have supplied sources every time I've added stuff but it's difficult to supply a source when removing a piece of erroneous info! Will try, don't worry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corvus cornix 1958 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Presbyterian involvement

I've removed the line about Presbyterians being allowed to join in 1834. Presbyterians were in the OO from the very beginning. James Wilson's Orange Boys society was predominantly Presbyterian.

Will put in a referenced line regarding this somewhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corvus cornix 1958 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Formation

I've added some referenced text, and tried to put the section in some kind of order. This reference here I don't think could be considered a WP:RS at all and have removed it. I'll put some more detailed referenced text together, and with the possibility of differences among sources such all text be attributed. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense

Somebody has added a lot of nonsense about the United Irish lowering sectarian tensions in Ulster which I'm afraid is romantic nationalist tripe. I have plenty more sources (A.T.Q. Stewart, J. Bardon to briefly name two) which would tear this argument to shreds, but I don't believe it has anything to do with the Formation of the Orange Order which is the point of the sub-section. Then there's a lot more nonsense from one author T.A. Jackson. I don't see how this fits in with the page when I have given three sources which directly contradict the biased view of Jackson.--Corvus cornix 1958 (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Coming from an editor who can't even work out who added the text, the claims of "Nonsense" and "romantic nationalist tripe" makes one feel like one has been savaged by a blind toothless hamster. As to tearing arguments to shreds, please tear away, I enjoy sourcing references to contradict puerile and biased views. Since Jackson’s views have not been directly contradicted however, I'll need a bit more motivation before I add them. Not believing that the United Irishmen lowering sectarian tensions in Ulster had anything to do with the "Formation of the Orange Order" while showing a profound lack of knowledge, or even a basic understanding, this ignorance can not be considered a mitigating factor to use terms like "romantic nationalist tripe" to describe either an Editor or Author unless supported by references. Having tried to change a source by Jackson to support your opinion, and tried to remove the opinion of another noted Author [1], [2], [3], [4], I hope this is not how you will attempt to tear this argument to shreds. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm terrible at computers. It doesn't make my views invalid especially when they're referenced. This Jackson guy does not seem impartial to me at all. An editor with the name "fenian" (no offence to anyone meant- but you have chosen it as a name- and yes I know all about the 1867 fenians before I get a history lesson) is hardly likely to be impartial either. I see somebody has moved the bit about the Orange Boys being founded in Tyrone in the early 1790s to the references- I wonder why, does it not fit in with your dogma about the Peep O' Day Boys?

Why is verification needed for a quote from a Dudley-Edwards book when the book in question and page number have already been given?

Lastly I still have no idea who edited the bit about the United Irishmen, unless perhaps it was you? I stand by the argument, it's romantic nationalist tripe to believe the United Irishmen lowered sectarian tensions in Ulster. This does not reflect my views on the editor, I don't know who they are but I'm sure they're great.--Corvus cornix 1958 (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I have addressed the misleading references you have used on this subject and replaced it with the correct title and publishing information, which is: William Blacker, Robert Hugh Wallace, The formation of the Orange Order, 1795-1798: Education Committee of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland, 1994 ISBN 0950144436, 9780950144436. Now I assume you think that Jackson is biased because he was not a member while the use of a source by two former Grand Wizards of the Order are alright? Now in the intrest of fairness, any and every use of these likley lads should be attributed. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank-you for fixing the reference, I hope that you believe me that there was absolutely no intention to mislead but I will admit I was unsure how to reference the book. Any and every use of "these likely lads" has and will be referenced, don't worry about that. They were two fine upstanding citizens.

I am going to attempt to rewrite the whole section in future days, including wide-ranging and impartial references (don't worry, not just past Grand Masters or English socialists for that matter). I hope an impartial and fair view of the Order's history can be achieved here.--Corvus cornix 1958 (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I just read this piece of trash and find it heavily biased toward socialist propoganda... How long must we suffer from Carnegie Foundation influenced meddling... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.169.49 (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Correct attribution

Since both William Blacker, Robert Hugh Wallace are authors of The formation of the Orange Order, 1795-1798 published by the Education Committee of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland, for correct attribution we need to know which one said what. At the moment we are using Wallace because of the misleading reference since corrected, but we need now the correct attribution. Since William Blacker, Robert Hugh Wallace and Ruth Dudley Edwards can hardly be described as impartial, were a third party source such as Mervyn Jess is available I'll remove the others. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with your assement dubious and biased sources have been used and at most attributed or at least removed. BigDunc^Talk 16:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ruth-Dudley Edward is completely impartial. I will be able in future days to note whether Blacker or Wallace were originators of statements.--Corvus cornix 1958 (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the Orange Institution. 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/20120204232813/http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Home_RuleThe_Elections_of_1885__1886 to http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Home_RuleThe_Elections_of_1885__1886

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 10:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)