Talk:Holy Cross dispute

Linking

"Holy Cross (Belfast))" shouldn't link here, the page redirects to itself!!!!!Undead Herle King (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wording

Why the change from "Loyalists" to "unionists" in the third para of beginnings. Gerry Lynch 23:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The people involved were unionists.

Lapsed Pacifist 00:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

It's POV-pushing. Lapsed Pacifist wants to tar moderate unionists with the same brush as the loyalist scumbags responsible for Holy Cross. He's done the same thing on many other pages too, changing "loyalist paramilitaries" to "unionist paramilitaries". Demiurge 08:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not. What makes a unionist a loyalist? "Loyalist scumbags"? If you were a unionist, would you like IRA men walking by your door every morning? - it was Protestants who started rioting and threw fireworks at 10 Year Old Girls. The 'IRA' men never did anything like that did they? Lapsed Pacifist 08:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

These were ordinary Catholics, taking a stand, by demanding the right for their kids to go to school free of intimidation. At what point did they become 'nationalists'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.219.152 (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Picture

This article needs a Picture, does anyone have a photo of the area? Or perhaps a "heat of the moment" pic where the loyalists threw pipebombs on the street? Superdude99 15:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The argument of IRA Men walking past their houses is a scapgoat to try and condon this sectarian act. If that's the case, why do Loyalists get worked up when Orange Order marches are banned from Catholic areas, when the Orange Order is filled with Loyalists paramilitary members, not to mention to the so called "supports" of the march, who are allowed to follow, teenagers and known Loyalist paramilitary members shouting Anti Catholics slogans.

Every child has the right to education. Why did the parents walk their Children up the road, knowing their was a protest? The same reason Black People did it in America in the 1950's: it would be wrong to let hatred and bigetory to prevail.

BBX, this is a talk page about the article, not a discussion forum. Valenciano 13:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Garbage

This article is awful.

" Sadly they started protesting about this following a dispute and an alleged allegation that a parent kicked the wing mirror of a vehicle. Very upsetting and serious incidents of verbal abuse and violence occurred at the pickets, and there was widespread disorder throughout north Belfast for the duration of the dispute as a result of this dispute."

'Sadly'. 'Very upsetting'?

This is not a balanced article. It doesn't seem to coincide with the BBC (not known for being pro-Loyalist) says http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1518025.stm

The whole article needs rewriting: no more emotive words, and nothing without a good citation, as this article is an obvious target for POV-pushing by either Loyalist or Republican tendencies. I don't think the current length can be sustained as the detail can't be sourced, so it should probably shrink to little more than a 2-paragraph stub. Nssdfdsfds 01:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, feel free to edit. I have started. Dainamo 15:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

In terms of describing the two communities, I think republican/loyalist only should be used rather than nationalist/unionist. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 16:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"Loyalist" and "Republican" have evolved to refer to the more militant wings of the uniionist and nationalist community respectively. Hence when defining the communities in general it is far more NPOV to call them unionist and nationalist. The use of the other terms must be done so with disctetion and refer to specific groups, individuals and actions Dainamo 15:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The whole article needs to be reorganised given the contested history of the dispute. Inevitably the context and chronology of the dispute is going to be heavily challenged which can only be offset by significant inline referencing/linking to external sources and minimal narrative text (where possible including direct quotes from reliable sources, such as BBC, Irish Times, Belfast Telegraph etc rather than paraphrasing). The initial paragraph is fine but should probably be just followed by two sections giving an account from each side - perhaps best labelled as 'Protestors Perspectives' and 'Parents Perspectives' as neutral terms. This also avoids the issue of loaded labels like loyalist-unionist-Protestant or republican-nationalist-Catholic, although the two sections should perhaps include reference to the fact that the Protestors/Parents viewpoints on the dispute reflect their loyalist-unionist-Protestant background etc. Any claims with no external referencing should be deleted or consigned to a separate page (Claims about the Holy Cross Dispute) linked back to the main page. Jjconeill (talk) 09:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

International coverage?

There's very little mention of the enormous international coverage of this incident. I was in the States in 2001 and the story was widely covered by most if not all the news channels, and all the national newspapers. It was incredible. 79.97.154.238 (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, there was even an Oprah Winfrey Show devoted to the events covered by this article. The absense of any mention of the international reaction makes this article incomplete at best, and misleading at worst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.194.195.232 (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Holy Cross dispute. 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/20170213065841/http://www.nisra.gov.uk/deprivation/archive/Updateof2005Measures/NIMDM_2010_Statistics_Press_Release.pdf to http://www.nisra.gov.uk/deprivation/archive/Updateof2005Measures/NIMDM_2010_Statistics_Press_Release.pdf

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) 10:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)