Talk:National Graves Association, Belfast

Memorial

I have moved a significant amount of material from this article per WP:MEMORIAL. There is no indication that many of the people described in the short obits are in any way notable. Those that are already have (or should have) their own article where WP:NOTABILITY can be firmly established. As it was, they were all sourced to a booklet describing their graves, with is neither a reliable source for their exploits when alive, nor something that establishes their notability in death. Rockpocket 01:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that a radical edit such as this should have been done without discussion hereand adequate time given for discussion and consensus or the obtaining of relevant referencesCathar11 (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

How radical an edit is, is not an acceptable justification for questioning it per se. What content do you have a problem with? Rockpocket 01:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me that though the article is supposed to be about an association, most of the information that appeared in the article is about graves or those buried in them. I suggest of limiting the information in the article to whatever is relevant to the association, its history, structure, etc., and transferring the information on graves, memorials and Volunteers, etc., to other articles, or create new ones when necessary for notable people or events. Hohenloh ⁺ 12:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the current article reads too much like a pamphlet by the NGA-B rather than an article about the organisation. I had tagged the article {{coi}}, but it was removed and I was accused of being a "drive-by" editor, though I was the one who actually pulled this article out of WP:UNCAT limbo by adding categories. This article definitely has some subtle POV issues, and much of the content (lists of names of non-notable people?) is not encyclopedic. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright

Some of the content in this article is a copyright violation from Republican Belfast, A Political Tourist’s Guide by Robert Kerr. We cannot just cut and paste material from other sources, not least because it is illegal. That material needs to be entirely re-written and appropriately cited or else I will remove it all. If anything else has been cut and pasted into the article, that will have to be rewritten or removed too. Given the concern expressed over the haste of my last edits. I'll give whoever is interested 24hrs to sort it out before being culled. Its also worth noting that editors who persistently add copyrighted material to articles are also liable to be blocked. Rockpocket 03:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Mischevious editing

I believe that this page is subject to mischievous editing. Can someone step in to resolve this issue and if warranted protect this page. Mil 09 (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

To get a page protected you post it at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I will post it there now. As this ip editor is exceeding 1RR on a troubles related article you could draw an admins attention to it. To find out about troubles related articles see:

Cathar11 (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Republican propaganda problem

I've tweaked the article to make the following points of fact clear: 1) It is a purely private, unofficial body with no official status, despite its adoption of a pseudo-official title 2) It does not have responsibility for ANY IRA 'volunteers graves by dint of the fact that they were such, just those individual graves to which it's acquired rights as a private body, & does not automatically have responsibility for these terrorists' graves. Those who have been opposing these edits are attempting to create an article which might confuse researchers by appearing to give credence to Republican propagandist claims that this body is comparable to a public authority.80.229.9.98 (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Please observe WP policies. There are words that are not allowed on WP. Read the 1RR restriction noted above. Make whatever points you have to make in an NPOV way in the article.Failure to complywith 1RR will lead to a block. You have been warned. Your views are held in good faith but please respect others as well.Cathar11 (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Though the IP's use of terrorist was inappropriate, I believe he raises a valid point in that the unofficial and/or self-appointed nature of the Commission should be noted, lest it be confused as an official government body. As one unfamiliar with the Troubles (I found this article while category-sorting), I did not immediately make the connection that "Belfast" and "republican" implied that this group was independent of the government. What's a good neutral term to indicate this which does not diminish the group, yet clarifies its status? "private organisation", "non-governmental organisation"? MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Links to National Graves Association, and other problems

There seems to be some dispute as to whether this organisation is linked to the National Graves Association based in Dublin. Can anyone clear this up? Mil is also changing the article to suggest that the National Graves Association, Belfast is responsible for all republican graves in Belfast, which also seems disputed. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)