Talk:Orange Order
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Orange Order article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 100 days  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present. |
"Played an important role in the history of Canada"
editThis claim is made in the article but is not substantiated. Please describe how it is true. 216.126.200.242 (talk) 21:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
"sectarian" claims
editI have been advised this may be a topic best for the talk page.
The Orange Order is described in it's lead line as a "sectarian" organisation. Somebody who presumably disagreed with this characterisation removed it.
I think this discription is objective and completely fair. The Order is widely described in this language by media, civic leaders, academics, local news, and parliamentary reports
At risk of asking can we get a consensus on if the sky is blue, can we get a consensus on this description of the Order as accurate? 2A00:23C7:9045:2001:8CE6:11A8:C851:85C2 (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
The Orange Order is described in it's lead line as a "sectarian" organisation.
Herein lies the problem - the quoted statement is simply not true. It was not so described until the 12th July, when an IPv6 editor with the same initial four groups of digits as yours (was it you?) added it. It has since been removed by five different editors. You are familiar with WP policies, so you should be well aware of WP:CONSENSUS. Get it, rather than edit war even as you open a talk page section. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)- Three reasons I can think of why "sectarian" does not need to be in this article: (1) The Orange Order, as a Protestant organization, specifically excludes Catholics from membership. The similar (though smaller in Ulster) Ancient Order of Hibernians is a Catholic organization which specifically excludes Protestants from membership. Nowhere on the Wikipedia page for the AOH could I find where the AOH was specifically described as "sectarian". The two similar organizations should be treated similarly. And I would argue that neither needs to be described as "sectarian" because... (2) The word "sectarian" is defined as "of, relating to, or characteristic of a sect". With both the OO and AOH, religion defines the "sect" they belong to. The article already states that the Orange Order is exclusively Protestant, so saying the Order is "sectarian" is simply redundant and unnecessary. (3) The Order may indeed be sectarian, because it relates to a particular sect, but "sectarian" is a loaded word, carrying with it a lot of political baggage, and Wikipedia's guidance on NPOV specifically says to avoided loaded words. Eastcote (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- It seems from multiple sources cited in the article that the Orange Order itself already carries far more political baggage than merely the term sectarian. 2001:BB6:F90:C358:4C1:3BD9:BC51:DD8D (talk) 08:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV certainly doesn't prevent us from reporting that reliable sources call the organisation sectarian - in fact, it specifies that articles should represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Cordless Larry (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- No problem at all with that, once it's attributed and not a "declaration" in Wikivoice. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- It is attributed already, albeit not to specific authors: "whilst critics accuse it of being sectarian". Cordless Larry (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- No problem at all with that, once it's attributed and not a "declaration" in Wikivoice. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Active in Queensland from 1867
editThe Order does not seem to be mentioned in this article as having been active in Australia?
I'm assisting in a project to index the membership registers of the Loyal Orange Institution of Queensland from 1867 to 2000 on behalf of the Queensland Family History Society. Currently there are 4,804 entries online. These are linked to images of the original register pages. We anticipate that there will be over 20,000 entries when the project has completed. You can read more about it here https://www.qfhs.org.au/online-access/dataset-support/about-loiq/
Note that access to the data is currently behind a login for QFHS members. Johnperryn (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)