Talk:Norman Stronge

Use of "targeted"

To the reader who does not know what occured this word is meaningless. The word murder is not PoV, it implies the deliberate killing of another, exactly what happened here. I think this page is being used by others to promote certain PoV's which, perhaps, believe in playing-down this murder.--Couter-revolutionary 12:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, like someone else said about your articles - "long on celebration and short on effect" - the article is totally one sided.--Vintagekits 12:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I find it hard to see how the article is one sided when certain users want phrases used such as describing a murder as a death or the event as "targeting". Further and worst of all, it seemed to imply, until I clarified it, that Sir Norman had killed numerous Roman Catholics, and it was for this he was murdered.--Couter-revolutionary 13:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

We all know the REAL reason taken out - however his funding and that motive is not verifiable in any book that I have read.--Vintagekits 14:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Few people have ever offended me more than you have just done; assuming you are implying what I think you are. --Couter-revolutionary 15:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Quote

It is significant, it shows the mainstream republican reaction to his murder. To remove it clearly shows a PoV and if you continue to do this I shall have you written up, as it were. The quotation marks I added were purely for stylistic purposes.--Couter-revolutionary 22:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, the quote is OTT and adds nothing to the article.--Vintagekits 22:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you disagree with my presentation of it or with its actual being there? You are clearly boiling over with PoV, this quote illustrates that Sir Norman was highly respected by both communities. It stays.--Couter-revolutionary 23:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Currie speaks for a community. Again it adds nothing to the article.--Vintagekits 23:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You cannot remove information that is referenced. I have provided a reference which you deleted. The only explanation I can arise at is blatant PoV.--Couter-revolutionary 23:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Remember WP:BB, What does it add to the article.--Vintagekits 23:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have outlined above what it adds.--Couter-revolutionary 23:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see why Currie's statement has been removed and is not considered important. It strikes me as a very important statement and fully merits being highlighted. Burke's peerage does happen to be considered a reliable source. Tyrenius 00:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Rephrase

This creates an unfortunate ambiguity that he was murdered only briefly, as opposed to permanently:

He is presumed to have been succeeded to the Baronetcy by his son James, who was murdered alongside him. [1], albeit only briefly.

I think it should be:

He is presumed to have been succeeded to the Baronetcy, albeit only briefly, by his son James, who was murdered alongside him.

Tyrenius 00:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Murdered or targetted

OK, very very minor edit war at the very most. Edit + revert v 2 reverts. I recommend WP:BRD, i.e. an edit, a revert, then discussion. However, everyone is at fault for not opening a discussion on this page, which is what it's for. Don't leave such things just to edit summaries. I have looked at the ref and it appears that neither "murdered" nor "targetted" are mentioned. The simplest thing is to let the IRA speak for themselves without interpretation and let the reader make up his/her own mind as to what they wish to read into it.

Thus instead of:

The IRA claimed Stronge was murdered in reprisal for sectarian killings of Catholics (with which he had no connection) and because he was a leading Orangeman"

it would read:

The IRA stated, "Sir Norman Stronge and his son were shot and their home burned because sectarian assassinations were claiming the lives of Catholics."

I may have missed something here, but this seems the obvious solution. Please discuss below.

Tyrenius 21:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Murdered or killed - in lead section

I would have thought the term "murdered" should occur in the lead section and that there would be a reliable source to validate it. The Commons biography says "killed" but the Tynan family history uses "murdered". Is there not a coroner's report or national newspaper report that clarifies this?

Tyrenius 21:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

murdered is POV for a politically motivated killing. Murderers but get set free in a "peace agreement"! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vintagekits (talk • contribs).

Please find a mainstream source for your assertion. As it is unsubstantiated, it has no bearing at the moment. Tyrenius 01:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

A deliberate killing is a MURDER. The term targeted is meaningless!--Couter-revolutionary 02:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

WP policy is to VERIFY by using reliable sources, so please find a source to verify your assertion, i.e. a source that has called it "murder". Tyrenius 02:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Google search on "norman stronge" murdered generates 299 hits. "norman stronge" assassinated generates 170 hits. "targetted" is weasel wording. - Kittybrewster 10:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. We don't go by "google polls". It depends on what sources can be found. Tyrenius 00:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

TIME magazine calls the incident Murder Time Magazine —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Weggie (talk • contribs) 14:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC). Weggie 14:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a reliable source so "murdered" can be used with that as the ref. in the lead section or main text, except I've made the point above that where the IRA point of view is represented then it should state what they call it, and words can't be put into their mouths. Tyrenius 00:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Using the term murder is HIGHLY POV and is used as an attempt to criminalise the republican movement, I am sure you could get other quoted from reliable sources to say they were terrorists that carried out the attack but that is also POV. If we are going put these terms into articles then I will be adding it to other British Army murders who were active in the British Occupied Six Counties of Ireland.--Vintagekits 23:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

We go by verifiable reliable sources, and the term "murder" has been substantiated. It is not up to us to judge whether it is the POV of the source, as long as it meets the criteria. If there are reliable sources that say "terrorists" then we say terrorists and reference it properly. If you have a verifiable reliable source that says they were "brave freedom fighters" then we put in both descriptions, per WP:NPOV. Do you have such a verifiable source? NB please bear in mind discussions elsewhere as to what can be considered a suitable source. I don't think the "republican movement" as a whole has been implicated in this or mentioned, so that is an inaccurate statement. Re. other articles - again, find sources. Tyrenius 00:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• An attempt to "criminalise" the murder of an innocent 86 year old man - what else could it be? British occupied 6 counties? - sorry but everything you say is riddled with PoV! (unsigned comment by Couter-revolutionary)

....(Unsubstantiated slur removed by Kittybrewster 00:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)).....--Vintagekits 23:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Talk page is not the place for personal opinion or unsubstantiated speculation per WP:TPG, particularly when it is provocative and offensive to other editors. Please note this cuts both ways. Tyrenius 00:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

REMOVE THIS COMMENT NOW, PLEASE.--Couter-revolutionary 00:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I was quoted in tw orepublican publications that week.--Vintagekits 00:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

As you know full well those are not sufficient as reliable sources for contentious material. Tyrenius 00:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I havent got the publications in the house anymore otherwise I would put the detail in the article. However, I know someone who does and will get them.--Vintagekits 00:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source (in wikipedia definition of the same) for this? If not, don't mention it. Tyrenius 00:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• • I think it should be "killed" rather than "murdered". It is more plainly descriptive and stark, and fits better with the role of a neutral encyclopaedia. I do not think it could be an attempt to "sanitise" or diminish what was done to Sir Norman Stronge as the article explains that in detail; nor could it be an attempt to hide the repulsion many felt, since Austin Currie's statement expresses that. It is not the job of the article to try to guide the emotions of its readers. I also note that "Lost Lives" does not use the term "murder" in its text, only in quotations and in a strictly legal sense. Sam Blacketer 23:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

We are neutral in the way that we use what sources say. We don't then adjust what they are saying to make it neutral. We use it as they do. Tyrenius 00:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have many issues with it being killing or murder, both are infinitely more descriptive than calling it a death.--Couter-revolutionary 23:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty standard practice on wiki actually.--Vintagekits 23:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

For example?--Couter-revolutionary 23:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It's standard practice to follow reliable sources. Tyrenius 00:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The use of the term murdered instead of Killed is pure POV.--padraig3uk 13:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's standard practice to follow reliable sources. - Kittybrewster 13:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes and reliable sources and more neutral ones state that they bot hwere killed. --Vintagekits 13:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

What "reliable sources" say this? I haven't seen any? Even American papers (totally external and, therefore, you can't accuse them of being PoV, say he was murdered. --Counter-revolutionary 13:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

CAIN states that they were killed.--Vintagekits 13:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

CAIN states everybody who has been murdered was killed. Time is a more mainstream source but other are also quoted. Thank you for discussing rather than reverting again. - Kittybrewster 14:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Additonally, CAIN is probably one of the more neutral sources of information on NI and they state they were killed--Vintagekits 22:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I imagine an American magazine, as I pointed out above, is more neutral. It says a lot about CAIN when he doesn't use Sir Norman's title.--Counter-revolutionary 14:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• It would seem that it depends on who the victim is on wether they are killed or murdered, if they are Irish shot by the British they are killed, but if there British shot by the Irish they are murdered.--padraig3uk 14:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Where would it seem like this is the case??--Counter-revolutionary 14:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

In the Bloody Sunday article it was argued that the term murdered shouldn't be used, and killed be used instead - which I agree with - yet in this article the opposite is the case, if the term murdered is ok here them surely its equaly ok in the other.--padraig3uk 14:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between a terrorist organisation and the legitimate army of a country, who, even under the ECHR are allowed to use force occasioning death to quell a riot.--Counter-revolutionary 14:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

True colours beinging to show--Vintagekits 14:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The intentional shooting and killing of 14 people is not justifable even by a legitimate army during what was a minor civilian disturbance, there is also a matter of who is a terrorist or not, many people in Northern Ireland would regard the British Army as terrorists, either way it is not the role of Wikipedia to make that judgement and a NPOV should be maintained in all articles.--padraig3uk 14:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Many people in Ireland may well do. The incident occurred in Northern Ireland, a region of the United Kingdom, the army for which is the British Army. Wikipedia should stick to facts; this is one of them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Counter-revolutionary (talk • contribs) 14:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

I am well aware of where it is I was born there, Britain being in occupation of the North dosen't justify what they did there, that still dosen't alter the fact that the same rules are not being applied to articles on Ireland equaly.--padraig3uk 14:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not the page to discuss whether "Britain is in occupation of Northern Ireland". We report reliable surces without amending them. - Kittybrewster 14:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Could editors on this page, please study WP:TPG. The above conversation is largely a blatant violation of it. The talk page is not a place for opinions or unsubstantiated argument. That is not how to write articles. Please provide sources for statements, as in WP:ATT to be used per WP:NPOV. This is elementary stuff. Also we are not dealing with Bloody Sunday. Argue that on the talk page for that article. Tyrenius 01:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

New York Times say kill not murder. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Can editors read This before altering the lead in this article.--padraig 23:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

New section

I think the info in the opening paragraph about Stronge's political career should be appreviated and most of this should be moved in to a new section in the body of the article - any ojections to this from anyone? I can only see wp:mos type objections being credible here Weggie 11:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully the information should be easier to read - felt there was too much in the intro that should have been detailed in the main body of the article Weggie 12:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Deaths with which he had no connection

This article seemed to imply, incorrectly, that Sir Norman may have had a role in certain killings. It is obvious to those involved (yes not necessarily to all and sundry) that Sir Norman was not mixed up in anything like that. This is what I am attempting to stress, yet user:Vintagekits wishes me to provided a source for this. Suggestions?--Couter-revolutionary 23:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

All I am asking is that if you want to claim something in an article - just back the claim up with proof.--Vintagekits 00:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I can find any. All I am trying to do is protect the reputation of a good man, now gone, in the face of certain implicit allegations.--Couter-revolutionary 00:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That is very honourable. However, this is wiki, if you want to make a claim you need proof.--Vintagekits 00:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's so outlandish to suggest he was involved that there would be no source suggesting he wasn't.--Couter-revolutionary 00:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If a claim is to be included in an article, the burden of proof is on those who want it in to establish it, not on those who want it out to find a source refuting them. Sam Blacketer 00:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, appears I broke the first rule of commentary and didn't read the questioned material from the article. It merely states that "P. O'Neill" from the IRA press department had claimed the killing of Sir Norman Stronge as a reprisal for killings by loyalist paramilitaries. This was indeed the statement made at the time. I can't find, though, that they claimed a direct connection, merely that Sir Norman Stronge was a symbol of unionism and therefore a legitimate target. Does anyone have the actual statement? Sam Blacketer 00:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)(edit conflict) This is quite correct per wikipedia policy and the statement "Sir Norman had no connection with those killings" must be removed (this is not to imply that he did have any connection, I must point out). The article does not state he was involved in killings anyway, so there is no need to refute it. The IRA statement followed by Austin Currie's statement provide contrasting attitudes which give the reader sufficient information to make their own judgement. Tyrenius 00:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Assassination

This term has been allowed only in the IRA quote to represent accurately their statement on this event. It should not be used elsewhere in the text, unless there is a verifiable reliable source that uses this term, and we've already debated elsewhere what constitutes such a source. Tyrenius 00:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources can also state that those in the IRA are terrorists. Terrorist, murder and assassination are all purely POV.--Vintagekits 00:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

But if it's the POV of a verifiable reliable source then it is what we use. That is the whole basis of WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR which are non-negotiable policies. If you have other words to use, then find acceptable sources for them. Wikipedia is not about truth. It's about statements that can be verified according to its policies of what counts as verification. Tyrenius 05:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

YOu can also find the term "terrorist crime" from WP:RS should that be used? I also can find the term County Derry from from WP:RS should that be used?--Vintagekits 10:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. - Kittybrewster 10:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, start changing Londonderry to Derry and member (volunteer) to terrorists and we'll see what happens!?--Vintagekits 11:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The former is called Londonderry so that would be daft As for the latter, my life is too short. You do it by all means. Just make sure you have a WP:RS. - Kittybrewster 11:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I can find it quoted as County Derry from loads of WP:RS, would you support its change so long as it comes from a WP:RS??--Vintagekits 11:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't. It sounds like an abbreviation of the proper name. Like plane for aeroplane or Herts for Hertfordshire. I don't like it. - Kittybrewster 11:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was its original name [removed inflammatory provocative comment] and its name outside of Britain.--Vintagekits 11:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually it wasn't, there has never been a County Derry in the history of Ireland, prior to it being County Londonderry it was County Coleraine, don't know what original name you're talking about. Just because some sources call it County Derry doesn't make it it's name. Ben W Bell talk 16:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Vk, stop violating WP:POINT. We are not talking about Londonderry. We are not talking about the use of the word terrorist. We are talking about the word assassination to use in a specific place or places in this article. Wikipedia does not work by precedent and it is not consistent. Also per WP:TPG please stop misusing the talk page to express your personal opinions which are irrelevant to the article, which are not substantiated and which are plainly designed to annoy other users, as you know what their reaction will be to such statements. This is the second time in a short time that a needless provocative comment by you has had to be removed. If you carry on doing this, I will block you. I might point out earlier that other users were stopped from making deliberately inflammatory comments about the IRA. It cuts both ways. Tyrenius 14:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not violating WP:POINT, I am hghlight of instances in editing articles relating to Irish politics were details in details from WP:RS are neutralised in order to stop edit wars and keep the language more neutral. And were do you get off threatening me with a block for expressing my "personal opinions which are irrelevant to the article" - I was NOT EXPRESSING MY PERSONAL OPINION I was repeating what was written in a republican publication and even if it was my personal opinion why should it be whitewashed - there are a lot of editorss giving their personal opinions in this discussion why is nothing said to them. I told you I would get the publication but you allowed my comment to be deleted - I will get the publication and then I will put it in the article. To make out that members of the IRA are murderers is as you say "deliberately inflammatory" - I was not trying to have the information whitewash just to use less loaded and more neutral terms.--Vintagekits 17:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Additonally, CAIN is probably one of the more neutral sources of information on NI and they state they were killed--Vintagekits 22:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I imagine an American magazine, as I pointed out above, is more neutral. It says a lot about CAIN when he doesn't use Sir Norman's title.--Counter-revolutionary 14:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

PC

No question he was PC (NI), which is mentioned in the main text. But is it correctly shown in line 1 as Rt Hon or PC (NI) ? - Kittybrewster 21:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I know that generally, for commoners, Rt. Hon. is used as opposed to PC, however, Wiki. doesn't allow this. I have sources for PC being used after his name also. --Couter-revolutionary 21:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't allow it by what rule? - Kittybrewster 21:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_prefixes

--Couter-revolutionary 21:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Can't remember where it is, but it was forced on us a while back. Proteus (Talk) 21:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Our style is to use neither for commoners — for some ridiculous reason we're not allowed to use "The Right Honourable", and it'd be misleading to put the post-nominal there when it's not supposed to be used, so we're stuck in a rather absurd limbo. Yet another example of anti-British bias making everything difficult. Proteus (Talk) 21:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely when I provide a Reliable Source the post-nominal PC can be used?--Couter-revolutionary 21:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should argue for Rt Hon failing which PC. - Kittybrewster 21:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

A jolly good idea!--Couter-revolutionary 21:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Good, where do I sign up? Sam Blacketer 22:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_prefixes_No.2 - Kittybrewster 22:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be wonderful if we could use "Right Honourable", but I don't think the anti-status people will allow it. --Ibagli (Talk) 23:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Can this be removed or explained? - Kittybrewster 00:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If there's no explanation within 24 hours (to allow for all time zones), I can't see any reason why it shouldn't be removed. It's not a guessing game to work out what the specific complaint is. Tyrenius 01:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be a good idea also to leave a note on the talk page of the user who posted it, giving them the chance to explain. Tyrenius 02:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Stating that this attack was murder is POV.--Vintagekits 19:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You are so very wrong it is almost funny, if it weren't so serious an error. If the blood-thirsty murderers were caught, and charged, what would they be charged with? An attack in which they accidentally fired a machine gun at an elderly man and his son because their finger slipped? I don't think so, they'd be charged with murder. Fact. Thus, in a legal sense, as well as in so many other ways, this "attack" was a MURDER. --Couter-revolutionary 19:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The term murder is sourced. So is there any other reasoning behind the NPOV tag? - Kittybrewster 20:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it might be sourced but it is POV, there are also sources to say he was killed, which is NPOV. If there are also sources to say he was "wacked". "taken out" or "had a cap popped in his ass" should those be used!?!?--Vintagekits 21:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Not usually because it's not encyclopedic language, but maybe sometimes in quotes, if relevant. Tyrenius 00:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

We use the prime sources and do not adjust them to conform to the positions adopted by individual editors. Hypothetical questions are unhelpful. wacked is spelled wicked or whacked. - Kittybrewster 22:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:TPG. We don't bother with spelling and grammar mistakes on talk pages. Tyrenius 00:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Seeking clarification as to meaning. - Kittybrewster 00:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If your arguement comes down to spellin mistiokes then yu are ob shakey groouind.--Vintagekits 22:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are some international sources for the use of the word "murder" to describe the death of Sir Norman Stronge. I think this indicates it is a widely held, I would say majority, view. Nevertheless, it may be best to state who has called it murder for the sake of objectivity, as with the use of the word "terrorist" in Al Quaida.

• The New York Times, 30 January, 1981 [1]
• Time (in partnership with CNN), 2 February, 1981 [2]
• Commons Hansard, Rev. Ian Paisley, 1992-06-10 [3]
• The Spectator, 13 December, 1997 [4]
• Lords Hansard, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, 22 March, 2000 [5]
• The News Letter (Belfast, Northern Ireland), January 19, 2001 [6]
• The Daily Telegraph, 22 November, 2001 [7]
• The Scotsman, 10 April, 2006 [8]

Tyrenius 00:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

like I said, there are sources for both killed and murdered, however, murder is POV in this instance, provocative and a loaded term. Of all the sources listed CAIN is the most neutral and that says he was "killed" - also its funny how Irish people get "killed" by British but British people get "murdered" by Irish people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vintagekits (talk • contribs).

• How is CAIN the most neutral? Is it most neutral because it supports what you want to say?--Couter-revolutionary 13:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think any who know anything about Northern Ireland would know that CAIN is the most neitral source cited.--Vintagekits 13:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it may be POV, but if it is a POV advanced by major sources, which it is, then it is incumbent per WP:NPOV for us to represent that POV, which can be attributed to them by all means, but not just ignored. That would be a violation of policy. Tyrenius 00:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

murdered quotation altered by Vintagekits

[9] . No justification for changing this by amending the quotation. See WP:ATT WP:RS and stop being disruptive. - Kittybrewster 17:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You are the one being disruptive, large quotes should not be used to provide infomation when it is POV, the pair were killed - murdered is POV--Vintagekits 17:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree the use of the large quote per se is unacceptable. However, you still haven't answered my point above, namely:

Well, it may be POV, but if it is a POV advanced by major sources, which it is, then it is incumbent per WP:NPOV for us to represent that POV, which can be attributed to them by all means, but not just ignored. That would be a violation of policy.

Tyrenius 01:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You would then be ignoring the sources that state he was killed in preference of the POV term of murdered.--Vintagekits 01:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Vintage, out of curiousity - what difference does this make to you?

Shannon

The sources clearly say the warrant was for a charge of murder. We don't use euphemisms. Follow the source accurately please. Also the source doesn't say the charges were dropped; it says Shannon was acquited. Fidelity to the source is essential in articles. Tyrenius 00:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sectarian RUC stated at his extradition hearing that a "book of evidence" had been prepared and that Shannon would be put on trial immediately. Over a year after his extradition no evidence was ever entered. Shannon was released without ever going to trial and to this date no evidence has ever been forwarded.--Vintagekits 00:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ref(s) please. Tyrenius 01:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That is, acceptable refs of course. Tyrenius 01:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well the way things are going nothing except the Burning Bush or a Britsh Daily seems to be acceptable anymore. Have a look at Magill October 1985 for evidence of the mighty "British justice system".--Vintagekits 01:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That was quite funny. It's not up to me to scour for sources: it's up to you to provide them, if you have a point to make. Many sources, e.g. The New York Times, are perfectly acceptable, and doubtless all or some of these (I'm not greatly familiar with them):

Evening Echo | Evening Herald | Foinse | Herald AM | Ireland on Sunday | Irish Examiner | Irish Independent | Lá | Limerick Leader | Metro | Sunday Independent | Sunday Tribune | Sunday World | The Belfast Telegraph | The Irish News | The Irish Times | The News Letter | The Sunday Business Post

You (and no one else either from what I can see) never cite the Irish press, which I find surprising. Why not? Do they say the same as the British press and the Burning Bush perchance? Tyrenius 03:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Re-order and re-write rationale

There were too many headings and small sections which prevented any flow. I have created bigger sections and less headings.

I have considered the use of the words "killing" and "murder" attempting only to apply wikipedia policies of WP:ATT and WP:NPOV and their derivative guidelines, including Wikipedia: words to avoid:

The words terrorism and terrorist may be cited where there is a verifiable and cited indication of who is calling a person or group terrorist

The word "murder" falls into this category. As major sources use the term, it must be included. However, it must also be attributed to them. A straightforward solution is to describe the events in neutral terms, i.e. use the word "killing", which is after all what happened. I think in the circumstances of the death, the reader can safely be left to draw whatever conclusions they choose. I have put the labelling of the death as murder into a Reactions section, as it was a reaction to the event after it. It can then be compared with other reactions, and again the reader can make their own judgement. It is fundamental to wikipedia to present information in a neutral and impersonal manner, even though this may go against an editor's natural instincts, though of course these can be opposite in different editors.

All of this does create a disproportionately large section on the death, and I think the answer to this is to expand the previous section on his life and career. The marriage date is missing at the moment.

I have deleted the UDA lines. This is original research. There is no source that connects this to Sir Norman Stronge, only an editor's idea that it is connected.

Some of the details may need to be clarified, revised or more closely referenced, but please do not insert statements which may be contentious which are not supported by appropriate references.

Note also per WP:LEAD that the lead section is not an introduction. It is a summary of the article for those that want a quick overview without necessarily reading the whole text. I have augmented it with this in mind. Ideally the lead section should not be referenced, as it is only an abbreviated version of the main text, where the references should be.

If there are any disputes over the revision, please open talk below, giving each subject its own heading for clarity. Talk related to the article is best stated on this page, not on user talk pages, in order that all editors may have a chance to participate.

Tyrenius 03:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done, I quickly read through it and it seems fine to me, if the same could now be applied to Sir_James_Stronge,_9th_Baronet it would be good.--padraig3uk 03:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Go for it! Tyrenius 04:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

NYT

Can I just point out I think the NYT part should be removed? One story on the link does say murdered, but another story does not. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have given the same link twice. However, there is a reference that uses this unambiguously in the title and the beginning of the article:

MURDERS BRING FEAR TO PROTESTANTS ON ULSTER BORDER

By WILLIAM BORDERS, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES

Last Sunday afternoon, when they buried Sir Norman Stronge, a prominent retired politician whom Irish Republican Army terrorists said they had killed, the British Cabinet Minister responsible for Northern Ireland pointedly stayed away from the service in the little gray stone church here. The minister, Humphrey Atkins, would normally have been one of the chief mourners of Sir Norman, whose murder at the age of 86 has deeply shocked this tidy village [my bold]

It is legitimate therefore to state "The killing was called murder by ... The New York Times", because it was. I can't see any justification for not communicating this fact. However, you are right that this could be confusing with the link given, so I have amended the ref to state the particular part of the page cited as well as the particular title referred to.

Tyrenius 04:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I meant to link to the other story. The point I'm making is that although the NYT described the deaths as murder, the first story they printed on the subject (on January 22) used the word "kill", and it wasn't until the January 30 story the word "murder" was used. So while it is correct that they did indeed use the word "murder", their first reaction used the word "kill". The term "murder" was actually used by William Borders who was a London based correspondent, so more likely to be affected by British reaction compared to the writer of the original story. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The text doesn't say it was their first reaction. It just says it was one of the sources that called it murder, which they did. There is no rule that only the first reaction counts, nor that if a paper prints something by a foreign correspondent it doesn't count. The arguments you are making are your own speculation, i.e. original research, which cannot be used. Tyrenius 01:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying at all. My interpretation for the inclusion of the newspapers/magazines on the list is that in the view of those newspapers it was considered to be murder. I'm not really bothered either way, I'm just pointing out the ambiguity. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In their view it obviously was murder. That's why they called it that in the headline. If a newspaper prints a story, then they are giving it their endorsement, unless you can find they printed a retraction later, saying they had got it wrong. Tyrenius 02:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

InfoBox

In the infobox it says 'Speaker of the Northern Ireland Parliament' at the time of his death this didn't exist either the position or parliament, so the infobox is misleading as it gives one the impression that it is still currently in existance. Shouldn't this be changed to 'Former Speaker of the Former Northern Ireland Parliament.--padraig3uk 10:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's true that the PNI is no longer in existence but it is arguably his most notable political position before his retirement and murder by Sein Fein/IRA.Weggie 10:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite true. He did not, after all, hold the position of "Former Speaker"!--Counter-revolutionary 12:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I accept that he once held the position, nor am I saying it shouldn't be in the infobox, but it should be clearer that the position and Parliament no longer exists, from looking at the article at first glance it gives the impression that it currently exists.--padraig3uk 19:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It should state the term when he occupied the office - as Winston Churchill. - Kittybrewster 19:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed that. - Kittybrewster 19:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That is better, thanks.--padraig3uk 19:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't the date be 1946-1969, if he held the position for 23yrs.--padraig3uk 19:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

History and Biography ratings

These appear to have been given by editors who have worked on the article. They are meant to be given by editors who have not! I've reverted to original state. Tyrenius 04:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sir Norman Stronge photo

Moved from a talk page and distilled.

Regarding a photograph of Sir Norman Stronge, I will be looking into the fair use of this image - where was it obtained from. I have another picture of him but I am not sure it could ever be used on here. … I have a photo of him from An P showing him in "all his regal garb" - however, it is copyrighted so cannot be used on here. --Vintagekits 14:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Righto. If you have a picture of Sir Norman, "in regal garb", perhaps you could contact the copyright owner in an attempt to gain permission. I presume you know who owns the copyright as you know it's copyrighted. --Counter-revolutionary 15:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The picture is likely to be permissible under fair use, especially if it shows him in his garb and he is deceased so a free version cannot be created. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Vk might now like to answer ONiH's point about the photograph. What is the source? - Kittybrewster 11:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

1918-1938

I've just noticed there's 20 years missing, during which he is wearing a long wig (see photo). Tyrenius 04:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Can we move the photo to the infobox. --Counter-revolutionary 12:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Where would his arms go? Did JP's wear wigs in Ulster at that time? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Weggie (talk • contribs) 12:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

The arms would go where the photograph is now. --Counter-revolutionary 13:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC

Done that. - Kittybrewster 11:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure about that photograph? Sir Norman Stronge would have been about 30 in the mid 1920s but that photograph appears to show a much older man. Sam Blacketer 11:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that sort of wig would have been worn by a Judge. The medal round his neck sems to be his Croix de Guerre. - Kittybrewster 11:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well it is the typical "big wig". JP's of course did perform the role of magistrate so I imagine this is what it is.--Counter-revolutionary 11:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think a JP would have worn that wig. I suspect Sir Norman was a lawyer. - Kittybrewster 12:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking it could be the Speaker's wig. Speakers of the House of Commons have not worn one for the past 15 years but it used to be traditional. Sam Blacketer 12:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

How stupid of me. You are surely quite right. - Kittybrewster 12:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, or perhaps High Sheriff also? He was not a lawyer so far as I know. Speaker sounds correct, although he didn't take up that post until the late 40s.--Counter-revolutionary 12:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Pointless citation?

Does this quotation actually add anything?
'Tim Pat Coogan stated in The Green Book: I, "Sir Norman Stronge and his son were shot and their home burned because sectarian assassinations were claiming the lives of Catholics"'
This looks to be merely Mr. Coogan's opinion.--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If true, it shows how futile and pointless the assassination was. Kittybrewster (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move

This is no other Norman Stronge, therefore per WP:NCNT it should not be at its present location. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree in accordance to WP policy it should to moved to Norman Stronge.--padraig3uk 22:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any point moving it. It's fine where it is.--Counter-revolutionary 22:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah! thats lovely - move! Infact it was just Norman Stronge until January when Kitty moved it to this (without discussion!)--Vintagekits 22:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it back to the correct place then. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it back- this is the correct title for a Baronet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Astrotrain (talk • contribs) 14:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Moved to Norman Stronge in accordance to WP:NCNT.--padraig3uk 14:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NCNT#Other_non-royal_names#4:

Baronets, as they hold hereditary titles, often for a large part of their lives, follow the same practice as hereditary peers and should have their title noted in the beginning of the article. The format is Sir John Smith, 17th Baronet. For the article title, this format should only be used when disambiguation is necessary; otherwise, the article should be located at John Smith. John Smith, 17th Baronet should never be used with the postfix and without the prefix.

Please leave it at Norman Stronge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Proscribed Organisation...

Re. this edit [10]. It is factual to state that a) the IRA were (and are) proscribed in Northern Ireland, Great Britain, where this attack took place and, as a consequence the high velocity weapons and grenades used were illegal. Thus it gives an accurate, factual, representation to be included.--Counter-revolutionary 19:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

its an unecessary and POV edit - why dont I just add every single country in the world in which they are not a proscribed organisation immediately after your edit!--Vintagekits 19:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

hmmm, let me think, because the attack took place in a country where they were proscribed! --Counter-revolutionary 19:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find it was perfectly legal to own high velocity weapons. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't be so pedantic. It's a proscribed (illegal) organisation, in the UK - which is where these killings took place. Their arms wouldn't have been legally held and their grenades would certainly not have been. --Counter-revolutionary 22:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Prove that the arms were illegally held, otherwise it's original research and can't be used. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I can prove they're proscribed. One day, when I have too much time on my hands, I'll prove (i.e. source) the rest too. --Counter-revolutionary 23:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Consistency

Much of this story is re-told in Tynan Abbey, but with a different tone. We should try to make the descriptions of the events in various articles more consistent. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 20:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

They come from different angles. One's about a house, the other a man. --Counter-revolutionary 21:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Unreliable source

This does not meet WP:RS. An "fsnet" domain name is free webhosting, so it's just someone with a website. The banner reads "Sinn Fein/IRA where (sic) nothing more..." so it doesn't seem to have "an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight". Removed the unreliable source, and requested citation. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Granted the source is clearly PoV but this is clearly not a contentious issue, as anyone who was at the funeral could tell you. --Counter-revolutionary 22:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The source is a man with a website, that does not meet WP:RS. I'm not saying the quote is contentious, had I thought it so I would have removed the entire quote at the same time. Please provide a reliable source for it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"Good Article"

Surely this is a good article. Everything's referenced, reads very well, nice style, NPoV, &c., &c... --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no other name for cold-blooded MURDER.

Disruptive edits are never acceptable. WP:NPOV comments by Republican sympathisers are certainly not acceptable. Sir Norman Stronge and his son were brutally murdered in the most heinous circumstances. The adjective 'killed' does not go anywhere close to describing this barbaric and cowardly crime against humanity. --De Unionist (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The brutal nature of the killing is readily apparent in the existing dispassionate and encyclopædic text. There is no need to elaborate further. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 12:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Disagree, it could be much better and I will attempt to do so with verifcations in due course. This is what the project is all about, improving articles. --De Unionist (talk) 12:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's about improving articles, but not to change them to show your viewpoint on events. Remember Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopaedic, not a news source, not a soapbox, and not a site to display your views on a matter. Canterbury Tail talk 15:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It is the verifiable facts that count, nothing else. --De Unionist (talk) 01:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, verifiable facts. What you changed needs to be verified. It needs to be referenced that it's murder, referenced that they where heavily armed terrorists, referenced that he was a serial killer etc. Canterbury Tail talk 02:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The verifiable facts are already there. There is already a paragraph devoted to the description of the killings as "murder" by a number of news sources. How is that not satisfactory? --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 09:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The reason that it is not acceptable to De Unionist is due to their POV the comment they made above killed' does not go anywhere close to describing this barbaric and cowardly crime against humanity shows that they want to editorialise and push a POV. BigDunc^Talk 09:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It is more than satisfactory. O Fenian (talk) 09:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

To you it would be! Killed is when you get run over crossing a road, murdered is cold-blooded pre-meditated killing, see Murder for description. The term murder is totally appropriate in this context. --De Unionist (talk) 09:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No. Saying who said he was murdered as at present is sufficient. O Fenian (talk) 09:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk English please otherwise STOP disrupting. --De Unionist (talk) 09:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Killed is quite sufficient, there is enough info in the article for people to make up their own minds, which is jsut as it should be per WP:NPOV. Also be aware of the three revert rule which you are in grave danger of breaching, an which could lead to you being blocked, also see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles which any uninvolved administrator could decide should be applied to you. David Underdown (talk) 11:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

In what way is "murder" a POV term? As I understand it, there is no dispute that Stronge's killing was premeditated and unlawful. Therefore, by definition, it was murder. Mooretwin (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe these links will verify it. [11] [12] --De Unionist (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a more philosophical question related to the idea taht one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter - murder or assassination? Wikiepdia forces us to consider the other side's point of view as well as our own, and represent matters as fully and neutrally as possible. So we say he was killed, put up all the basic facts, and allow the reader to decide for themselves how they wish to characterise the killing, regardless of our own views on teh matter. David Underdown (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

An assassination is a category of murder: not a separate classification to murder. There may be those who believe that the murder of Sir Norman was justified for political reasons, but that does not alter the fact that it was a murder - unless there is anything to suggest that his killing was either (a) not intentional or (b) not premeditated. Mooretwin (talk) 10:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Consider yourself and your "sock" mate out numbered on this occasion.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should read murder which is very clear on the distinction with the commonly used 'killed'. Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought), and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide. The killing of Sir Norman Stronge and his son James by the PIRA falls squarely within this definition. Appeasement of a uncivil minority is not an option. --De Unionist (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

De Unionist (talk) is a sock puppet of The Maiden City and has been blocked indefinitely.--Domer48_'fenian' 12:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Norman Stronge. 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/20110607081947/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0139/S.0139.199403240003.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0139/S.0139.199403240003.html

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) 01:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)