Talk:James Stronge (Mid-Armagh MP)

Disputed fact tag

I have deleted this sentence as original research: They have never provided evidence that the 86-year old man had any connection whatever with those assassinations. That type of comment must be sourced - meaning that we need a reliable source that states that the IRA has failed to provide this evidence. Since it's not sourced, and one user has refused to allow a {{fact}} tag to stay on it, then the only solution is for the sentence to come out. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

How does one prove that they have provided no evidence that he had any connection with assassinations? - Kittybrewster 20:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You have to find a reliable source that's said it, or someone quoted by a reliable source. Then you can quote them. Tyrenius 22:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

One cannot find a source that something was not said!--Couter-revolutionary 22:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I am happy with the present text suggested by Tyrenius. Well done. - Kittybrewster 22:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a little clumsy, but it meets WP:V. Incidentally, the answer to the question about sourcing is this: You would need to find a source that says something like, "The IRA has never provided evidence to connect Sir Stronge to those assassinations." In other words, if a reliable source says that the IRA didn't provide the evidence, then that's good enough for Wikipedia. Does that make sense? | Mr. Darcy talk 00:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does. I just don't find myself very convinced by author Tim's implied unsourced and unverified slur about a respected 86-year old victim. - Kittybrewster 00:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

WHo was he respected by? Not the nationalist community thats for sure. I havea great quote from Gerry Adams that I am just about to put into the article which pretty much clears up the view of the nationalist community with regards this man.--Vintagekits 00:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The Queen and many others. Who is Gerry Adams I wonder? - Kittybrewster 01:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, Vintagekits. There is a quote saying how he was respected by the nationalist community in the article! He was much more respected than the IRA who are descrived as "dregs of society" - highly aprropriate!--Couter-revolutionary 09:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please try and remember WP:NPOV and more importantly WP:CIVIL. regards--Vintagekits 19:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Now that the text has reached a point where everyone is satisfied, I suggest that we close this particular discussion. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Quite agree, however my above comment stands.--Couter-revolutionary 22:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move

This is no other James Stronge, therefore per WP:NCNT it should not be at its present location. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The naming conventions don't seem to mention baronets actually. --Counter-revolutionary 22:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it does, point 4 only disamb if necessary.--Vintagekits 22:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The derogatory comments in the edit summary used by the mover indicates a reason other than naming guidelines. Astrotrain 14:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved in accordance to WP:NCNT.--padraig3uk 14:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• This should surely be, in line with WP:NCNT, as there have been other James Matthew Stronge baronets. --Counter-revolutionary 19:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• But there are not articles on those baronets, so no disambiguation needed. See WP:NCNT#Other_non-royal_names #4. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Do your research first,

• Sir James Stronge, 2nd Baronet
• Sir James Stronge, 3rd Baronet--Counter-revolutionary 20:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I did my research. James Stronge initally redirected here, and there was no link at the top of the page to suggest the existence of further James Stronges. Don't blame me for your failure to create the page properly. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

For goodness sake, this is turning into a move war. My reply to Counter-revolutionary got lost when the talk page moved yet again. Can everyone please agree to discuss the issue before any further moves? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I was telling BrownHaried whatever to do their research, not you. There is no edit war, it is being discussed. I just happended to make a mess of the move, hence all the corrections. It should use his full title. --Counter-revolutionary 20:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I would also point out that if you'd mentioned the existence of other James Stronges when the move was proposed, it wouldn't have been moved in the first place. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Substantive reply, if the page stays in place long enough to post it.
First, sorry I didn't find the other James Stronges: I looked for any hint of disambiguaton, and didn't find it. Should have checked the baronets list :(
Anyway, since we have more than one, it seems to me that the question is whether one is considerably more notable than another. If the 9th Baronet passes that test, i suggest he shoukd be at that James Stronge, but otherwise at Sir James Stronge, 9th Baronet. I can see no case for the article being at Sir James Stronge, 9th Baronet of Tynan, which is where the page is now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, BHG. Its present location is my fault since I was trying to create a James Stronge disambig page and couldn't move it to its proper location Sir James Stronge, 9th Baronet. My bad, I didn't first check the talk page. BHG please would you move it. - Kittybrewster (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have speedy deleted the mis-spelt redirects, but I'm not going to move the main article until there is a consensus on where it should be. That does not seem to be the case so far. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

OK.

• Arguments in favour of Sir James Stronge, 9th Baronet of Tynan

It saves further discussion

• Arguments in favour of Sir James Stronge, 9th Baronet

It is per correct form and MoS

James Stronge is a useful disambiguation page

• Arguments in favour of James Stronge

It satisfies ONIH’s proposition that titles are “pompous”

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kittybrewster (talk • contribs) 09:13, 8 May 2007.

unclaimed baronetcy

In the article on his succcessor, there's a ref to [1], which seems to indicate that he never claimed the baronetcy.DGG 00:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - it seems that way.--Vintagekits 23:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This article should be renamed as the claim to the title has never been proven, then this article should be moved to 'James Stronge'.--padraig3uk 12:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

See Burkes Peerage. He is known as Sir James. --Counter-revolutionary 13:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Burkes, Debretts, Who's Who - none of which are reliable sources. If he hasnt legally claimed his Baronetcy then he aint a Baronet.--Vintagekits 14:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have multiple reliable sources that they aren't reliable? Otherwise it really ain't advisable to question world authorities. --Counter-revolutionary 14:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

See this [2] and here [3] where it says It is a popular misconception that the heir apparent succeeds automatically to a baronetcy on the death of the current holder. Nothing could be further from the truth. By a Royal Warrant of King Edward VII dated 8th February 1910 an Official Roll was established to be kept at the Home Office. It was further stated "that no person whose name is not entered on the Official Roll of Baronets shall be received as a Baronet, or shall be addressed or mentioned by that title in any civil or military Commission, Letters Patent or other official document." if he dosen't qualify then the title shouldn't be used. As for Burkes, Debretts, Who's Who, they only used the information supplied to them by the people involved themselves--padraig3uk 14:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Case closed - the 10th Baronet can be deleted completely and the 9th stripped of the title.--Vintagekits 14:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hardly. Perhaps you ought write to the SCB and ask whether he can legitimately be referred to as baronet? --Counter-revolutionary 14:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see if that is necessary the quote above makes it clear that he can't be referred to as a baronet, and the last recognised holder was the 8th Baronet.--padraig3uk 16:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but Burkes Peerage and Baronetage makes it clear he is known as the 10th Baronet of Tynan. --Counter-revolutionary 16:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Do Burke and WW etc overrule the law of your country?--Vintagekits 16:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course they dont overrule it, they reflect it, ie Burkes Peerage and Baronetage reflect the actual laws and titles, SqueakBox 16:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

They only use the info provided by the person claiming to hold the title, that dosen't overrule the fact that the 8th Baronet is the last recognised holder of the title on the official record, therefore the 9th and 10th holders are not proven.--padraig3uk 16:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"they reflect it" - remind me how they do that!--Vintagekits 17:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Like we reflect facts we dont create them, same process, SqueakBox 17:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well in this case the official facts contradict the sources, therefore WP should go with the official data.--padraig3uk 17:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you know how these publications are produced? Obviously not - they dont reflect anything, they are compiled from questionairres sent out to the individuals - therefore they are reflecting there own perceptions of themselves from what the public perceives them as or that law.--Vintagekits 17:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No they aren't. For one thing, the current baronet is not in a position to do this. They reflect the law. --Counter-revolutionary 22:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well thats not what the information that Padraig has provided states!--Vintagekits 22:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I propose that unless evidence is provided that proves the claim to the title, this page is moved to James Stronge.--padraig3uk 22:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Burkes is not compiled by way of any questionaire &c. and is an accurate and reliable source to shew that he is known as Sir James Stronge, 9th Baronet. --Counter-revolutionary 00:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Burkes is a good source and if it says sio we have no reason to question that, SqueakBox 00:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Burkes may be a good source, but I accordance to Law his claim is not recorded on the official roll, therefore he was never given the title.--padraig3uk 18:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Please provide an undisputed unambiguous source which says he can not, under any circumstances, be referred to as a baronet. --Counter-revolutionary 18:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand how wiki works - if you want to asert something you must provide the evidence. The evidence is there to show that can cannot be a Baronet despite what the vanity publications say. If he was not legally a Baronet then he is not a Baronet its as simple as that.--Vintagekits 18:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I already have above near the top of this section, also one of the ref you use in the infobox to support your claim refers to him as Major Hon. James Matthew Stronge [4] yet your using this to support your claim he held the title.--padraig3uk 18:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that was the source that he was the Hon. --Counter-revolutionary 18:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

But it doesnt refer to him as Baronet!--Vintagekits 18:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing the Hon. part just the false Baroncy claim.--padraig3uk 18:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Decorated...

Removed (yet again!) as unsourced weasel wording. Someone is decorated if they have a Victoria Cross, so rather than use a vague (and totally unsourced) term, specify what decoration he had. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's calm down, I have no objection to it being removed until a source is found. --Counter-revolutionary 20:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You are getting very tiresome.Traditional unionist 20:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on James Stronge (Mid-Armagh MP). 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.baronetage.org/succession-to-baronetcy/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614060036/http://www.baronetage.org/succession.htm to http://www.baronetage.org/succession.htm
• 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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 08:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)