User talk:Mabuska/Archive 42015/July
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Nationalist v republican
Just wanted to copy/paste a quote from SDLP MP (South Belfast), Alasdair McDonnell, which kind of helped me to arrive at some of the conclusions I pointed out at the Glenanne gang talkpage. I am leaving it here because I have already taken up a lot of space there. I am not trying to persuade you or dissuade you from anything, nor am I saying I have a problem with what McDonnell says, just to bring it to your attention:
"Dr McDonnell accused Mr Donaldson of using outdated 'tribal mythology' to support political hostility against Catholics.
As Irish republicans we have no interest in the succession to the British throne or any other throne”
... [H]owever, as partners in a powersharing government we are deeply concerned that a junior minister charged with direct responsibility for community relations is peddling poisonous 16th century lies and propaganda.” He suggested Mr Donaldson “should learn some proper history and drop the tribal mythology”.[1]
Yours, Quis separabit? 02:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Meh, the SDLP has for the past several years being lurching into a mini-Sinn Fein party trying to shore up its failing position. They are becoming more republican (in the modern sense of the term in NI) in a desperate attempt to cling onto relevance in their own community. My point is still valid however that in NI the two terms have a difference in who they refer too. I would likewise oppose the removal of "Ulster loyalism" just because they by essence fall into "Ulster unionism" because they have different meanings and connotations. Mabuska (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Protestantism in Ireland
May I ask what the over-arching plan is? Do you have a scheme or layout for the re-write that you can share? Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not too sure myself at the moment but I have lots of stuff from a myriad of sources that I can add and for now want to insert it all into relevant distinct sections focusing on a topic, such as immigration, penal laws, doctrines, politics etc. etc. I have more sections to add as well, covering obvious thins at present missing or lacking. Afterwards I may try to amalgamate all the information into a chronological narrative focusing on time periods to avoid the inevitable redundancy that my current approach has with the repeating/paraphrasing of some of the same information in different topic sections.
- Feel free to help if you want to expand the article, just make sure it's all sourced! Mabuska (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'd feel better if I knew which approach you favoured: strict chronology or thematic. As it stands, it's a mish-mash of both which makes it unreadable. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- It's not unreadable and compared to what was there, at least it is an article now providing good reliably sourced information. It is a bit of both, but on the lines of thematic based chronological, but as already stated that is only for now. Rest assured unlike many articles on this site this one will be fine so I'd worry about feeling better about another article (s). Mabuska (talk) 06:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- User:Laurel Lodged, I've had a go at re-arranging the article. Any better? I think I can trim the penal law section down a good bit and transfer the cut out material to the actual penal law article itself. Have already tried to trim some bits down removing indirectly relevant information that is not needed for this article. There is still a lot of information to go in to help beef up the history section etc. Mabuska (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- It's not unreadable and compared to what was there, at least it is an article now providing good reliably sourced information. It is a bit of both, but on the lines of thematic based chronological, but as already stated that is only for now. Rest assured unlike many articles on this site this one will be fine so I'd worry about feeling better about another article (s). Mabuska (talk) 06:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'd feel better if I knew which approach you favoured: strict chronology or thematic. As it stands, it's a mish-mash of both which makes it unreadable. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 30 July
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Protestantism in Ireland page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)