Template talk:1981 Hunger Strike

Recent changes

I've reverted. The left align didn't look at all good, neither did the bullet spacing or names being split over two lines. The centre align is more consistent with succession boxes and the like which appear on some articles the template appears on, and there's plenty of other centre aligned templates. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you I think the template above is better looking, takes up less space.--padraig3uk 20:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking up less space when a template can be made to auto-collapse is no reason for poor formatting. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What poor formatting are you refering to.--padraig3uk 23:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As above. Left formatting looks ugly, as does the spacing and line breaks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major political and religious figures during the strike

Can editors stop adding minor figures to this.--padraig 16:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Padraig, this has all already been discussed on your page. Define the difference between minor & signifcant, and how this effects their roles played within the Hunger Strike? Conypiece 16:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a good guide that you might want to start with. 1. Do they have an article of their own? 2. Where they invloved in the 81 HS, 3. DO you have concensus and argeement to add their names to the template?--Vintagekits 16:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Some do, some don't. But there are names on the template that do not have wiki pages. 2. They were not, but neither was Harry West. Padraig is insisting that he be included on the template, then I am insisting on consistency 3. Does Padraig have consensus to add Harry Wests name? No, I am not the only editor that has said that. Methinks you should direct the above three questions to padraig. Conypiece 17:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was explained to you on Talk:Harry West. You have also breached 3RR on this, just as your did on Gerry Adams.--padraig 16:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm no it wasn't. Can you please explain it here? Oh yea, Vintagekits asked an excellent three questions above, would you mind answering them also? Conypiece 17:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Domer48, you seem to constantly tell me to use this talk page, here I am... Now your point, if the elections were significant (I generally agree) then why do you list only some candidates? Conypiece 17:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of Padraig, 1. Define the difference between minor and significant in regards to election candidates? 2. How they acted differently to make some more significant than others? 3. (vintagekits questions) Where they involved with the 81 Stike? Do you have consensus to add their name to the template? Conypiece 18:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your question has already been answered below.--padraig 18:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ack now padraig this is becoming laughable. Just answer the questions. You have not told me what the differnce between significant and minor are. You have not told me how the candidates acted differently. You have not told me whether are not you gained consensus to put Wests name back on the template. Seriously, are you going to answer these? Conypiece 18:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your question has been answered below, maybe you have nothing better to do, but I have, and see no reason to repeat the discussion below.--padraig 18:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-read all the discussion below, and I can tell you that none of the three questions have been answered. I would appreciate a reply to the questions asked. Conypiece 18:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance to Hunger Strikes.

Discussion moved from Talk:Harry West

So how exactly is he relevant? Conypiece 00:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major political figure during the strike. Scalpfarmer 00:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How was he major? Please do explain? He was a candidate ( and a reluctant one at that!) that just so happened to stand against Bobby Sands. He did not partake in the strike, he had no influence over the strike, he held no leadership position during the strike. I am actually really interested to how you can call him a 'major political figure'. And also I do not agree as will many others that he should be on the template, so that is not a valid excuse. Ohh and another thing, isn't it strange that you seem to appear when Padraig's not around... damn my paranoia. Conypiece 00:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The by-election was one of the focal points of the hunger strike. He took part in the by-election. Therefore he was a major figure. I would suggest you refrain from making any further ad hominem arguments. Scalpfarmer 00:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It took part during the strike but was not directly related to it. The election happened because the outgoing MP passed away. There was an election, Sands went up, not the hunger strikes. I'm not a political amatuer. You can use your threats of edits wars but I am not letting this one drop just because you/padraig think a certain way. Conypiece 00:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Until the by-election the Republican Movement was having difficulty obtaining publicity for the hunger strikers. The by-election and Sands' victory turned the hunger strike into worldwide news. I do not understand how you can say the by-election was just something that happened during the strike and wasn't directly related to it under the circumstances. Scalpfarmer 00:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously don't use that 'the election made people pay attention line' with me. The strikes were already news. Yes it may have shook Westminister for a few days (again not relevant to Harry West). And yes I still say the by-election was just something that happened. It would have still happened if there had not been a strike on. Im interested in seeing what other contributors think on this issue for your individual opinion should not shape this article. Conypiece 00:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed what makes the unsuccessful Ulster Unionist candidate an inherently important figure the hunger strikes in and of themselves? More of a major figure than the UUP candidate in the second by-election, who isn't on the template? What about the leaders of the major parties in Northern Ireland at the time? If anything surely it should be the by-election itself that's on the template? Timrollpickering 00:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create the template, I merely restored it after it was removed by an editor who frequently removes information about republicans from articles (or attempts to delete the articles altogether). The second by-election was not as significant as the first. For the publicity - Sands ' election spurred frantic attempts to mediate or find a resolution. An envoy from the Pope spent an hour with Sands in his cell, and media from all over the world flocked to Belfast. Scalpfarmer 00:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to answer Tim's questions? Should Owen Carron, Danny Morrison et al not also be on the template? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Conypiece (talk • contribs) 01:02, August 8, 2007.

I already did, and Owen Carron is on the template. Scalpfarmer 01:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what was your reasoning for not having the party leaders names included? Because you did not make the template, then do you think the current one is inadeqaute and a new one should be created? Apologies, did not see Carron's name on it, however whilst looking over it I spotted that the Fermanagh and South Tyrone by-election, August 1981 is included, so should all of its candidates be included? For that is your sole reasoning as to why Harry West is included. Also I am curious as to who is currently editing the template... Conypiece 01:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added both by-elections to the template as the start of an events section. There is a point that the second was less significant than the first (but still clearly of note) but I still don't see why West alone qualifies for inclusion - was the April by-election turned into a very personalised thing on the Unionist side? Timrollpickering 01:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because West stood as the only other candidate against Bobby Sands maybe.--padraig 01:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also added the Irish general election, as strikers were elected. The second by-election was notable, but the first was really the "big one". Bear in mind the template is a navigation template, so do you really have anything against more incoming links to this article? Scalpfarmer 01:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second by election was very notable because Thatcher rush through legisation to ensure another prisoner couldn't stand to replace Bobby Sands, which is why Owen Carron who was his election agent was forward as a proxy prisoner candidate, thatcher had hoped that would break the publicity gained from Sands election, but this failed when Carron won.--padraig 01:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So going by the consensus that the 2nd was also important and then following claims that Harry West's name was included solely because he was a candidate, then should I include the names of the 4 other candidates who are currently not on the template? Conypiece 01:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other four candidates in the second By election played a minor part in that as the Unionist vote united against Carron in an attempt to defeat him, I also doubt if many of the minor candidates at the time would warrent an article in wikipedia.--padraig 02:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor or not they still had as much influence on the hunger strikes as Harry West did. Just because they don't have a wiki page does not mean they should not be included. So yes/no, should the 5 other candidates be included in the template? I'm only going by what you/Scalp said. Conypiece 02:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't think the other candidates where relevent, West was put up as a Unified Unionist candidate to try and defeat the hunger strike candidate, while he may have been reluctant to stand the Unionists put up a determined campaign to take that seat.--padraig 12:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm but then Ken Maginnis was the sole Unionist candidate in August, as Seamus Close was the sole APNI candidate, I fail to see your point. The template has been edited, if West must be on it, then the other 5 candidates must also be represented. Conypiece 12:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No they Don't this election was a two horse race, the other candidates didn't feature in it, and there total vote between them was irrelevent, to the outcome.--padraig 13:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I am no longer talking about the 1st by election. You are wrong however, these 5 candidates played a key role in the 2nd by election, they made up 80% of the candidates! Therefore you cannot choose which candidates you think should be on the template. They all had as much influence on the strike as Harry West did. (btw I left you a question on your page, please answer it) Conypiece 13:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your question on my talkpage was already answered by an admin, there is not much more I can add to what he said, that I haven't already said in that discussion. As for this the other candidates they played a minor role in this election, their input had no impact on the overall result, West was the main Unionist candidate and only one that could hoped to take the seat from the hunger strike candidate.--padraig 14:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were two elections which a few people claimed had major influence on the Hunger Strike. Harry West just happened to be the sole candidate in the first. In the 2nd election there were 5 candidates standing against the 'pro hunger striker' candidate (Carron). Therefore all candidates must be represented. Conypiece 14:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the second Ken_Maginnis was the Main Unionist candidate, the other four candidate were no hopers, there is no need to mention them in the infobox as the election itself is linked.--padraig 14:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how you can detirmine between 'hopers' and 'no hopers'. If their name was on the ballot, then according to you they were taking part in a significant part of the hunger strike. Whether they were elected or not is irrelevant. West was not elected. Maginnis was not elected. Conypiece 14:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--padraig 18:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I created the template and only added Harry West as a space filler and to add some balance incase anyone felt it was lacking. Don't really see any point in keeping him in it now. Just a thought... GiollaUidir 13:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your honesty GiollaUdir, it would be interesting to see what Padraig has to say, but he rarely replies on talk pages. Conypiece 14:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have no consensus to remove links from this template, so please stop your POV pushing.--padraig 14:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have not consensus to add them. Why do you do so? Conypiece 14:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are included because the played a major role in the by-elections, you are trying to remove them because of your POV against republicanism, which is clearly shown by your edit history.--padraig 15:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it is not just me that thinks they either dont belong/ belong but the other candidates as well. You failed to answer the above question (surprise, surprise), why do you insist on their inclusion when you have clearly not got consenus on the issue? Oh and my edit history is of no relevance to you. Conypiece 15:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit history shows you are edit to push a POV so it is very relevent, and your question has been answered.--padraig 15:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually its called facts replacing fiction. And no it was not answered, why do you feel you have the right to include these names when you have very clearly no consensus on the issue? Even the original author has not even said it was a mistake to add the name. Do answer here. Conypiece 15:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template has changed greatly from what the original editor created, that is how wikipedia works. You have no consensus to remove the links, and there is no fiction in this template.--padraig 15:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer the question. You also do not have consensus, so why do you insist on having the names on the template? Conypiece 15:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must understand how wiki works. You need concensus to add something - not to keep something out, You are editing against concensus.--Vintagekits 21:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But out of the few people that have participated in this discussion 3 editors have stated Wests name does not belong on the template. One of them editors who was the author of the template, has stated that it was a mistake to include Wests name. And I know exactly who wiki works. I also know when I large number of people disagree with a part of an article/template they have the right to edit it. Majority rule by numbers does not work here, even though there seems to be some kind of unwritten rule in WP:IRA group. Conypiece 22:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have failed to put forward a convincing arguement as for why his name shouldn't be included, whereas good reasons have been provided why it should.--padraig 23:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So good reasons for him being included are, he was a candidate in one of the elections. Am I missing any?.... erm em can't think of any more.

Now reasons he shouldn't be included. He had no affect on the strikes, he was only an election candidate, there are 5 other candidates who had just as much influence on the strike however you refuse to insert them on the template. Your reply ? Conypiece 23:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was put up as a United Unionist candidate, and all other Unionists withdrew from the election to try and defeat the Hunger strike candidate, the Unionists put there all into winning that seat, the same happened in both elections.--padraig 23:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do try to research facts before you post. He was not a united unionist candidate, the DUP had no base in Fermanagh at the time. It is widely believed any other candidates were intimidated out of running by the IRA, an example would have been the previously deceased MP's brother, Noel. He has always maintained he was 'forced' out off running. Then in regards to the second election, there were no agreements here either. A simple google search would have told you there were 6 candidates from across the political spectrum. How were they any less significant? And please dont resort to your no hopers idea. Conypiece 23:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The SDLP would have run a candidate if Noel Maguire (the aforementioned brother) had not announced his intention to stand - because the seat had a fine balance between Unionist and Nationalist voters there was a desire on both sides to avoid splitting the vote (or perhaps to only split if the other side were split as well - e.g. the 1979 Independent Republican vs Independent SDLP vs Official Ulster Unionist vs United Ulster Unionist contest). However Maguire announced he was withdrawing in favour of Sands in the one hour window between the close of nominations and the deadline for withdrawing. (Had Maguire not withdrawn, Sands would have been withdrawn.)

In terms of the lack of inter Unionist fraticide in the by-elections, not only were the DUP weak here but also they were not the only party contending to be the anti-UUP force. The ironically named United Ulster Unionists would have had a stronger claim to be the main challengers to the Official Ulster Unionists based on the 1979 results - the UUUP held the next door seat and had stood in F&ST in 1979 - and also had more councillors in the seat than the DUP (three in Fermanagh to the DUP's two in Dungannon). But they may have already realised they were a busted flush by 1981 (with the Assembly elections the next year being the ultimate confirmation). (In the 1982 Assembly elections for the seat, the DUP and UUUP between them got less than half the votes the UUP got.) Timrollpickering 09:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, do you believe Wests name should be singled out for inclusion in the template? Do think he had a major role to play. Conypiece 10:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No - he's only mentioned as the other candidate on both Bobby Sands and 1981 Irish hunger strike and there's not much other than his being the by-election candidate on his own article. Since both by-elections are now on the template there's no real need for the various candidates to be listed unless they were significant figures elsewhere (e.g. Carron). Timrollpickering 11:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Sands, being elected as an MP. While on Hunger Strike. Notable, I think so. A new law had to be passed to prevent it happening again! Just another By-election? I have watched this discussion, and can not see any reasons why the name should be removed. --Domer48 21:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm Domer, the issues not Sands, its Wests. Conypiece 23:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More removals?

I"ve been looking at the list of people now included in the Major Figures list and it strikes me that it is still cluttered (with or without Harry West) with names with little or extremely tenuous links to the strike. ie, Garret Fitzgerald, James Prior, John Magee (bishop) and Cardinal Basil Hume.

While Prior was involved in the strike for the last 30(ish!) days of the strike he only really inherited Humphrey Atkins stance/legacy as Atkins had been the main Brit. gov rep in the run up to the strike and during most of the strike itself.

I don't see any real connection between Fitzgerald and Magee and the Strike other than they were around during it, despite Magee's supposed role in the 1980 H/S.