Talk:Artistic reactions to the 1981 Irish hunger strike

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 November 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

	Northern Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Irish republicanism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Irish republicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish republicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish republicanismIrish republicanism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Loyalist reaction

I'm guessing it's OK to include the Loyalist and Unionist reactions in here such as this one? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reliable source. O Fenian (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And neither is the one you just added, in addition to being a copyright violation. O Fenian (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Youtube videos uploaded with copyrighted matirial can only be uploaded if they have the copyright holders permission or if it's their own. Since the song is by Rangers fans, it possibly has no copyright regestered with it as they're not treying to get in the charts or even if it's possibly a parody of another song (like No Pope of Rome is a parody of Home on the Range). The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you want to go down the copyright road there is always: Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 29 & 30 of the Copyright Act 1988; allowance is "fair use" for the purpose of research or for a non-commercial purpose, does not infringe any copyright in the work, provided it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement of the source. Also for the purpose of criticism or review, of that or another work, or of a performance of a work, does not infringe copyright in the work, provided it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement, and provided the work has actually been made available to the public. That can be done easily by mention with reflinks. I await your response. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you want a US law. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976 it states "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." And as this is a research page and not for people looking for entertainment. I await your rebuttal. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not understand basic copyright laws, there is little to discuss. Linking to copyright violations is not covered under fair use. O Fenian (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I chimed in on the video link but wanted to also mention that this article needs to be sourced and checked for neutrality (and maybe even deleted if that doesn't happen). That is the real problem. If The Thornlie Boys didn't receive press coverage it probably isn't worthy of mention. Everything currently without a source (the whole list minus one) needs to be sourced as well or removed. The lead also needs to be fixed since it has some language that requires sourcing and uses scare quotes. No wonder CofE is concerned.Cptnono (talk) 11:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And is it supposed o be a list or an article? I would request speedy deletion (under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion A7 and G11) if ou guys weren;t arguing about it. Fix the OR, POV, and establish notability or else a propsal for deletion is a good option.Cptnono (talk) 11:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does burden not apply?

Last time I checked there were two clauses that did not apply to Wikipedia:Burden.

The first clause is "If there is unsourced information already in an article, you are free to add as much unsourced information as you want without a source"

The second clause is "If there is unsourced information already in an article, if you want to revert an unsourced addition you must remove all other unsourced information at the same time".

Neither of these apply.

The latest source does not source the information in the article, as is usual. Thus, I have removed it entirely. The burden of evidence is on the editor adding or restoring material, not the one removing it. O Fenian (talk) 09:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where are those policies found? I do not see them at WP:V. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They cannot be found anywhere. O Fenian (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be dense, but I'm not understanding what you mean then. Could you clarify? Also, I've posed the question at WP:RSN, as I'm curious as to how we can source song lyrics. I'm not interested in using that source to establish notability or connect them to the article's subject, just to source the words. I'm not opposed to their removal, but I would ask that any deletions be moved to a section here, since that will give us something to work against as we try to find sufficient sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article vs list

I'm beginning to feel this would be better as an article rather than a list. The literature sections (poetry fiction and theatre) would easily expand to match the street art section. The song section would need to be pruned to those for which there is some sourced commentary about the song. I guess if someone wanted, they could split the complete set off to a List of songs about the 1981 Irish hunger strike or similar. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Reasoning detailed at the deletion discussion but if anyone wants me to copy and paste it over I would be happy to. I am not positive that we have enough sources but it is certainly worth a shot. Go for it, propose a draft, or do whatever step you feel is best.Cptnono (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need the kind of overview sources in the other sections that we have in the street art section, then I'll certainly feel confident of keeping it. BTW - if you want to format the images some better way, do feel free. What's there is pretty basic. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we need those kind of sources to keep the songs section, but I think we already have plenty of sources to keep the article. FWIW, I think the images are fine, but we might consider keeping them to a limit of six. Or if we want more, perhaps 3-6 as thumbnails, and a montage in an infobox. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of a montage. Comment about the gallery was a criticism of me, as I set it up, not anyone else. I believe there are sources for more content in the film and literature sections. So far I've seen nothing that would present an overview of the songs, but some of them were the subject of commentary at the time that could usefully be added if we are moving away from the list format. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We won't be done today regardless. Since the murals section is about murals, I think a representative set makes sense. I'm on a wide screen, and six formats nicely, so I think it is fine, but if the article stays and attracts attention, I'm sure there will be discussion on who's murals we should include, and my thought is the montage would give us wiggle room. Regarding the songs section, I'm pretty sure we can find an overview source, since it wasn't very hard to find same for the murals. I focussed on the lit section a bit because that's something I used to do. Regarding sources for song lyrics, I understand Cptnono's concerns, and figure to bring up the question of what is reliable as a source for the word/existence of a given song. That's a difficult question, since the way knowledge about popular culture material is disseminated differs from science, history, news, etc. That being said, I'll be surprised if there are not reliable books and articles on the general subject, and will do some hunting today. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've started looking, but Irish copyright must be different to UK as none of the books published in the Republic are available to view any content on Google books. Have to look elsewehre.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cover versions and non-notable bands

Many of the songs have been recorded by more than one artist, it would seem prudent to only include the original versions. Also due to the plethora of bands out there, it would also seem prudent not to include every minor pub band. O Fenian (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics websites

Unless hosted on an official website (say the band's), these are hosted in violation of copyright. I plan to remove any such links later today. O Fenian (talk) 12:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I confess I had not thought about the copyright issue, and it strikes me as humorous that folks seeking to displace a government would be concerned with copyright issue. But maybe it's just one way the Man can stick it to the people. (; Sounds fine, I'll see what I can do about finding a better source. Please do put a list of the songs you remove here, so I won't have to dig through the history to find them when I make my next research sweep. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics List

I'll start that list Nuujinn suggested here then as someone has removed one of them without listing it here. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to try a cheeseburger, Bobby Sands? - The Thornlie Boys.

Air for Bobby Sands and the Huger Stikers [sic] - Loren Connors (I couldn't find this listed on Connor's web site in his discography or anywhere else) --Nuujinn (talk) 12:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Artistic reactions to the 1981 Irish hunger strike/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

This page needs a serious amount of work. At the minute it has no content other than a list of songs related to the hunger strikes. There are several more avenues to expand upon, namely Visual Arts, Poetry and Prose (novelisations of, or novels that include significant reference to, the Hunger Strikes).

The songs themselves need elaborated upon. They may well be a reaction to the Hunger Strikes (their existence would would suggest as much) but how do they react? What statements do they make? Do they support the strikers' actions, or do they demonstrate reservations?

I will do what I can to assist (I'm a PhD student studying the poetry of Paul Muldoon, which means I know a little bit about this topic, but not as much as I would need to write a thorough article). I recommend at least three further major subsections to the main page based on the three categories I listed above, and I also recommend a large number of people involve themselves with the project, both to lighten the workload and help generate an NPOV consensus on what is sure to be a difficult topic.

Thanks

BlackMarlin (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 22:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 08:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Artistic reactions to the 1981 Irish hunger strike. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 03:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Artistic reactions to the 1981 Irish hunger strike. 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:

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) 01:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]