Talk:Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics of the United Kingdom

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

More information:
/
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Ireland Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Northern Ireland Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I haven't been able to find any reference to any Special Powers Act 1971. Does this page refer to the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act passed by Stormont in 1922? It is reproduced here: [1]. This is the only NI Special Powers Act I've found proper reference to, and unless there is some other one, this page is wildly inaccurate. --Helenalex (talk) 07:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right. Aatomic1 (talk) 08:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give others a few days to respond and if no one has any objections I will do a massive rewrite. --Helenalex (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repeal/replacement

This article doesn't appear to explain the repeal/replacement of the Act. Mooretwin (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other SP Acts

As I recall, did the French government not pass a Special Powers Act during the Algerian War? I think we might need to create an article for that one, and others if they exist, and disambiguate this page. --Grahamdubya (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Someone made the move, by cut-and-paste, and I had to histmerge it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Special Powers Act → Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922 — Apart from the disambiguation issue, it is standard for Acts to be under their full names. Admittedly most people do link straight to 'Special Powers Act', but then most people seem to think the Act dates from the 1970s. --Helenalex (talk) 11:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Unhelpful edit and summary

Snowded, what are you playing at? Gob Lofa (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I restored some of Gob Lofa's edit as not all of it was contentious. Whilst I find Gob's removal of "Ulster" from "Ulster unionists" odd considering their campaign to change all instances of loyalist to "Ulster loyalist" and nationalist to "Irish nationalist", but in the content of the sentence I can see why it was removed it and I agree it should be removed so have. I also removed the Irish from nationalist seeing as we don't need that distinction as we are talking about what they are. I did however wikilink both nationalism and unionism to their relevant articles.

The rest of it however was correctly reverted. Just to point out that to state that Ireland achieved independence after partition shows a huge misunderstanding and ignorance of the topic Gob is editing.

Mabuska ^(talk) 21:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take it easy, he probably meant it in good faith. Gob Lofa (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is taken easy. Of greater concern is the bias in the article that fails to make mention of the core reasons for this act such as the IRA campaign in Northern Ireland, which was aided in 1922 by Michael Collins amongst others. Too much emphasis is placed on Catholic disappointments over partition. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collins' operations in and plans for the North are truly neglected subjects on Wikipedia. Lay on, Macduff. Gob Lofa (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A common misquote of Macbeth, nice. Personally I don't want to fight to the death as I don't want death on my hands. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we don't even share the same definition of 'misquote': [2]. Nice. 00:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

You don't get it, as always way and above your head. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll suffer on. Gob Lofa (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If an editor seeks to include controversial changes in with routine ones they must expect mass revert. Mabuska, if you have the time to help Gob Lofa out on that fine I have better things to do ----Snowded ^TALK 05:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be miracle if Gob Lofa stopped mixing decent edits with controversial ones as well as stopping with the misleading edit summaries that don't cover all they are actually doing. Do you honestly think no-one is going to check your edits considering the persistent problems with some of them Gob? Mabuska ^(talk) 10:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded, do you actually mean you reverted me here without even checking my edit, just because you didn't like an edit I made elsewhere? And I must expect this? Mabuska, please provide an example to back up your accusation of misleading edit summaries; I don't care if you're also trying to get a sly dig in at Snowded for doing this here, but I reject your charge. Gob Lofa (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read your edits, saw one obvious POV. Given I had to go through multiple page changes by you based on that POV my tolerance for picking and choosing what was or was not valid had gone so I reverted the lot and I will happily do so again if needed. Where you made uncontroversial edits I left them on several articles. Learn to split the two and life will be easier. Learn to respect a neutral point of view and I (and others) will have to spend less time monitoring you ----Snowded ^TALK 16:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What point of view did you see? Gob Lofa (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before don't be naive. If you want to propose restoration of an edit do so on the talk page with argument and citation. Then I'll respond but I'm not interested in these little games you seem to play on talk pages. ----Snowded ^TALK 16:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous; you allege a point of view you can't even name and then you characterise a direct question as a game. Jog on. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a antonym type phrase for "The praise of the praiseworthy is praise indeed'? Just follow Wikipedia policy and practice and you will have fewer problems ----Snowded ^TALK 16:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spare me; your sanctimony is transparent. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NI description

Or we could discuss it now, Snowded. Gob Lofa (talk) 07:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit-warring Gob Lofa. Northern Ireland is de facto a province of the United Kingdom, hence its common description of "the Province". Only the ignorant to the situation would confuse it with the defunct provinces of Ireland which are an entirely different thing altogether. The province of Northern Ireland has nothing to do with the province of Ulster. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To provide some sources from a wider-spectrum: "that made up the province of Northern Ireland, "James Craig (later Lord Craigavon) begins a 19-year term as prime minister of the new province of Northern Ireland", "thus creating the province of Northern Ireland", "Ireland, to the west, consists of the UK’s province of Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic.", "The Ulster Chess Union is responsible for organising, administering and developing chess in the Province of Northern Ireland.", This Ulster nationalist page is full of references to NI as a province. None of these seem to worry about confusing NI with Ulster. In fact trawl through this search string yourself. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're using a strange definition of edit-warring, Mabuska; this is a discussion page. The provinces of Ireland are still in use; as you know, using 'province' to describe NI carries connotations of British/unionist bias, as say 'occupied six counties' carries connotations of Irish nationalist bias. The neutral and precise term I've suggested avoids this problem. Gob Lofa (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[3], [4], [5], [6] - four times from 30th July to the 6th August, so despite being reverted by three different editors, you don't classify that as edit-warring? Hope that excuse holds up in the forthcoming AN/I. Your edit has been reverted by three different editors, two of which (me and Snowded) come from totally different political viewpoints/standings. You provide no sources, and even if you manage to find one, you'd be pushing a unbalanced viewpoint on it. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All were defying BRD (and Snowded remains defiant); you ought to know better by now. Gob Lofa (talk) 11:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all your edits did defy WP:BRD. I'm glad your finally starting to admit some of the many issues with your disruptive editing. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]