Talk:German Plot (Ireland)

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.

Military history: World War I

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	World War I task force

Untitled

I was going to leave a note about why I renamed this article, but since I've redirected it instead I won't bother. jnestorius^(talk) 18:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article, along with its 'history' appears to have vanished. RashersTierney (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't panic; it hasn't been deleted, its been made a redirect. The history is still there, as your own link proves. It was pretty much an orphan stub and I found its presentation confusing and disjointed. The same ground is covered with more context in Conscription Crisis of 1918#German plot. Of course you can revert if you like, but I would request you cross-link the two articles better. jnestorius^(talk) 08:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No panic here. I'll restore the article to 'as was'. Happy to discuss a merge, if that was your intention. RashersTierney (talk) 12:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've linked here from there. I've copyedited it. jnestorius^(talk) 16:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV

I think some of Sarah777's recent edits are wrongheaded.

In the first place, replacing "conspiracy" with "alliance" might be NPOV if we were talking about an actual alliance, but we are talking about a British fiction. The word "Plot" in the title, and the scare quotes in the lede, are hints to this. In that context, conspiracy is an accurate description, not POV; just as it is not anti-semitic to describe Shylock as a villain.
In the second place, the fact that there were German links to the 1916 Easter Rising is relevant, because it lent credence in 1918' to the 1918 allegations; the fact that it does not lend credence in 2011 to the allegations does not neutralise that fact.
Do you seriously think "freedom movement" is NPOV?
I have added a source for the "bad intelligence" claim. Please consider {{cn}} before kneejerk deletion.

jnestorius^(talk) 14:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"bad intelligence" wasn't an addition of mine. Alliance - I concede the point as it didn't actually exist. Freedom fighters - concede. But I draw the line at referring to those less committed to fighting for freedom as "moderate". That is a weasel word. A pov word. Sarah777 (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know "bad intelligence" wasn't an addition of yours; it was a deletion of yours. My presumption was that you deleted "at best as a mistake based on flawed intelligence" because you didn't believe it. My point is that (BLP aside) you should be very sure that something is false before you go straight to deletion rather than asking for a source. If you prefer "accommodating" to "moderate", OK. I do think a link to physical force Irish republicanism is useful. And I think "putative" is better than "alleged", both because "alleged" is in the previous sentence and because "putatitive" carries a stronger implication that the allegation is false. I changed "discredit the Irish freedom movement" to "discredit the Sinn Féin movement"; I'm not sure whether "discredit the (Irish) republican movement" might be better. jnestorius^(talk) 07:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful hint

You should not mass revert when I make a whole series of edits. There is a tendency by some editors to do this and it is a bit provocative. Deal with the changes, one at a time. Then we can have a civilised discussion rather than be drawn into a revert war. Sarah777 (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Were you misled by the word "revert" my edit summary? I did examine all your changes; I kept some, reworded some, reverted others. Those I didn't keep I explained above. jnestorius^(talk) 07:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]