Talk:Segregation in Northern Ireland

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Northern Ireland

	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 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.

Chris O, stop moving without consensus

It's childish, and not going to work. Stop it.--Urthogie 19:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you stop removing sourced material and references from this article, and discuss changes in the talkpage.--padraig 20:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urthogie, turning this article into a series of disconnected quotes about "apartheid" is a thoroughly bad idea. You seem to be trying to push an agenda here - describing the situation in Northern Ireland as "apartheid" is both grossly inaccurate and highly inflammatory. It's not at all compatible with the neutral point of view that we're supposed to follow. -- ChrisO 21:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO, I'd love to discuss this with you if you'd stop abusing your admin powers to basically say "IM RIGHT UR WRONG". You have made a classic abuse of admin powers-- you've used them in a case where you have an NPOV dispute, where you are editing. Wikipedia is not a place for you to force your opinion immediately without discussion. You didn't even discuss once. Please undo your action then we can maturely discuss this possibility.--Urthogie 21:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point out what the NPOV issues are, as I have read through this article and I fail to see what your issue is.--padraig 21:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I'll discuss the NPOV issues whenever an admin is not abusing his privelleges to prevent a fair discussion.--Urthogie 21:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what abuses you claim he has made are, the edit history shows you as removing material and its sources from the article, so its up to you to justify this.--padraig 21:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The abuse he's made is moving the article an preventing anyone from moving it back. This article is about an allegation of apartheid, a piece of political rhetoric, not segregation. Chris can feel free to make a segregation page. The problem is that he's destroying one that was created by someone else and preventing us from moving it back.

Once again, why am I debating over something which has been decided from the get-go? This administrator, ChrisO, has decided he'll abuse his powers to get his way on a minor decision because he's sure he's right. --Urthogie 21:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title you want to move the article to isn't remotely neutral. The issue is segregation, a long-standing problem in NI; people have occasionally compared it to "apartheid" but that isn't how the issue is normally framed, and it's grossly POV to claim that it is. NPOV is supposed to apply to article titles as well as the contents of articles. This principle has stood for a long time - it's discussed in detail in Wikipedia:Naming conflicts, which I established a long time ago. It states: "Choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications." Now, clearly, an article title that states or implies that "apartheid" is in operation in NI is extremely POV. In addition, the use of "allegations" is deprecated by Wikipedia:Words to avoid#So-called, soi-disant, supposed, alleged, purported. "Allegations" should not be used in article titles, as (to quote WTA) it "introduces unnecessary bias into the writing". These conventions have stood for a long time, they were adopted to maintain NPOV, and they should be respected here as well. None of us get a free pass from NPOV - it's a fundamental policy. -- ChrisO 21:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO, if you actually cared about policies, you'd be recognizing that NPOV is a dynamic policy that is constantly being figured out on a page to page basis. It is not up to you to abuse your administrator powers to get your interpretation of NPOV in a given context followed. You are not allowed to do that. This is a straightforward abuse of powers, in which you did not even discuss your proposition, you just made it and forced users who opposed it to go along with it by preventing the software from allowing page moves. You are not the "God of NPOV"-- NPOV is a guiding principle that we all interpret and discuss to figure out how to apply it best. It is not something that you are aware of, and others are not, and therefore have to be co-erced into submission.

You might be right about the page move. If that's the case, it will emerge from getting consensus, not from forcing your decision upon other users. Don't you know how wikipedia works? A user doesn't just declare themselves "correct" and prevent others from discussing before that decision is made.--Urthogie 21:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urthogie, I've been an editor for four years and an administrator for three. I think I have a pretty good grasp of what NPOV entails. Judging by your extensive block log, it seems you have some problems understanding our policies. Could you possibly address the substantive points I made above rather than resorting to ad hominems? -- ChrisO 21:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urthogie, I come from Northern Ireland, and whilst Segregation is a issue it is not comparable to apartheid, plus you have provided no sources to support your claim that it is.--padraig 22:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO, your experience as an administrator doesn't allow you to continue enjoying the fruits of your policy violation. Please revert yourself, so we can have a fair discussion. Is this too much to ask, or is it important that you use your administrator abilities in an NPOV dispute you are actively involved in? I'll be glad to discuss my objections, in detail, if you'll do that.--Urthogie 22:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Padraig, you might be right, but I am not willing to argue over that when until ChrisO stops abusing his powers.--Urthogie 22:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think that the article is protected - it isn't and it never has been. You're free to edit it, but please don't try removing sourced content again. Now could you address my substantive points about what our policies and guidelines require? -- ChrisO 22:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an amazingly disingenuous statement, ChrisO. You, in fact, did protect the Allegations of Northern Irish apartheid article, specifically so you could win this move war with Urthogie: [1] After I pointed out that it was an abuse of your admin powers, you unprotected it. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urthogie had a misconception that he couldn't edit this article; I pointed out that he can and always could. Nothing disingenous about that - it's a simple answer and straight to the point. -- ChrisO 22:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urthogie,

there is a discussion and it is here. In saying to Padraig "I am not willing to argue over that when until ChrisO stops abusing his powers" it is you who are refusing to discuss.
in continually reverting ChrisO is using his power as an editor, not abusing his power as an admin
The version and title of ChrisO is more commonsense and more NPOV than yours. I have never encountered either of you before so that is not a partisan comment.

Scolaire 08:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that "Segregation..." is a more neutral and sensible title for this material. —Ashley Y 22:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too. Now let's do the same renaming on the article about France : Talk:Allegations_of_French_apartheid#Proposal_to_rename_the_article Teofilo talk 10:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title is way more neutral than using Apartheid. Poppypetty 10:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mergefrom|Religious discrimination in Northern Ireland

Have a look at my sandbox; I think they fit quite seamlessly into each other. Feel free to mess around! --Victor falk 20:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Useful article

This is a useful article. Glad to see the issues over the naming of the article didn't prevent that.

I think the article Peace lines could do with expansion and some referencing and background information copied from this article (indeed this should be the "parent" article for the article "Peace lines").

zoney ♣ talk 10:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peace line gates.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Peace line gates.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Peace line gates.JPG)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]