Talk:Belfast

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Belfast, OpenStreetmap, April 2012.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Various biased/incorrect changes reverted

Re this edit. No obvious reason was given for the reversal of the order of Catholic and Protestant. The IRA did not detonate 22 "no warning" bombs on Bloody Friday, that is a deliberately false claim. Warnings were issued, as the Irish Times and probably every reference that's written about the day has documented. I would add a sentence to the article explaining it, but it's maybe too much detail for this article. No reason was given for the removal of the passage Most of their victims were Catholics with no links to the Provisional IRA. A particularly notorious group, based on the Shankill Road in the mid-1970s, became known as the Shankill Butchers.. Replacing it with a hopelessly inaccurate summary of the Shankill Road bombing speaks for itself. Taking these changes into account, the removal of the Irish name from the lead can't be seen in a positive light, and its removal is not compatible with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles#Place names. I did leave a couple of the changes in, and added appropriate wikilinks. Discussion welcome. FDW777 (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

We are going down a rabbit hole with this. Why is this article selecting specific atrocities to represent the Troubles in Belfast, incidents that together represent about 2% of the 1600 killed in the city? What are the criteria? Are they supposed to be representative? As it now stands, since they are told (1) loyalists where responsible for "the greatest loss of life ["including children"] in a single incident" (McGurk's Bar); (2) that "most of their victims were Catholics with no links to the Provisional IRA"; and have (3) two loyalist atrocities (McGurk's Bar and the Shankill Road Butchers) identified compared to only one for the IRA (Bloody Friday); are readers to conclude that (1) loyalist actions account for most of the deaths in the city; and that (2) that most of those killed by the IRA did have discriminating/legitimating "links"? And what about those killed by the Government security forces (the Ballymurphy massacre, the FRU etc.)?

None of this I am sure intended, and it is all very difficult, but trying to straighten it out by citing yet more, or different, incidents is going leas us down an all too familiar path.ManfredHugh (talk)

Inaccurate and misleading comment. I suggest it is withdrawn.

At the end of the opening paragraph it is stated...

in the 1970s and 1980s it was one of the world's most dangerous cities,[6] with a homicide rate around 31 per 100,000.[7]

First of all this statistic (31 deaths per 100,000 population) was the highest ever recorded and only represented one year (1972), not two continuous decades as is claimed. This makes it not only incorrect but also very misleading.

Secondly, the actual average annual death rate per 100,000 population during the troubles was 4 to 6.5 which does not even put Belfast within the top 25 list of dangerous cities in the 1980's, in fact, number 25 (Washington DC) had a homicide rate 3 times higher than Belfast... So Belfast is not even close to being on a list of the worlds most dangerous cities.

Sources: https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/othelem/research/esrc7.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide_in_world_cities

Thirdly, I think this comment is particularly inappropriate considering that recent statistics consistently place Belfast in the middle ground compared to other UK and European Capitals (which in turn is a relatively safe region globally) So I fail to see how this comment helps readers to Understand Belfast if it is not only highly misleading about the past but also suggests a situation which is completely contradictory to modern reality.

sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Northern_Ireland

- MP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martian Prince (talk • contribs) 20:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The Troubles, and the Ballymurphy Massacre

FDW777 you write of my earlier editing of The Troubles: "Horribly written and/or unreferenced and/or selective (if you're going to include Shankill, let's at least mention the specifics of the attack rather than present it as a random bombing of a fish shop). Unclear why the 1,200 bombings need to be mentioned since they weren't Belfast specific. Kept one change, after some rewrites to make it encyclopedic. Removed copyvio image".

1. The version you restored has no obvious criteria for the bombing incidents it selects, and doesn't go into "specifics" either (although maybe to it for to identify McGurk's was bar is too much for you, if you think it wrong to mention the Shankill Road Bombing was of a fishshop, and maybe that's right. We are not trying here to speculate on the bombers' intentions).

2. I've tried just to mention just the four worst single incidents in terms of loss of life, which has the merit of mentioning the presence of THE BRITISH ARMY (Ballymurphy Massacre) which you (and the original version) for some reason wish to avoid. The Troubles are presented in the version you restore purely as an inter-communal conflict.

3. But I'll edit to try to take on some of your concerns.

ManfredHugh (talk) ________________________________________________________________________

Your change was reverted, so why have you reinstated it with a totally misleading edit summary? Why are you restoring content that's been removed as unreferenced? FDW777 (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

1. It is not unreferenced (there were six references) and now more.

2. WHY are you seeking to reinstate a summary from which you would never know that the British Army had been deployed on the streets of Belfast--let alone that any controversy attached to its operations? Talk about "misleading".

3. WHY are you seeking to restore a summary that is entirely arbitrary in the incidents it selects to illustrate the violence of the Troubles.

4. WHY are trying to reinstate a summary that makes no reference to the Belfast Agreement? I don't understand.

5. I have not simply re-instated what you reverted, and have made changes.

Regards ManfredHugh (talk) _________________________________________________________________________

1. You added unreferenced content.

2. If you had even bothered to read the version in question, you would know that addition had been left in the article.

3. Is your selection somehow less arbitrary? Explain how exactly.

4. It is your usual long-winded drivel that is of little direct relevance to this atrticle.

5. False.

Please stop edit-warring and seek consensus for changes that have bren reverted. FDW777 (talk) 07:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________

1. What unreferenced content are you referring to?

2. That's true, you did retain my reference to the presence of the British Army and to the Ballymurphy Massacre. I was too quick to assume that this was another your complete reversions. You still eliminate reference to the Belfast Agreement, which broadly concluded the Troubles. Why?

3. The selection takes it cue from the first incident of the original version: McGurk's "the greatest loss of life in a single incident in Belfast". So what are the other worst incidents in terms of the taking of life? Loss of life might not be the most meaningful criteria if we were going to enter into an analysis of the causes and precise nature of the Troubles, but that is hardly appropriate or possible here.Taking loss of life does have the virtue of being verifiable and relatively neutral. AND if we list the worst four, it has the virtue of bringing into the picture the three armed parties to the conflict: broadly the loyalist paramilitaries, the republican paramilitaries and the state security forces. It also selects four incidents for which there are Wikipedia articles and links.

4. As I said before, mere expressions of distain ("drivel") or disgust ("horrible") is not good community editing practice. It consensus is what you think we should be seeking, you have break cover and identify what you understand by "drivel" or what you see as "horrible" in the contribution you are taking issue with.

5. "If you had even bothered to read" my revised version, you would see that it is true that I have made changes. The reference to the number of IRA bombing incidents in NI in 1972, to which you objected, has been dropped. It also omits mentioning that the Shankill Road Bombing occurred in a fish shop which (as opposed to McGurk's being identified as a bar) you find (for reasons I don't quite understand) inappropriate.

I am not "warring" (I am not calling anybody's effort "horrible" or dismissing it as "drivel") and would be happy to seek consensus if that is possible.

Kind regards ManfredHugh (talk)

Your addition beginning "For reasons that nationalists and unionists dispute" is of no clear relevance to Belfast, unlike the text you removed. I've already explained the removal of your Good Friday Agreement text, it went on forever and other than the alternate name of the agreement is nothing to do with Belfast. Or at least, the text you added isn't. It's good that you admit your selection of incidents is just as arbitrary as what you object to. It is unclear why you removed all mention of the Shankill Butchers. FDW777 (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

"Good Friday Agreement text went on forever"?: it was three sentences. Maybe relying on the link it could have been one, but "Nothing to do with Belfast"? It marked the end to thirty years of sustained political violence in the city.

The "incidents" in the revision you deleted are not "arbitrary" nor (with my addition of Ballymurphy) are the one that you have reinstated. Selecting the four worst incidents in the city in terms of loss of life (however unsatisfactory it may be from some angles) is not arbitrary. As I have noted, it had at least the virtue of bringing the British Army into the picture.

PROMOTION OF AN UNSOURCED, WIDELY REJECTED, INTERPRETATION OF THE TROUBLES The incidents you insist upon were originally chosen to support a wholly unsourced interpretation of the Troubles and I wonder whether you actually endorse it.

The original summary, which you restored, opened with the clear statement that The Troubles were the "most recent example" of "various episodes of sectarian conflict between [Belfast's] Catholic and Protestant populations" and it identifies "republicans" and "loyalists" as "the opposing groups in this conflict". Even with this wording removed we still have a summary that recognises only two sides (only the the driving force of "the paramilitaries that formed on both sides") and in profiling by McGurk's and the Shankill Road Butchers supports this by focussing on raw (and psychopathic) sectarian murder.

You can argue that that is an element of The Troubles that can be overlooked in all the political blather, but NO nationalist account, NO unionist account, and NO scholarly account (I have ever seen reference to) accepts inter-communal/sectarian violence as the defining feature of the Troubles. No matter what else they believe was going on (which does include, something else neglected here, intra-republican and intra-loyalist conflict), they point to the determination of republicans to wage what they understood as war of national liberation.

The Wikipedia page on The Troubles is typical. It underscores the central importance of the republican "guerrilla campaign against British security forces as well as a bombing campaign against infrastructural, commercial and political targets" and how that interacted with the brutalities of the loyalists' so-called retaliation and of the state's counter-insurgency.

Better not discuss The Troubles in Belfast at all, than ignore this central and sustaining feature of the conflict. Better say nothing than create the impression that it was some kind of thirty-year long, out of hand, sectarian riot.

SURELY WE CAN COME UP WITH BETTER WORDING to convey this, even it is only by taking a few lines from the Wikipedia page on the Troubles and perhaps dropping references to specific incidents which will is always going to be fraught?

Best ManfredHugh (talk)

As a third opinion: I would make distinct the sectarianism (social strife) and "The Troubles" (political strife) and terrorism (militant actions with both social and political undertones) rather than trying to summarise everything at once which is both unrealistic given the different components, and also places emphasis on limited time frames. Koncorde (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I shouldn't even waste my time responding to shouting replies with assumptions of bad faith, but I suppose I had better.

Of course the section can be improved, however the change that was made was not an improvement. I do not understand why you are so insistent on the complete removal of a paragraph that deals with the pre-existing tension and conflict in Belfast. There are several start dates for the Troubles, 1966, 1968 or August 1969. It is telling that no matter which date is picked, Republicans not only were not waging a war of national liberation but were in fact incapable of doing so at that time. The IRA's campaign, which began later, was simply a manifestation of the underpinning conflict, that of Irish nationalism versus British unionism. As for the removal of the Shankill Butchers, how many people did they kill? It seems wholly inappropriate to talk about bombings and assassinations, yet only include examples of the former and not the latter. FDW777 (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for responding. I am not sure were I have been "shouting". I have tried, in good faith to respond to your points as best as I can understand them. True, I put in caps "surely we can come up with better wording". But you seem to agree with that. So, again, (quietly) to your points

(1) There is already reference to pre-existing tension and conflict in Belfast in the preceding section "Industrial Town"--to the "deadly sectarian riots" of 1864 and 1886 and to the 500 killed in 1920-21. (I also referred to it my revision of the lead).

(2) Whether the IRA, by some objective standard, was capable of waging a war of "national liberation" is not the issue. The point is that fighting to "end British occupation" is what they said they were doing, and that it is on that basis that they sought to legitimate and sustain their armed campaign.

(3) Whether academic, nationalist or unionist, researched accounts agree that it is above all the Provisionals campaign, sustained for an unprecedented 3 decades, that most clearly distinguishes The Troubles from previous all disorder and violence in the city. There is really no precedent for what unfolded between 1969 and 1998.

(4) What's on the page now as The Troubles is unsourced because it cannot be sourced. No examination of the The Troubles is satisfied with describing them as something that happened when "paramilitaries formed on both side". You have said yourself that from at least 1969 such a simplified view is misleading All accounts have the state at the centre of events from the outset. Remember the loyalist bombings of 1969 were directed not at "the other side", but at discrediting the O'Neil Government and, of course, state forces (the RUC, the B-Specials, and then the Army) are often blamed for discrediting peaceful protest.

(5) Again, better say nothing about The Troubles, than do the reader disservice of suggesting that they were just another "episode" in the city's long history of sectarian violence (although they were certainly ALSO that).

(6) The Shankill Butchers. Yes I suppose one could start giving examples of all the different ways that people were killed: blowing their limbs off as they enter a shop, shooting them on the street corner; carving them up etc., and we could identify some of the dedicated death squads (why stop with Lenny Murphy's gang?), say also the Republican Reaction Force or the Military Reaction Force or the UFF. But we're hardly justified in taking the reader down that dark hole.

(7) We need something very different to what's on the page now as The Troubles in Belfast. It should be equally brief, and that shouldn't be difficult given that, surely, we can agree to scrap the Bus-Tour-of-Belfast fun facts: the old trope about the Europa, and the claim that puts Belfast the same league as war-torn and Israeli-bombarded Beirut as "one of the world's most dangerous cities". "Martian Prince" (page above) notes that the murder statistic reported in support of this (which only put Belfast in league with some American cities) is "inaccurate and misleading".

So let's try our hands at drafting something better.

Best wishes ManfredHugh (talk)

"'The Troubles' is a euphemism that is commonly used in Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland, to refer to the most recent period of civil and political unrest, and violent political conflict (from 1968 to the present)". This is not a disputed point among academics, thus any attempt to reduce it to be solely about the IRA's campaign is inappropriate. FDW777 (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, of course. But our problem here is not someone trying to reduce The Troubles to the IRA campaign, but an account that effectively ignores the IRA campaign and the British state (again, until my one alteration, readers would never have known the British Army was deployed) so as to reduce The Troubles to just another "episode" in the city's history of conflict between its "Catholic and Protestant populations".

Sectarian murder (with Loyalist atrocities cited as the examples) is the only context suggested for the one sparse reference to action by the IRA. But this is nobody's history of The Troubles (republican, loyalist, academic or anybody els's). That, again, is why it is unsourced.

Regards ManfredHugh (talk)

Why are you still going on about the British Army? I never objected to them being included, I never removed that part at all. So I don't understand why we are discussing it? FDW777 (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

No. we're not going on about the British Army. What we are running on about is a discredited interpretation (still evident in what up there on the page) of the Troubles as simply a two-sided repetition of past "episodes" of sectarian conflict in city, and which, for that reason, ignores the conflict between the IRA and the British state. It is the sort lazy characterisation of the Troubles you might expect of a wilfully ignorant English observer. We both know that has to change, and that brief as the references are going to be here to The Troubles, they at least have to be consistent with what we advertise as the "main" Wikipedia article. RegardsManfredHugh (talk)

There is no consensus for your change at present, so please stop disrupting the article. FDW777 (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

"Belfast was established in 1613 as an English town by Sir Arthur Chichester"

What is an "English town"? The reference provided makes no such claim. FDW777 (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The Troubles cont. "No consensus"

FDW777 you write (above) "There is no consensus for your change at present, so please stop disrupting the article."

I don't understand. Re: the numerous issues raised in earlier Talk (and not just by me) in regard to the Troubles section you wish to again restore:

• Where is the consensus for describing a conflict of a scale and kind the city had never known (sustained over 30 years, 1600 killed) as but the "most recent example" of "various episodes of sectarian conflict between its Catholic and Protestant populations" (referred in the proceeding history section)? Again the Wikipedia article on The Troubles (consistent with the research consensus--and for that matter, with Republican and Loyalist accounts) does not reduce the Troubles to its sectarian content.
• Where is the consensus for not declaring the criteria by which illustrations of Troubles-era violence are selected? As I noted above, the selection I propose "takes it cue from the first incident of the original version: McGurk's "the greatest loss of life in a single incident in Belfast". So what are the other worst incidents in terms of the taking of life? Loss of life might not be the most meaningful criteria if we were going to enter into an analysis of the causes and precise nature of the Troubles, but that is hardly appropriate or possible here. Taking loss of life does have the virtue of being verifiable and relatively neutral. AND if we list the worst four, it has the virtue of bringing into the picture the three armed parties to the conflict: broadly the loyalist paramilitaries, the republican paramilitaries and the state security forces [not even mentioned before my attempted revisions in the pre-May version]. It also selects four incidents for which there are Wikipedia articles and links".
• Where is the consensus for the claim that in the 1970s and 1980s Belfast was one of the world's most dangerous cities, with a homicide rate around 31 per 100,000? Martian Prince (10/03/21) Belfast didn't fall "within the top 25 list of dangerous cities in the 1980's." The stat cited is just for 1972, not two continuous decades as is claimed and is therefore "not only incorrect but also very misleading".
• Where is the consensus for NOT mentioning the Belfast Agreement which marked the end of the Troubles?
• Where is the consensus for NOT mentioning the Peace Walls, a lasting--and for visitors to the city the most visible--legacy of the Troubles?

Having invited you to address the points raised I left this with you for a month. Are you sure that, leaving aside any personal feelings that might have arisen from this or previous exchanges, that there is real substantive disagreement. Hoping for consensus. RegardsManfredHugh (talk)

I suggest reading WP:CONSENSUS. The existing version has consensus by default, your proposed version does not. Please self-revert your 1RR violation. FDW777 (talk) 09:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

"Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns". Concerns of sourcing and fact in the early version are not addressed (they are in the current version), and reasons are not given for objecting to removal of misleading claims regarding the Trouble-era murder rate, or references to the Belfast Agreement and to the Peace Wall legacy.ManfredHugh (talk)

You've made no attempt to suggest any wording despite specific objections to your change, in fact you subsequently proposed no changes at all just continued with your usual wall of text argument about how your interpretation of history is correct that is of zero relevance to anything. FDW777 (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The record will show I have made successive changes to my revisions, beginning in May, whenever I could see or guess at what your specific objections might be. But on this occasion I just don't see what they are. My questions to you go unanswered. In response to the specific and reasoned objections that both I and Martian Prince have made, you won't defend what's been up there on the page. We are simply to accept that your own amended version be understood as "the consensus" (which, it seems, cannot be altered without your assent). I am happy to discuss any specifics. Regards ManfredHugh (talk)

The objections were made clear. Specifically I object to the removal of prior sectarian conflict in Belfast, since 1969 did not occur in a vacuum. I object to the removal of the Shankill Butchers. I object to your arbitrary inclusion criteria for incidents, especially when you have the brass neck to claim the current criteria are arbitrary. I object to extended commentary on the Good Friday Agreement in a geographical article about a city. I could carry on, but that's more than enough to demonstrate your edit does not have consensus. FDW777 (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to help here, but it's hard to pick up what is obviously a long running conversation. Perhaps one or both of you could provide quotes and/or diffs to establish the contentious points? And just a general point - but if you can (as far as possible) comment on content and not each other that would be helpful for everyone involved. Mark83 (talk) 06:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I believe my objections were briefly summarised in the post above. FDW777 (talk) 07:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm trying to help, but this feels dismissive; I don't believe the 91 words above do provide a good summary of the dispute(s). And the obsession with "consensus" in this conversation is a bit laughable when the dispute is between two people. In that regard, consensus just becomes the latest version of the article. Consenus is exactly what is not present, hence the discussion. Mark83 (talk) 07:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The section has been largely stable for at least five years.

• Section at start of 2021.
• Section at start of 2020.
• Section at start of 2019.
• Section at start of 2018.
• Section at start of 2017.
• Section at start of 2016.

It might go back even further, I got bored of looking at the history after seeing how long it has been like that, in particular the opening part of the section which is the part most objected to. Obviously the opening sentence "Belfast has been the capital of Northern Ireland since its establishment in 1921" has been removed, since we've already covered Belfast being the capital elsewhere in the article there's no need for it there as well. But as it's been relatively stable for so long, that is the consensus version of the article is it not?

My problem with the new version are as follows.

• It removes all mention of prior conflict in Belfast. 1969 did not appear from nowehere, there has been a long history of conflict of which The Troubles were merely the most recent part.
• It describes 1971 as the peak of violence, when for most of 1971 the violence was not of the same scale as 1973-1974.
• It has arbitrary inclusion criteria for events, when at the start of #The Troubles, and the Ballymurphy Massacre above the editor responsible asks WHY are you seeking to restore a summary that is entirely arbitrary in the incidents it selects to illustrate the violence of the Troubles. How is the selection of the events in the new version any less arbitrary?
• It talks about assassination that was to become a feature of life in the city yet deliberately excludes mention of one of the most prominent groups of assassins for no obvious reason, and makes no other mention of assassinations only bombings.
• It spends forever talking about the Good Friday Agreement which is of no direct relevance to a geographical article about a city. For example how is In time, these would include policing and justice relevant to Belfast?
• It spends an equally long time talking about peace walls, almost as much as it does talking about incidents during Troubles. 79 words/480 characters for peace walls, 85 words/503 characters for incidents.

I believe that's more than enough to be going on with for now, that's before we even get to the completely off-topic further undermining the legitimacy of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and of the state addition. FDW777 (talk) 11:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

FDW777 wants us to understand that his most recent version of The Troubles section has been up there five years, so it must represent "the consensus." It has been there just 24 hours. Once again, seemingly unwilling to defend the original, he himself has made further changes. Good, but hardly adequate.

To the points FDW777 regarding the more comprehensive revision I proposed but which he reverts:

1. "PRIOR CONFLICT" As pointed out before, the revision does NOT remove "all mention of prior conflict in Belfast": they are covered in the preceding chronology. The section The Industrial City refers (with some background) to "sectarian tensions" and to the "deadly sectarian riots" of 1864 and 1886" and to the killings of 1920-21.

2. "MOST RECENT EXAMPLE" of sectarian conflict. The real question remains the adequacy of characterising The Troubles--an unprecedented conflict sustained over three decades and taking the lives of 1600 people in the city--as but another "example" of previous sectarian disturbances. No serious account of The Troubles (including, no Republican or Loyalist) is content with that characterisation. (As the Wikipedia main article indicates there were new elements in the Troubles, not least the formation of the Provisional movement and its declared objectives).

3. "PEAK OF VIOLENCE. The reverted revision does NOT describe 1971 as the peak of the violence. It suggests 1971-72 was that the peak of the violence which I believe is what CAIN and other accepted sources indicate. But I stand to be corrected.

4. "SHANKILL BUTCHERS" It does NOT "deliberately exclude" mention of the "one most prominent groups of assassins". If the Lenny Murphy's gang are "one" group, on what basis are we "deliberately" excluding the groups: the British Army's MRF; the UFF, the Republican Reaction Force, the Red Hang Commando, the Nutting Squad, other PIRA units...? Not gruesome enough? Some certainly killed more people.

5. "ARBITRARY CRITERIA for inclusion of events." That is precisely the continuing problem we have with what FDW777 is putting before the readers. In the more comprehensive revision he rejects criteria were at lease stated--four worst incident in terms of loss of life--so that readers knew what they are looking at. Whatever their limitations, these were objective; indicated the kind of terror to which the general public in Belfast was subject; and had the merit of identifying the principal parties to the conflict (and, very roughly, in proportion to their share in the attribution of overall killings). Given that of the 4 incidents and groups cited by that FDW777's 2 are loyalist, the implication might seem to be that conflict was primarily driven by loyalist murder, which again is nobody's account of the Troubles.

6. BELFAST AGREEMENT "NO DIRECT RELEVANCE". Stumped by the idea that an agreement which marked the end of 30 years of violence in the city, and which was concluded in the city and bears its name, has no relevance here--no matter how brief the reference ("spends forever" talking about it?--three brief sentences). Are the readers to be given no idea at all of the terms, or circumstances, that closed this chapter of the city's history?

7. PEACE AND JUSTICE, okay don't mention that the Belfast Agreement provided for agreed policing, in a city in which the police's lack of legitimacy for significant elements of the community was a critical feature of the conflict.

8. PEACE WALLS. Not mention the peace walls which are not only a lasting legacy of the Troubles but, enlarged and sustained in the decades since, are an indicator of the present state of community relations in large parts of the city? Why?

9. "ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS CITIES IN THE WORLD"? Okay, finally, FDW777 has dropped what Martian Prince pointed out was a bogus projection of the 1972 murder rate across 30 years of the troubles. But then what is the basis for this claim? Martian Prince notes that the actual murder rates for those years, doesn't even put Belfast in the top 25 deadliest cities. In a period in which Beirut being torn about by full-scale civil war (and a number of other cities were being devastated) it is foolish claim.

9. INJURY Finally why repeatedly excise any references to injuries sustained as a result of bombings (for every person killed, many more in the city were injured, traumatised and bereaved). Very very odd.

For my part I would be more than happy for FDW777 or anyone else to address the above points and revise the page. But what is up there now in The Troubles section of the Belfast page is well below standard and doing the readers a disservice.ManfredHugh (talk)

I have no objection to this article being improved. However, just as at many other articles, the problem is that your edits lower the quality of the article rather than increase it. You again seek to blame the Republican movement for the Troubles, this time pointing your accusatory finger at the "Provisional" movement. The problem with that accusation is of course the "Provisionals" did not exist prior to December 1969, and everyone else is agreed that the Troubles started before then, the latest date on record being August 1969. Your selection of incidents is still completely arbitrary, since you have decided that a selection from 1971 and 1972 is somehow the most representative of a 30 year conflict. I will repeat again, since you seem incapable of understanding. This is a geographical article about a city. Extended commentary on an agreement that was signed in the city is of no clear relevance to a geographical article. You have yet to acknowledge the nature of the objection to the peace walls. As for your insistence that an unreferenced viewpoint be included, I think everyone else is capable of knowing that unless the 1,600+ people were all orphans that there were be grieving relatives. Finally, the history of the article proves the content you are objecting to is prety much all long-standing, some of it for many years. If there is any recently added content you object to, provide a diff that demonstrates when it was added. In the absence of any diffs, the current version is the consensus version. FDW777 (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Seeking “to blame the Republican movement for the Troubles”? pointing “an accusatory finger”? Come on!!

You’ve tweaked it, but what you have on the page continues to define the Troubles in straight sectarian terms. They are but the latest “episode” in the city’s history of sectarian conflict, the “most recent example” of conflict between “the two opposing sides”. The raw sectarianism is the only thing you highlight (not content with McGurk’s Bar you invoke Lenny Murphy and his butchers). So what then is innocent reader to understand about PIRA actions: that on 21 July 1972 they detonated 22 bombs in the Belfast to do what? Kill Protestants? That’s absurd (nobody’s interpretation) but no other context for understanding what happened is suggested.

There can be no question here of interpreting the Troubles to the extent of blaming anyone. But better say nothing, that push a simplistic interpretation that is unsourced because no researched account, scholarly or partisan, supports it.

Until I (as you say) “disrupted” this article, there was no reference here at all to the British State and its security forces. In explaining why the Troubles became the Troubles (something that didn’t blow over in a year, but was sustained for more than a generation), no account (republican, loyalist or otherwise) ignores the state. Nor do they fail to acknowledge that the emergence of the Provisional movement was a critical development and (however much they might disagree about the reality of its armed campaign) that it was with the State, rather than with loyalists, that it saw the primary conflict.

I appeal to you again. Are you sure that, in your determination to avoid more of my “horrible” writing, you haven’t got yourself into a position of defending what you wouldn’t otherwise accept?

Are you truly suggesting that there is something more “encyclopaedic” about repeating the Belfast bus-tour trope about the Europa Hotel than acknowledging the scale of suffering by underscoring that for every person killed many more were injured and bereaved?

Are you really convinced that the repeating the old boast about Belfast having been “one of the most dangerous cities in the world” (Martian Prince has pointed out that the stats for the Troubles don’t even place Belfast in the top 25) is relevant, but references to the Belfast Agreement or to “Peace Walls”, a lasting legacy that continues to shape the politics and geography of the city, are irrelevant?

Again, I am more than happy for you, or anyone else, to fix this. But what is up there now is a disservice.

RegardsManfredHugh (talk)

Your reply is taking this discussion further down a cul-de-sac. Please restrict future replies to suggesting specific changes to the article. FDW777 (talk) 10:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

This reply does not make sense. I have made "specific changes" to this article which you have overridden while making changes of your own. If the discussion has become a cul-de-sac it is because you refuse to respond to the very specific questions raised about the unsourced, and misleading, interpretation of the Troubles you are promoting. ManfredHugh (talk)

As you have tried to do elsewhere, you are attempting to drive this discussion down a meta cul-de-sac regarding your personal interpretation of the Troubles, and insisting the discussion takes place under those terms. Once again, please restrict future replies to suggested changes to the article. FDW777 (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The interpretation of the Troubles as something more than just another "example" of sectarian disorder is not my "personal" take, it is everybody's. Nobody who has written (with any research) on the Troubles, even from a clearly partisan angle, would be satisfied with the characterisation you have placed back up on the page. Are you actually satisfied with with reducing the thirty-year conflict--and the supposedly illustrative incidents to refer to, including the Ballymurphy Massacre and Bloody Friday--to a sectarian confrontation between two "opposing sides"? If not what do you propose? The changes I have put forward to avoid this misinterpretation, you have already rejected.ManfredHugh (talk)

You're the one that wants to change the article, therefore it's up to you to propose a change. Not simply repeat your proposal that has already been rejected. FDW777 (talk) 08:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

So you don't wish to change the reduction of the Troubles to a two-sided sectarian conflict, but are not prepared to defend that position in rejecting revisions. That's difficult.ManfredHugh (talk)

As noted is the discussions above, (1) the present description of the Troubles in Belfast as "as the most recent example" of "various episodes of sectarian conflict between [Belfast] Catholic and Protestant populations" is unsourced. This is because no account of the Troubles (regardless of political perspective) is content to characterise the unprecedented thirty years of violence as a two-sided conflict, an extended sectarian riot. (2) All accounts emphasise the role of the state, and of paramilitary challenges to the state. None would accept that "sectarian conflict" as an appropriate characterisation of (or framework to understand) the Ballymurphy Massacre or Bloody Friday which are among the incident cited of Troubles violence.

Without entering into an analysis of the Troubles, which is not called for here, we should avoid the current misleading, unsourced interpretation. Building directly on the preceding history sections (The "Industrial City" and "The Blitz and Post-War Redevelopment", which do note the history of sectarian violence in the city and in the 1960s the " new and growing protest over the Unionist government's record on civil and political rights) could, with all the necessary references and links, read:

In Belfast, civil protest in the late 1960s rapidly gave way to the sectarian violence that in the summer of 1969 was to displace thousands from their homes, and to the bombing and assassination that was to become a feature of life in the city for most of the next thirty years. In 1970, with British soldiers deployed on the streets, the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) emerged in the Catholic districts of west Belfast as paramilitary organisation opposed to the British presence and connection. Loyalist paramilitaries, the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF, already active in 1966) and the Ulster Defence Association (UDA), gained comparable control of working-class Protestant areas.

The examples currently given of Troubles-related violence are open to serious misinterpretation particularly as no criteria are suggested for their selection. It also seeks to establish some, but NOT ALL, of the victims of these incidents as "innocent". This implicitly leaves the reader with the suggestion that some victims were not "innocent" but rather legitimate targets of the violence visited upon them. This is extremely disturbing and uncalled for. We don't need to be suggesting a hierarchy of victims.

No selection of incidents will be representative, and maybe for that reason maybe should be avoided. But if we take the four worst single incidents in terms of loss of life and injury and identify them as such so the reader at least knows on what basis they have been selected for their attention, we would give some indication the kinds of violence to which ordinary citizens were subject in going about their business, and the actors involved. But, again we could omit this.

In the four deadliest incidents during the peak of the violence in 1971-72: between 9 and 11 August 1971 the British Army marksmen killed at least nine civilians in west Belfast (the Ballymurphy Massacre); on 4 December 1971, the UVF, bombed a Catholic bar (McGurk's) killing 15 people and wounding 17; and the Provisional IRA detonated car bombs in the city centre on March 20, 1972 (the Donegall Street bombing) killing 7 and injuring 146, and on July 21 ("Bloody Friday") killing nine and injuring 130.

The reader has to be given some indication of the circumstances in which the Troubles came to end. Presently nothing, and no political outcome, is suggested.

The violence abated in the final run-up to the April 10 ("Good Friday") 1998 Belfast Agreement. This created a new "power-sharing" dispensation for Northern Ireland. Nationalists and unionists would cooperate in a legislative assembly and executive at Stormont with responsibility for broad set of domestic matters. Similar arrangements for sharing municipal government between nationalist and unionist councillors were developed in Belfast City Hall.

Approximately 1,600 people had been killed in the city in Troubles-related violence. Many thousands more had been injured and bereaved. ManfredHugh (talk)

That appears to be simply repeating your rejected suggestion. FDW777 (talk) 07:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

With some changes, yes. But as it neither neither defends what is up their now nor provides an alternative, your rejection isn't credible. Again, I have to assume that you don't truly believe (as you would appear to) that the thirty-years of the Troubles can be characterised as just another episodic example of sectarian conflict, and nothing more. Do you really believe that "sectarian conflict between Catholic and Protestant populations" is a proper way to characterise the British Army and IRA actions you cite (Ballymurphy and Bloody Friday)? Because that is what is up there now and it it wrong--and for that reason is unsourced. Either you help to fix it, or you don't. But it cannot be allowed to stand.ManfredHugh (talk)

Your changes, that are so miniscule I struggle to even see what they are, fail to take into account the reasons why your proposed version has been rejected, so my rejection stands. Which sentence are you claiming is unreferenced? FDW777 (talk) 10:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Because you don't give any consistent reasons. As anyone can see from discussion above, if I question one, unwilling to defend your position, you simply improvise another. Meanwhile, in an account of the Troubles that is nobody's but your own, you insist on setting the actions of the Provisional movement and of the security forces purely within the context of a "sectarian conflict between [the city's] Catholic and Protestant populations". No other frame of reference for the violence is suggested--a real disservice.

Again, better to have said nothing. Indeed being as economical as we can about the Troubles may be our best way out of thisManfredHugh (talk)

Inconsistent? Oh, what you actually mean is that when you say something slightly different to what you've said before, I say something different in reply. Pardon me for not being able to predict what you're going to say before you've even said it. FDW777 (talk) 11:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Troubles: simpler solution

Giving examples of Troubles-related violence in Belfast, even if criteria were given for their selection, was probably always a bad idea. Any selection of incidents is open to misinterpretation (and unavoidably so when the Troubles are characterised, as in the current wording, as simple two-sided sectarian conflict). So skipping that and confining ourselves to the minimum discussion required in this context, we might have (again, following on from the preceding section, and with necessary references and links):

In Belfast, civil protest in the late 1960s rapidly gave way to the sectarian violence that in the summer of 1969 was to displace thousands from their homes, and to the bombing and assassination that was to become a feature of life in the city for most of the next thirty years. Engaging republican paramilitaries opposed to the British presence and connection, loyalist paramilitaries who claimed to act in defence of the unionist community, and the security forces including from 1970, the British Army, the conflict claimed the lives of 1,600 people in the city. Many thousands more were injured and bereaved. The violence abated in the final run-up to the April 10 ("Good Friday") 1998 Belfast Agreement. This created a new "power-sharing" dispensation for Northern Ireland. Nationalists and unionists would cooperate in a legislative assembly and executive at Stormont with responsibility for broad set of domestic matters. For the city, one of the most visible legacies of the Troubles are the security barriers, or "peace walls", that continue divide Catholic, and Protestant, working-class districts. In May 2013, the Northern Ireland Executive committed to the removal of all peace walls by mutual consent. As the target date of 2023 approaches, only a small number have been dismantled.

While this says little at least (1) it does not caricature the Troubles as a straight sectarian conflct, (2) identifies the protagonists and the roles they alleged for themselves without in any way seeming to apportion responsibility for the violence, and (3) does hazard distinctions between "innocent" victims and those who, by inference, were (in some unstated sense) not (i.e. no hierarchy of victims), (4) gives some indication of the cicumstances in which the violence ended and (5) notes one of the most visible legacies of the Troubles to which the attention of visitors to the city is consistently drawn--it seems extraordinary not to so.ManfredHugh (talk)

You appear to be repeating yourself, again, and again, and again. So much so I will only address the points that haven't been amply refuted already, although I still feel like I'm repeating myself even then. The events in Belfast in August 1969 are seem as one possible (and not necessaarily widely accepted, but certainly a significant viewpoint, much more so then 1966 for example) start date for the Troubles. These events involved Catholics and Protestants, the British Army were sent in to restore law and order. You still keep prattling on about the circumstances in which the violence ended, yet you still ignore that what you tried to add is to a geographical article about a city. The only possible relvance is that the agreement was signed in the city. But you see that as a reason as to why a three sentence addition needed to be made that was nearly as long as the text that actually talked about the Troubles itself. FDW777 (talk) 11:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

It is you who are repeating your self, while still not defending the proposition you (and you alone) insist on pushing that the Troubles can be undestood as simply another example of the city episodic violence betweeen Catholics and Protestants--a sectarian riot that got out of hand for thirty years. It is a lazy interpretation that the reader should not be asked to accept and is at odds with the main Troubles article. It is not sourced because no researched account accepts it.

Whether or not it is the start date, August 1969 doesn't define the next 30 years of conflict. In any case, even in 1969 there was--in the midst of everything els--a conscious challenge to the state by People's Democracy and by republicans, and indeed by loyalists, that cannot simply be reduced to Catholics fighting Protestants.

There is no "prattling on" in 2 sentences noting the circumstances in which the Troubles ended. Or do you propose to say nothing on that score? Seems very odd. The "only relevance" of the Belfast Agreement was that it was signed in the city?? It marked the end of 30 years of violence in which some 1600 people in the city were killed--or is that not relevant?

I just don't understand were you are coming from.ManfredHugh (talk)

Unless you intend to bring anything new to this discussion, I will not be replying any further. FDW777 (talk) 08:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I have brought plenty that is new to this discussion, but you seem unwilling to seriously engage.ManfredHugh (talk)

You've added a lot to the page size, but said not much at all. I repeat that this is a geographical article. As such, any view of the Troubles has to be dealt with in more limited geographical terms than some seek to. FDW777 (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

What in heaven's name is "geographical" about the present unsourced description of the Troubles as a simple Catholic-Protestant bust up. And how are the Shankill Butchers a "geographical" fact but NOT the city's peace lines, one of most consequential and visible legacies of the Troubles? This makes no sense. You might note that "The Troubles" under the page section "HISTORY".ManfredHugh (talk)

Are you, yet again, disputing the nature of the 1969 clashes? FDW777 (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

If you mean disputing that, because of their sectarianism (and the sectarianism of a lot of the subsequent violence), the next thirty years can be characterised as simply an extended two-sided Catholics/Protestant conflict, then yes. Consistent with the Wikipedia Main Article, and every major work on the Troubles, we should dispute that. It is not an adequate framework for understanding the Troubles, and clearly not for the "examples" the Belfast page now gives: the Ballymurphy Massacre and Bloody Friday. Again, best not propose any interpretation of the Troubles than peddle this lazy view. RegardsManfredHugh (talk)

After having looked into this further, I can only assume you haven't even read this article or the article at The Troubles since two of your complaints are without any merit whatsoever. FDW777 (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry, but it is you who appear not to have read the main article on the Troubles, or it seems any other researched work on the issue. Nowhere do these suggest that the Troubles can be understood as simply a two-sided sectarian conflict, and they certainly wouldn't try to fit Bloody Friday or the Ballymurphy Massacre into that framework. As I noted back in May: "The Wikipedia page on The Troubles ... underscores the central importance of the republican 'guerrilla campaign against British security forces as well as a bombing campaign against infrastructural, commercial and political targets' and how that interacted with the brutalities of the loyalists' so-called retaliation and of the state's counter-insurgency." This you wish, not simply to ignore (which is one thing), but to baldly override by presenting the Troubles as simply more of the same: just the latest of several "episodes of sectarian conflict between Catholic and Protestant populations". That interpretation is unsourced and it is wrong.ManfredHugh (talk)

You should have read both articles before replying, you'd have avoided making yourself look foolish and learned something at the same time.

• The Troubles#Overview states "The Troubles" refers to the three-decade conflict between nationalists (mainly self-identified as Irish or Roman Catholic) and unionists (mainly self-identified as British or Protestant). This isn't a disputed point among people that know what they are talking about, see for example Long conflict and how it ends: Protestants and Catholics in Europe and Ireland
• Belfast#Areas and districts states Parts of Belfast are segregated by walls, commonly known as "peace lines", erected by the British Army after August 1969, and which still divide 14 districts in the inner city. In 2008 a process was proposed for the removal of the 'peace walls'
• Belfast#Architecture states A legacy of the Troubles are the many 'peace lines' or 'peace walls' that still act as barriers to reinforce ethno-sectarian residential segregation in the city.
• Belfast#Demography states Areas where segregated working-class areas meet are known as interface areas and sometimes marked by peace lines.

Quite why we would possibly need yet another mention of the exact same thing is beyond me. Anyone who has actually read this article might have realised it's already mentioned three times.... FDW777 (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Request to add flag?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Flag_of_Belfast.svg 213.205.241.139 (talk) 08:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Improved collage

The collage at the top of this article is messy, unclear, and out-of-date. It features an awkward side-angle of the Europa Hotel, a shot of City Hall which foregrounds a Burger King, and a puzzling image of the stairs in Victoria Square. This collage does not inspire much intrigue into Belfast as a city, suggesting that it has nothing to offer visitors or residents. It is, in truth, a dour collection of pictures.

There are several improvements I could suggest. Samson and Goliath and the Europa Hotel are worthy inclusions, given their distinctiveness and history, but the images themselves could do with a replacement. Perhaps a low-angle shot of the Europa, which actually displays the sign, would be welcome; the cranes and Victoria Square could be given separate images, rather than being grouped together into one image. Similarly, the City Centre could be more effectively framed. The skyline picture is also a bit dull, low-resolution and punctured by a big ferry. Perhaps a shot from the ocean with Divis in the background, or indeed a shot from the top of Divis showing the entire city from above, would be a nicer replacement.

The collage's age also means there are several iconic structures in Belfast which were constructed after the collage's creation. Titanic Belfast is an iconic attraction which would be obviously welcome here. it's an understandable omission given that the collage was created before the museum was finished, but I feel the building is recognisable enough to warrant inclusion, especially given its simple design could be recognised in a small image. The Rise Sculpture on the Falls Road could also be included, though it isn't quite as standout as the Titanic museum.

If there are any other improvements that could be made, I would be happy to hear them. I just think that the current collage is a disservice to the city. Updogscully (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)