Talk:RUC Special Branch
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
OR
The source YOU provide states: "Because the RUC Special Branch was perceived to be contaminated by Orangemen, it was not entirely trusted by either MI5 or the army."
So which matches the source better?
- "Infiltration of the Special Branch by members of the Orange Order meant it wasn't entirely trusted by MI5 or the British Army"
Or
- "It was perceived that Special Branch contained members of the Orange Order meaning that it wasn't entirely trusted by MI5 or the British Army."
Your edit is flawed and controversial because it ignores the fact the source states "perceived", so your presenting speculation as fact and pushing a baseless POV. Also your choice of word "infiltration" is a weasel POV loaded word that implies Orangemen purposely set about joining to further the Orange Orders aims. The source's use of "contaminated" is also quite POV-laden, hence my use of "contained members" as a NPOV term that isn't controversial.
So how is yours better? Infact I will invite views from the WikiProject's first. Mabuska (talk) 11:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Keep in mind I will be opening a RfC after your predictable response.
- That's actually a fair point. We should do this more often. Gob Lofa (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Both versions are too close to the original text. It should be paraphrased, something like:
- "British military and intelligence bodies also distrusted the Special Branch, because of perceived X by the Orange Order."
"X" should ideally be less loaded than "infiltrated" or "contaminated", but closer to the source than merely "presence of members of". Scolaire (talk) 12:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- There is a difference between "distrusted" and "wasn't entirely trusted" with the first one being an absolute that the source doesn't state. Also saying intelligence bodies also implies more than one, when only one intelligence body is mentioned. How about:
- "The British military and MI5 didn't fully trust Special Branch because of suspected Orange Order links."?
- Or is that still too far away for you? Reason why I used "member" is because that is what they are and is uncontroversial. Unfortunate that the source used a poor term.
- Also Scolaire the .pl links do not work on my end, that is why I changed them to .co.uk because then they show, we will need a bigger demograph to see what actually works more for other editors. Mabuska (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Looking up synonyms for perceived, I found a couple that might work but would require the right wording: adjudged and regarded. Mabuska (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I notice this discussion hasn't properly concluded and that the article still says "infiltration", which is not backed up by the source and is a contentious term to use if not backed by the source. My amendment was in the end agreed to by Gob Lofa with Scolaire's objection based on the closeness to the source, however it isn't contentious as the source backs it up. If a suitable synonym can be found for "perceived" then even better. But until then I propose the amendment i put into the article be used. Mabuska (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- If the amendment is
"The British military and MI5 didn't fully trust Special Branch because of suspected Orange Order links"
, I don't see Gob Lofa agreeing to it. On the contrary, I see you twice agreeing with Gob Lofa that "links" is not an accurate reflection of the source. How about "The British military and MI5 didn't fully trust Special Branch, as there was a perception that it contained members of the Orange Order"? Scolaire (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- I've put that in. --Scolaire (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- So even though we disagree with the use of the word 'contaminated', you say we're obliged to use it? Gob Lofa (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Believe what you want, goodbye. Mabuska (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- Stub-Class Ireland articles
- Mid-importance Ireland articles
- Stub-Class Ireland articles of Mid-importance
- Ireland articles needing infoboxes
- Wikipedia requested photographs in Ireland
- All WikiProject Ireland pages
- Stub-Class United Kingdom articles
- Low-importance United Kingdom articles
- WikiProject United Kingdom articles
- Stub-Class Northern Ireland-related articles
- Mid-importance Northern Ireland-related articles
- Wikipedia requested photographs in Northern Ireland
- All WikiProject Northern Ireland pages
- Wikipedia pages about contentious topics