[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:David Ervine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Death

[edit]

We cant report this withoput a verifiable source, SqueakBox 21:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need to keep he is alive until we can confirm otherwise, if there are doubts we musnt make a mistake or end up with egg over our faces, SqueakBox 21:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - RTÉ has just closed their 9pm news broadcast saying they can't confirm his death, having led with it at the start of the bulletin (could be embarrassing! :-o ) Dugo 21:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, SqueakBox 21:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 4PM RTÉ 2fm news has just reported his death. Jvlm.123 16:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems he had a heart attack, a stroke and a brain haemorrhage.[1] Frainc 16:33 8 January 2007

No doubts now, SqueakBox 20:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ceasefire

[edit]

Should there be a section on his involvement in the supposed loyalist ceasefire? Frainc 16:41 8 January 2007

Of curse, SqueakBox 20:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breath of fresh air

[edit]

David Ervine had more courage, passion, heart and integrity tempered by fairness than all the mainstream politicians in the North. It was a very moving experience to hear him passionately defend his community without feeling the need to hate the 'other'. For that alone, David Ervine was a breath of fresh air. Go ndéana Dia trócaire ar a anam dílis. 89.100.195.42 15:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth (since someone has aired their views), I consider him to be exactly what he was: the head of the political wing of a terrorist organisation. That kinda takes some of the 'heart' and 'fairness' away, and certainly adds to the feeling one has that he most certainly hated. --Mal 01:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 01:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I agree with the first person.He may have been in the UVF when he was young (and he only joined after Bloody Friday) and without him there might have been no loyalist ceasefire. And he wasn't head of the UVF. Dermo69 20:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment

[edit]

I am now raising a request for comment on this article. A user is persistently trying to delete an external link to a critical obituary of this person by a former Belfast City Councillor. As he was a controversial figure in his time some criticism is not unreasonable. If the article was overburdened with external links, or the number of favourable v. critical external links was unbalance one way or the other then some pruning of the external links might be justified, but these factors do not apply. PatGallacher 15:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess an obituary should be posted. As he was a Unionist politician in Ireland he must have incurred large amount of criticism, even after his death. The criticism is not unreasonable, as he seems to have participated in Loyalist paramilitary organizations that are in nature terroristic (no matter how people say about it, Loyalist had committed more or less terrorism). WooyiTalk, Editor review 18:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the link. The fact it is written by a former politician makes it obvious it is unlikely to be impartial; as required for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The tone and style of the article is also intemperate and unprofessional and is not a mainstream, reputable source: again not suitable for inclusion. Criticism of the subject is already included in the article and is referenced to professional and reliable sources. Nothing of academic, informational or professional merit is added by the link which merely pushes a extreme POV. (Lyingupper 01:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'm inclined to agree that it shouldn't be an external link. By all means include it in the article itself as a reference to a sentence about critisicm in the aftermath of his death (always in poor taste for what my opinion is worth), but I don't think it's apropriate to include it as an external link without any reference to it.Traditional unionist 11:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, if it's such a good link, why is it not even referenced in the article? Reason why is it's so unprofessional and poorly written, it would look like vandalism to quote any of it in the article. Lyingupper 16:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The political consensus across the board: Nationalist, Unionist, hardline and moderate when he died was he had put his personal terrorist past behind him and had done more than most politicians to bring about peace. This is reflected in the article (re 'Progressive' and 'Controversy' sections) but not reflected in the disputed link which in my opinion is not critical but simply a wholly negative rant about the man. Who are "Socialist Democracy" anyway? I've been interested in Irish politics for years and I've never heard of them. It's wrong for an encyclopedia to try pass off the opinion of a political grouping as fact. If it did that, it would cease to be an encyclopedia and would become nothing more than propaganda for that political grouping. Surely Indymedia is a more appropriate place for this link? B626mrk 17:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how he reformed himself later, he has done terroristic activities in the paramilitary group and might have killed people. It's laudable for him to renounce violence though. But when we evaluate a person's life we also need to look to the past as well. WooyiTalk, Editor review 17:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The description of the past in the disputed link is not balanced and, anyway, the past is already covered in the article and in the Belfast telegraph link. Both point out his past crimes and association with terrorists as well as his redeeming features. I think that's a fairer and more informative and appropriate way to do a political biography, especially one connected with as divided a place as the north of Ireland.B626mrk 17:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Criticisms (and laudatory remarks) published in newspapers could and should be linked. Rest in Peace. Randroide 12:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The disputed link is not from a newspaper or other reputable source. It is something you would more likely find being distributed at a sectarian gathering than on Wikipedia. There is no place for it here. Lyingupper 16:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe any experienced editor of this site is seriously thinking of linking to a web page with an emotional title like "St David of the Death Squads". This is a place for learning and sharing information I thought; surely it's not a place for people with with a political, personal or religious ax to grind. Absminprofessor 16:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a concensus.Traditional unionist 12:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guy had a serious shady past and was connect to the murder of Catholics with purely for being Catholic - no political motivation just purely based on religion - directly targeting civilians like this is terroristic in nature and this information should not be brushed under the carpet or whitewashed. I support its inclusion.--Vintagekits 12:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He did indeed have a past to be ashamed of, for which he paid his debt to society. Many other now mainstream politicians in the North of Ireland also have shady pasts and the widespread feeling on this individual at the time of his death was he had worked to put his past behind him and society's past behind it. His past is not whitewashed in the article or the other links or references, it is dealt with fairly and adequately. Nothing that is already in the public domain is being deliberately withheld on here. Furthermore it should only be things in the public domain that are included on Wikipedia as there is a very clear policy prohibiting original research.
In regards to the link itself, it obviously isn't appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia or any other source wishing to be taken seriously. The former politician who wrote it has a history of regularly scoring derisory results at elections, e.g. 144 votes in the 1982 West Belfast Assembly election. Wikipedia should not become an outlet for his personal or his obscure organisation's views which are obviously not popular. 199.67.140.83 15:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose including this article as an obituary; while it might contain some elements of truth, it is essentially a political polemic, hosted on an opposing political party website. It is not a reputable source, contains blatent POV.
I would appeal to Vintagekits to reconsider his stance. If this "reference" is included, then we can expect similar "references" from equally miniscule loyalist groups to crop up in the articles on leading republicans.--Damac 16:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If a leading republican targetted and carried out the murder of an innocent civilian purely on the basis of their religion then I myself would insist that these details were to their article irrespective of what camp they hailed from. On the other hand if the article add nothing that is not already added in the article then we must question we it is needed.--Vintagekits 16:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And does the article in question provide any evidence that the subject was involved in targetting and carrying out the murder of innocent civilians? No, it doesn't. If there is any evidence that the subject was involved in such activity, then of course it should be added. However, the article in question is a polemic and has no place on Wikipedia.--Damac 06:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article already has the information that he was arrested and imprisoned for six years for driving a car bomb. It also has a whole section about the activities of the UVF during his leadership of its political wing. In other words, the article already has information pertaining to what Vintagekits claims is being surpressed by the non-inclusion of the link. So, even if the link was appropriate under Wikipedia policies which it clearly is not, it would be superfluous. Absminprofessor 21:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here via RFC. A compromise proposal - NPOV does not and should not mean devoid of POV, it more accurately means that all points of view are represented. With this in mind a link or a quote of a critical obituary certainly appropriate, as long as this material is placed in the appropriate context and not given undue weight. I don't think that a link to the critical obit is entirely appropriate here, as the critical obit link would become one of only two obituaries linked from this article; given its extremism the critical obit does not deserve that degree of weight. However, I do think that a small pullquote from that obit would be fine placed in what's currently the "Tributes" section (probably retitled into something more neutral like "Responses"). That would place it in the appropriate context and provides a spectrum of perspectives on Ervine's life which acknowledges that there were more extremist views on his life. -Orphic 10:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the admin who protected the page, I have no voting opinion on the matter. However, I'd like to point out that at least one of the voters above is a single-purpose account which has been used once and once only, and that was in voting in this comment request here. I view that as highly suspicious - Alison☺ 18:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you add the SPA label on their signatures? WooyiTalk, Editor review 19:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not, thanks, as I want to stay as uninvolved as possible - Alison☺ 19:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
looks very much like the work of User:Rms125a@hotmail.com - who is a blocked user.--Vintagekits 19:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not me, if that's what you're insinuating. Just because someone's new doesn't mean they're not legitimate. I'll be making contributions to other articles in due course. Absminprofessor 20:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me for any misunderstandings of the RfC form, or the subject matter. I'm a Yank, just responding to the RfC as a mitzvah to balance starting another RfC. I'm hoping to help out as a neutral party--and this RfC section is reading more as a political disagreement than as a discussion of Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

To me the obituary in question appears to be appropriate to use as a reference for a statement along the lines of, "even after his death, critics believe his past overshadows his later life." Possibly at the end of the second paragraph of "Arrest and imprisonment."

Also, and this is a little off topic, having an entire section titled "Tributes" seems at first blush to mark this article as significantly POV. Perhaps this is a cultural anomaly?

Gruber76 19:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article protection

[edit]

The article has been fully protected against revert warring per the request on WP:RPP, until the results of the ongoing RfC is concluded. I've left the contentious link in so the RfC folks can review it & it appears to be the most 'agreed upon' revision. I think this is the fairest approach - Alison☺ 02:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Allison. This prevents edit war during RFC so an agreed upon revision can be reached. WooyiTalk, Editor review 02:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ervine d.jpg

[edit]

Image:Ervine d.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

The lead needs to be expanded with a summary of the article's main points.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Ervine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Ervine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Ervine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on David Ervine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Ervine&oldid=1207131651"