Talk:2006 Dublin riots

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance 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.

Untitled[edit]

I've added in that there were reports of fireworks and that Bertie Ahern condemned the riots, but i haven't been able to get a source (I heard it on the radio). If you heard it on the radio your able to get a link to an area in rté where it has the broadcast saved. the link to yesterday's RTÉ's news broadcast You need Real Player. Shoot The Moon 22:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish[edit]

I was present at this riot and I can confirm that the report here is nonsense. The protesters and marchers never caught sight of each other. All the rioting was between Gardai and republican protesters, mostly pretty young. Jdorney 17:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking to my friend by text (who was also there), who said the same as you. But nonetheless, I was reluctant to do anything about it, due to not having been there myself (other than fix how it was formatted) - ^R_H^e _o^d_t 17:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the marchers all went home and then the rioters started looting shops.

I should make clear that I only saw the events on O'Connell street and not those in the Nasseau St, Grafton St, Kildare St area. Jdorney 17:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to say that I think referring to the rioters as "republicans" (as on the front page) is a disgusting glorifaction, they were nothing more than thugs and scumbags with nothing better to do.

As someone who was present at this so called rally, I can tell you that those who smashed windows and looted were not Republicans, but a group of scumbags. These are the kinds of people who are anti-government and grafity areas with slogans such as smash the state. These people want any excuse to fight anything related to the government i.e. the Garda Siochanna. They are about as Republican as Edward Carson or Ian Paisley.--Play Brian Moore 01:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were Republican in the sense that they were running around with Irish flags and shouting "up the IRA". Ian Paisley doesn't do that so often. News flash: "Scumbag" and "Republican" are not, alas, mutually exclusive categories. Babajobu 02:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You Could see them - their was loads of them at the wrong end of O'Connell Street. I was told that Yellow Regged cars were the ones burned out in town, any truth to this? --Irishpunktom\^talk 18:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard different things about the cars that were burned out on Nassau street...they were Mercedes, or they were Northern Irish, or English, whatever. I doubt it's true. Those guys were just f**king s**t up, I don't think they focused on any type of car in particular. Babajobu 18:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they were all English cars that were burned out on Nassau street.--Play Brian Moore 21:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to Newstalk 106 at the time. They announced that both cars had Dublin plates. The point they were making is that these were 'random acts of violence'. Every criminal and scumbag in the city showed up because they knew there would be a riot. Everyone I know predicted this riot would occur. No organisation was required. 62.254.168.102 13:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, having been in town myself, I can confirm the burnt-out BMW(the picture I added to the article) at the end of Nassau street had an English reg while the fancy Jag they decided to destroy near the Celtic music shop also had an English reg. So it appears Newstalk were just reporting rumours,n ot fact.--Play Brian Moore 17:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the 6 o'clock RTE news both vehicles were Mercedes. No jags and no bmws and both had Dublin plates. Are they reporting rumours too? And did they invent the video footage I saw on tv saturday night? 62.254.168.102 11:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I believe you are mistaken. I was in town and I no what I saw, a smashed up 'Jag' outside Celtic Note, the music shop on Nassau street. So get over yourself.--Play Brian Moore 18:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my goodness, only English cars attacked, no sectarianism there, for sure!! 63.164.145.85 05:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Fenian swine but I'm going to go with RTE, Newstalk 106 and my own eyes over your claims. Why is it that you think being there puts you in a better position to know what happened? I was listening to and watching news reports coming in from all of the areas affected. There's no way somebody standing in Nasau st could know as much as those of us sitting at home. Factoid Killer 13:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there are pictures or video footage available of the cars? That ought to sort this question out. --Mal 15:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there are. Lets start with this article which specifically mentions that two of the cars were mercs... 'One 20-year-old man is charged with arson, causing €20,000 worth of damage to two Mercedes cars.' http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0225/loyalist2.html 62.254.168.102 13:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A jaguar was smashed up outside Celtic Note on Nassau street. Do you simpletons understand this 'FACT. I know exactly what I saw. So face facts.--Play Brian Moore 00:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight, we're simpletons because we won't automatically accept the word of someone we know as text on a screen who resorts to petty insults over trusted media sources... Makes senseFactoid Killer 14:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You got it in one, well done lad. Anyway, I know exactly what I saw. Why would I bother lying?--Play Brian Moore 23:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is video tape is more reliable than human memory and video cameras can be in more place than 1 at the same time. And the problem is the video tape contridicts your version of events. Sorry. Factoid Killer 03:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im after finding a video on Youtube which backups exactly what I said. I'm right, you're wrong, face FACTS, look at 9 minutes and 48 seconds and you can clearly see a smashed up Jaguar outside Celtic Note music shop on Nassau Street. If you think thats a Merc then your are more stupid than you previously showed. Ignorance is bliss.--Play Brian Moore 02:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And in fact, the others cars are Nissans and BMW's. Turns out our national broadcaster is mistaken.--Play Brian Moore 02:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Running for cover"[edit]

Re th edit that said "thousands of shoppers ran for cover", in fairness, most people just stood around and watched when the violence started. There were several times when the crowd scattered in all directions alright, but these happened when the Gardai charged the rioters. People then ran away to avoid getting caught up in the violence. Jdorney 21:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Republican" Riots[edit]

I don't think the kids who got involved were particularly "Republican" or pro Continuity IRA or anything like that -- but I do know they were Dubs. It seems pretty obvious to me that a nation must never allow foreign citizens with openly declared ill intentions and terrorist sympathies to enter its borders. If it took a crowd of Dublin's finest skangers to do the job their government wouldn't and send the UVF mob packing, then here's to them. Ben-w 00:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not wanting to be drawn into this, but Love Ulster is an entirely Northern organisation, they were bussed in from the North. Have to agree that most of the rioters were just youngsters bent on mayhem, although they were directed to some degree by older people, some of whom were probably republican dissidents. Among the patriotic actions of these people was the looting of a sports shoe shop, the smashing of all the windows they could find and the assault on cars that were provocatively parked and containing unlooted CD players. Jdorney 12:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a Southerner I deplore this violence. It is NOT representative of the vast majority of Southern Irish people. As a constitutional Republican I was and remain prepared to tolerate a Loyalist parade fundamentally at odds with my Republican beliefs. That is what democracy is about. If we are get a United Ireland anytime soon, we have to show Northern Protestants that their rights will be safe in a United Ireland. Get ready from the DUP to use video footage of this to propagate the myth that "this is how we'd be treated in a United Ireland".

There were only around 1,000-2,000 rioters in a city of 1.2 million. They do not represent me. Repeat. However, if it is true that a photograph of the Dublin-Monaghan bomber was to be shown at the march, then surely this demonstrates that 'Love Ulster' is much more than a 'victims group'. (Eamonn)

Eamonn said 'There were only around 1,000-2,000 rioters in a city of 1.2 million. '. In fact there were only 300 rioters. 62.254.168.102 13:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT a fact. The fact is that the number of rioters was quite hard to tell because of the number of civilians present. --Mal 19:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, a while ago there was less than that where idiot Muslims held signs that another idiot Muslim wrote and the entire world balked. Back home Christians can riot against fellow christian and the world giggles. So it's obvious - Christians are terrified of cardboard. --Irishpunktom\^talk 21:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rioters were obviously Republican because no-one else would have a problem with the Love Ulster march. Though most of the rioters were probably Dubs who just decided to join in there was a core of Republicans who organised the violence. A number of buses of protesters/rioters came from Newry (or somewhere like that). St jimmy 15:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

In adding references, I have included my own eyewitness account. I hope this is acceptable? Jdorney 01:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Babajobu 03:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was nearby when it happened and I can verify J's account as absolutely correct. It is also corroborated by reports on RTÉ News, BBC World and Sky News all of whom gave the same description. FearÉIREANN

\^(caint) 04:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was on O'Connell Street and then on the Quays, where there was also a lot of action. I agree that his account is correct, I'm just saying we can't use him as a source, which the article previously did, identifying him by his username. Wikipedia doesn't include original research or unverifiable sources. The other sources you mention are the ones we go with. Babajobu 04:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh heh. Jeez. So many Wikipedians in the one area!!! When someone called WP a "rapidly growing cult" they were right. We're everywhere. We should all start wearing badges so that we can spot each other. Of have a secret handshake. But then I did hear of a case some time ago where two people were both photographing an event in the US, side by side. They only realised they had been standing next to a fellow Wikipedian when they both downloaded the same photograph from the same split second and remembered the moment it had been taken. One guy left a message: "were you the guy in the yellow jacket by the blue car?" The response was "Yeah. Were you the guy with the glasses and the big camera?" FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March never happened[edit]

The article suggests that the march actually happened. It didn't. The march was cancelled by the Gardai. I'll change it. Babajobu 02:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the match happened in a more limited fashion, I think they finished a portion of their march before they had to leave.TheOtherFonz 13:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure they never even got off the buses except briefly at Leinster House. Babajobu 18:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand, they were unloading the buses when the guard moved to disperse the Counter Demo. There were SWP folks there as well as RSF. --Irishpunktom\^talk 18:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a few posh SWP kiddies stood at the margins for a couple minutes and then ran home and then breathlessly told their friends they were in the riots, but the guys actually rioting were real lumpenproles, definitely not SWimmers. Babajobu 19:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez. Don't you people watch the news before you comment. They were all set up ready to march. They were playing their instruments and were all lined up on a side street just off o'connel st. But the protesters were blocking their path. As the Gardai tried to move them out of the way the riot broke out. I wish people would stop making stuff up and simply not comment if they don't know. 62.254.168.102 15:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loyalist Bias[edit]

this article seems to be biased towards republicans

How so? Also, please place four tildes after your comments, like this: ~~~~ Babajobu 03:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify what you meant by that? I see two ways of interpreting what you said. Do you mean biased in favour of republics, or biased against them? Also, I personally think that the article is a small bit (I emphasise small) biased in favour of the Orange Order. Don't get me wrong, what the "republicans" (in this case, just a word for people who took advantage of a bad situation) did was disgraceful, but, it should also be asked: What did the Orange Order hope to achieve by marching down here instead of in Belfast? If they're in favour of union with the UK, they hardly expect the Irish government to care, do they? There is only one answer I can think of, as to why they would choose Dublin: provocation. Unless someone can give me a better reason I think there should be something about this in the article, because, yeah unionists (sometimes innocent) have been killed by republicans, but nationalists (again, only sometimes innocent) have been killed by loyalists, but you don't see Nationalists staging (or attempting to) protests in Belfast! - ^R_H^e _o^d_t 12:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalists and republicans hold marches in Belfast all the time. This is not surprising as they are about 50% of the population there. Many republican demonstrations ahve been held there including IRA colour parties. I can't say that I actually like the Orange Order very much but in this instance, they weren't the ones doing the rioting. Jdorney 13:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back, I phrased part of that terribly, I won't even bother fixing it. But my other point stands as is: What were they hoping to achieve by marching here? - ^R_H^e _o^d_t 19:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They wanted to piss nationalists off. It worked. Sorry, just being smart there. Their ostensible aim was to highlight the suffering of Protestant victims of the IRA and to protest at their perception that the Irish government did not do enough to stop the IRA campaign during the Troubles. Jdorney 20:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They wanted to say "We are victims of republican thugs yet people in the Republic don't realise what we have to put up with." So they come down to march, and republican thugs stage a riot. Talk about stupid imbeciles. The rioters gave the Loyalists a game, set and match victory. The Loyalist claim may be debatable, but the riots in Dublin have given the Loyalists a cast-iron PR case. Every time they complain about being prevented from marching in the North, and republicans claim it is simply because of where they want to march, not the right to march, Loyalists can simply say "No. You want to stop us marching anywhere. Remember O'Connell Street". Millions of people in Ireland, Britain, and the world will simply nod and say "they have a point." Republicans could not have behaved more stupidly if they tried. They have boosted the credibility of their opponents and destroyed their own. Jeffrey Donaldson came up with a great line when he said how republicans wanted Northern MPs to have speaking rights in the Dáil chamber, yet wouldn't even allow him to speak outside the Dáil. Even though Sinn Féin appear to have nothing to do with the riots, as the main republican electoral force associated with physical force republicanism, they probably will lose out bigtime. The sight of republican riots will probably kill off the transfers they need to win seats, the Ahern will probably now have to make it explicitly clear to avoid collateral damage to his own prospects that any co-operation with SF electorally, and any possibility of taking SF into government, is a non-starter in the next Dáil. The riots were a PR disaster for the whole republican family and will be used as a stick to beat republicans by all their opponents north and south for years to come. Tactically it was the most stupid thing possible to do. It proved the message the Loyalists were trying to communicate to the Republic and made the Loyalists seem like the good law-abiding people who followed Garda advice, while making republicans seem like thugs and bigots. FearÉIREANN

\^(caint) 20:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But Jtdirl -- republicans (American Republicans and Irish republicans) are, they don't just seem to be thugs and bigots. Egad, I detect an extreme lack of POV in your comments which I hope will not transfer out of the discussion page. POV is very, very important old chap, eh, what. 24.136.99.194 01:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's almost EXACTLY the answer I was thinking of. I realise I just said provocation, but I had also been thinking that it was to provoke them, IN ORDER to "prove" a point like that. Glad I'm not the only one. - ^R_H^e _o^d_t 22:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work with a developing story[edit]

I've got to say, guys, by the way, that while sometimes WP can be a right pain in the bum (edit wars, vandalism, etc) there are moments where it is so impressive as a source. The work done on WP to cover this riot is really top class. It is for moments like this that I joined WP. I do know from a friend in a British station that they are using us to get a feel for what happened, as they didn't have anyone there and are just getting snippets of info from AP etc. They are reading our stuff to get background and were very impressed. We had better information than the news agencies. And when they double-checked the facts with their own reporter (who flew in later) he told them we were spot on. So well done. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. As for the strong Wikipedian presence near the riots and the cultish nature of it all, I also completely agree. While everything was happening I kept thinking, shoot, why didn't I bring my camera to upload some pics to Wikipedia? Little did I know there were several people nearby who were thinking along the same lines, but had brought theirs...funny. The world shrinks, and the wikicult expands. Good stuff. Babajobu 05:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blush* The number of times I've wished I had my camera with me to take a picture for WP is embarrassing!!! Though my favourite was when I noticed an article on WP about a Dublin building, realised that I live about 1 minute away from that building, so I grabbed my camera, rushed out the door and across the street, photographed it and had a three minute old photograph on WP straight away. My flatmate gave me a dirty look and said "aren't you supposed to be writing your own book right now, not taking photographs for the net?" He was right, of course, but I was kinda chuffed to have taken a photograph at 7pm and have it on WP at 7.03!!! I think we have the wikidisease quite bad. But then, we both are on here at 6-friggin' AM. Are we hooked or what!!! FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 06:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me about it. Waking up at 4 am and logging into Wikipedia instead of going back to bed is a very bad habit! Must stop! Babajobu 15:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still amazed how well this article turned out. I made it late last night in order to get the text off the current events page, and basically did as much as I could before I fell asleep. I wake up, and it's a fully written article. Thanks for helping out everyone. :) ShaunES 06:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has really done itself proud in this case- I logged on within half an hour of hearing about the rioting and there was already a short stub on the event!TheOtherFonz 10:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number of marchers[edit]

I walked down Parnell Square at c. 12:50 on Saturday and saw eight buses leaving Parnell Square (I counted). There were at least 400 loyalist marchers assembled outside the Hugh Lane gallery so I think what happened was that three buses only left for the small rally outside Leinster House, presumably the other five returned north. --213.94.205.109 16:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the press has reported 1000 based on pre-event estimates, there was nowhere near that number present. I was at the corner of Parnell square at about 13:30 when they were bused away and there was only 3 coaches. One was full of young men wearing orange lillies, presumably from the Orange order. Another was full of older people and families, presumably victims or victims relatives. The third bus was full of uniformed bandsmen, mostly men in their 20s-30s. They also had a colour party which carried the union jack, the Northern Ireland flag and the Scottish flag. Jdorney 09:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently states "only three coach loads turned up in Dublin, indicating a far smaller number, in the region of 300." Most coaches hold only a little over fifty people AFAIK which might suggest closer to 150-175? -- Blorg 22:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw three coaches on Parnell square. Gardai put the number of marchers at about 450 on RTE radio. Jdorney 23:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could the article be rephrased in some way then? Three coaches _doesn't_ suggest the region 300 but more like half that. So we would have to imagine either that the gardaí were wrong or (more likely) that there were more coaches or that people came under their own steam? -- Blorg 10:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable. I was dealing with tourist buses last year, the large ones seat 54. One other ther hand, all the marchers fit on buses when they were driven from Parnell square down to Kildare St. Presumably most ofthem were standing up at this time. Jdorney 13:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple of suggestions here. Firstly, is it not conceivable that some of the paraders had come down to Dublin prior to the weekend, separately from the coaches? Also, as JD pointed out, if some were standing in the coaches, I've seen the number quoted inside the buses as something in the region of "103 people (50 standing)" or words to that effect. --Mal 17:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rd picture[edit]

I'm not sure it adds so much, and I think it's also mislabelled. That doesn't look to me like O'Connell Street. It looks like the photographer was on Parnell Street, facing east; at the end is Parnell Square with O'Connell street off to the right, but it's not really "a picture of O'Connell Street". Anyway, it doesn't show much, I think it should probably be removed. Babajobu 15:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, it is from Parnell Street, but it appears to me to show a good amount of O'Connell Street. I guess it could be renamed "View near Parnell Statue", and I added it because it shows a good amount of rubbish in the streets after the riots left the area, and also goes along with the point stating O'Connell Street was cleared. I won't add it back unless someone else agrees, but I thought it was at least slightly informative. Toofishes 17:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is, and thanks for uploading it. The camerawork is good, I'm just not sure you got quite close enough. Babajobu 17:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was about as close as I could get without crossing the police line, but thanks. THe thumbnail doesn't quite capture it well, you have to blow the picture up to see it, so I get the problem. Toofishes 19:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. On a related note, why do people keep removing this image?

This is an example of the literature produced by dissident republicans (in this case the Irish Republican Socialist Party who organised the protest against the "Love Ulster" march. Jdorney 16:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the person who removed it just thought it was a random Republican leaflet. To avoid removal it might just need to have the relevance explained more clearly in the caption. Babajobu 17:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed it back on and explained that it is a poster specifically made for the counter-demonstration, details on its origin (IRSP) can be found here, the official website of the Republican Socialist Youth Movement, youth wing of the IRSP. --Tiocfaidh Ár Lá! 17:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I thought. I was the person who originally removed it (diff), the caption wasn't particularly clear as to the relevance of the image and I [wrongly] thought it was just POV-pushing Cynical 18:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Garda Síochána[edit]

I object to the use of the term "The Irish Police" in reference to An Garda Síochána. They are not police. People wishing for an explanation can click the link. For the mean time I will revert this and wait for discussion.Jamesnp 22:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they're not police, why does everyone call them "coppers"? Babajobu 22:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are the an garda síochána and nothing else. It's like calling them NYPD, because they are a police force. The NYPD are a police force monitoring New York. To call an Garda Suíochána anything else would be labeling them something else. Shoot The Moon 22:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely objecting to the term "police" when referring to Gardaí is a case of splitting hairs? They're not being referred to as NYPD, LVPD, MDPI, PSNI or anything else - it's a generic term, which, as far as I know, doesn't imply being armed.Autarch 15:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fine, but the first time we use it can we include a parenthetical appositive phrase like "the police force of the Republic of Ireland" or something? I think that's perfectly accurate and very helpful to our non-Irish readers. To pretend the Gardai aren't cops is a posh affectation, really. At the very least we should be able to describe them as that once so people won't get confused and lose interest in the article. Babajobu 22:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, put something like "an Garda Síochána (The Irish Police force)". I understand that non-Irish people wouldn't understand the meaning, i just don't agree to call them The Irish police force for the whole article as the whole point of the Irish name was to show the difference of the Irish free state (at the time) to the English. Also, the translation of An Garda Síochána is the Peaceful Police, this is due to the gardaí non carrying a weapon. Shoot The Moon 22:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is prabably worth pointing out that if the link is clicked then the viewer will see that An Garda Síochána "is the national police agency of the Republic of Ireland" (and, in fact the original act setting it up called it a police force). Incidentally, the page also translates the name as 'The Peace Guard of Ireland"- havn't a clue which is rightMAG1 22:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Gardaí were set-up as a peace force, i.e., they dont carry any guns. This was due to fears that extreme republicans would kill some patrolling Gardaí and take their guns and use them against the government. So there the peace guard of Ireland is a loose translation of an garda síochána because the english of an garda síochána is an garda síochána. But translating it word by word you get something like "The Peace Guard of Ireland". The gardai are the national police agency as it enforces the law but without the use of guns.

The Garda's web site ('Ireland's National Police Service') clarifies it: 'The Guardians of the Peace'MAG1 23:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to some people, An Garda Síochána means The Guard of [the] peace. Síocháin is originally a compound word of Sí (Modern Spelling) + Cáin (Law). At the time meant something along the line of Civil Peace or King's Law. The Irish word for Police is "póilíní", if they were "Irish Police" it would be Póilíní na hÉireann. I still object to them being referred to as police at all in the article, save in a context such as "Equivalent of National Police", for example.Jamesnp 23:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah feck this. Let's just call them The Royal Irish Constabulary or, better still, the Tholsel Guard. After all, foreign words have no place in the English language. Never have, and never will have. I also propose that we rename the Taoiseach entry on Wikipedia as the Lord Deputy. Long live the day when every townland in Ireland is known only by a letter and a sort code and unique placenames are consigned to history because they cause upset to the English speaking world. Let's look forward to Region 246, Area 8, Country 1269 or, as we now primatively call it, Dún Laoghaire, Dublin, Ireland. El Gringo 15:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly true that uniformed members of the Garda Síochána do not carry guns, however,it has always been the case that the detective branch of the force has been armed and regularly carry firearms in the course of their duties. --Dfcarolan 14:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tribune[edit]

Should it be worth to note that there wouldn't be a tribunal into the matter? Shoot The Moon 22:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No St jimmy 11:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paramilitary or Terrorist?[edit]

Paramilitary or Terrorist? I think it should be Terrorist, but I might be wrong. What's everyone else's opinion?

I feel terrorist is too strong a word to describe them, and all I hear those groups being described in the news as Paramilitary. Anyone have any thoughts on it? Shoot The Moon 22:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC) EDIT --- Forgot to include the four ~.[reply]

Apologies.

I was standing on the day watching it and tracksuit-wearing Dublin gurrier dirtbags who totally missed our Irish history lesson about the meaning of the orange in the flag would be more apt. Tracksuits were everywhere. Admittedly the guy who was with me called me a racist for my views. But it's not everyday one can be accused of being a racist against, em, tracksuit wearers with stones in their hands. The word 'terrorist' is used by, let's just say, a certain class of person El Gringo 16:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a "certain class of person" in Dublin would tend to use the word terrorist, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the riot in Dublin. The riot was carried out by people who were apparently organised by a terrorist organisation. This does not make the rioters themselves terrorists though. Extremists, yes; terrorists, no.

The difference between use of the word terrorist versus the word paramilitary.. well the word paramilitary tends to be a more 'politically correct' term for terrorists, and is used mostly by the news media. Most people regard the relevant groups as terrorists. Extremists and supporters tend to regard them as 'freedom fighters' etc. --Mal 19:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

While I have no sympathy for the rioters, a couple of things need to be cleared up.

First of all the initial violence was not just the protesters attacking the Gardai. The Gardai tried to disperse the protesters who were blocking the route of the march and scuffles broke out. The protesters then startd to throw things and the riot developed. Quite a few of the protesters were also battoned at this point. i saw them with bloodied heads. Secondly its not true to say that the rioters were attackign the public at random. As far as I could see, on O'Connell st at any rate, this was not the case, thousands of onlookers were intermingled with the rioters and were unmolested by them. Some of the public even expressed sympathy for them.

Secondly the mob attacked at least one journalist - Charlie Bird - but they were not just attacking every jouranlist they could find. Plenty of them were wandering around behind the rioters "front lines" with notebooks and cameras etc.

Thirdly, whoever wrote that they were urinating in bottles and throwing them at random needs to provide a source. Just because you dissaprove of something doesn't mean that you can repeat every rumur about it. Jdorney 23:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday Independent, 26 February 2006, states that at least one Coca-Cola bottle full of urine was thrown at and hit a Garda. It is also interesting that "Charlie Bird" was called an "Orange bastard", since he has been the reporter the IRA contact to make a statement for years. Sir Ophiuchus 00:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know wiki policy is not to question media reports, but the Sindo is so biased against republicans I wouldn't take this very seriously personally. Re Charlie Bird, dunno why they attacked him and called him an "orange bastard". Sheer mindlessness maybe. Or maybe its some kind of dissident association of him with the "betrayal" peace process. Jdorney 00:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with that statement. According to the SIndo, my home area was overrun by IRA Drug barons who forced us all to vote for Sean Crowe. The Phoenix regularly lampoons the Sindo and indeed the entire indo group for this. --Irishpunktom\^talk 12:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Indo still counts as a reliable source. If you doubt something they said, then just preface it with "According to the Irish Independent,". FWIW, if I'm not mistaken the Star actually had a picture of a rioter pissing into a bottle. Babajobu 15:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A series of pictures in a number of tabloids on Sunday showed a thug pissing in a plastic bottle and then throwing the open bottle filled with urine at Gardaí. I glanced at the papers on Sunday in my local shop and saw the pictures. I didn't buy the tabloids because none of them seemed worth buying so I can't remember which tabloids carried the picture. I think the Sunday Mirror was one of them. I think one of them may have been carried with Paul Williams's piece in the Sunday World, but I could have the papers' names wrong. But the pictures were unmistakable. It is no myth but fact that bottles of piss were hurled over Gardaí. Charlie was not the only reporter attacked. They attacked a number. Charlie said on Six-One that another RTÉ reporter and a TV3 journalist were also attacked. Colleagues of mine say journalists were specifically targeted for attack. Charlie's experience was however the worst. The gardaí believe that is life was in danger, such was the scale of the assault, which was little short of a lynching. One of the reasons RSF targeted him was because of his SF reportage: some of RSF nutters (or rather the even nuttier than normal RSF members) regard SF and the PIRA as British stooges, and anyone that calls SF and the PIRA "republican" a crypo-loyalist. They couldn't get their hands on Sinn Féiners, so attacking a reporter who reported SF was the next best thing. That is the scale of the warped surreal world of RSF. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Charlie Bird[edit]

Don't you all understand, Charlie Bird was attacked because his surname is quite non-Gaelic, and he may have been mistaken for British or even, horrors, a Protestant. After all only British Protestants can belong to the Orange Order. Just, of course, as only Irish Catholics can belong to the Ancient Order of Hibernians, that charmingly ecumenical association.

I'm sorry to intrude on your Irish conclave (it's akin to trying to live in Breezy Point, Queens -- NINA, non-Irish needn't apply) but I feel compelled.

24.136.99.194 01:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just confirmed that Charlie Bird IS a Protestant (Hun, don't you Irish Catholics call that sort??) b/c he attended Sandymount High School, and no Catholic would do that. He's a Proddy, and the IRSP/Republican Sinn Fein could tell immediately. That explains that

24.136.99.194 04:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that membership of the Orange Order is not restricted to only British peoples, nor even to caucasians. --Mal 19:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish, Sandymount High School is (or rather was, it closed down a few years ago) a lay Catholic school, attended by Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Yet again, Robert, your sectarian assumptions are proven wrong. Demiurge 10:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link [1] describes the school as "co-educational, non-denominational". I attended the school myself and it was certainly co-educational. I only learned in the last few years that it was non-denominational - I spoke with someone who was there about a decade or so before me. Apparently the school was controversial in the early years because it was run by the Canon family rather than a church. The neighbouring Marian College was built afterwards as a rival. (It was run by the Catholic church.) The reason I didn't realise it was non-denominational was that there were religion classes in the school - I was under the impression up until recently that non-denominational schools didn't do that-maybe it's an American interpretation of the phrase. Nobody was aware that anybody was non-Catholic (possibly with the exception of the Malaysian Chinese students in the last two years), but that's probably the result of growing up in a society where 90-95% of the population is of one denomination of one faith rather than any other reason. Autarch 20:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, Catholics in Ireland only attend (with the exception of a tiny number in Northern Irish integrated schools) schools with the words "St.", "Christian Brothers", or "National". To pretend otherwise is a lie. I guess Sandford Park High School was also a "lay Catholic school", well, maybe, after all the Protestants left. 65.88.88.45 22:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Robert, you've passed the point of mere ignorance and into trolling and deliberate vandalism now. Stop inserting information which you know to be false. Demiurge 22:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most schools (North and South) are owned by churches - this is a result of 19th-Century politics in the school system. Autarch 20:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does trolling mean; isn't that something gay people do (like Morrissey and Boy George)??

63.164.145.85 05:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It means deliberately posting material designed to cause Flaming - to deliberately provoke a flame war. It's a term from Usenet. Autarch 20:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't suppose you've travelled south of the border much, eh? Many southern Irish people, myself included have "non-Gaelic surnames" it doesn't signify anything. Jdorney 13:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I swore I would never visit the "Republic" of Ireland b/c of its policies (particularly regarding refugees) during WWII. And I have read all the revisionism about the alleged pro-Allied Irish neutrality on other sites. So don't lecture about that. 65.88.88.45 22:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all i object to the term "Proddy". Secondly the rioters called him an "orange bastard" which suggests that they attacked him because they thought he was a loyalist. St jimmy 11:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the interview with him they also addressed him by name, so they clearly knew who he was. What his religion is I don't know. Autarch 20:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For another thing, dislike of Irish policies towards refugess during WW2 isn't just limited to outside the Republic. Autarch 13:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really, a loyalist working in Dublin and for RTE?? Seems highly unlikely, it is b/c they knew/suspected he is a Proddy. nd if you don't like the word "Proddy", get your fellow co-religionists to stop using it. 65.88.88.45 22:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Orange bastard" doesn't mean protestant. it means loyalist. As i'm sure you know there are a number of protestants who were strongly in favour of irish independance (Theobald Wolfe Tone). St jimmy 10:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall hearing the word "Proddy" used by anyone I know recently. I haven't heard it used in the media. Perhaps it's limited to a small number of people, but it's not common as 65.88.55.45 thinks. Autarch 13:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Jimmy, to compare Wolfe Tone, mensch though he may have been, to the current crop of PIRA bombers, including the Balcombe Street Four and many others, who got their weapons from Libya and the Soviet Union (bastions of democracy both) is shameful.

Rms125@hotmail.com

My point was that just because someone is a Protestant doesn't make him a loyalist ("orange bastard") and I used Wolfe tone as an example. I was in no way comparing Wolfe Tone to the PIRA.

Funnily enough Charlie Bird was an alleged member of a Republican Paramilitary group known as Saor Eire. There is even a picture of him giving the clenched fist salute by the graveside of its leader. So though he may be a Protestant, he is rather Republican and Socialist leaning in his views --MarkyMarkDCU 18:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename[edit]

I suggest that the article be renamed and moved to Dublin Republican riots of 2006 or better Dublin riots, 2006. As the examples of other riots show, rarely are the alleged perpetrators mentioned in the riot article title. I don't see why the Dublin case should be any different. --Damac 07:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin riots, 2006 sounds good. Although likely that certain extreme republicans played a role in organising the riots, this is not clear at this stage, and so the current title is somewhat NPOV. It also seems clear that there were a substantial number of apolitical skangers involved, and at the same time there were plenty of republicans that abhorred what happened. -- Blorg 12:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There doubt that there were Sinn Féin members involved - in fact, the word going around political circles is that SF instructed its members to avoid O'Connell Street on the day.

RSF enjoy no support. While party members were there, they were not involved in the riot. Far too old and feeble for that kind of ruckus. Similarly, the other minor republican parties such as the IRSP and the 32CSM have no support in Dublin.

It was what you refer to as the skanger class that was involved in the riot. Why they got so upset at the thought of a loyalist parade through Dublin is another story, not easily explained in political terms. --Damac 13:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not tremendously complicated, they were saying things like, "The Orange bastards will never march through here". I would say, based on what I saw, that there were a handfull of RSF or IRSP heads involved in the riot. Also a handful of northern accents among the inner city Dublin ones. People were chanting stuff like the "CI CI CI IRA", which most of the mob thought was "the I the I the IRA", ie were unaware of the specifically dissident republican message. Jdorney 13:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Damac; Dublin riots, 2006 is simply more succient. Anyone looking it up on the net will simply type in a few essential keywords or phrases ("Dublin", "riots" "2006"); adding words such as Republican is unnecessary as these terms are very well explained in the text. And my congradulations to everyone involved in this; articles and contributions like this are the reasons I joined Wikipidea. I would however like to see more photos, if at all possible. Cheers! Fergananim 19:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another supporter for Dublin riots, 2006 - it's in keeping with other riot articles. Some of the pictures have no copyright info, but there's plenty of GFDL-compatible replacement photos at Flickr, including a couple already used in the Wikinews articles. --Kwekubo 21:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed to 2006 Dublin riots as date first seemed slightly more in line with other stuff on List of riots. Hopefully these will be the only ones in Dublin this year ;-) -- Blorg 22:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it should be in the format Dublin riot, 2006. I mean this is an encylopaedia. If you went to a paper encyclopaedia, you would look this event up under "D" and not "2". I believe it is Wikipedia policy to put the dates after events. The emphasis should be on the place and event and not the year.

In fact, "2006 Dublin riots" makes the event sound like an Olympiad and regular occurance, which it wasn't.

For further reference, please see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(numbers_and_dates).--Damac 08:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We usually seem to use the suffixed comma-year format for regular events like elections, eg United States presidential election, 2004. Calling it the "Dublin riots, 2006" makes it sound like Dublin gets riots every few years.

For one-time events like earthquakes for instance, we generally use the year as part of the name, for instance 1755 Lisbon earthquake. -- Curps 08:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the impression I got from the Wikipedia guidelines, which states that at title like Dublin riots, 2006 is perfectly acceptable. Just think about a paper version of Wikipedia - where would you go to read up on this topic?--Damac 08:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "Dublin riots of 2006", in keeping with "Blizzard of 1977"? It doesn't have the same connotation of regular occurrence that the comma form does. -- Curps 08:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better again and a number of other riots haved been named according to this format.--Damac 08:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'of 2006' sounds fine either, was just avoiding the comma. -- Blorg 09:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Militant[edit]

Why do people keep reverting Sinn Fein to "the largest militant Irish Republican party..."?--Jersey Devil 09:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because Sinn Fein is the political wing of the Provisional IRA and is the largest republican party associated with the use of violence. Fianna Fail is the largest Irish republican party, but it shed its links to the use of force in 1926 (when its members left the IRA) or arguably in 1932 (when it entered government but legalised the IRA) or 1935 (when it banned the IRA again). Sinn Fein represents the "militant" or "physical force" aspect of Irish repubicanism. Does that clear things up? Jdorney 13:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally they've been described as militant republicans because of their support for the physical force tradition. Since 1998 or so, they've rebranded themselves as nationalists rather than republicans, if memory serves me right. Autarch 20:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, dont mean to be a pedant but they were declared "illegal" in 1936. Check Talk:Irish Republican Army (1922–1969), I updated my comments there with confirmation. Thanks. Fluffy999 00:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 riots[edit]

Protestant Unionists are constantly told that they are Irish and are being manipulated by the UK govt. to maintain their empire. Of course, this is all bulls**t, but now the proof of that has been manifested for almost any rational-minded person (which excluded plenty of die-hard republicans, and a few people on this Discussion Page, they know who they are).

The 26 County region (I don't regard it as a true republic, not because of the missing 6 counties, but b/c it has rarely behaved like a republic, although it is getting better, I have to admit) is regarded as a Roman Catholic preserve freed forever from "internal enemies" (e.g. those labelled "West Britons" who were loyal to the UK) and is expected to remain that way. Of course British tourists or (sometimes) those intermarry with Irish people are welcome, but for the most the Protestant community has been whittled down from approximately 16% of the population in the 26 Counties (circa 1922)to 2% or so, through persecution, cultural annihilation, intermarriage (Ne Temere), death and taxes. Try to fly a Union flag in the 26 Counties and see what happens, while Irish fifth columnists in Britain (Glasgow, Liverpool, etc.) have no fear of flying the Irish tricolour.

That shows the difference between freedom and lack of freedom!! 63.164.145.85 06:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Give me a break.  Pure revisionist history/rubbish.  Tell me, how many protestants died or had to flee ireland to survive under the Union jack??

As for flying a Union jack (the butcher's apron) in Ireland, it would be the same as someone flying a Nazi flag in Belarus. The years of oppression and suffering under that flag don't make the natives too happy to see it flying on their street. As for someone in Liverpool flying a tricolour no Englishman would care as their ancestors didn't suffer for generations under a foreign government that used that flag. It is a ridiculous comparison.

Btw, why is the Irish flag a tricolour and not the Union Jack (the Union Jack also has 3 colors-red, white and blue). Red, white and blue, what other notable (notorious) country has a flag with those colors??

As I look out my back window to see a Muslim mosque, a Church of Ireland, and a Catholic church, I am brought back to reality to find out how wrong you are. Get a life, foreign flags shouldn't be flow except on embassys. People who fly them for other reasons are just asking for trouble. End of discussion.--Play Brian Moore 23:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those riots actually occured in retrospective justification for the flaunting of the union flag by those British Rugby fans last year- They thought they could get away with it, but now, 12 months later they have felt our wrath. Apparently there was some sort of unionist march planned too - who knew?--Irishpunktom\^talk 11:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irish fans fly the tricolour at Twickenham every year and no-one complains. St jimmy 14:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, well done.--Play Brian Moore 19:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand -- it is wrong to fly a Union flag or a Union Jack in southern Ireland (indeed once upon a time it could have been a fatal mistake), but it is OK for a foreign flag (the Irish tricolour) to be flown in a foreign country (parts of the UK, including Liverpool, Glasgow, etc.) by fifth columnists and terrorist supporters (b/c of the weakness of British governments in dealing with such scum)?? That seems a tad hypocritical, mate, and I know you would'nt want to be seen in that light, so pls. elaborate. 65.88.88.45 21:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Fenian Swine they allowed you to remian a Wikipedian, despite your (prior?) "provocative and disturbing" username, which is against Wikiwepia rules. who was your rabbi?? I guess Irish Catholics can get away with anything. I am sure Demiurge, Ali-oops and none of the other Wikipedians ever felt that "Fenian Swine" way out of line, but I am sure they would if I created a new username/signature called "Taigkiller" (I tried that once and got blocked by, guess who,Jtdirl, who sees nothing wrong with "Fenian Swine" as a Username. Good thing you have an Administrator up your arse. By the way I corrected some of your rather poor syntax and grammar. Christian Brothers not doing their job these days, just too busy buggering young lads and recruiting for the IRA, I guess. Rms125a@hotmail.com 22:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the word tricolour in reference to a flag means it has three horizontal or vertical stripes of different colours about the same size and without any other markings, not just three colours. What exactly does this rant have to do with improving this article? - dharmabum 22:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tricolour's colours and meanings are...

Green - Irish/Nationalists/Republicans/Catholics.
Gold/Orange - British/Unionists/Loyalist/Protestants.
White - Either peace (yeah right...) between the two sides or else dividing the two sides.

There's why the flag is the way it is. Jvlm.123 07:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little note here- I guess Jvlm was trying to be diplomatic but there is no Gold in the Irish tricolour. The official colours from the flag staff are Green, White and Orange. The word gold is used either for it's poetic qualities or, more often, by people who want to forget what the orange represents. Afn 18:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My (maternal) grandmother, who wasn't known for being tolerant, used the word Gold rather than Orange. Autarch 20:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The origin of the tricolour is less than certain. The popular story about the green representing nationalists, the orange representing 'Protestants' and the white being the 'peace' between the two was invented after the creation of the flag. What is known is that the flag was based on the French tricolour, as per the French Revolution. Other theories are that the green represented agriculture and the yellow represented wealth (or the hope for wealth). Is it coincidence that the white and gold mirrors (literally) the flag of the Holy See? (see Flag of Vatican City). Most of the older versions of the flag are distinctly yellow. --Mal 10:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Surely you're joking about having a similarity with the Vatican Flag! Autarch 20:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the flag? --Mal 21:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I presume the anonymous poster who started this section was taking the piss or indeed may actually be as ignorant as they come across.

You are right, b/c gold is the colour of the Vatican and many flags fly with gold, not yellow, in many parts of suthern Ireland, and probably other places, as well. Remember Michael Malin's words to his wife: "[d]on't forget - Ireland is a Catholic country".

Btw, why is the Irish flag a tricolour and not the Union Jack (the Union Jack also has 3 colors-red, white and blue). Eh, maybe because the Union Jack is the flag of another country perhaps?!?! 65.88.88.45 21:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Union Jack is the flag of the UK - not of any other country, though it is used in some other country's flags. The RoI's flag is called a tricolour because it contains three solid blocks of colour. Other tricolours include the French flag (on which the Irish tricolour was modelled), the Italian flag and the Belgian flag. I'm not sure whether the same terminology applies to horizonally striped flags. --Mal 17:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what other notable (notorious) country has a flag with those colors?? Hmm, that's a hard one! *rolls eyes* Maybe you've heard of (I dunno...) The USA? France? (Who gave Ireland the tricolor back in 1798) The Netherlands, Chile, Cuba, Iceland, Luxembourg, New Zealand or Australia... I'm sure there's more, although it did seem like a stupid question. GiollaUidir 17:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I presume the Ivory Coast isn't the answer! ;-) Autarch 20:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was, of course, refrring to the USA, of which I am a citizen. 65.88.88.45 21:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New paragraph[edit]

From this edit by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com and this subsequent one from 65.88.88.45:

However it should be pointed out that while FAIR may be sympathetic to loyalists, there are several organizations given respectability who deal ALMOST exclusively with Catholic victims (from innocent civilians to terrifyingly efficient bombers), such as Justice for the Forgotten, the Pat Finucane Center, and the Relatives for Justice who also make no distinctions between the nature and causes of death of the almost exclusively Roman Catholic "victims" whose memories they keep alive, while victims of republican groups, especially the PIRA who killed 50% of the total number of victims (around 1800 people) from the late 1960s until the original ceasefire of 1994, have few effective advocates. Peter King, a poweful U.S. Congressman who supporter the PIRA is now the head of the U.S. Subcommittee on Homeland Security. He claimed he was inspired to pursue the position because "friend and neighbors died on 9/11".

How much of the finer details of this are true or not, I haven't a clue, but two things are evident: the language of this piece is teeming with POV, and its content is almost entirely irrelevant to the subject of this article. --Kwekubo 02:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

almost entirely leaves US some room for discretion presuming you have already realized that I know far more than you about this topic.

24.136.99.194 04:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh... what? The 'almost entirely' means that the above rant could be reduced to "Other organisations exist in Northern Ireland which commemorate Catholic victims of the Troubles in a similar way to FAIR," or some such comment. I don't even see how that belongs in the article. --Kwekubo 20:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently at least one woman, from a Roman Catholic background, was with the Love Ulster parade. --Mal 17:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proper title[edit]

Could we have a proper title for this rather than the contrived and stupidly standard Wikipedia scheme of "Year, Location incident". No-one but Wikipedia refers to the incident as "2006 Dublin riots".

In fact, this scheme doesn't even read well. It would still be bad, but at least more readable to have "Dublin riots of 2006". There weren't 2,006 riots!

The incident is quite clearly connected to the Love Ulster demonstration (in the sense of it being the "excuse" for the rioting), and also to the Republicans. There are no other identifiers to the title "Dublin riots" that make sense, as adding a year is not much use - it tells nothing as to what sort of riots, where, when (what time of the year).

In short, this (2006 Dublin riots) is a typically abysmal title. Suggestions please for moving it?

zoney ♣ talk 12:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's still only February and the Lambeg drums and pipes have not had last year's dust blown off them yet. I think we are being very optimistic about there being no further riots this year. Try 'The February 2006 Dublin Riots :-)160.84.253.241 14:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved to that title as I thought 'republican riots' a bit POV (see discussion above). Agreed "Dublin riots of 2006" would be better, I picked the other only because it seemed slightly more common on List of riots. I think year first might be a more American phrasing. At the moment most Irish news sources seem to be just referring to them as "the Dublin riots", "Saturday's riots in the capital", etc. Certainly simple "Dublin riots" is far and away the most popular in the reports I have read.

Do you have any suggestions for a title? Dublin skanger riots of 2006 likely instigated by Republican Sinn Féin is a bit long. I note that of the 41 arrested only one had suspected paramilitary connections, but among the 13 charged were two Lithuanians. Lithuanian looting of Dublin, 2006 perhaps ;-)

Seriously, for the moment I think Dublin Riots of 2006 is probably the best bet, either Love Ulster riots or simple Republican riots is unfair. But I am not against a more descriptive title depending on the phrasing. -- Blorg 16:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I can think of off the bat is Dublin Anti-Love Ulster Riots of 2006 which I think is fairly NPOV but a bit of mouthful. (Prefer Dublin Riots of 2006) -- Blorg 16:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure the rioters were anti-love --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about February, 2006 Dublin riots or Dublin riots of February, 2006? Arniep 17:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the objection is that the date isn't specific enough. Given that they were the worst riots seen in Dublin in a very long time I think we can hope that there won't be any more this year. -- Blorg 18:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin Anti-Unionist Riots might be an option? I think it fair to say that most of the rioters were anti-unionist. -- Blorg 18:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about The most predictable riot in Irish history(2006)?? --unsigned

On a serious note, this article in the Belfast Telegraph makes a good case for it being mostly opportunistic yobs "who converged on the city centre in anticipation of trouble" and for even the RSF protesters not to have got involved. E.g. that the violence was not predictable (although perhaps the gardaí shouldn't have been looking at the paramilitaries and should have been paying attention to Dublin radio listeners instead.) -- Blorg 18:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do think the most accurate title is Dublin skanger riots of 2006 likely instigated by Republican Sinn Féin :D

The only thing the Guards underestimated was the prevalence of skangers in Dublin :) That and the authorities were morons for not doing something about the construction materials beforehand!

Loyalist protest in the capital city of the Republic + Hardcore Republicans + Skangers + Building site = last Saturday's riots!

zoney ♣ talk 14:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The title is fine the way it is. It is descriptive enough. And if you use a standard format for the title then it keeps it NPOV. St jimmy 14:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A moronic contrived standard title format. At the very least, this should read Dublin riots of 2006. Considering it was only a one day event, Dublin riots of 25th February 2006 would be even better, but unfortunately one can't use the localised date format. zoney ♣ talk 16:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say it's contrived? St jimmy 18:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the name as it is. I would note though, that considering the topic and membership of the paraders that accompanied the Love Ulster parade (unionists and victims of Republican terrorism), and that the rioters specifically attempted to attack them and prevent their parade, that this riot was anti-Unionist and therefore, quite obviously, pro-Republican. That a handful of the rioters wore football scarves and tops doesn't turn it into a football hooligan riot. Besides which, Celtic FC (being the football club in question) is well known for its Republican sentiment. --Mal 10:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thought for the Day[edit]

An old idea came to mind when we saw the riots. Its a slight edit of something some bloke once said.

"... while Ireland holds these graves, Ireland ... shall never be at peace."

So maybe its time to let them, and so much other baggage, go.

Ever notice how in contrast to the rest of us, everyone in the graveyard votes the same?

Fergananim 11:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Football hooligans?[edit]

According to this story in the Sunday Independent [[2]], organized groups of football hooligans may have been involved in the riots. Should this be added to the article? Does anyone have more information on this? --M.Lane 07:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - apparently a couple of them were wearing Celtic tops(!). --Mal 07:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless we're going to repeat every other sensationalist piece of crap the media report about it. So far, according to the Sindo, the riots was organised by: Sinn Fein, Republican Sinn Fein, the IRA, the continuity IRA, the Real IRA, Celtic fans, local criminals etc etc. I think the article is fine as it is personally. Jdorney 14:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnant woman[edit]

I removed the following "A pregnant woman was punched in the stomach"

It's irrelevant and has only been included to invoke anger at the rioters. St jimmy 15:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The incident was reported in news coverage of the riot. Reverted. --Mal 17:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read an newspaper with the headline "You Scum". Should we include that as well? St jimmy 10:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scum is subjective, punching a pregnant woman is not. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What has a headline entitled "You Scum" got to do with the price of butter..? --Mal 15:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Scum is subjective, punching a pregnant woman is not."

It is if you selectively include that detail to invoke an emotional response in the reader. St jimmy 10:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Rioters threw bricks etc at the Gardi" (paraphrased of course) - is that detail selectively included to invoke "emotional response"? --Mal 02:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference. One of the main things that happened at these riots was the attacks on Gardai. Not to include that would be a glaring ommission.

What does the prgnant woman add to the article? How can you justify including it?St jimmy 14:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's sufficiently newsworthy to be included in newspaper coverage of the riots, it's worthy of a mention here. Demiurge 14:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Demiurge. Its a significant event of the riot, as is the attack on the well-known local reporter. Punching a pregnant woman in the stomach is almost a notable event in itself. Perhaps you don't think so though. --Mal 23:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's in a newspaper doesn't mean it should be included here. Newspapers dont have to be NPOV but wikipedia does.

As have said before the pregnant woman has only been included to invoke an emotional response. That's why it was in newspaper coverage. Not because it's a "Significamt event in the riot". it isn't St jimmy 11:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV means we as editors retain a neutral point of view and report what the sources have to say. If newspapers (plural) picked this out as an important part of the story we have per NPOV a duty to report it imho. --kingboyk 03:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good journalist is supposed to report with a NPOV attitude. Obviously I'm not saying this is, has been, or will be the case. But they have the same unofficial policies as wikipedia. The purpose, surely, of a report in Wikipedia of a news event, is to cover all the facts. Including the report of this pregnant woman being punched in the stomach is to one of those facts.

Sensationalising it would be making giving the event major coverage in the article. As the article was, last time I read it, it merely pointed out the fact that a pregnant woman had been punched in the stomach. That's it.

As for "provoking an emotional response" .. what do you think the riot was all about in the first place? Tiddley-winks? --Mal 03:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when do newspapers have to be NPOV? As i was trying to say with my "You Scum" example above they don't.

If we include the pregnant woman bit then shouldn't we included background info for everyone who was punched in the stomach during the riot?St jimmy 14:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do attempt to read what I actually write please.

As for your ridiculous question as to whether we should "include background info for everyone who was punched in the stomach" ... Firstly, I don't believe any background info on the pregnant woman who was punched in the stomach is included in the article. Secondly, punching a person in the stomach who isn't pregnant isn't quite as notable as punching a pregnant woman in the stomach.

But sure - feel free to add background info on anyone else who was punched in the stomach during the riot. --Mal 21:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have ignored my 1st point. Is that because you know I'm right? Also you have never come up with any reason to include the nfo on pregnant woman. St jimmy 10:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I addressed all your points. However, if you think I have missed one, please re-iterate it for me, and I will attempt to answer. As for the reason to include "the nfo on pregnant woman" - I'm not aware that there is any info on the woman other than that she was pregnant and punched in the stomach. --Mal 12:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to address a number of my points. You haven't come up with any reason to include the info other than that it was in a newspaper. You didn't address my point that the pregnant woman bit is subjective. And "nfo" was just a typo. St jimmy 11:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth is "subjective" about it? Whether she was pregnant or not, and whether she was punched in the stomach or not are not matters of subjective opinion, they're matters of objective fact. Demiurge 12:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. What I meant was that it's selective inclusion is violation of NPOV because it is included only to invoke an emotional response in the reader.St jimmy 13:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said above - the whole story.. even the event itself could be seen to invoke an emotional response in readers. Nothing you have said has convinced me that this particular event should not be included in the article.

Also, I'd be curious as to exactly what kind of emotional response you would expect the fact to invoke in a reader. --Mal 02:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing you have said has convinced me that this particular event should be included in the article. You still haven't justified it other than that it was in newspapers. As i've explained before newspapers don't have to be NPOV. wikipedia does.St jimmy 11:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And as I've explained before, journalists are taught NPOV methods. Whether a particular journalist or publication abides by this unwritten rule or not does not matter. I have indeed given you reasons as to why this fact should be included in the article. The clue is in my previous sentence: it is a fact. The incident happened as part of the event. I could understand your argument if the actual incident was reported with POV, and I would probably agree that it needed to be re-worded. At least one petrol bomb was thrown at the Gardi. This was also a significant incident. What have you got against pregnant women?!?

Journalists are taught NPOV methods but they don't always use them. tabloids are full of POV and even broadsheets add words such as 'just' or 'only' to influence the readers opinion and to get their POV across.

Just because something is a fact doesn't mean its relevant. The pregnant woman info doesn't add anything. The article would be just as informative without it.

At the very least it needs to be reworded. Possibly something like:

"Several people were attacked during the riot, including a pregnant woman."

And BTW, I have nothing against pregnant women. I agree that it was a terrible thing but i just don't think it should be part of this article. St jimmy 11:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - you havn't answered my question about "emotional response". --Mal 12:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

anger, disgust etc.St jimmy 11:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so do you think that's a natural reaction to hearing that a pregnant woman had been punched in the stomach?

Journalists: They are taught NPOV but don't always use it. Same here on Wikipedia... in fact, there are cases where NPOV has been deemed appropriate: there are exceptions to every rule. However, the addition of this information is not POV, as has been demonstrated.

"Several people were attacked during the riot, including a pregnant woman" does not include the fact that the pregnant woman had been punched in the stomach. --Mal 13:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "pregnant woman incident" seems to be taken very seriously by the Irish public, anyone who has heard of it has taken note of it and it seems to be a key identifying feature of the Dublin riot. Very few people would stoop to the low level of punching a pregnant woman in the stomach and I'd go as far as to say that the punching of pregnant women in the stomach probably does not happen in too many riots. The incident itself illustrates to the reader the sociopathic nature of some (or at least one) of the rioters and may encourage the general public in Ireland to distance themselves from the rioters.

Some blogs and student chat sites that mention the incident:

http://www.sin.nuigalway.ie/boards/viewtopic.php?t=11891&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20060227191256161

http://www.irishblogs.ie/post/digesting

http://www.gpshewan.com/articles/category/news

--Beta 03:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beta, I'm not sure that your addition of detail to the article regarding the incident is particularly 'encyclopediac'. Its certainly gratifying to know that the woman appears not to have suffered very seriously from the incident, but I would suggest you re-word your addition bering in mind that this is an encyclopedia. --Mal 05:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beta, all this extra info you added has changed what should have been (at most) a small side note into one of the main points of the article. I don't know if you've read all this argument but if you haven't you should.

Also I disagree that the incident idicates a sociopathic nature. Perhaps the person just got caught up in a frezy and had no idea that the woman was pregnant or even who he/she was punching. (Not that that excusues it.) St jimmy 13:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the only person that believes that the behaviour was sociopathic. Someone only gets caught up in a mob frenzy if they set out on purpose to get caught up in a mob frenzy, it is ultimately a conscious decision. While it may be used as an excuse in simpler animals I'm not sure that one should be able to use "frenzy" as an excuse for humans as we are significantly more intelligent than most other animals and exhibit many unnatural behaviours, including a certain amount of control over our primal, instinctive urges. Punching someone s/he has never met before in the stomach would lead me to question whether the individual has a conscience, regardless of whether the victim was pregnant or not. The lack of a conscience is the main element that defines a psychopath(depreciated) or sociopath.

http://www.planetoftheblogs.com/?blog_id=74923

--Beta 15:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your forgetting that some humans are significantly less intelligent than others.St jimmy 10:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, but is there any research to indicate that a human's capacity for violence/sociopathic behaviour is inversely proportional to their intelligence/IQ?

--Beta 23:05, 03 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who linked intelligence with control over yourself in a riot and with violent behaviour (or lack of):

"While it may be used as an excuse in simpler animals I'm not sure that one should be able to use "frenzy" as an excuse for humans as we are significantly more intelligent than most other animals and exhibit many unnatural behaviours, including a certain amount of control over our primal, instinctive urges. "

St jimmy 11:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. But I was contrasting basic "civil" behavioural expectations for humans (obviously excluding sociopaths) with the behaviour of other animals, not comparing different humans in terms of intelligence. --Beta 19:30, 04 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You compared humans with other animals in terms of intelligence.St jimmy 10:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say, objectivity and a capacity for abstract thought are key elements of intelligence and both are required for control over instinctive (animal) urges. --Beta 20:50, 05 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've deviated from the point a bit. it's been a month and we still haven't settled the issue. I think we should have a vote.

Keep Pregnant Woman bit:[edit]

Beta 21:13, 07 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Demiurge 11:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
shtove 12:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Irishpunktom\^talk 15:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Boothy443 | trácht ar 19:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mal 02:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
kingboyk 03:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Togoz 20:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of Pregnant woman bit:[edit]

St jimmy 13:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Damnbutter 16:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
GiollaUidir 00:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MarkyMarkDCU 18:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When has the Sunday Independent ever told the truth? As for those blogs mentioning the incident, it appears to be hearsay and the highly intelligent analayses there of the riots seem limited to the highly orignal "scumbags" morons"(Unsigned)

Love Ulster background[edit]

The details about this organisation in the background section are too lengthy (with a fair bit of posturing) - they should be put into a linked sub-article.--shtove 12:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

Hello, I like this article and look forward to all riots being covered like this, but I think it is a little POV or at least dominated by 1 view of things ie. angry provisonal CFC supporters storm loyal victims.

2 quick examples; the images are all from 1 POV- behind police lines. Compare to this image of the Dublin EU riot 2004. Although you will say there probably arent many images of the police baton charges for the 2006 riot. Fine. So why doesnt the word "baton" get a mention? Nor any description of how the Guards moved the rioters on. No mention of horses, dogs, helicopters, etc. either, examples (notice the flute bandmembers, I wonder what they were playing?). More pics of the marchers here, (which confirm the fireworks & petrol bomb theories). Not much, if anything about the threat assessment the Guards made in allowing the parade to go ahead- its presented as an entirely natural decision to make, although try putting a march like this through Nationalist parts of the North and you would get the same result.

There are alternative views on the causes of the riot also. So far I see sectarianism and republican V unionist represented. See this article for a social analysis. Might be baIIs but again, the focus of the article is on northern political matters, while southern matters arent mentioned. Its framed in terms of "the troubles" with all the POV baggage that accompanies that. I'm wondering why that POV is the only one currently appearing. Fluffy999 01:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why Can't Republicans have mermorials for our dead in the North?

Removed dubious tags[edit]

Inserted a quote which shows the Orange Order is a sectarian organisation. --BigDunc 19:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://dailyireland.televisual.co.uk/home.tvt?_scope=DailyIreland/Content/News&id=24575&opp=1
- In February 2006 on 2011-03-19 04:29:00, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
- In 2006 Dublin riots on 2011-05-26 01:59:28, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
- In 2006 Dublin riots on 2011-06-13 17:04:22, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/front/2006/0227/2511352407HM1DUBLINLEAD.html
- In 2006 Dublin riots on 2011-05-26 01:59:50, 403 Forbidden
- In 2006 Dublin riots on 2011-06-13 17:04:29, 403 Forbidden

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=174172318&p=y74y73xz4
- In 2006 Dublin riots on 2011-05-26 01:59:49, 404 Not Found
- In 2006 Dublin riots on 2011-06-13 17:04:41, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 4[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=173985228&p=y73985934&n=173985988
- In 2006 Dublin riots on 2011-05-26 01:59:49, 404 Not Found
- In 2006 Dublin riots on 2011-06-13 17:04:52, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV removed[edit]

I've remove the POV tag from 2006_Dublin_riots#Background. I've tweaked it a bit, added a ref, and removed dubious tags. Please use {{POV-statement}} for sentences, then detail issues here. This will help address them in a timely manner. - Roy Boy 17:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]