Wikipedia's "1981 Irish hunger strike" cleverly done
Sandman
strike", and what a neat piece of Republican propaganda -- right from the
selection of the title to the clever construction of almost every sentence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Irish_hunger_strike
(BTW, I'd better point out that my own point of view on Northern Ireland
always has been that both sides in the Troubles were a right pain, and I'd
be perfectly happy for NI to float the hell away from the UK and rejoin
Ireland, and they'd be welcome to the crazies. But, yes I know, it's not
going to happen as long as the NI majority vote to remain with the UK. Ho
hum.)
Credit where it's due, though; I must compliment the writers of the article
on a superbly executed propaganda coup. It looks superficially
well-balanced (especially to the American audience) and you'd probably need
to have detailed and contemporary knowledge of the Troubles to
recognise the clever, subtle and pervasive bias of the article.
You'd probably also have to know how such agitprop is constructed to
recognise what's going on. It takes a lot of hard work, too. You have to
back up each point with carefully selected references from plausibly
authoritative sources, and counterpoint each event with a tenable
consequence that looks like a victory to your side. And with Wikipedia, you
also have to be prepared to filibuster any opposition in the associated
discussion page if there's an attempt to counter the bias.
I've waited until the next day before commenting on the article, because
having managed to get the article in place, the article's writer have won,
and any late attempt to fix it would look disruptive and partisan. Anyway,
it'd take almost as much work as that of the writers to move the article
towards a neutral point of view, and I doubt that there's anybody motivated
enough to make such an effort.
The Republican bias seems to be part of a pattern in Wikipedia. Some of it
is well executed like the above article and some is overblown to the point
of hilarity. Look at this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Medium
It seems that there's plenty of people prepared to put in the effort to
support the Republican version of history, but there's relatively few for
the Unionist side. I guess it's because many (or most) Irish people see
the conflict with the Unionists as being part of their national identity
and are therefore drawn to support of the Republicans, whereas the British
would rather forget about it all. Also it fits in with the
anti-establishment bias of almost all "intellectual" analyses of the past;
after all, who would want to read or write an article on as boring a subject
as how a government handled any particular event in a satisfactory manner?
--
Sandman
Janitor of Lunacy
"Sandman" <san...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:fe2ldu$43d$1...@news.datemas.de...
> Wikipedia's featured article on 3rd October 2007 was the "1981 Irish
> hunger
> strike", and what a neat piece of Republican propaganda -- right from the
> selection of the title to the clever construction of almost every
> sentence.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Irish_hunger_strike
You don't appear to realise how the article vetting process works in
Wikipedia. To get to Featured Article status, it has to pass through more
hoops than an overfed trained seal. The acid tests for any articles are (a)
verifiability and (b) neutrality, Any doubt about these, and it's tagged
appropriately and junked if it fails. .
Whilst I would accept that Wikipedia is US-biased (look at the spelling!),
there are enough editors of different backgrounds and opinions to ensure a
healthy debate. In extreme cases, disputes are referred to a highly
experienced committee, having the advice of lawyers.
And as for the title, how else would you describe it and retain neutrality?
It occurred in 1981. It occurred in Ireland (actually, it occurred in
Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland). Its participants were Irish. It was a hunger strike. What title
would better represent the content of the article? "something happened
somewhere sometime"? Now THAT's neutral! But not helpful.
I note you omit citation of the following tags on this page:
The neutrality of this article is disputed.
This article or section is written like a personal reflection or essay and
may require cleanup.
Neutrality? Get some of your own!
William Black
The recent revelations about the source of articles on Wikipedia is
interesting...
It seems that the bulk of articles on the Northern Ireland Troubles have
been written on computers in the Vatican...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
pat
<san...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Wikipedia's featured article on 3rd October 2007 was the "1981 Irish hunger
>strike", and what a neat piece of Republican propaganda -- right from the
>selection of the title to the clever construction of almost every sentence.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Irish_hunger_strike
Thanks for drawing my attention to it - it seems quite balanced - I
had forgotten how Thatcher shat on so many people
®i©ardo
>
> Thanks for drawing my attention to it - it seems quite balanced - I
> had forgotten how Thatcher shat on so many people
Perhaps a better option than the Brown stuff we're drowning under now!
--
Moving things in still pictures!
mentalguy2004
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fe2njr$o2p$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
Yes, I forget the name of the site, but it shows some interesting stuff on
the sources of Wikipedia articles and edits. A large amount of edits on (I
thought) unrelated articles have been traced to the Vatican.
Sandman
> The recent revelations about the source of articles on Wikipedia is
> interesting...
>
> It seems that the bulk of articles on the Northern Ireland Troubles have
> been written on computers in the Vatican...
LOL! I did a search on that to see what you were talking about. Seems
there's Belfast newspapers that actually are claiming the like.
Tracing it back though, the root of the story is that somebody was
looking at the sources of "anonymous" edits to Wikipedia's articles
using the following tool. They found 80 or so edits to Northern Ireland
articles from the Vatican, which is really just a drop in the ocean, and
some deletion of damaging stuff from the "Gerry Adams" article.
If you use that tool to trace edits to Gerry_Adams, then it does show two
edits by a "Vatican Radio" IP-address. One was pruning a bunch of stuff
that seems fair enough because it was drifting off topic and the other
deletion was a reference to an article alleging a murder by Gerry Adams.
That's yer lot, it seems. That Wiki Scanner is an amusing site, though.
--
Sandman
William Black
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 13:51:07 +0100, William Black wrote:
>
>> The recent revelations about the source of articles on Wikipedia is
>> interesting...
>>
>> It seems that the bulk of articles on the Northern Ireland Troubles have
>> been written on computers in the Vatican...
>
> LOL! I did a search on that to see what you were talking about. Seems
> there's Belfast newspapers that actually are claiming the like.
>
> Tracing it back though, the root of the story is that somebody was
> looking at the sources of "anonymous" edits to Wikipedia's articles
> using the following tool. They found 80 or so edits to Northern Ireland
> articles from the Vatican, which is really just a drop in the ocean, and
> some deletion of damaging stuff from the "Gerry Adams" article.
So why is the Vatican doing it?
More to the point, when do we get the details of the secret deal between
the Vatican and PIRA?
TD
"mentalguy2004" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:m56Ni.311$NE2...@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
>
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:fe2njr$o2p$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>
>> It seems that the bulk of articles on the Northern Ireland Troubles have
>> been written on computers in the Vatican...
>
> Yes, I forget the name of the site, but it shows some interesting stuff on
> the sources of Wikipedia articles and edits. A large amount of edits on (I
> thought) unrelated articles have been traced to the Vatican.
It's called WikiScanner.
<http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/>
Baldoni
Fuck em !
--
Count Baldoni
Theo_D...@yahoo.co.uk
> Neutrality? Get some of your own!
Perhaps he prefers http://tinyurl.com/35yhv8 ?
--
x If he has been, were they up him?
/|\
Theo_D...@yahoo.co.uk
> pat wrote:
>
> > Thanks for drawing my attention to it - it seems quite balanced - I
> > had forgotten how Thatcher shat on so many people
>
> Perhaps a better option than the Brown stuff we're drowning under now!
Are you suggesting that the PM be forcibly dosed with loperamide?
--
x If he had been, could he still talk poppycock?
/|\
Theo_D...@yahoo.co.uk
> "Sandman" <sand...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:fe2r2i$kmo$1...@news.datemas.de...
> > On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 13:51:07 +0100, William Black wrote:
>
> >> The recent revelations about the source of articles on Wikipedia is
> >> interesting...
>
> >> It seems that the bulk of articles on the Northern Ireland Troubles have
> >> been written on computers in the Vatican...
>
> > LOL! I did a search on that to see what you were talking about. Seems
> > there's Belfast newspapers that actually are claiming the like.
>
> > Tracing it back though, the root of the story is that somebody was
> > looking at the sources of "anonymous" edits to Wikipedia's articles
> > using the following tool. They found 80 or so edits to Northern Ireland
> > articles from the Vatican, which is really just a drop in the ocean, and
> > some deletion of damaging stuff from the "Gerry Adams" article.
>
> So why is the Vatican doing it?
>
> More to the point, when do we get the details of the secret deal between
> the Vatican and PIRA?
Or the other secret deal, that between the Vatican (or Opus Dei) and
"Rev" Iain Paisley?
--
x If they have been, did they win?
/|\
Janitor of Lunacy
<Theo_D...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1191526153....@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On 4 Oct, 13:43, "Janitor of Lunacy" <gh...@attic.info> wrote:
>> Neutrality? Get some of your own!
>
> Perhaps he prefers http://tinyurl.com/35yhv8 ?
Maybe, but sadly pages do get vandalised in this manner. My own editing
history shows a disproportionate interest in "cunt" due to the number of
reversions I've had to do. You should see some of the things these idiots
think they can get away with, but we do have the tools to detect rogue edits
and they're usually reverted within seconds. That does not prevent the
vandalised version being archived on the system, however, which the URL
above represents. Very unlikely to have been mirrored anywhere.
PS if anyone's thinking of tracing me by my edits, uh, it just ain't
possible. There are thousands of us.
fi...@unison.ie
TD wrote:
> [uk.politics removed as unrecognised]
> "mentalguy2004" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
> news:m56Ni.311$NE2...@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
> >
> > "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:fe2njr$o2p$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
> >>
> <snip>
> >> It seems that the bulk of articles on the Northern Ireland Troubles have
> >> been written on computers in the Vatican...
Doesn't make them any less true!
Theone