Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Archive 14

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Archive 14

Gaeilgeoir

I've created the above basic article, and would like some input. Also, could some nice person remind me how to make a category for it? Fergananim (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is total OR (the list part), it should be nominated for deletion. Snappy (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Archive 14

What is the real name of Ireland?

Famously, Shakespeare's Irish character in "Henry V", Captain MacMorris, asked "What ish my nation?" I sometimes feel the same way.

It may or may not help conversations about the name of Ireland to have as a resource, here, for the record, my attempt last year to have the Irish government pronounce on the matter. I e-mailed the Protocol Section of the Department of the Taoiseach:

From: Odea
Subject: 1937 Constitution, or 1948 Act?
To: protocol@taoiseach.gov.ie
Date: Thursday, 13 May, 2010, 10:38

Dear Sir or Madam,

Although I am Irish I find myself suddenly confused about the formal name of the country in English.

Heretofore, I have argued, per Article 4 of the 1937 Constitution, that "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland." I have always maintained that the "Republic of Ireland" was simply a name for the football team invented by the world football authority, FIFA, to distinguish us from Northern Ireland.

However, today I read Article 2 of The Republic of Ireland Act, 1948 which says, "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland."

I see no evidence that the Constitution was amended to reflect the name promulgated by the 1948 Act. So what is the official name of the country, in English: Ireland, or the Republic of Ireland? One may point to the newer 1948 Act, but does not the Constitution stand above the law, as final arbiter? There has been no referendum to change the definitive constitutional name.

If the 1948 statement is to have Constitutional force, does not Article 4 of the Constitution require amendment? This situation seems to me to be a kind of legal deadlock arising from the failure to amend the Constitution in line with the

Act. What are your thoughts?

I received the following reply:

From: Protocol@taoiseach.gov.ie
Subject: Re: 1937 Constitution, or 1948 Act?
To: "Odea"
Date: Thursday, 3 June, 2010, 7:31

Dear Odea

I refer to your email below and apologise for the delay in responding to you.

Article 4 of the Constitution provides "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland". Section 2 of the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 provides "It is hereby declared that the description of the state shall be the Republic of Ireland". The official name of the State is Ireland or Éire but the State may be described as the Republic of Ireland. The 1948 Act does not change the official name of the State. Such a chance [sic] would not be possible without an amendment to the Constitution.

I hope this information is of assistance to you.

This is interesting and perhaps a little bit subtle, but I interpret it to mean that the name of the country is Ireland but that it may be described as the Republic of Ireland (my emphasis). The Protocol Section also stated clearly, "The 1948 Act does not change the official name of the State." The Constitution is definitive while the 1948 Act is merely descriptive. So, "the Republic of Ireland" has an optional and non-binding quality to it, but the official name is obligatory, and it is "Ireland", as Article 4 of the Constitution insists quite clearly. In conclusion, I quote the Department of the Taoiseach: "I hope this information is of assistance to you." -- O'Dea (talk) 01:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that that email tells us anything that we didn't know before, or that hasn't been stated endlessly in the "naming dispute". I have some issues with the interpretation, though. "A little bit subtle"? Hardly! It's as straightforward as can be. "The official name is obligatory"? What is the penalty for speaking of the country and failing to use the name "Ireland" - a fine or a prison sentence? Is the penalty the same for using the name "Ireland" when speaking in a language other than English? The 1948 Act is not "descriptive", it merely contains the word "description". Nor does it have "an optional and non-binding quality to it": it's a statute like any other. And even if "Republic of Ireland" has an "optional quality" to it, and Wikipedia "opts" to use it, so what? Scolaire (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the big "so what" is the underlying "why". For me, the arguments to use the official British legal name don't stack up (as per UK 1949 Ireland act). What's with that? --HighKing (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

HighKing, what point are you making? It's not clear to me. What is the official British legal name, and what does it matter, anyway, since British legislation cannot define the name of another nation? I am sure Britain has no interest in naming Ireland; they have enough to worry about. -- O'Dea (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The point I'm making is that under UK legislation, the official name of the state is "Republic of Ireland". You say British legislation cannot define the name of another nation? Well go and read the 1949 act - they did. So for me, while I'm happy to acknowledge and accept that some sort of disambiguation is required between the island and the state, It's grossly wrong that we're using the official British name of the state as the article title (especially given the history of the "naming" disagreements between the two states for the past 90 years), thereby propagating on Wikipedia the nonsense that "Republic of Ireland" is fine as a name, and not just for disambiguation. In fact, I'd be happy to have the article on the state at *any* other title (within reason), and continue to use "Republic of Ireland" to dab in articles. --HighKing (talk) 11:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

firstly nothing new has been revealed to us with the response to odea and secondly what use does it serve us? We already know what the constitution says and emails cant be used as sources as its original research instigated by an editor. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I realise perfectly well that my contribution is original research, nevertheless, it is useful as a government department statement on the matter, to emphasize the reality of the name of the country, which has been disputed, almost literally, ad nauseam (I find the wrangling nauseating, anyway). Where there is one state name in the constitution and another in a government Act, an official statement of resolution can bring clarity to a potentially confusing reality. If anyone wants to confirm for himself the State position on the matter, he is free to e-mail the government as I did. The e-mail address is above. -- O'Dea (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

there is one state name in the constitution and another in a government Act - no. This is wrong. --HighKing (talk) 11:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Does the Republic of Ireland article not made it clear anyways in the opening sentence? Though obviously certain editors campaigned hard to ensure officially was omitted. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No, the opening sentence is a model of unnecessary confusion that muddies rather than clarifies things for the uninitiated (think of the interested reader in Bolivia). In an article entitled "Republic of Ireland", the initial bold headword is actually "Ireland", not "Republic of Ireland" (contradiction there), and the sentence continues, "described as the Republic of Ireland" which suggests that the latter is the official name. It is a pig's mickey of an introduction. It is explained in the following section called Name, but the opening sentence is as twisted as the aforementioned organ. -- O'Dea (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree. --HighKing (talk) 11:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

"It is a pig's mickey of an introduction." It's a pigs micky of a situation further confused by changes in statute and constitutional law, as well as common practice both at home and abroad, over time. I rewrote the Name section to clear thing sup but didn't dare touch the introduction. I thought it was too much of a hot potato. Part of the chilling effect this issue has fostered.

I am happy that renewed discussion here and on WP:IECOLL have been cordial and focused on the project. Rather than re-hashing the debate over whether to rename the Ireland and Republic of Ireland articles, maybe we should agree to keep that issue to one side and put our energies into improving the current situation and the (ill) feelings between editors over this issue? --RA (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I adjusted the explanation of the name for clarity by changing this text,

The term Republic of Ireland (Poblacht na hÉireann) is derived under Irish law from the Republic of Ireland Act 1948...

to this,

The term Republic of Ireland (Poblacht na hÉireann) is a description of the state but not its official name, and is derived under Irish law from the Republic of Ireland Act 1948...

I left the opening sentence alone for now because modifying that would be like igniting a keg of gunpowder. -- O'Dea (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Always a nation

With thanks to the above redoubtable Odea and the good Captain MacMorris (surely originally a Prendergast?), I draw attention to the fact that, though we may have been without a soverign, independent state or country for much of our existence, we (the Irish people) have always been a nation:

• Broadly speaking a nation may refer to a community of people who share a common territory and government; and who often share a common language, race, descent, and/or history.[1] It can also refer to the inhabitants of a sovereign state irrespective of their ethnic make-up.[2][3] In worldwide diplomacy, nation can refer to a country or sovereign state.[1]

Which rather puts paid to the Wolfe Tones confused notion that we are (will be?) a nation once again ... But I digress. Fergananim (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:SOAPBOX spring to mind here. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

A nation? says Bloom. A nation is the same people living in the same place. -- from Ulysses, James Joyce. -- O'Dea (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

A Prendergast, Fergananim? -- O'Dea (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Surely MacMorris could mean son of any Morris, not necessarily Maurice de Prendergast? Opera hat (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Usher - my own research indicates that the {Mac}Morris family of Connaught, and the FitzGeralds of Mayo, are indeed descendants of that most chivilric of knights, Maurice de Prendergast. I cannot answer for Morris's elsewhere in Ireland. Fergananim (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The last time I spoke to the Mayo-Prendergast branch of my family was at a funeral where the talk (following my inquiry) was about the Apollo astronaut they're related to. "What's he like?" I wanted to know. A sound man, by all accounts. They have never talked about Mossy Prendergast in my hearing, however. -- O'Dea (talk) 17:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Lads, this is not a chat room. Can you swap email addresses or something? Scolaire (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Infobox bot issues

This edit tells the story of the editing trail taken by SelketBot as it has suddenly moved to replace all instances of "Infobox place Ireland". As I was doing a thorough audit of each Irish settlement article prior to last night, the editor Plasticspork spotted this and left me the note: "Unfortunately, the bot made many many errors, since it was not supervised. I have been doing my best to check them all for obvious errors (see this list), but since you were doing such a great job, I thought I would see if you were interested in checking them as well."

The most obvious issue left which requires attention is that the bot indiscriminately calls each place "Town" without regard to what it actually is. Plasticspork is writing a follow-behind bot to repair some of the other damages, but the settlement type needs to be checked manually. Will members of this project please keep an eye on these edits made by SelketBot? Thanks - Sswonk (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Confused...

Please see Saoirse - a disambiguation page. Clicking on the talk page link brings you to Talk:Saoirse Irish Freedom - which is the talk page for an article on the newspaper. To correct this, do I just delete the redirect? Or does something need to be moved? Bastun^{??á??á????!} 20:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the talk page to use the {DisambigProj} template. Snappy (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Bastun^{??á??á????!} 22:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

MV Saoirse

The article on the MV Saoirse is attracting quite some non-Irish interest, for a small article on a small Irish ship. Could possibly do with adding to some watchlists. Bastun^{??á??á????!} 13:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

RfC notification

A new discussion on wording changes to the current guideline to clarify the use of diacritics for subjects whose native names contain them has been initiated. It can be found at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

'To do' section of IWNB

The page Wikipedia:Irish Wikipedians' notice board/to do, which updates the "to do" section of IWNB, has only been updated very infrequently. Further, if any work has been done on any of these, they have not been struck through, so there is no way of knowing if they are still to do or not. Some articles, e.g. DS&ER, Irish railway clearing house, Patrick Galvin "(author of the Raggy Boy books recently filmed)", Wanderly Wagon, East Point Business Park, Leaving Certificate and The Late Late Show "- dePOVing needed", have been on the list since September 2004, the month it was created! Seven items have been added in the last twelve months, viz.:

• GoCar
• GoCar (not a typo, it's there twice)
• Gaeltacht quarter - this is a redirect to Neo-Gaeltacht
• Illicit drug use in Ireland
• Motorway service areas of Ireland
• Four Star Pizza
• John Rocha (fashion designer)

The thing is, if you look at these seven on their own, they don't really look like the seven most pressing Ireland-related issues on Wikipedia, do they? But after twelve months, any or all of the others might have reached FA by now for all we know. Though I suspect they haven't, because I suspect nobody even looks at the list any more. I recommend that the entire list should be purged and, if somebody is willing to put in the time, a more realistic to-do list be substituted, to be updated if and when articles are tackled. Scolaire (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Two weeks and no objections. I have purged the list. Scolaire (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Proposed moves on several articles relating to Ireland's foreign relations

There is currently a centralised discussion at Talk:Denmark - Republic of Ireland relations that could probably do with input from more editors. RashersTierney (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

src: thinking.is.ed.ac.uk

Bonfire Night move discussions

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bonfire Night (disambiguation)#Requested move. Trevj (talk) 23:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bonfire Night#Requested move. Trevj (talk) 23:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Two strange articles! I've never heard the term "Bonfire Night" used in Ireland, but maybe it is in some places. Scolaire (talk) 08:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

All down the west coast of Ireland (at the very least). Come up to Sligo some post-summer solstice and you'll see plenty of them. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 10:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I've seen plenty of bonfires in the east. I'm wondering which night of the year is called "Bonfire Night" in Sligo. Scolaire (talk) 11:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

23rd June. Though usually kids like to set bonfires on the nights leading up to it too.^Mac Tíre _Cowag 11:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool! I've learned something, then. Scolaire (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

May Eve in Limerick and yup, Bonfire Night was the usual name. Not sure if it's as big as it was in my youth but still going... (err, the tradition, not the fires :). Not that I ever got to go to one.... damn my sheltered childhood! :) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought Bonfire Night was the eleventh of July ;) WikiuserNI (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Only one of many WikiuserNI :) ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 06:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

In Leinster we have bonfires on Hallowe'en and/or Guy Fawkes, but it is all about fireworks from Newry, getting rid of old mattresses and tractor tyres, and testing the neighbour's new batch of poitin against the night chill; nothing at all to do with politics or religion.Red Hurley (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

New county intros.

src: jech.bmj.com

Murder of Julia Martha Thomas featured article nomination

Murder of Julia Martha Thomas, about a notorious murder in London in 1879, is currently going through a review for featured article status (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Murder of Julia Martha Thomas/archive1). The article is covered by this WikiProject; if editors are interested, please feel free to leave comments on the featured article candidates talk page. Prioryman (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Ardfert, County Kerry

Hi there. Does anyone have information on the pre-Norman peoples of this area, centered around Ardfert, County Kerry? Who were the main peoples, and anything on the backgrounds of its coarb and erenagh clans? Fergananim (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

src: thinking.is.ed.ac.uk

Northern Ireland boxers nationality issue

A discussion has started over the issue of nationality in regards to Northern Irish boxers. A proposal has been made and all thoughts and opinions are sought. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

What makes a good local article?

I'm writing a blog post about what makes a good local article (or set of articles) on Wikipedia - in other words articles about a specific place, such as a town or village, and its features, people, etc.

What do you think we currently do well, or badly, in that regard. What do you, or would you, like to see, in such articles? What are the best examples?

Please feel free to prior discussion, if you know of any. Cheers, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You could try Tobermore. I've worked hard on it over the years to get it a B-rating and it has a lot of information, though whether it is any good to readers or not i dunno. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Paramilitary "volunteers" / "members"

I just came across an issue at McGurk's Bar bombing where IRA members were described as 'volunteers'. I've changed this to say 'members' which I think is more NPOV, the word 'volunteers' implies tacit support and admiration. I move that all references to paramilitary 'volunteers' be changed to 'members'. Support? Oppose? Comments please... --Eamonnca1 ^TALK 18:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there evidence that those serving in the IRA were press ganged? If not, they were volunteers. It is also the name by which they themselves wish to be known. Oppose the motion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Support. "Volunteer" is being used in the sense of a formal military rank, not in the sense implied by Laurel Lodged above. As such, it is being used to imply some kind of military legitimacy on an illegal paramilitary grouping. Mooretwin (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Support. To contrast with Laurel's comment, UVF members call themselves Volunteers but are they stated as such on Wikipedia? In regards to groups where their description is highly questionable and troublesome, such as for paramilitary organisations, it is better to go with a neutral term that doesn't portray and legitimise a groups designation of its members whe others would disagree, or terms that convey strong meanings or emotions such as "volunteer", "terrorist", "paramilitary", "freedom fighter" etc. Simply stating "member" avoids those issues, as quite simply they are all members of a group, voluntary or not and its not really arguable. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC),

Support Personally, I think "volunteer" is used frequently enough in connection with the IRA so as to lack special meaning. However, I can see the point and "member" is sufficient and neutral. --RA (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Support - What Laurel Lodge says about them joining voluntarily may be correct, but the term does have certain connotations. WP:EUPHEMISM says that some words may be "proper in many contexts also have euphemistic senses that should be avoided," and this is definitely one such context. By contrast the term "member" does not have any such connotations and is not a "value-laden label" per WP:LABEL. "Member" is accurate and sufficient and could not be interpreted as a euphemism. --Eamonnca1 ^TALK 00:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Support change to "member"; or, failing that, standardise all Northern Ireland paramilitaries, including loyalists that use the term, to "Volunteer" too. Using "Volunteer" for the IRAs only is weasel-y. I'd prefer member for all though--most paramilitary groups have special titles for their members, but by honouring them here it gives the impression of tacit support or sympathy on a supposedly neutral resource. JonChapple^Talk 06:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment I think that the term "volunteer" has a historical reason, as they claim to be related to the Irish Volunteers. I see it more as a term equal to soldier, Musketeer or Rifleman and not as a status. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - The UVF claim direct descent from the original UVF and designate its members as volunteers as well, however there is nothing to prevent an addition to the main IRA or UVF articles etc. that states that they call their members "volunteers" - with sources obviously - if it hasn't already been done Mabuska ^(talk) 12:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Support, as 'member' is un-questionably neutral. GoodDay (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Domer48 has re-added the word "volunteers" into McGurk's Bar bombing citing "consensus". Could someone direct him here? JonChapple^Talk 15:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose PER (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02 IRA 'Volunteer' usage), detailed discussion and consensus on [1]] talk page and supported by a referenced and sourced article on the [2]] Article. While consensus can change, this straw poll conducted by and editor oblivious to these previous discussions is not going to do it.--Domer48_'fenian' 17:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Although with all respect that's a five year old discussion. Are those editors still even around? --Eamonnca1 ^TALK 17:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Makes no difference, unless the arguments have changed and in this case no! The arguments in the previous were at least based on some informed opinion not to mention references. This ill informed straw poll is no substitute for informed discussion.--Domer48_'fenian' 17:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's see you give us an informed opinion and sources then. Nobody's stopping you. --Eamonnca1 ^TALK 18:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you may have to wait a while Eamonnca1. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Those links are broken. And you've still not explained why you believe republicans have some kind of a monopoly on "volunteer" when unionists and loyalists use the term too. JonChapple^Talk 17:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, for a start the idea of membership is an open question anyway so it may not be accurate. Further the sources say volunteers in the main. Its an accurate term and its neither positive or negative, its simply true --Snowded ^TALK 17:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Jonchapple if you can't add something useful you should stop. I've not expressed an opinion on Loylists, so your question is either inane or an attempt to be misleading. In that case you are deliberately misrepresenting me, and I strongly suggest you strike of remove your comments above.--Domer48_'fenian' 17:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I know you haven't expressed an opinion on loyalists - that's my point. When I tried to change the references to "UVF men" to "UVF volunteers" in line with the IRA in the McGurk's Bar article, you reverted it. I've been waiting for an explanation since then. JonChapple^Talk 17:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You are clearly misrepresenting me and offering your own opinions. Were have I express the opinion that I "believe republicans have some kind of a monopoly on "volunteer""". Now provide a diff of strike/remove the comment.--Domer48_'fenian' 17:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

A diff of what? Reverting my changing "UVF men" to "volunteers"? What was your reasoning for that if you don't believe we shouldn't use the word to describe loyalists? JonChapple^Talk 18:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I want a diff supporting your post, simple.--Domer48_'fenian' 18:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't you ever get bored of playing cryptic games? I've provided a diff that shows that you don't believe we should refer to UVF members as volunteers. Whether you want to play along is up to you, there's plenty of other people in this discussion who aren't quite so obstructive. JonChapple^Talk 18:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The UVF has a system of military ranks, the lowest of which is volunteer. When referring to a member of the UVF, it is appropriate to use the proper rank, if such can be established from reliable sources. Eg Robin Jackson was a brigadier, and is referred to as such. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

OPPOSE. Per Domer. Ruairí Óg's (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Technically Wiki guidelines say you should provide your own reasoning for supporting or opposing something and says you shouldn't just per someone else. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose If they are called Volunteers in reliable sources be they IRA, UVF or whatever then we should use the same here. Member is no more neutral than Volunteer if that is what the respective organisations call themselves. Mo ainm~Talk 19:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose/use both reliable sources use both. While member seems to be the preferred term, used by more sources, volunteer is used by numerous sources which are certainly not pro-republican or pro-IRA. These include The Sun newspaper, The Times and The Scotsman. The members of the Victim's Commission, including Ulster Unionist Party candidate Mike Nesbitt, had no problem with the term. The mediation cabal, while old, arrived at its conclusion after exhaustive debate: "In the main text of an article the word, volunteer, is free to be used, but this has to be judged in each particular instance to achieve maximum sense and good style. It should not be used rigidly and other terms such as "IRA member" can also be used or any other appropriate reference. Different terms can be interspersed, and may vary from article to article." I'd read that as similar to the old British/American English thing: if an article already uses one form, leave it be. Valenciano (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Pretty split opinion on the matter (no surprise). Very old mediation cabal, however the quote you provide Valenciano is very interesting, as it may be debatable whether every mention of the term has been judged along that guideline to achieve maximum sense and good style or whether its being used to push an ideal - and that alone will be hard to judge in some cases.

If member seems to be the preferred term in sources, with volunteer used by numerous sources, what about numerous sources that call them terrorists? The mediation cabal quote you provide contains phrases such as "other terms such as" and "Different terms can be interspersed" - does that mean if its reliably sourced and meets "achieve maximum sense and good style" you can also use the term terrorist? Technically whilst all IRA, UVF members are volunteers, meaning the term isn't inaccurate, they are also terrorists, which isn't inaccurate either. Just a query for clarification not a proposal of any sort. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree that the use of the term "volunteer" confers any kind of legitimacy on the individuals or indeed the organisation. Articles on members of the American Mafia, for instance, often refer to their rank within the organisation - soldier, caporegime, underboss etc. It's simply a matter of using terms that convey meaning in context, albeit the context may be a corrupt and criminal organisation. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with "member"? Mooretwin (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, in the case of Robin Jackson, say, it wouldn't convey as much information as citing his rank of brigadier. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

We're not discussing Robin Jackson. We're discussing McGurk's Bar bombing where the references are to anonymouse PIRA members. Mooretwin (talk) 00:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is more broadly about the appropriate nomenclature for paramilitaries. (But in the particular case of the McGurk's bombing, the article refers to letters that were sent to the RUC claiming that two "IRA volunteers" were killed. It seems to me that we need to see transcripts of the letters to establish whether this is an accurate statement, and whether the letters indeed used the term "volunteer"). Ivor Stoughton (talk) 00:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

{deindent} @Mabuska above, no it doesn't mean that we should use terrorist/freedom fighter even if they are used by reliable sources because those are value laden terms and cast judgement on the morality and legitimacy of what they do. Freedom fighter will only be used by sources supportive of the IRA, while terrorist will generally be used by those hostile to the IRA, so you will never read in An Phoblacht that "Gerry Adams addressed a meeting of former IRA terrorists" nor in the Sun that "former IRA freedom fighter Gerry Kelly said..." However you will see the term IRA volunteer used in sources which are both pro-IRA and anti-IRA such as The Sun above or even victims of the IRA groups like FAIR which no one would seriously suggest are trying to glorify the IRA. Per the previous mediation, I don't see that we should make a fuss over using volunteer or member as both are quite neutral and descriptive. Valenciano (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

oppose - I think there needs to be evidence that it is being used incorrectly before it should be changed, as per the mediation cabal. This is change for change sake. Why not just put a {{fact}} template on the usage in McGurks. Thats the standard, lets-not-make-a-drama-out-of-this, way of handling these issues. We don't need a huge Project talk page discussion every time an editor sees something they disagree with it. Use a {{fact}} tag and move on. Fmph (talk) 09:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Let's see what books have to say about this eh?

• Moloney A Secret History of the IRA page 149 "And such was the initial success of the new police interrogation centers at Castlereagh, as Strand Read in Derry, and as Gough Barracks in Armagh in extracting confessions from IRA Volunteers..."
• English Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA page 197 "He was again arrested, in October 1976, in Dunmurry, Belfast, after an IRA operation: they had bombed the Balmoral Furnishing Company in a hit involving nine IRA Volunteers"
• Taylor Provos: The IRA and Sinn Féin" page 104 "Sinn Féin existed in the shadow of the IRA and was of little interest to most IRA Volunteers"
• McGladdery The Provisional IRA in England: the bombing campaign, 1973-1997 page 67 "Despite a serious setback with the loss of ten high ranking volunteers..."
• Geraghty The Irish War: the hidden conflict between the IRA and British Intelligence page 4 "If an MI5 report made public in 1997 was correct, the movement secretly recruited and trained a new generation of volunteers"
• Coogan The IRA page 403 Less than two weeks after the 'Kangaroos' episode, on 2 December 1971, two of the Provisionals' toughest volunteers.."
• Harnden Bandit Country page 204 "Four IRA volunteers were arrested..."
• Dillon 25 Years of Terror: The IRA's War against the British page 165 "None of those journalists suspected they were active IRA volunteers"

I got kind of bored after every single book I checked about the IRA used "volunteers", does anyone want me to check the rest to really hammer the point home? WP:IDON'TLIKEVOLUNTEERS doesn't seem to exist right now, but it most certainly is the correct term used by reliable sources. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Why have you moved Volunteer (Ireland) to Volunteer (Irish republican)? Are you of the opinion that all non-republican claims to the title are invalid? JonChapple^Talk 11:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

With reference to the preceeding comment, the fact of the matter is that User:Jonchapple moved Volunteer (Irish republican) to Volunteer (Ireland) without any attempt at discussion or consensus. It was quickly moved back, the user in question reverted the move, and it was moved back again. Hohenloh ⁺ 13:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Correct, I boldly moved it in May time, I'm not hiding that. I'm just curious as to why anyone thinks the current title is a better one than the much more accurate and neutral Volunteer (Ireland). JonChapple^Talk 13:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean neutral? The article is about the Irish Republican usage of the term. It is accurate and neutral. Mo ainm~Talk 15:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not, it's about use of the term in general. It mentions the Irish Volunteers, Ulster Volunteers and modern loyalist paramilitaries, none of which are republicans.

Mo ainm a chara, its clear the article is about Irish Republican usage of the term, no point wasting any more time on it. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

"I don't feel like chatting about it, because if I just ignore the discussion the article will have to stay as it is. That's how Domerpedia works." JonChapple^Talk 20:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Wierdly enough seeing as this is WikiProject Ireland, which also covers the Republic of Ireland, in the interest of NPOV this discussion should of been notified in the UK WikiProject seeing as the IRA and most of their actions have been directed at and primarily in the United Kingdom making it relevant to that WikiProject.

On that article, it is primarily about Irish Republican usage, however no doubt the editors of it have made it that way. The article has plenty of scope to treat the issue more neutrally and fair by expanding more of the loyalist usage of the term which it glaringly makes little mention of in its pursuit of pushing the republican ideal. Then again if anymore mention was made it'd have to be renamed.

An article called Volunteers (Irish loyalist) could be created, however in the end both articles would probably have to be merged into each other as there isn't really a point in having two sparse articles on a term used by both sides on this island. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose as they all have called themselves volunteers for decades, in terms of rank. But most volunteers go very quiet when you ask about who was in their command structure.Red Hurley (talk) 10:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

OR use of the "s-par" template for Oireachtas members

See debate here and here.
At issue: whether the "s-par" template should list the name(s) of the parliamentary constituency for the given member. It is my contention that it should not.

Rationale. No other parliament uses the template in this way. Neighbouring parliaments that use the "s-par" template include:

• The European Parliament whose succession template doesn't include the political party in its parliament name. See Pat the Cope Gallagher (from FF).
• The Parliament of the United Kingdom whose succession template doesn't include the political party in its parliament name. See Tony Blair.
• The Northern Ireland Assembly whose succession template doesn't include the political party in its parliament name. See Gerry Adams.
• The National Assembly for Wales whose succession template doesn't include the political party in its parliament name. See Dafydd Elis-Thomas.
• The Scottish Parliament whose succession template doesn't include the political party in its parliament name. See Alex Salmond.

Putting in the political party clutters the space necessitating the creation of many layers. An extreme example of this is Noël Browne, who was a TD for 5 parties (6 if you count Ind). This may be contrasted with that of David Owen, who is equally famous for his party hopping. His template remains uncluttered with party allegiances; it quite properly confines its entries to his parliamentary terms.

It is the opinion of a third party editor (WP:3O) that "... political parties ought to be left out full stop, as is done in most political articles (see, say Francis Pym). So it would look like this: "

Interested readers have wiki links to discover party alleigance - or if important it can be made clear in the article.

It is the opinion of an outside editor who came via RfC that "...it seems inappropriate to include party affiliation at all. It confuses things and suggests that each party has a member occupying that office".

User Sam Blacketer offers the opinion that "...It would be better not to include the party within the title, because it wrongly implies that there is a specific post within the constituency representing that party."

While a more general debate about the appropriateness of the use of succession boxes in multi-seat constituencies is possible, in the meantime, this issue needs to be settled before the wider debate can commence. It could be some time before a solution and a developer for multi-seat constituencies is found and it would be inappropriate for this error to be allowed to remain pending that solution. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

We use multi-seat constituencies in Ireland. It is complete OR to say that Seán Ryan was succeeded by Michael Kennedy, who in turn was succeeded by Alan Farrell. Seán Ryan was elected in in 2002 and did not stand in 2007. Michael Kennedy was elected in 2007 and was not elected in 2011. Alan Farrell was elected in 2011. There is no such things as succession of seats under PR-STV. Michael Kennedy did not win Seán Ryans seat.

I have no opinion about whether to include party affiliation or not but succession is OR. Where is that discussion taking place? --RA (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The original idea was for informational/presentational purposes. The TDs tables display all this information (Dublin North), with the caveat of: "The columns in this table are used only for presentational purposes, and no significance should be attached to the order of columns. For details of the order in which seats were won at each election, see the detailed results of that election.". For each TD, the constituency and dates of office are displayed in the infobox. One proposal was to list all the TDs serving alongside the subject plus all those who preceded and succeeded them, but this lead to a huge and unwieldy, horrible looking succession box. We don't have succession boxes for Senators (also elected in multi-seat constituencies), so we should remove the succession boxes for multi-seat constituencies entirely, and the information will be available in the officeholder infobox and the relevant constituency article. If the consensus is to remove them completely then debate (which has seen more forums than a Roman emperor) about including the political party will be unnecessary. Snappy (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

"Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury the abuse of s-par...The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones." Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

No where in the s-par documentation does it say that parties are not allowed, but anyway the debate has moved on and is now about whether the succession boxes for multi-seat constituencies should be there at all. Snappy (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know you vote for a specific person, not for a specific party. So it makes sense to me to leave the party out of the succession box.

But it is true that you have multi seat constituencies in Ireland, so the box can only be used safely for by-elections. Alternative is the use of the succesion box per constituency and not per member, but that give complications with by-elections. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually one votes for both, all ballot papers in Ireland, show the candidates name, party name and party logo, or state non-party if they are independent. Snappy (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in late, but I have to say this: why on earth would we use s-par for seats in the Oireachtas at all? With or without party affiliation! All seats represent multi-member constituencies. It is impossible to say that X was followed by Y in constituency Z, because Z has three to five seats. If you really wanted to shoehorn Oireachtas seats into a template that was designed to describe seats elected by primitive electoral systme such as used in the UK, then you would have to use a wikitable and use it after every election:

(where order is as returned). But you couldn't use s-par. So new template, new rules? --Red King (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Red King is right; and while Snappy is right about parties being on ballot papers we should avoid clutter and use links.Red Hurley (talk) 10:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

How is this method gonna work with by-elections? Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That proposed table is interesting but that level of detail isn't needed on each TD's article and is available anyway in the constituency article. I think we shouldn't use any succession boxes for multi seat constituencies. Snappy (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ulster Volunteer Force page move

BoutYeBigLad has moved the page "Ulster Volunteer Force" to "Ulster Volunteer Force (1966)" and the former is now a disambiguation page. Ther was no consensus for this move and so a discussion has been started at the article's talkpage. ~Asarlaí 17:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I notice the discussion over there has dried up. I think the 1966 should be dropped from the article's title as it could imply to some readers that this group only existed in 1966.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Soldiers / British soldiers

Just while I'm ruffling feathers, I've noticed a trend on wiki where editors on Northern Ireland Troubles related articles sometimes get into little ding-dongs over whether to refer to "the army" or "the British army", or "soldiers" vs "British soldiers". Now the defence I've seen of the removal of "British" is that it's supposedly obvious that they are British soldiers and hence there's no need to specify it. But, wrt WP:OBVIOUS, is it obvious to everyone who might be reading the article? Wiki is read by an international audience, including people who may be unfamiliar with the conflict and who may not be aware of which army is being referred to. Hell, there are people in Britain who don't even know that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, so what chance has a reader in Malaysia who isn't even sure which island is Britain and which is Ireland? I move that we allow the descriptor "British" to remain. --Eamonnca1 ^TALK 18:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

My preference is to say "British Army" for the first instance, then simply "the army" and "soldiers" from then on it. No matter your feelings on the status of Northern Ireland, the fact remains that it is a country of the United Kingdom and so the British Army is its army. We wouldn't keep referring to the "British Army" on an article about a conflict in England. JonChapple^Talk 20:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

After the first reference in the article to "British Army", yes, it is obvious. No need constantly to state British thereafter. A bit like the first reference to Provisional IRA, followed simply by IRA. Mooretwin (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. The only exception I can think of would be if another army happened to be mentioned in the same article, such as the Irish army, then we might have to be a bit more verbose. But if the British army is the only one mentioned then one "British" identifier should be sufficient. --Eamonnca1 ^TALK 21:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree that if two or more armies were mentioned, the need for the descriptor would continue after the first reference. Mooretwin (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed here. JonChapple^Talk 21:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, however there is no harm in restating "British" further down a very long article, otherwise the lede and then first mention in the article after that would suffice. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think in any context involving the British Army and the Irish Republican Army it can't hurt to state explicitly which army is being referred to. I'm equally opposed to the use of, for instance, "United" in the context of a match between Man. U. and Newcastle. The obvious objection - that the IRA has no legal standing in the UK or Ireland - doesn't alter the fact that either can be referred to as "the army" (see J. Bowyer Bell, The Secret Army: The IRA for frequent reference to the IRA as "the army"). Scolaire (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I've seen the IRA referred to as "the army" too, but only on internet messageboards by mischievous people trying to wind up unionists. --Eamonnca1 ^TALK 20:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think too many editors will be mistaking "army" as refering to the IRA. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I would.--Ruairí Óg's (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

That's one, then. JonChapple^Talk 17:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Scolaire's point is well made and quite reasonable. I could add any number of sources which refer to the Irish Republican Army as the "army."--Domer48_'fenian' 18:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Outrageous POV by Scolaire. Unsurprisingly, gleefully backed up by Domer48. Mooretwin (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

If I read an article about Northern Ireland in which someone mentions "Army" I would never think about the IRA but would think about the British Army in the sense as "occupation force". (See the book of Roger Failigot Guerre specialle en Europe. I have a Dutch version) Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I always think it's funny when people try to claim the British Army is an occupying force in its own country. Possible statements in IRA contexts: "fleeing from the scene they were stopped by an army patrol", "after the attack the army fired shots towards them", "they ambushed an army checkpoint" - i don't think readers would mistake army for IRA. An RfC (if anyone would bother answering as they are loathe to do with Ireland related matters) would probably feel the same. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

In all articles I edit relating to Northern Ireland, I use British Army and when I wish to differentiate from the Ulster Defence Regiment (a regiment of the British Army, although not every reader would necessarily know this), I use the term regular Army with a pipelink to British Army. The word army is too vague for me.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Charles Boycott, Featured article candidate

Hi, I have nominated Charles Boycott, an article possibly of interest to members of this project for featured article. Feel free to comment on the article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charles Boycott/archive1. Thanks, Quasihuman | Talk 20:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Frank Fahey

There's been a complaint about this article to WMF, in particular the part about Lost at Sea, but maybe also the whole article. I've tried my best to fix the Lost at Sea section so it is factual and sourced, but I'm out of my depth with the rest of it, really. Are there some positive achievements of Fahey that should be mentioned? Why is it so bad that he has invested money in different properties? Maybe it is bad, but why is not clear form the article. The Corrib gas thing seems like a big deal, but the way it is described isn't very clear about Fahey's role.

Definitely not suggesting the article should be whitewashed, but think it needs some Irish eyes smiling on it, if that way of putting it doesn't make you puke. --FormerIP (talk) 00:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Specific question. The article currently says: "In June 2009, Trevor Sargent in the Dáil accused Fahey of tax avoidance and making inappropriate decisions as a minister, and called on the Taoiseach to sack him". That sounds like it is an unusual and dramatic event (therefore noteworthy). Or is the type of thing that happens all the time in Irish politics? --FormerIP (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Not that unusual and fairly typical drama-wise, I'd say. Scolaire (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

"Are there some positive achievements of Fahey that should be mentioned?" Well, there was the time he... um... or that thing he did, er... Nah, being honest, nothing at all springs to mind. (The fact that a minister drops from a low 10% vote to 5% in the last election is telling...) Nothing wrong with property investments, per se, but it's mandatory for all Irish politicians to declare all of their interests, which he was accused of failing to do. While it might not be all that unusual for an opposition party member to accuse a government member of inapproriate decisions, accusations of tax avoidance *are* rare enough - and in this case, Trevor Sargent wasn't an opposition member, he was a Minister of State in a coalition government with Fahey's party. I'd say that makes it very unusual. Bastun^{??á??á????!} 17:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot Sargent was in government! Yeah, that was unusual. Scolaire (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The drop in votes is not so strange, if you take into account that Fianna Fail was hammered party wide. They lost 51 of their 71 seats... Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

OK. So I added a reference to Sargent being a government minister, to make it clearer why that incident is significant, and to the fact that this years GE was bad all round for FF, so as not to give the impression that Fahey's defeat was just about him.

Does that sound right?

Any and all comments about the article still welcome, BTW. --FormerIP (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Gaeltacht villages names: which language should have primacy?

Issue Whether towns and villages that are in the Gaeltacht should have their official Gaelic name as the primary address with the English name as a re-direct or vice versa. Examples:

• An Spidéal and Spiddal
• Dún Chaoin and Dunquin
• Baile an Sceilg and Ballinskelligs
• An Cheathrú Rua and Carraroe
• Tuar Mhic Éadaigh and Tourmakeady
• Baile Bhuirne and Ballyvourney.

Arguments for the Gaelic primacy: per the "Official Languages Act 2003". Quoting from a Seanad debate of Wednesday, 15 June 2011:

"The official name of Dingle was changed to An Daingean in 2004 by an order of the Minster for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs under the Official Languages Act 2003. The English language version then ceased to have legal force."

.

While the name has been changed again by Ministerial order, the point is that until that time, the official name of the town was "An Daingean" despite lots of local, possibly even exclusive, use of the name "Dingle". While this is an English language Wiki, nevertheless, certain institutions that have the force of law get Gaelic primacy. For example, Seanad Éireann is still the primary address, not "Senate of Ireland" and Oireachtas is still the primary address, not the "Irish parliament". The example of Spiddal is particularly egregious as two of its references either support the Gaelic version (C.S.O. census) or support a differerent English spelling - Spiddle (Placenames Database).

Arguments for the English primacy: while the village may be in the Gaeltacht, local usage may have lapsed into English usage. Maps display the English name. Tourists have been marketed the English name. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's covered in IMOS. If you disagree, then the IMOS talk page is the place to take it. Scolaire (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's covered here. As to the use of Oireachtas and Seanad Éireann - that'd be WP:COMMONNAME. Bastun^{??á??á????!} 20:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Luckily this is an issue thats already been debated and resolved. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that there may be a gap in the IMOS. The nearest case to the present issue seems to be "Where the English and Irish names are different, and the Irish name is the official name, and has gained favour in English usage, use the official Irish name.". I don't think that the case covers the situation as it assumes that English usage is the common usage; why would anyone assume this of a Gaeltacht? Surely Gaelic is the common usage in a Gaeltacht? Would it matter what the English/French/German usage was? How would it be relevant in a Gaeltacht? Do we not need a new case like:

• "Where the English and Irish names are different, and the place is part of an official Gaeltacht area, use the official Irish name." ? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The IMOS talk page is the place to take it. Scolaire (talk) 06:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Case logged in IMOS. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposal being made on WT:IMOS

Might be of interest this proposal Mo ainm~Talk 15:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Current "administrative units" and the vice-counties of Ireland

In the article Vice-counties, which is currently being revised and expanded, there is a brief discussion and a table describing the relationship between the current "administrative units" (counties, unitary authorities, etc.) in Great Britain (=England, Wales and Scotland) and the vice-counties used for biological recording.

There should be something similar for Ireland, both the Republic and Northern Ireland, so that someone who knows only the modern "administrative units" (counties, districts, or whatever) can relate them to the vice-counties as set up by Praeger in 1901. Is anyone here able to add such a section? Peter coxhead (talk) 14:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Never heard of vice-counties before in my life so i wouldn't have the foggiest idea how to help. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

They were just a concept (invented in the UK in the mid-1800's) for breaking up big counties into smaller units, to provide an overall base of similarly-sized land areas. They remain related to the 32 traditional counties, and I guess a table could be made up accordingly. SeoR (talk) 12:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Category discussion:Alumni by secondary school in Ireland

Category:Alumni by secondary school in Ireland and its various sub-categories have been nominated for renaming to a consistent form. The discussion is here. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Traffic signs

Hello, appreciate it if someone could take a look at this - posted it there, then noticed that nobody's touched that page in years. Thanks, 92.27.136.232 (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I've corrected the Irish language parts and removed text from those that have no signs. I also removed text from other sections that do have signs but not displayed in the gallery. If you get those images I can add the text back in with the redacted Irish version. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 15:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Just for your information. The Irish language signage can be found at these locations: Regulatory signs, Warning signs, Road works signs, Information signs, Traffic signs and road markings. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 15:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. My own opinion is that the legend should remain where there is a sign but we don't have it here yet, but that's a discussion for the article talk page itself, and it is in need of more work than just that. 92.27.136.232 (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

James Liddy

Anyone familiar with Irish poetry? The article James Liddy is extremely poor and badly sourced. He deserves better... Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow that is a big article - excluding external links theres a total of four words and two years. I've expanded it a little bit, not much, but better than nothing. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Irish poetry, but I corrected the Irish poet stub template used at the bottom. The little tricolour was linking to the island rather than the state. JonChapple^Talk 22:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

So now all Irish poets alive before 1922, and there are several to which this stub transcludes though I have not checked them all, are linked to a state that did not exist for some or all of their lifetime. Very clever! ww2censor (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It's no less clever than linking to a geographical entity with a flag that 1) only represents about 5/6ths of it, 2) wasn't invented until the 1840s, and 3) is liable to cause offence to large chunks of its people. It was a rush-job and Mabuska's edit was a much better one, but perhaps you could have made it instead of reverting with snarky comments. JonChapple^Talk 06:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

@ JonChapple Perhaps you missed my post below made several hours before yours where I acknowledge the flag was not a good idea. ww2censor (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. My knowledge of Irish poets is almost non-existent. A quick look at Google learned me that Liddy is without any doubt notable. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually neither template edit was that great but Mabuska replaced the flag with a shamrock which covers all periods fine. ww2censor (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

GAR for The Corrs

An article that falls within this project, The Corrs has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Open page move discussions

• (Discuss) - Ireland -> Island of Ireland
• (Discuss) - Belfast Agreement -> Good Friday Agreement Kauffner (talk) 07:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Poll on ArbCom resolution - Ireland article names

There is a poll taking place here on whether or not to extend the ArbCom binding resolution, which says there may be no page move discussions for Ireland, Republic of Ireland or Ireland (disambiguation), for a further two years. Scolaire (talk) 11:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

RfC - Volunteer (Irish republican)

A Request for Comment has been opened up here on the Volunteer (Irish republican) article.

And no it has nothing to do with is Volunteer a rank/title/term to describe Irish republican paramilitaries. Its simply about relevance of historical information. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

AfD's

I've nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parkmore RFC and other similar clubs for deletion. Have a look Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parkmore RFC Gnevin (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Describing the Lordship/Kingdom of Ireland and the forces that fought for it

Q1: Between 1171 and 1800, the Lordship of Ireland/Kingdom of Ireland was a territory that the English monarchy (later the British monarchy) claimd sovereignty over. Altho it had its own parliament from 1297 onward, the Lordship/Kingdom of Ireland was not a sovereign state. Would it be correct, therfor, to describe it as a dependent territory? If so, a dependent territory of England (later the Kingdom of Great Britain) or a dependent territory of the monarchy? If not, what would be the best way to describe it in modern terms? The current ledes don't do a good job of explaining this.

Q2: The Lordship/Kingdom of Ireland never had its own standing army. The Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland didn't hav standing armies until after the English Civil War. Insted, temporary armies wer created when needed and wer mostly composed of ordinary citizens. How, then, should we describe the forces that fought for the Lordship/Kingdom of Ireland? For example... in military conflict infoboxes, should the Nine Years' War be described as a war agenst the Kingdom of Ireland, agenst the Kingdom of England, agenst the "English army" (lowercase 'a') or agenst the "Forces of the Crown"?

~Asarlaí 23:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Just for clarity, why wasn't is a sovereign state if it had it's own parliament? --HighKing (talk) 01:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Depends on your particular take on the source of state power and, in parallel, its legitimacy. 'Talking shops' are one thing, but the exercise of control is sometimes something else. RashersTierney (talk) 01:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem with these sorts of description is that they use modern terminology i.e. less that 200 years old, to refer to medieval (in the case of the Lordship) or early modern (in the case of the Kingdom for the first 200 years or so) entities. The Kingdom of France or the Holy Roman Empire are never referred to as "sovereign states", and Bohemia is never referred to as a "dependent territory". Ireland should be described in whatever terms historians use for Ireland. I would suggest something along the lines of "The Lordship of Ireland refers to that part of Ireland that was under the rule of the [[Monarchy of the United Kingdom#English monarchy|king of England]] between 1177 and 1541" and "The Kindom of Ireland refers to the country of Ireland in the period between the proclamation of Henry VIII as King of Ireland in 1542 and the Act of Union in 1800." As far as the Nine Years' war is concerned, to my mind the current infobox describes the English side better than any of the alternatives proposed here: it was the Kingdom of England and its government in Ireland. Scolaire (talk) 06:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Some points; the Lordship and Kingdom were in "Personal union" with the king of England / Britain. Not a fashionable idea today outside Andorra, but as Scolaire says, we must consider European international law at the time. The Kingdom and its link was recognised from 1542 by states that recognised Henry VIII, and from the Papal bull Ilius (1555) the personal union was acceptable to the Papacy. From time to time a lot of clan chiefs were beyond the control of Dublin; they were certainly autonomous in Ireland but not independent under international law. During the Nine Years' war Hugh O'Neill offered sovereignty to Philip II's cousin in 1595. It was all a bit untidy and we are more encyclopaedic if we stick to the norms of the day.Red Hurley (talk) 10:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The above makes the same mistake in attempting to apply a modern concept. There was no functional "international law" in that period. Ireland was governed locally, like everywhere else, and never having been part of the Roman Empire, Holy Roman Empire, etc., was not subject to even a claim of any external jurisdiction. Pope Adrian based his infamous Bull asserting a right to "award" Ireland to the King of England on the specious "Donation of Constantine" - a claim based on a claimed Roman Empire point which had no validity with regard to Ireland, and was probably a fraud to boot. The claim to Ireland may have been recognised by States which had relations to England, but not by any with links to the former Rithe Tuatha, provincial Kings or High Kings of Ireland. Notably Ireland had its own legal system, and this had no provision for allocating jurisdiction to any outside power - it did not even give so much power to the High King. The English presence was a continuing invasion, only, and its force was limited to the area it controlled by arms and settlement. As a side note, Hugh O'Neill had no entitlement to offer sovreignty to anyone either. SeoR (talk) 12:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

There was an emerging church-centred western christian international law before the lordship, if you look at the Investiture Controversy and the Concordat of Worms. It was a personal thing, the lordship did not belong to "England" but to the person who was king of England. The Papacy didn't think much of the Brehon laws and we had never paid our share of Peter's Pence, so we were on the wrong foot in 1154. The Papacy's view led on to international recognition of the Lordship and Kingdom, fact, and that is what sovereignty is based on. Pope Urban III even approved of John being crowned King of Ireland in 1185 without mentioning the poor old Rithe Tuatha.Red Hurley (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The new ledes at Lordship of Ireland and Kingdom of Ireland ar an improvement but I think they could be betterd. Nevertheless, we havn't really toucht on my second question. For some conflicts in Ireland it's clear who the opposing sides ar, but for meny others it's not. For most of the battles in the following campain boxes, what should we name the forces that fought for the Lordship/Kingdom if Ireland?

• Template:Campaignbox Irish-Norman wars
• Template:Campaignbox Desmond Rebellions
• Template:Campaignbox Tyrone's Rebellion
• Template:Campaignbox Irish Confederate Wars (before the New Model Army landed)

~Asarlaí 20:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I answered for the article you asked about. I said "to my mind the current infobox describes the English side better than any of the alternatives proposed here." Your templates link to an awful lot of articles, too many for me to trawl through them all. So I'm going to make a guess and say they're probably all all right. The whole business of looking for clever and/or bureaucratic 21st century descriptions for historical events and parties is just a bad idea! Just leave them the way that they have been described throughout the ages and up to the present day. If in doubt how they are described, look them up. There will be books in your local library. If that's too much, try Google Books. Having a "what shall we call them" think-in on the talk page is covered by a Wikipedia policy: No original research. --Scolaire (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, you had lots of feudal lords and knights who owed personal military services to the king. There was some garrisons but no standing army until the 1660s.Red Hurley (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Association Football / Soccer

When was the last time you heard an Irishman refer to "Association football" in conversation? I have yet to see that term written in a newspaper, magazine, or book. In Ireland it is customary to refer to soccer as 'football' when it's the only sport being discussed, oftentimes it is referred to as 'soccer' when it is the only sport being discussed, and when Gaelic football is involved in the conversation then the sport is most definitely referred to as 'soccer' to avoid ambiguity. It certainly isn't referred to as "Association football". Google has 56,700 results for "Association Football" Ireland and 257,00,000 results for soccer ireland. [3] Per Per WP:TIES it is customary to use the terminology of a particular country in an article that is closely related to that country. The term "Association football" is not part of the general lexicon in Ireland, "soccer" is. In fact the term "soccer" can be heard in Britain too, if you'd like I can pull up examples of English soccer commentators using the term themselves. So what I don't get is this mission that User:Mooretwin seem to be on to obliterate such a widely recognised word like "soccer" and replace it with the almost unknown term "Association football". I would be surprised if that term were even known to the majority of the sport's fans. --Eamonnca1 ^TALK 19:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I can agree to using just football for association football in articles that are to do with association football, and football for Gaelic football in articles that are about that. If either sport makes an reference in each others article they could be called "Gaelic football" in an association football orientated article and "soccer" in a Gaelic football orientated article.

For articles that aren't dealing specifically with one sport over the other is where i think the problem really lies. Whilst in the Republic and many parts of Northern Ireland football may be used refer to Gaelic football, what does the term football convey to an international reader? More than likely it conveys to them the sport of association football, whether they'd call it that or not. Does stating "Gaelic football" and "football" together in a sentence/paragraph/context lead to the possibility of confusion? Possibly. In that context i can see the point in stating "Gaelic football" and "soccer" together in the same sentence/paragraph/context - however in that context alone where there is a chance of confusion.

On the term soccer, ironically despite their apparent disdain for the "American" term, it is an English invented word for the sport rather than American as far as i'm aware. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The word "soccer" is as old as the game it refers to. It's a shortened form of "Assoc." + er. It originates on these islands.

On general articles to do with Ireland, "football" alone is insufficient. Like Australia, "football" in Ireland can mean (definitely) two things and (if one was to argue the point) up to three things.

"Association football" does seem to be the preferred term on Wikipedia for the game that I'd usually call "soccer". I can live it with either way and slightly prefer the proper names for things. I definitely will not be supporting rugby football being called "rugger" or Gaelic football being called "ga". By the same logic, I marginally prefer Association football being called "association football", rather than "soccer". However, it's not the same as the other examples and I notice that Australia uses "soccer".

"...what does the term football convey to an international reader?" -- Over half of our visitors come from the United States or Canada, where "football" is gridiron. --RA (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Two issues here and, although they are related, they should be considered separately IMHO

1. The term to be used for 'association football' in article titles in Ireland related articles
2. The use of the term 'football' in Ireland related articles

With 1) above, anything other than soccer is a POV imposition. It is not used in Ireland. No one would go searching for it. It's a nonsense in every respect. However with 2) above, I think in an article called, for instance, Soccer in the Republic of Ireland, it would be entirely proper to use the term 'football' to refer to the sport in question. And it would be similarly acceptable to use 'football' in relation to Gaelic football. Fmph (talk) 06:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with you not referring to Rugby as 'rugger' since that remains a slang term that never really became a de-facto proper name of the sport. "Soccer" on the other hand has become an accepted proper name of the sport and is even used by some of its governing bodies such as Major League Soccer and the American Youth Soccer Association. The persistence of the term "Association football" on wiki is largely due to the work of one editor who has previously admitted that he just doesn't like the word "soccer" and has been going around replacing it. --Eamonnca1 ^TALK 21:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

When you state Ireland-related articles, don't forget that Northern Ireland is not the exact same as the Republic, and in Northern Ireland football amongst the majority doesn't equate to Gaelic football. So if Ireland-related, are you stating Republic wise or island wise? We shouldn't just cast both parts of the island under one umbrella. If its simply in regards to the Republic then i can agree to using soccer in place of association football. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what political partition has to do with it. Gaelic football is more popular than soccer in the south and the same applies in the north. In fact Gaelic football is more popular in parts of Northern Ireland than it is in parts of the south. --Eamonnca1 ^TALK 22:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes in parts of Northern Ireland there is very devout followers and players, but not in the whole of Northern Ireland. Don't forget many people here, safe to say the majority of people here, don't play or follow Gaelic football - so it'd be hard to say that "the same applies in the north". Football in the United Kingdom refers first and foremost to soccer not Gaelic. Like i already said i can agree to the use of soccer in Republic of Ireland articles or Gaelic specific articles (which can include those based in Northern Ireland). Thats a fair compromise in my eyes. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

"Football" in Ireland (both parts) can mean soccer or Gaelic depending on context. This is the Wikiproject Ireland talk page, we're talking about Ireland-related articles. If you're talking about articles specific to Britain where there's no ambiguity about what most people mean by "football" then there's no need to specify which flavour we're talking about. Northern Ireland is different since soccer is not the dominant form of football here. Incidentally, attendance at Ulster Gaelic Football Championship matches is bigger than the crowds you'd get at a Northern Ireland international. Judging by that and the three men and a dog who attend Irish League matches, I think it's "pretty safe to say that the majority of people here" don't follow soccer either. --Eamonnca1 ^TALK 22:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Neither do I see it as being particularly specific to the republic. In every part of Ireland, whether it is rugby in Limerick, soccer in Dublin, or Gaelic in Tyrone, there are several very popular sports all competing for the name "football". --RA (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both RA and Eamonn; when it comes to Irish article we need to use Gaelic, Rugby and Soccer to relate to the different games of football. BTW I just looked at the attendance figures for soccer in the North and Eamonn you are wrong it is only two men and a dog, woefully low. Bjmullan (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I was being generous. --Eamonnca1 ^TALK 22:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Aye, sure ignore participation and concentrate only on spectating. Mooretwin (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with RA. We should use "association football" - this is the term preferred in Wikipedia. Outside the US, Canada and Australia, "soccer" is not used by those who play or organise the sport (indeed the name is usually objected to) - there are no "soccer clubs" or "soccer associations" in Ireland. The point that no-one in Ireland talks about "association football" is irrelevant - this is a worldwide encyclopaedia, not an Irish one, and the convention is to use Association football rather than soccer. Mooretwin (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

So nobody in Ireland says "Association football" (which is correct) and that is irrelevant.

But nobody in Ireland says "soccer" (which is incorrect) and that's relevant.

You have just entered ... the Twilight Zone.

So many contradictions and errors in there it's difficult to know where to start. Let's break it down, shall we?

"We should use "association football" - this is the term preferred in Wikipedia" - It is now after you've gone on your one-man crusade to obliterate the word "soccer", but per MOS:TIES I think you're on a hiding to nowhere with it.

"The point that no-one in Ireland talks about "association football" is irrelevant". - Au contraire, MOS:TIES.

""soccer" is not used by those who play or organise the sport" - And...? Even if it were true, what's that got to do with the price of fish? Are we only going to listen to the views of people who actually organise and participate in certain sports now? I'd be all in favour of that (particularly in GAA articles) but somehow I think any such edits wouldn't last very long.

"The term is usually objected to." - That is an unsourced claim and irrelevant. The term "Londonderry" is objected to as well but I don't see that being excluded from Wiki.

"This is a worldwide encyclopedia, not an Irish one." - Actually, it's customary to use the local lingo on pages that are relevant to a particular area. But if you're going to ignore MOS:TIES then why are you making statements about the local use of English (which happen to be preposterously incorrect)? --Eamonnca1 ^TALK 00:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Eamonn (well, maybe not with the attendance figures!). As I already mentioned, this has been discussed before and I was of the opinion that agreement had been reached. Hohenloh ⁺ 22:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+This has always been one of the sillier nationalistic kerfuffles we allow ourselves to hash out over and over. Oh well, I suppose it keeps us paying attention. From various past arguments, a few things are clear: (1) In terms of Ireland at least, the term "football" by itself is simply too ambiguous to use on its own, as it can refer to several different sports without anyone being wrong, and (2) "association football" has become a fairly common Wikiped-ese substitution for "football" when disambiguation is required and "soccer" is not common. What's not at all clear in the case of Ireland, is the claim that "soccer" isn't common (or is even avoided). To the casual observer, it certainly would seem to be in widespread use. The sport pages in the Times,[4] the Independent,[5] and the Examiner[6] all use it. An important study of Irish sport and nationalism by Michael Cronin is called Sport and Nationalism in Ireland: Gaelic Games, Soccer and Identity Since 1884. We don't need to reinvent the wheel here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It's be good if we could find some British sources that refer to soccer too. That [7] would [8] be [9] interesting. [10] --Eamonnca1 ^TALK 02:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Would UTV be considered British enough? Fmph (talk) 06:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Or Reuters UK? Fmph (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no intention of getting involved in this, but I did notice that in Eamonn's third link - the "Soccer violence" one - Michael Henderson also said, "I didn't make a vow never to attend another match. I like Association Football too much for that." Scolaire (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"Northern Ireland is different since soccer is not the dominant form of football here. Incidentally, attendance at Ulster Gaelic Football Championship matches is bigger than the crowds you'd get at a Northern Ireland international. Judging by that and the three men and a dog who attend Irish League matches, I think it's "pretty safe to say that the majority of people here" don't follow soccer either."

Eamonnca1 that is utter codswallop. A disgraceful amount of over-simplification to try to force a untrue point on which sport is more "popular". Just because people may not follow the Irish League does not mean they don't follow football at all. Are you saying that Manchester United, Liverpool, Rangers or Celtic, are also supported here by just three men and a dog? Whilst the local game may not be flourishing, there are countless "soccer" teams in the country, with a redicuolous amount of amateur junior leagues, and a yet greater amount of people with an interest in football outside of Northern Ireland. In fact in almost every settlement you will find a local "soccer" team, in unionist and nationalist areas - the same cannot be said for Gaelic football where you find them largely in nationalist areas alone. As I said its pretty safe to say that the majority of people here follow and use the term football for association football... regardless of local participation levels.

"Actually, it's customary to use the local lingo on pages that are relevant to a particular area."

Yeah, the only time in recent memory i have heard soccer being used to refer to football is here on Wikipedia. Then again Northern Ireland is not the Republic of Ireland. Regardless of local particpation levels, Gaelic football is a minority sport here, with far more people supporting Rangers, Celtic, Manchester United and Liverpool. I'm not denying that the word soccer is used by British media or anything, never did, i'm simply refuting Eamonnca1's amazing claims that Gaelic is the more supported sport in Northern Ireland. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

For our current purposes, it hardly matters how well this or any support is supported, it only matters what it is called. If it were only (or primarily) called "football", we could go with the substitute "association football", but as it's obvious that "soccer" is widely used in Ireland, that's clearly the better choice.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Preach it brother! Just because someone never heard anyone say soccer (and I'm damned if I know what kind of rock you would have to live under to avoid hearing it) doesn't mean the term isn't in widespread use. And my esteemed colleague's description of Gaelic football as a "minority sport" in Northern Ireland is the funniest thing I've ever seen here in a while. --Eamonnca1 ^TALK 06:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

No point in trying to explain the political reasons as to why it is, would only drag the discussion down. So what exactly is your proposal Eamonnca1? I already said i'd back soccer in various different contexts. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Given that Gaelic football in Northern Ireland, with only a tiny number of exceptions, is played and followed only by Roman Catholics, and that Roman Catholics are a minority, it is, therefore, by definition, a minority sport. Mooretwin (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

That is amongst the political reasons i'd prefer to avoid discussing as it would only lead to the dragging down of this debate. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

@Mooretwin - Do you have any evidence to support such a partisan opinion. I think it's well understand that very few people of a protestant outlook would attend GAA matches, but that is not the only way to support a team. Media coverage is so wide these days that it is well possible to support without disapproving neighbours ever knowing. My personal experience is that many open minded NI protestants (and there are quite a few of those around contrary to many assertions) would support their county, especially during a successful all-ireland run for instance. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd be willing to see it. Fmph (talk) 06:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, that is the greatest load of nonsense I have ever seen contributed to this discussion. Since when did a dubious assertion about the religious affiliation of its followers have anything to do with whether or not something is a minority sport? We're not talking about popularity of any particular flavour of church. We're talking about interest in sports, and in Northern Ireland Gaelic football is very much a mainstream sport. If Northern Ireland international matches got anywhere near the kind of attendances that an Ulster Championship Gaelic match got then the IFA would be in much better shape. --Eamonnca1 ^TALK 06:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This qualifies for WP:HORSEMEAT. Red Hurley (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The Phoenix

Just wonder how people feel about pullings quote from The Phoenix that criticize organizations and/or people? An example is here. --RA (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thought I should mention, your link is to a link. That can be off-putting.

As regards this, I would call WP:RECENTISM. Whether the Reform Movement sinks or swims, in ten years time nobody will want to know what The Phoenix thought of them. Same goes for any other quip that might be used in any other article. Scolaire (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Which I've now done. --Scolaire (talk) 10:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Use Groucho Marx's quote - "I never wanted to join an organization, that would have me as a member". GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

By its nature it's an ephemeral fun thing, with jokes that nobody will understand in the near future. But some should be included to add flavour.Red Hurley (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Protection of presidential candidate pages

All of the articles relating to candidates in the forthcoming presidential election are coming under increasing pressure from vandals and unregistered or newly registered contributors with obvious POV issues. Examples:

• Dana
• McGuinness
• Norris
• Davis
• Gallagher
• Higgins
• Mitchell

I suggest that all of these pages be placed under semi-protection until after the election. Do others agree? (I'm not offering to do this myself as I am involved.) --RA (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Good idea and I agree. Bjmullan (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Definitely agree. Snappy (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 18:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Also agreed. Bastun^{??á??á????!} 19:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. ~Asarlaí 22:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

So, er... if you can't do it yourself, who/where do we ask for it to be done? Bastun^{??á??á????!} 23:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyway there's plenty of room for qualified abuse on Irish presidential election, 2011.Red Hurley (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Added a request here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Biographies_of_candidates_in_Irish_presidential_election. --RA (talk) 08:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done by Fastily. --RA (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Open page move discussions

• (Discuss) - Republic of Ireland -> Ireland (republic)
• (Discuss) - James McCann (Irish republican) -> James McCann (drugs trafficker) Kauffner (talk) 03:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Protection of Irish presidential election, 2011

I suggest the semi-protection of the article Irish presidential election, 2011 until at least a day after the results of the election. The article has been under increased pressure from vandals, with those perpetrators not only being disruptive, but also launching insults at other editors such as this edit. Comments or suggestions welcome. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 22:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and suggest a week after the results. -- Evertype·? 22:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree to semi-prot, regrettable but necessary for now. Snappy (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Bilateral relations of the Republic of Ireland

The naming of articles in this category and its subcategories is very inconsistent. Some use the long form "Republic of Ireland", some the short form "Ireland". Which one should they? --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

In line with these recent moves Talk:Denmark-Ireland_relations, they should all use "Ireland" and the dash should be unspaced. Snappy (talk) 12:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree. The 'long form' is a dab used on the project 'for technical reasons'. The correct name of the state should be used as there are no circumstances where a geographical feature can have diplomatic relations (does this really need to be pointed out?). RashersTierney (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've fixed up the wrong dashes and two remaining usages of "Republic of Ireland". --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You missed one, People's Republic of China - Ireland relations. Snappy (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary heading

Why was i not notified of this noticeboard before? I have identified as {{User Irish}} since the beginning! (that means i was in the Category:Irish Wikipedians) - Benzband (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably because there's no official (or unofficial) welcoming committee. Most people just stumble across it, I think. But now that you're here - welcome! Bastun^{??á??á????!} 18:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Let us ask Michael D. for this job. :-) Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Fire away. But you're not allowed ask him yet... Bastun^{??á??á????!} 20:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Dáil constituency names

I see on October 9 Snappy added endashes to a lot of Dáil constituency article names with comment "per official name". WP:COMMONNAME is not official name; in any case, I don't believe the official names use endashes. Electoral (Amendment) Act 2009 has hyphens, at least in the online copy, as does the Dáil transcript of the 2011 election results. The 2007 Constituency Commission report is inconsistent; sometimes hyphen, sometimes unspaced endash, sometimes spaced endash. Whatever the "official" names might be, I don't think they override the common names, and I think we should apply MOS:DASH, MOS:HYPHEN, and WP:MOS#Directions and regions. So hyphens in Dublin North-West or Cork South-Central but endashes in Carlow-Kilkenny and Kerry North-West Limerick. There would still be some arbitrary calls: Is Donegal North~West the north-western half, or the northern quarter plus the western quarter?

While I'm on the subject, I disagree with adding "(Dáil Éireann constituency)" to all names. This violates WP:PRECISION. There is AFAIK no guideline "make all articles in a given category have the same parenthetic disambiguator", and I don't think any Wikiproject can vote itself an exception to the general MOS, only to augment it. Therefore:

• Laois-Offaly (Dáil Éireann constituency)->Laois-Offaly (bare name redirects...well Laois-Offaly does)
• Dún Laoghaire (Dáil Éireann constituency)->Dún Laoghaire (constituency) (less precise dab redirects) dab of Dún Laoghaire, but not of any other constituency, unless you count the period when borough council was elected from a single local electoral area.
• Clare (Dáil Éireann constituency): correct, to dab Clare (Parliament of Ireland constituency) etc

jnestorius^(talk) 20:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What I actually did was to move constituencies like Cork North Central (no dash/hyphen) to Cork North-Central per the official name in the Irish Statute Book which uses a horizontal bar separator thingy. I used endashes as a common separtor for them all. While the online versions seem to use hyphens, is that because hyphens are the govt's intended usage or is it because whoever builds the webpages doesn't bother with endashes? The only way to know for sure would be to check the hard-copy of the legislation, assuming this is still produced.

As for the disambiguator point, this seems somewhat pedantic but technically correct, though the current naming convention does offer clarity and consistency. By having Dáil Éireann constituency as a disambiguator, you know what the article is, a Laois-Offaly could be anything! Snappy (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, for that matter, a Dáil Éireann could be anything. To know what an article is about, the proper method is not to read the title; it is to read the article. Not even the whole article: if the first sentence is doing its job, it should tell you better than any title could. jnestorius^(talk) 21:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

"To know what an article is about, the proper method is not to read the title; it is to read the article." and the prize for stating the obvious goes to....

Snappy (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree with my response to your statement By having Dáil Éireann constituency as a disambiguator, you know what the article is. jnestorius^(talk) 11:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with you response. I was just pointing out that if there was a prize for stating the bleedin' obvious it would go to you. I don't know how one could construe that as agreement with your response. Anyway, what was the point of this discussion again? Snappy (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. I doubt this discussion can make further progress with input from a third party. jnestorius^(talk) 16:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You never replied to the endashes question. Snappy (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was a rhetorical question to which neither of us knew the answer. In any case, as I originally said, the COMMONNAME is not necessarily the official name. If the Official name is in a hardcopy that's difficult to source, it's not very common at all. It seems like your attitude is not that preferring hyphen to endash would be incorrect, but rather that the decision is too trifling to bother about. jnestorius^(talk) 23:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Once again, you seek to misrepresent me, nowhere did I state or imply that. Snappy (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Place of birth for people 1801--1922: UK or Ireland?

A proposal has been made at WikiProject Biography that the place of birth of people born in Ireland between 1801 and 1922 should be given as United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. --RA (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget the pipe-link to Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Userbox

A userbox... - Benzband (talk) 15:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Mass page move request

A mass nomination to move articles about sportsmen based on diacritics in their name has been filed at Talk:Dominik_Halmosi#Requested_Move --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Treaty Sarsfields GAA

Hello! I've recently run across this article and its corresponding AfD. The article was written by a new editor and appears to be written in a very colloquial/essay-like manner. It's sourced and from what I can tell, is about the history of Limerick GAA. I think the members of this Wikiproject may be able to understand the article better than probably anyone else so I thought I'd come here and ask if anyone can take a look at the article and respond in the AfD regarding the subject of the article and also let us know if there's salvageable content in the article. I would hate to lose content due to lack of knowledge of sport in Ireland. Thanks for your time. OlYeller21^Talktome 22:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

What harm, it's up there with Durrus and District History 1700-1900, my long-term favourite.Red Hurley (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Author, autobiographer and prisoner in Thailand

Colin Martin wrote an autobiography titled Welcome to Hell: One Man's Fight for Life Inside the Bangkok Hilton.

Previously there was an article about him. I think that it might be possible to write an article about him or his book where notability is demonstrated.

Can someone post links to the most notable references about him and/or the book?

(That a previous article about him has been deleted, can mean a number of things. Including references being poor, the article sucked ... )

I have read the book, and I seem to remember that the book makes claims about Thailand's prison system, that might be notable. (But since I do not have the book at present, then I am more interested at commenting on references/citations rather than my recollections.)

The categories he might belong to are Irish author, autobiographer, Prisoners of Thailand, and Irish prisoners and detainees.

His book is also one of a handful of books which is credited (in Bangkok Haunts) for inspiring the novel Bangkok Haunts.--85.166.141.247 (talk) 11:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

One problem is that there is a rather different "Bangkok Hilton" already. Lots of foreigners get locked up in Thailand, and lots of autobiographies are written that don't sell well. His claims about Thailand's prison system should be balanced by other opinions.86.42.212.2 (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

My first question was "Can someone post links to the most notable references about him and/or the book?".

You said "and lots of autobiographies are written that don't sell well." Do you have any references about how your statement relates/not relates to his book?

And I guess I should thank you for your hotel-link. What you called "one problem", is what I would call a non-problem or possibly a non-issue. Please start a subdiscussion on that point, and I will make plans to illuminate and/or debate your misgivings. If an article is written about the book, I see no problem in linking to "your" Bangkok Hilton, or simply mentioning how many years after (?) the book was published, that "your" Hilton was erected.

That lots of foreign prisoners get locked up in nearly every country, is something you and I might agree upon. Preferably in a different thread, perhaps.--85.166.141.247 (talk) 11:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Appealing the previous article deletion

If someone can contest the deletion of the previous article, or have it resurrected & relisted for deletion, then such a move will have my support. I hereby give a special power of attorney to anyone who needs my vote, to resurrect & relist for deletion the article, or to make any other appeals to contest the previous deletion.

(I am not sure of how to start such a process. And there might be times when I do not look at wikipedia for weeks. Therefore I do not want to head a process that I can not guarantee that I will follow every week. I respect that politics and administration of wikipedia is important; but I have prioritized writing/editing text rather than understanding/navigating everything relating to administration and/or politics on this website.)--85.166.141.247 (talk) 11:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to be a notable prisoner - maybe try the Thai project page. We don't know if you're advertising the book. How well has it sold?Red Hurley (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

RFC ar Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)

There has been a brewing issue at WP:RM over WP:HOCKEY recommendations and how they should be applied over WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE. Basically the hockey recommendation is that Diacritics shall be applied to all player pages, where appropriate as for the languages of the nationalities of the players in question. This is in fact a mandate that does not allow consideration of any other policy on naming. I think we need to resolve the issue of which naming convention we use for ice hockey players. Is it the one for the names of everyone else based on existing policy and guidelines, or do we have a blanket exception for one project? Please go to: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(use_English)#RFC_on_hockey_names per Vegaswikian (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is this relevant to WP Ireland - apart from the danger of running into GoodDay? Bastun^{??á??á????!} 23:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This is misplaced here. Is any ice hockey even played in Ireland? (Hockey, above, is the American usage, referring to ice hockey. Actual hockey is called field hockey in the US.) -- O'Dea (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

A Class?

I noteistd that you don't have A Class. Why don't you have it and why don't you start it? Darrman1 (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Football (word) Pipe linking Republic of Ireland

See Talk:Football (word)#Republic of Ireland

The article Football (word) is discussing the usage of football in different English speaking countries. For better or for worse the consensus has been that because soccer has divided usage in Ireland (unlike like many other sports) and because usage in the south tends to be more homogeneous than in the north, that Ireland would be divided into north and south, the six counties being mentioned in the UK article and the 26 being labelled the Republic of Ireland. This fits in well with all sorts of secondary sources including government statistics about sport gathered by the two different governments.

This is a clear case were the use of the term "Ireland" is misleading, particularly as the sources used for the sections are selected to show usage north and south of the border. For anyone who knows about this project the term Ireland with all its nuances are well known and so is the debate over them. But for the typical reader who is likely to view a page about the use of the term football is extremely unlikely to be aware of these issues and for them an unqualified use of the term Ireland is likely to confuse them. I think we need to have a wider debate on this, because in the last 24 hours there have been edits to remove the Republic of Ireland and replace it with Ireland. The first use of the term was Ireland linked to the Republic, but that that was in itself misleading the sentence is talking about the pople who inhabit the territory that to the south and west of the border, not the whole island.

In my opinion [changing the section heading] from "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland" when the issue is being discussed on the talk page, without any input from the editor who made the edit is less than helpful. -- PBS (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at the MOS talk page

A discussion on these issues is taking place on the manual of style talk page. --RA (talk) 09:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Darren Scully

Here is a tricky one - Darren Scully would fail WikiProject Ireland's standards for a politician article as he is only a councillor. When he opines in an un-PC way he is slammed by his opponents and hey presto an article appears. But I hesitate to delete as Alpha Quadrant is a busy editor. Thoughts?Red Hurley (talk) 08:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Arguably as a councillor he's not notable per se, but as a councillor who's got himself lots of coverage in the national press he is. Not a speedy delete anyway. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 10:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

No, indeed. I don't know Scully but he has (had?) a good reputation. Our political system of promising all things to all people is at fault, as immigrants are much more likely to believe such promises when they see relatively great wealth all around them. "You'll have to wait" could seem to be discrimination, only to be overcome by asking repeatedly - this is what DS seems to have missed IMHO. Scully has 1.1m hits on google and poor auld Ruth Coppinger only has 800,000. She has been deleted 3 times now, and we all agreed on that. Print out all her pages and they would reach to Red Square and back again, but she is not notable. My point is about notability, not DS per se.Red Hurley (talk) 11:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

He fails WP:Politician and this racist incident surely comes under WP:1E, as no one (outside of Naas/Kildare) had heard of him before it. Snappy (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd also lean towards deletion as per Snappy above. --HighKing (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a rename and re-edit in line with WP:1E eg Mayor of Naas resignation 2011. This is hardly the last we'll hear of the issue. RashersTierney (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

He has received international coverage, (article in The Guardian). I'd support a re-name per Rashers. Snappy (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Me too.Red Hurley (talk) 13:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Any suggestions for a better title than Mayor of Naas resignation 2011 before I start to implement this later today? RashersTierney (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. RashersTierney (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Cheese articles

There's a number of articles created for Irish cheese. Since most cheese companies produce many different varieties, the articles are organized by cheese producer. I fear that some articles may struggle for notability and may be nominated for deletion - see Abbey Cheese Company for example. So what passes for notability for an Irish cheese? Comments welcome. --HighKing (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Same as anything else. Secondary sources that talk specifically about them. I'm afraid a source that lists them with a short description of each just establishes notability for the collection of cheeses so they could be part of an article but not an article themselves. A chapter in a book though would show notability. Dmcq (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Funny enough, the articles in question all have a chapter in a book. --HighKing (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the key word in WP:ORG is "...significant coverage...". A chapter in a book and a mention in a Bord Bia promo may not be enough. But some mentions of product launches in the food press, or business innovations in the business press, might add sufficient notability. Fmph (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha - key word is "significant". An article on cheese, lets face it, is pretty much going to be local coverage. WP:ORG states subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Why isn't getting a chapter in a recently published book sufficient? Is that not "significant"? As for press coverage, the article in question, Ardagh Castle cheese also has an article from "The Southern Star" newspaper (referenced). --HighKing (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+OK, now the editor in question has turned his attention to Ardagh Castle cheese. This small article has 5 references - in my opinion more than meets WP:GNG. I've posted at WP:N/N but I'm not sure that's the right forum. It's not the first time this editor has jumped on an article I've created, or has shown an interest in cheese. Opinions please... --HighKing (talk) 03:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Look I know that cheese isn't a sexy topic, but the editor is looking for more sources and refuses to discuss on the Talk page. A 3rd (4th and 5th etc opinion) is needed/ . --HighKing (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

What about Anglo-Irish cheese? :P Sheodred (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any such thing... :-) Pre-1922? Probably blue by now... --HighKing (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Anglo Irish

There is a misconception on wikipedia regarding the nationality of certain notable Irish figures in relation to the use of "Anglo-Irish" in the lede instead of Irish.

The term Anglo-Irish is incorrectly and sometimes deliberately bandied about instead of Irish as a nationality. Many of the figures in some article disputes involved are Irish, but come from the Anglo-Irish social class, but it is not a nationality, and there is a lot of inconsistency regarding its use, an example is Jonathan Swift, an Irish man but for some reason is disregarded by a minute section of editors who refuse to acknowledge that he is Irish and Anglo-Irish (but only in the respect that he comes from that social class in the article), and then other articles like Oscar Wilde who is Irish but of Anglo-Irish culture, he is renowned internationally as Irish (not Anglo-Irish because it is a class not a nationality)

I don't understand it, a tiny segment of editors are trying to ignore this fact and are coming up with all this pseudo-social/historical excuses (most to be quite fair are pathetic) to make it difficult for observers and well-meaning editors for whatever reason, I am being falsely accused while trying to point this fact out as a POV pusher, which is unfair because I am not, I support and say the fact that if a individual is of Anglo-Irish class it should be mentioned in the article, just not in the opening sentence as it does not belong there, I am just stating the facts.

This misconception needs to be addressed.

I propose that Anglo-Irish not be used in the lede as a replacement for Irish, because it is a term for a privileged social class that existed/exists within Ireland, it is not a nationality, it should be used only when we are discussing the individual after the lede, or the first line of the lede.' Sheodred (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. - benzband (talk o feed) 21:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree also, although it is something already covered by the general guidelines (i.e. it is a dispute that ought not to come up). I think there should be some sort of centralised discussion of RfC about Irish nationality because there are other cases such as C.S. Lewis and Peter O'Toole where there are current disputes going on. I was thinking of starting such a discussion recently, but never got round to it. --FormerIP (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not see the issue with Anglo-Irish mentioned, unless I overlooked it, there is a huge amount of articles on Irish figures where certain editors are entrenched where they will not accept Anglo-Irish being removed from the lede as an incorrect substitute for Irish (as original post indicates above), there are so many articles with this problem, it will take a collaborative effort from the community on Wikiproject Ireland to correct. Sheodred (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The MoS for Biographies, needs to be changed. If one was born in the United Kingdom, before Irish partition (i.e. 1801 to 1922) & after the Irish partition (1922-present), then one should have British in the intro & United Kingdom in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Since there have already been multiple recent RfCs and discussions covering this ground, my proposal is to make a request for mediation over the general question of Irish v. British v. Anglo-Irish. Would anyone object to me doing that? --FormerIP (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Agree, no objections. 109.77.41.89 (talk) 09:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay confuses a state with a nation. By that logic, nobody born in Hesse before 1801 may be caled "German"; he must be called Hessian. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

To FormerIP - I wouldn't think that would help on Irish articles. The current situation there works fine and we don't need a mediation request to satisfy a couple of objections that have no substantial body of opinion behind them. On British articles, feel free, but leave the Irish ones out of it please. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I find it a bit hard to make sense of that, Og. Since the disputes are about whether the subjects of various articles are Irish or British, it would be hard to identify the ones that actually are British and just deal with those. As well as pointless. The purpose of meditation is not to satisfy objections, but to try to reach a conclusion to prevent the same disputes occurring time and again. --FormerIP (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I think there is general consensus, with only a couple of objectors, that people from pre-1921 Ireland and from post-1921 independent Ireland should be described as Irish, regardless of when they were born. Whether British people should be described as British or as English, Scottish or Welsh is another question and if you feel a mediation request would be useful in that regard, I have no objection - I haven't followed that question. As for individual cases, where someone was born in one country and lived and worked mainly in another, such as C.S. Lewis, I don't think such disputes are confined to British and Irish people, and I think they will always have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis with due regard to the person's self-identification and the descriptions available in reliable sources, so I'm not sure that there's much call for mediation on that as a broad topic either, and if there is, it should be WP:BIOG-wide, not just confined to British and Irish biographies. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hesse is not a good example because it was sovereign until 1871 (or 1918), and is Hessen in German but Hesse in local dialect... Before 1801 you had subjects of the Kingdom of Ireland in terms of a state, and everyone would have called them Irish for that reason. Anglo-Irish people could slip between both islands easier than the rest of us. Between 1801 and 1922, even despite the union, there was still a viceroy, a chief secretary and a separate body of Irish law which was not described as British or UK law. Lots of grey areas. Have a look at Talk:Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington for a good row on that.Red Hurley (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It must be time for the trolling to end soon? Anyone working on a RFC? Any proposal that, if adopted (which would never happen), would result in ludicrous outcomes such as the lead of Patrick Pearse reading "was a British teacher, barrister, poet, writer, nationalist and political activist who was one of the leaders of the Easter Rising in 1916" cannot be seen as anything but disruption. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Good point, common sense must prevail.Red Hurley (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Anglo-Irish shouldn't be used unless it can be verifiably sourced in my opinion. Also common sense should prevail such as stating Irish for nationalists and republicans such as Patrick Pearse and Oscar Wilde, whilst we should use British for the unionists and others who can be easily regarded as British such as the Duke of Wellington and Edward Carson. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Your logic Mabuska, I regret to inform you, is completely flawed. Sheodred (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Agree with Sheodred's proposal regarding Anglo-Irish. It has been an annoyance of mine too for the same reasons. In my view, it is part of a broad habit of attempting to "claim" the subject of articles (in modern terms). All of these people were either Irish or English or British. Anglo-Irish is just "a Protestant with a horse". --RA (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I also found the use 'not right'. The clarification is well expressed above. RashersTierney (talk) 11:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support, and I would describe all 4 of Mabuska's examples as Irish - they did of course have very different visions of what was good for Ireland.Red Hurley (talk) 13:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

  Well said. - benzband (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

  Agree also with Red Hurly, particularly in sentiment. However, in the case of the Duke of Wellington, as a prime minister of the United Kingdom, should be given as a British politician. As I understand it (though this is uncodified), common practice is to give for office holders of the central government of the UK as British rather than English, Irish / Northern Irish, Scottish or Welsh, in contrast to other people from the UK. That also seems sensible to me. --RA (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Opposed. This has already been discussed at the following two pages during the last two weeks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Infobox_of_people_born_on_the_island_of_Ireland.2C_in_the_United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles#Anglo-Irish As discussed at those pages, for any biography of an Anglo-Irish individual, a hard and fast rule could not be used and each must be judged and guided through the article's talk page for that individual. And for many 19th century individuals who could be labelled as "Anglo-Irish" it is better to speak of them as "British". Seanwal111111 (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

"And for many 19th century individuals who could be labelled as "Anglo-Irish" it is better to speak of them as "British". Your statement reeks of your political aspirations for Irish bios. Do tell us why its "better to speak of them as "British". Sheodred (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I already said why, in a half a dozen different places in the discussion at the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles#Anglo-Irish . This page we're on right here is not the place to carry on that debate, simply because that page became the place. Here's one short comment I'll copy-and-paste from that page. But please don't take it as an invitation to debate on this page; that page is the place for it. However, obviously, what you're talking about now is not the "Anglo-Irish" question; it's the "British" versus "Irish" question. If you were to take the initiative to start a new discussion on a clean page about that question, I would contribute to the discussion.

The 19th century people such as Tyndall and Hamilton were called British and were also called Irish (and, less often, Anglo-Irish). Such people were opposed to a nation of Ireland (Irish nationalism); they supported a nation of the British Isles (UK unionism). They belonged to the nation of the British Isles in the spirit and the practice of their daily lives. They were self-consciously British, and none would deny that they were living in Ireland. They were also legally British; there was no Irish sovereign state. Labeling them "Irish" is in defiance of the reality of their Britishness (while labelling them "British" is not in defiance of the reality that they lived on the island of Ireland -- in case you missed it earlier see http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2008/Community_Relations/NINATID.html ). Seanwal111111 (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Irish bios? What runs that.. PC or Mac? Seanwal111111 needs to learn the difference between nationality and heritage - a man born in Ireland pre-Acts of Union 1800 is Irish, because it wasn't a part of Britain for them to be "British" - even if his family came from the Protestant Ascendancy, which makes him Anglo-Irish. Ooh, exactly like Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, well bless my soul! And Sheodred, you would do better to acknowledge the difference between nationality and heritage too, because you have a definite pro-paddy COI about everything you edit, nearly always aimed at adding in "Irish" and removing "British" and "Anglo-Irish" references. You just can't seem to accept that they are different things, and your nationalistic attitude won't work on Wiki, because it is not neutral. And editors who continually go against NPOV will simply fond themselves reverted to death, until they get sick and quit, or get blocked for disruption. In the end, being neutral is easier.. and less detrimental to your character. No one likes POV-pushers. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat o RFF]} 00:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not remove Anglo-Irish or British references to individuals, only if they are in the lede when we are describing an Irish figure, when editors, the vast majority, are like Seanwa1111111 who will erase any mention of Irish, and try to dilute that in an attempt to placate editors with comments like Labeling them "Irish" is in defiance of the reality of their Britishness (while labelling them "British" is not in defiance of the reality that they lived on the island of Ireland See how he refuses to call it Ireland, but the "island of Ireland" (partition only occurred in 1922), that calling people Irish is not true because they were British, but its ok to call them British because their Irish identity is included when we name Ireland? These are the kind of editors that invade Irish bios and erase all mention of them being Irish. Sheodred (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The lead, the main body - it's all the same to me. Removing it from the lead but not reasserting it into the context of the main prose. Nothing in policy supports any need for that - even your interpretation of the nationality/sexuality is wrong, and FYI your edit summaries saying "MOS dictates" - MOS dictates nothing, MOS is a set of guidelines in styling, not policies. You're using false claims and weasel words to justify your edits, which are not neutrally managed. You throw all Irish people in the same basket, "Irish" with no consideration of the period they lived in or socio-economic position relating to the use of ethnical terms such as "Anglo-Irish" which is not a pro-English word, it is a description that says something about their heritage. You also throw all British editors in the same basket, accusing them all of POV editing, anti-Irish remarks which are only in your mind: Ireland is an island. So is Britain. So what's your point? He's probably saying the "island of Ireland" to not confuse today's Ireland, which is divided, with the Kingdom of Ireland which was not until 1922. So there's really no excuse for your WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude in the manner, all across Wiki. By throwing all British editors, including me with no anti-Irish views, I write from a purely historic POV with references (something your edits often fail to respect), you simply alienate yourself, appear disruptive and create an aura of distrust. You underline that distrust by making edits to articles based on false MOS policies, by making proposals that are non-NPOV in whispered circles and by disregarding the wider Wiki community in the attempt. Personally I prefer the all or nothing approach.. by referring to people as British or Irish, whatever the case may be, and also noting their Anglo-Irish background thereafter. Nationality gets precedence, in sentence order. but it does not replace important background information. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat o RFF]} 20:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Ernest Shackleton

Am I in the wrong here, did I make the right edit here regarding Ernest Shackleton's infoxbox? I did not want to disrupt the lede, because there was consensus (how?) for Anglo-Irish to be there in place of his Irish nationality. Anglo-Irish is not a nationality right, but why is this happening on so many articles? Sheodred (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

In 1874, there was no such thing in law as Irish nationality (nor Anglo-Irish for that matter). Nevertheless, many people from that era identified themselves as Irish and would have been insulted to be called British. Have you any evidence how Shackleton idetified himself? --Red King (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC) See also #Place of birth for people 1801--1922: UK or Ireland? above. --Red King (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are some sources: http://uwpress.wisc.edu/books/2445.htm and http://www.jamescairdsociety.com/index.php, some of a few. Sheodred (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal at manual of style

Discussion has been opened here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles#Anglo-Irish. Sheodred (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I've also made a concrete proposal for an addition to the manual of style in relation to this question and related issues. --RA (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Source of article : Wikipedia