Jump to content

Talk:Arthur O'Sullivan

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

Appropriateness of 'British' categories

[edit]

Setanta, I would like to discuss your recent edits to Arthur O'Sullivan. You contend that, because he was born in pre-independence Ireland, he should be labelled as British. This may be technically correct but has far wider implications. Do you intend similarly editing articles whose subjects were born before 1922 in what is now the Irish Republic? For instance, Patrick Pearse or Jack Lynch to name but two examples? Without knowing Arthur O'Sullivan's politics, I think it unwise and a little perverse to label him British. However, I am happy to refer this matter to a third-party adjudicator if such a thing is possible within Wikipedia. Jim Bruce (talk) 07:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim. I don't see that it has any "implications". I have made many changes to articles, through the course of my being an editor, in a similar manner. I'm convinced that I intend to keep doing so. The fact is that O'Sullivan was both British and Irish. I fail to see any reason he shouldn't be listed under both category branches. Normally problem resolving in Wikipedia follows the steps of discussion, then a feel for some kind of consensus. This seems pretty cut and dried to me though. --Setanta747 (talk) 08:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Setanta. "The fact is that O'Sullivan was both British and Irish." At one stage Ireland was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, but it was never part of Britain itself, which is the island incorporating Scotland, England, and Wales. Therefore to label as British someone born in Ireland, either before or after independence, is I believe incorrect. Have a look here for an historical perspective. This is far from cut and dried but I suggest that the weight of historical evidence does not support your edits. I hope you agree. Jim Bruce (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite familiar with the sub-national entities on Great Britain. The location of the islands Britain or Ireland has nothing to do with it. For example, people born on Hawaii, situated 2,000 or so miles from North America and the United States mainland, are US citizens: it doesn't have to be physically connected to the larger landmass in order that the residents are American.
As for your assertion that "to label as British someone born in Ireland, either before or after independence, is I believe incorrect", let me just inform you that I was born in Ireland, after the Free State's secession, and I am British.
Again, I'm familiar with the history of the British Isles. While the article section you pointed to doesn't seem to assert your position, I should point out to you that Wikipedia is not a source.
Historical evidence suggests that the people of the United Kingdom were British. Further to this, anyone born in the Irish Free State or Republic of Ireland prior to 1949 did not automatically lose their British subject status upon the acquiring of a new national identity (ie Citizenship of the Republic of Ireland). O'Sullivan, however, was born before 1922 - in the United Kingdom.
Again, I see no reason why the actor should not be included in both (sets of) categories. --Setanta747 (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Historical evidence suggests that the people of the United Kingdom were British." I would love to see any reliable evidence to support this assertion, seeing as you won't accept Wikipedia's reliability on the matter. You seem to regard the terms 'United Kingdom' and 'Britain' as synonymous when clearly they are not. "For example, people born on Hawaii, situated 2,000 or so miles from North America and the United States mainland, are US citizens." This is indisputable but Hawaii is part of a country called the United States of America - not the 'United States of America and Hawaii'. Ireland was part of what was called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Scotland, Wales and England were and are the constituent countries of Britain. Ireland never was, hence the term United Kingdom etc. Under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, a person from Northern Ireland can choose to designate him or herself as Irish or British or both. This may well be a unique situation in the world, I don't know. I don't know either how Arthur O'Sullivan would have described himself. But all the article states is that he was born in Ireland and to label him as British when he was not born in Britain is just plain wrong. I would not normally labour a point like this over such an unimportant article. However, as I stated previously, your edits potentially carry significant implications for many other Irish-related Wikipedia articles and, for that reason, I am copying our discussion to Talk:Arthur O'Sullivan where perhaps some other editor will raise the matter with you in the future. Jim Bruce (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I would love to see any reliable evidence to support this assertion" - the whole of the island was a part of the United Kingdom at the time of the actor's birth.
"You seem to regard the terms 'United Kingdom' and 'Britain' as synonymous when clearly they are not." On the contrary - I have tried to point out to you that Britain and the United Kingdom are not synonymous ("The location of the islands Britain or Ireland has nothing to do with it."). On the other hand, you asserted, "[Ireland] was never part of Britain".
"This is indisputable but Hawaii is part of a country called the United States of America - not the 'United States of America and Hawaii'." Eh? That's correct. The territory includes some 50 states I believe. The territory of the United Kingdom includes four states, which are described in the country's full name. "Scotland, Wales and England were and are the constituent countries of Britain. Ireland never was"... Yes - those three territories are, and were, on the island of Britain. What's your point?
"Under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, a person from Northern Ireland can choose to designate him or herself as Irish or British or both." The actor of this article died well before negotiations started on the Belfast Agreement. The article suggests that people can choose to describe themselves as either British or Irish or both, as you point out. This doesn't have any bearing on 1912, however. Nor, in fact, does it negate the fact that anyone born in Northern Ireland, to Northern Irish parents, are British by default. It has no relevance to this actor though.
"I don't know either how Arthur O'Sullivan would have described himself." He could have described himself as Chinese or as a Martian. However, being born in the United Kingdom, he was British and Irish.
"But all the article states is that he was born in Ireland" - which in 1912, was part of the United Kingdom... "and to label him as British when he was not born in Britain is just plain wrong." again, as I tried to tell you earlier, one does not have to have been born on the island of Britain to be British. Britain only refers to that (largest) part of the United Kingdom.
"I am copying our discussion to Talk:Arthur O'Sullivan where perhaps some other editor will raise the matter with you in the future." I actually considered doing that myself. You beat me to it! Unfortunately, I think there may be some others who hold the erroneous view that you have to be born on Britain to be British. Hopefully sense and logic will prevail, of course. --Setanta747 (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion copied from User talk:Setanta747.

"seeing as you won't accept Wikipedia's reliability on the matter" - I have no opinion on the British/Irish issue, but I feel that I should point out that Setanta747 is correct that Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for supporting the inclusion or exclusion of material within Wikipedia. Per the policies on Verifiability and Reliable sources, Wikipedia cannot be its own source. The position of each side of an argument needs to be supported by independent sources. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arthur_O%27Sullivan&oldid=1202552671"