Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Citing Oireachtas debates

I've noticed that Template:Cite web doesn't really suit - is there one that can be adapted, one that can be used straight away or is there another approach?Autarch (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

We could make our own. What sort of information and formatting would be needed? Is the referencing standard across parliamentary debates in other assemblies/parliaments (e.g. UK, Scotland, NI, EU parliament, USA, etc.). --RA (talk) 08:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
There is {{Cite Hansard}} jnestorius(talk) 12:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Not quite on topic, but I know that in the past links to this site dis not always return expected page. Have they managed to resolve this issue? RashersTierney (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The workaround is to hit the "previous"/"next" link, and then the "next"/"previous" link, which will link to the stable URL. The Search URL format is
While the stable format is
There's a similar search-URL vs stable-URL problem and workaround with irishstatutebook.ie. Which leads me to another issue; see next section. jnestorius(talk) 12:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Linking to statutes and bills

The statutes are given at both http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ and http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/oireachtasbusiness/billslegislation/acts/ as well as often at various departmental websites. For references, I prefer to link to irishstatutebook for Acts and Stautory Instruments as passed, since the URLs are simpler and the layout is clearer. Howwever, http://www.oireachtas.ie/ViewDoc.asp?DocId=-1&CatID=59&m=b is more comprehensive: it includes a page for all bills since 1997, including those never enacted; the relevant page has links to all Oireachtas debates, amendements, etc. Therefore the latter is appropriate as the (first) External link in an article about the relevant bill/act. For example Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2008 (Ireland) links to http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=8981&&CatID=59&StartDate=01%20January%202008&OrderAscending=0 jnestorius(talk) 12:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Slight change

I changed what can only assume it was an oversight in the first place. If the Ulster Banner has no official status post-1973 it also has no official status pre-1953. While usage of the flag individual articles may be appropriate, I do not believe a blanket guideline permitting pre-1953 use of the flag is correct. O Fenian (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree the flag has a very limited use and was never official in 21. Mo ainm~Talk 21:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I disagree, this source from the Ulster Banner page says it was always entitled to use the coat of arms on a banner and the right was only used for the coronation but the design was still there. Before we change anything or not, I'd like to hear what others have to say. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Well done on proving the change correct! "This right was exercised for the Coronation in 1953 and assent was given for the use of such a flag, known as the "Ulster Banner", on festive occasions". Since there are seemingly no objections, I will make the necessary change in due course. O Fenian (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Thaks for the link C of E it proves that what you reverted twice is incorrect. Mo ainm~Talk 21:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
That is only 1 of the 3 sources that were there on the Ulster Banner page mentioning the flag. Look them up before jumping to conclusions. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Er, no. You either provide sources showing Northern Ireland used the Ulster Banner as its official flag prior to 1953, or this guideline is being changed to reflect reality. O Fenian (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah a source that the UB was the official flag since 1921 would help. Mo ainm~Talk 21:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Well allow me to answer that with the reason why they had 1922 in there in the previous discussion the 1922 proposed by (what I gather is an Irish wikipedian) and accepted so I'd go with their original assumption being correct. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Since there are no sources, there are no valid objections. O Fenian (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
There's this. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
That is a blog. O Fenian (talk) 11:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
O'Fenian, it may be an error (you have not provided a source) but was not an oversight. The arms, and right to bear them as a banner, were granted to the Government of Northern Ireland in 1924:

"The Government of Northern Ireland had introduced its own flag in 1924. This was an Anglicized version of the Ulster Flag, an ancient standard of the O'Neills … Following the declaration of the Irish Freen State and partition in 1922, this design was reworked into a cross of St. George on which beneath a crown the red hand appeared on a six-pointed star, signifying the six counties. This Ulster flag was abandoned in 1973 when the Belfast Stormount parliament was dissolved, and since them the Union Jack has been the only official flag in Northern Ireland." - TH Eriksen, R Jenkins, Flag, nation and symbolism in Europe and America, pp. 81-82

Why 1921 rather than 1924? Because we are not pedants. The banner represented the Government of Northern Ireland, which ran from the dates mentioned. Similarly, use of other flags/banners listed correspond roughly but not exactly with start and end dates of the polities they are listed beside them.
The correct place for this kind of detail is on the article relating to the flag/emblem. The interest of readers are not benefited by hair splitting. If use in any particular circumstance is problematic then use in that circumstance can be agreed on the relevant talk. This page, as with every other MOS page, is merely a guideline. Take it with a pinch of salt. --RA (talk) 03:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
A right is not an actual flag is it? When was the right actually exercised? Was it 1921? Was it 1924? Or was it actually in 1953? So why not use 1953 instead of the inaccurate 1921? The source provided does not say the flag actually had any official status is 1924 either, and if you would like sources for 1952 see Flags of the world: with 370 flags in full colour and over 375 text drawings, F. Warne, 1969, page 56 and The complete guide to flags, William G. Crampton, 1989, page 24. If you are using the official date of 1973 for an end date, then the only appropriate date for a start date is a similar official date - 1953. Unless a compelling reason is provided, this guideline will be changed in due course. A guideline should reflect facts, not incorrect wishful thinking. O Fenian (talk) 09:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
If a source is provided that the UB was officialy used before 53 then it can be used but as stated above a right doesn't mean it was used. I had the right to vote at 18 no elections that year so it cant be said that I was a voter. Mo ainm~Talk 18:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Mo ainm.... RA provided a source that makes it clear 1924. Mabuska (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
No he did not. I suggest reading it properly. O Fenian (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Since there has been no source provided that the flag was officially introduced prior to 1953, I have changed it back to when the flag was actually official. The Government of Northern Ireland "introducing" a flag does not make it official, since it needed Royal Assent which did not happen until 1953. O Fenian (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Who said that you need Royal Assent to have an "official" flag? By your argument, the Cross of St George should not be used to represent England, and nor the Cross of St Andrew to represent Scotland (at least not until 1999). Is that your position? Mooretwin (talk) 12:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Did I say it was? O Fenian (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Use of "in the island of"

Over at Talk:Belfast there is a disagreement over the use of "in the island of" in the opening sentence - "Belfast (Irish: Béal Feirste, "mouth of the sandbars") is the capital of and the largest city in Northern Ireland and the second largest city in Ireland."

The guideline clearly only talks about the use of "island of" to differentiate between the state and island of the same name, for obvious reasons. Only an idiot Nobody would think that the capital of Northern Ireland is also in the state called Ireland.

So just for clarification, the use of "island of" is only for situations where there is actual confusion, not every time Northern Ireland happens to be mentioned? O Fenian (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

We must not automatically assume that 'everybody' can differentiate at face value, Ireland from Ireland. Also, I object to the discriptive "Only an idiot...". PS: please note that there's possible sock-puppetry occuring at that article discussion. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
You can only be offended by the use of "only an idiot" if you wish to say you believe Belfast, in addition to being the capital of Northern Ireland, is also part of the other state on the island. Do you believe that? O Fenian (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm seeking clarification for others, not me. GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Exactly, the clarification is for others, not us who who. I suggest we maintain "in the island of". Its hardly unfactual and incorrect. Mabuska (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
We are not "maintaining" anything, you will need consensus to change the guideline to broaden the scope of the usage. O Fenian (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I got the wrong impression from your opneing statement here O Fenian. I thought you where opposing its existing usage. Instead you are on about preventing its inclusion. Mabuska (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
No, I am in favour of its use as directing by the current guideline, which does not include the sentence in my post. If the guideline had meant to say 'always refer to the island as "island of Ireland"' it would hopefully say that, instead it gives instruction as to when such a description should be used. O Fenian (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The guideline is far too limited in it's scope to cover every possible scenario, and the scenario at Belfast is one of those not covered. However, even if people here want to work on additions to or rewordings of WP:IRE-IRL, this manual of style is just a collection of guidelines, not policies. When it doesn't tell us exactly what to do with a particular problem, I'd think the solution is to work something out on the relevant talk page with the spirit of these guidelines as a guide. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Lack of flexibility, isn't going to move things forward. I believe WP:IAR should be invoked at the article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Mc_Fenian, I think you need to be a bit more flexible. If you want to be considered an editor, please do not attempt to obstruct every motion that seeks to improve an articles clarity.Afterlife10 (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Many readers won't know that the state of Ireland and the island of Ireland are different. Mooretwin (talk) 09:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Are you, or anyone else, suggesting that "many readers" will not know that the capital of Northern Ireland is not part of the state of Ireland? O Fenian (talk) 11:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a clear consensus for change, and the change itself only adds clarity. I don't see why you are against this?Afterlife10 (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Afterlife, not every editor seeks clarity. Mabuska (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Question

Are people currently asserting that the guideline should be changed so that whenever Northern Ireland is mentioned in an article, then the island should be referred to as "the island of Ireland"? O Fenian (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

From what I can tell, not every British & Irish related article can be treated exactly the same. In some articles, island of Ireland wouldn't be needed & in some articles, it would be. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Well its not wrong or inaccurate O Fenian so what exactly is your problem with it? Especially if it helps clarify between the state and island for pepple who are ignoranmt of the difference? Mabuska (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

RTE

I've begun a discussion about the application of IMOS to the RTE article here. Views of all editors are welcome. Mooretwin (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Derry

NO ACTION
Notwithstanding the fact that I voted, the discussion is archived; over six weeks passed since opening, and over two of those weeks, all participants were silent. The original question posed by 86.178.52.148 was whether Londonderry could be used in one article, given that article is a discussion of UK city status and the city in question is called Londonderry by its UK-issued charter. The !voting went 11 for allowing Londonderry, 12 to use the current consensus Derry and 1 to use Derry/Londonderry. That and the tenor of discussion points to continued use of Derry for the city and Londonderry for the county. In my view, WP:IECOLL is the venue where the overarching "Stroke City" discussion should be. There is the best place to have both sides firm up what they can about the old debate. So, I'm archiving this particular thread, and suggesting maybe a notice be left in the starting area of this talk page which asks that future questions about the Derry/Londonderry article naming topic should always be voted on at IECOLL first. Not an admin, not a wannabe admin, I'm only hoping to gracefully end this now and with all others work toward a stronger, cooperative agreement going forward. Thanks. Sswonk (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request from thread starter

Could anyone who feels strongly and who hasn't done so please take a look at Talk:City status in the United Kingdom as this interests me more, cheers 86.178.52.148 (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

And back to the original thread now

We need a proper agreement on Derry - the current one ([1]) is pretty rubbish.

My soul view is in articles where official status is needed, we should call it Londonderry. If anyone particularly cares I'd say in other articles Derry makes more sense as it's the more common phrase.

But this is really more a question for Irish editors. Thoughts? 86.178.52.148 (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Self-proclaimed Irish editors don't have the final say. But it's thoughtful of you, to primarily seek their opinon. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


  • Londonderry is the proper name of the city so that should really be used. To avoid confusion it should always say.. "Londonderry" for the city and "County Londonderry" for the county. That would be the best option although i cant see there being enough support to change the current setup. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Londonderry is the legally correct name for the city and county. Decisions on Wikipedia shouldn't be made on the purpose of trying to avoid displeasing a few editors, but to improve/maintain an factual encyclopaedia. --George2001hi 20:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Well the official name is Londonderry, unfortunately there seems to be a number of User accounts intent on removing anything British, Northern Ireland related and have opted for use of slang. The IMOS is a guideline for all articles relating to Ireland, so I see no reason why Londonderry can not be used in all other situations outside of that eg. Cities of United Kingdom WP.Afterlife10 (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Derry N.B. the unregistered IP knows his/her way around Wikipedia a bit too well. Sock? --NorthernCounties (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
    I'm not seeing any evidence of that; they were apparently unaware of WP:CANVAS, and posted messages in a way which added talk pages to Category:Wikipedians looking for help, thus alerting IRC to the canvassing, which is how I found it. It seems unlikely that someone who knew their way around wikipedia so well would make a mistake like that. They also quickly complied when I told them why it was canvassing and asked them to self-revert the ones I hadn't yet reverted myself. Granted whatever the result, canvassing did take place so it may be difficult to interpret consensus here, but I believe the IP acted in good faith. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I wish I had an egg timer.Afterlife10 (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Would those who have chosen Derry, like to actual give a reason for choosing it? Asarlaí, from what I gather and seen, this has been discussed a 1000 times over on various talk pages. Calling the city Derry is not neutral. Derry City was destroyed during the siege. A city called Londonderry was subsequently built on the opposing bank of the foyle. The County was never called Derry, not in the history of Ireland so to call the City - Derry and the County - Londonderry is not a compromise. From what I have read the Council is called 'Derry City Council' and the City is called Londonderry. This compromise was agreed by politically elected representatives of the council. This is as neutral a decision that can be found. Sorry for the ramble and the history lesson.Afterlife10 (talk) 11:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Afterlife10, Derry is the common name. A simple search of "Derry" on Google provides over 6,900,000 results. As opposed to a search of "Londonderry" which provides only in the region of 4,800,000. Furthermore, please do not discredit the lenghtly discussions that have gone on for years to provide a NPOV conclusion. There has only ever been the usual handful of people that are unhappy with this and make that comment on it when discussions arise... and rightly so. And then every once and a while a sock of Maiden City appears, his last incarnation being Factocop. Who makes a storm in a tea cup. So sorry if you wish you had an Egg Timer, when an unregistered IP appears on the scene with a very indepth knowledge of how to navigate through Wikipedia. --NorthernCounties (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Derry is the common name in certain circles. I doubt the editors of the Londonderry Sentinal would agree. Its no surprise that Derry is more common on the internet as the name Londonderry has steadily been picked away at over the years with discussions like this. This topic originally spawned from 'Cities of the UK' WP where Londonderry should be used especially in regards to UK WP as it is the cities official name. I am happy to go with the city's elected representatives and call the City Londonderry and the Council - Derry City Council. Can you think of a more neutral way? Ill start my egg timer now as I suspect a couple of other User accounts I anticipate will join to support you.Afterlife10 (talk) 12:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Derry is by far the most common name where it counts - in the city itself. Most of the citizens and their elected representatives call their city Derry. But of course I assume everyone here already knew that since this discussion has been done to death. ~Asarlaí 19:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Well obviously not as the city's politicians only chose to rename the Council and not the city. But of course I assume everyone here already knew that.Afterlife10 (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Londonderry - Quite simply it's the correct, standard name used by English speakers. The Irish are being almost as pathetic about this as scousers are about hillesborough and so on. 109.154.26.170 (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
And you would be? Also, less of the racist comments... it only serves to invalidate your argument. --NorthernCounties (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC) — 109.154.26.170 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
NC, there is no need for that comment. I suggest you scratch it.Afterlife10 (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
So I guess you'd believe the previous comment is acceptable? --NorthernCounties (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can see it appears to be the same account users that are against the change as well.I am happy to go with the city's elected representatives and call the City Londonderry and the Council - Derry City Council. Can you think of a more neutral way?Afterlife10 (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Not a question of neutrality. There is no "neutral" between two opposing viewpoints, only compromise and consensus. The compromise we have continues to have consensus. Scolaire (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The county I believe is a simple matter, it should be County Londonderry (however County Derry is used for the GAA that covers that county, but not for the county itself.) This is due to County Londonderry having been made in the 1600s, and there never having been a County Derry in Ireland's history.
The city is murkier. The current consensus has assisted in avoiding many edit wars and disruptive editing. Yes the charter name is Londonderry, however the council calls themselves Derry, and refers to the city as Derry, as do the majority of the residents. Even the NI Executive seems to be split on what they refer to it as. All things considered, I'd leave it as it is. Canterbury Tail talk 14:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The Council is called Derry City Council, but the city is called Londonderry. I did a search for Derry City Council in google. http://www.google.co.uk/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=derry+city#hl=en&expIds=25657,27955,28060,28214&xhr=t&q=derry+city+council&cp=11&pf=p&sclient=psy&source=hp&aq=0&aqi=&aql=&oq=derry+city+&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=1cccc688c869882c - The opening line says Londonderry.
I am happy to go with the city's elected representatives and call the City Londonderry and the Council - Derry City Council. Can you think of a more neutral way?
Just a side point, but it is ironic that the GAA will not acknowledge Londonderry as the name of the county as it was named by the British so they call it Derry, but it was the British that divided Ireland into its current County divisions.Afterlife10 (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
SarekofVulcan, all you have proved here is that the Council is called Derry City Council. And you source isnt too reliable either. Just google 'Derry City Council'. Actual i'll do it for you. Here you go - http://www.google.co.uk/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Derry+City+Council. Now read what it says - The City of Londonderry, also known as Derry....Afterlife10 (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Derry for the city, Londonderry for the county. Far from being "rubbish", this arrangement appears to be rather sensible and is one of the view that most editors can work collaboratively around. Rockpocket 14:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Londonderry - Londonderry is the only official name of the city. Derry is unofficial and is equally as politically loaded as Londonderry if not more so. To rebuke SarekOfVulcan and any other misinformed editors Derry City Council is a name that only applies to the council, it doesn't affect the actual name of the city - a fact declared by the UK courts last year in regards to Londonderry. So the council is officially known as Derry City Council, however the city itself though is not.
There are editors who oppose the official name of the city due to their personal agendas who are happily willing to use the "official" arguement to enforce the official name of the Republic of Ireland on Wikipedia. Cherry-picking when "official" suits is pure hypocrisy from those that do it.
I'd happily accept we use "Derry City" when the council is being stated as that is all that it is actually official for. Mabuska (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I just want to state one thing. A number of times, it has been implied that those who are in the know, support the article being called Derry for personal reasons/agendas. I guess one of these editors that should infer this, is myself. I would like to point out however, that not only myself but other editors who support the naming of the City article being "Derry" actively revert any vandalism against "County Londonderry". Further to this we do not contest the naming of the County on Wiki, and create pointless arguements. In it's current situation, Derry for the City and Londonderry for the County, gives status to both names, and is as neutral as possible on Wiki. I would finally like to say, I'm not some Sinn Fein stanced, British hating, xenophobic indepenence fighter. --NorthernCounties (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate that you do monitor the County Londonderry WP but its content is not disputable as the County has never been called Derry. So that fact that page mentions Derry as the county name is generous really. So it can not really be used as currency in a compromise. The argument really is that Londonderry should get as much coverage as Derry and the fact that the IMOS says that Londonderry can not be used as the City name is not really a compromise now, is it?Afterlife10 (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
"There are editors" doesn't equate to every Tom, Dick, and Harry. Also no-one as far as i read have called you a "Sinn Fein stanced, British hating, xenophobic indepenence fighter", and i definately didn't infer that you where. Mabuska (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I know you didn't say that, and I didn't say that you implied that either. I was just putting it out there. I believe I'm an editor that acts as unbiased as humanly possible, who doesn't create these pointless discussions which tend to end up with firely clashes between editors. Which I can be guilty of aswell. But I do comment when someone continues to flog the dead horse, as someone put it earlier. Anyway. That's my input to the topic at hand. --NorthernCounties (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The problem of comment indentation lol Mabuska (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Derry for the city, Londonderry for the county per WP:COMMONNAME. Media sources contain both but this appears to be the name used by the majority of those who live there including the democratically elected council. Mabuska is right that there are a number of editors who argue for Ireland as the name of the state on "official name" grounds but are inconsistent in failing to apply the same logic to the Derry naming issue, however the flip side of that is also true. There are editors who argue for Republic of Ireland despite that not being the official name but simultaneously argue for Londonderry on official name grounds. Derry City/Londonderry County is a longstanding practice here which has prevented numerous edit wars and I see no good reason to change it. Valenciano (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Londonderry should be the accepted name of the settlement on Wikipedia. Common usage has its place, as with "Hull" as opposed to "Kingston-upon-Hull", but the term "Londonderry" could not be said to be rarely used, as in that case. Where two usages are widespread elsewhere, the official name of the settlement tends to prevail, as with "Mumbai", which is also commonly called "Bombay", including by many of its inhabitants. The settlement has been found by a Court having been approached by the City Council to be still called "Londonderry", even though the City Council is now called "Derry City Council". But whatever is finally agreed on in the Manual of Style should be observed, whether or not the rest of the article concerns other parts of the United Kingdom as in City status in the United Kingdom!GSTQ (talk) 09:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Derry is the common name and used by most people in the city itself never mind elsewhere. It is sad that this become a partisan issue during the troubles. Wikipedia uses common names not official names in the main and we should follow the article naming policy. The article says the official name is Londonderry and there aren't many other places that require an official name. I think though where people talk about it we should defer to what the person says if cited only to them even if not in quotes, and historical uses should follow the main sources for the period being talked about. Dmcq (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - I find it wierd how a mediation was agreed a long while back where IRA members can be called volunteer or member in an article but we can't call the city Derry and Londonderry in an article. Why don't we follow the BBC's example? Call the first instance of it Londonderry and then every other instance in the article we call it Derry. Thats their way of doing it. Mabuska (talk) 15:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
We could just call it Stroke City. :) Dmcq (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Isn't it not already the stroke (heart wise) capital of the UK? If i'm right the name Stroke Cit fits in more than one way. Mabuska (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
So what do you think of my suggestion above we go by the weight of reliable sources in references? That would mean most biographies for instance could be written with the more obvious wording - and it would encourage people to find good citations. I think this would cut down the friction quite a bit. We could also do the business about language that if the citations have no clear leaning the original editor sets the style and only a clear consensus of editors can change that. This wouldn't affect the main articles about the city but it would stop the police harassing people so much. Dmcq (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Well there is the option that we have 2 copies of the article, 1 for those who want Londonderry and 1 who for those who prefer the current version. That way everybodies happy. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
That is not an option, it would be a point of view fork which is expressly disallowed. What I'm more concerned about though is all the references to the city, they should have the freedom to refer to it by either name depending on the main citations or use. It is ridiculous having somebody using a citation saying somebody came from Londonderry having to put Derry into the article when there's no mention of Derry elsewhere in the article or in the citations. Dmcq (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Dmcq, I've replied to your suggestion ("they should have the freedom to refer to it by either name depending on the citations") below (see here). ~Asarlaí 21:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Londonderry - Londonderry is the official name of both the city and the county. There is no reason whatsoever why a short or colloqial name should be allowed to be used on an encyclopaedic article to this extent - afterall the fact that the city is called Derry by the nationalist community is heavily emphasised in the article anyway. Also, I have to question the opinion that Derry is the more popular term without further statistics or evidence - I have never seen any evidence of it. (Also, see Howard Alexander's reason, which I also agree with.) ★KEYS767★ talk 16:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
This is aimed at those whose only argument is the "officialness" of Londonderry ... On Wikipedia and in the English-speaking media, most sovereign states (for example) are referred to by their common name, not their official name (see list of alternative country names). For example, South Korea is officially named the Republic of Korea and North Korea is officially named the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. It seems hypocritical, then, to demand that Derry always be referred to by its less common official name. Just something to think about. ~Asarlaí 17:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Very valid point, but I'm sticking to my 'vote' on the ground of officialness - if I could vote on the North Korea or South Korea issues, I would certainly be voting for the full official name in each case, in response to your examples (except in the case that the full name is a bit long for a title, a bit like "United Kingdom" -> "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" etc.).
Also, I have still to see any solid references for Derry being the more common name. Does anyone have any sources they could direct me to, just out of interest? Thanks :) ★KEYS767★ talk 19:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it's a bit off-point to try to ascertain which is the more common name used (except to source the claim in the article). The point is that they are both commonly used (which is one difference from the Korean example), and to determine which of the two commonly-used names ought to be the accepted name on Wikipedia. I quite like the C of E's suggestion, that of having two identical pages (but for the nomenclature used). This seems to reflect current policy of a number of institutions such as the driver's licence authority and the correspondence policy of government departments. Is this possible to engineer on Wikipedia? So that edits to one will also edit the other page, but the relevant occurrences of the name of the city remain unchanged?GSTQ (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
To refute Asarlai - how many of those that oppose "Londonderry" the official name, use the official excuse to try to enforce the official name of the Irish Republic on Wikipedia? (I..e Ireland instead of the equally common name Republic of Ireland). There is some double-dealing on this issue. People shouldn't cherry-pick when to use the official arguement. Mabuska (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
As I've said above, this cuts both ways. There are editors who support Republic of Ireland even though it isn't the official name but argue for Londonderry on official name ground so I don't really place a lot of weight in these arguments and I'd also be careful of them as they stray into commenting on editors and not the content. Valenciano (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Good point Valenciano never thought of it like that. Me and others are just as bad as those who favour the opposites.Mabuska (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC) What am i saying, Valenciano, the term Republic of Ireland is an official term to describe Ireland according to the Republic of Ireland Act. So i am adhered to an official arguement in both fields. Mabuska (talk) 11:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
To warn Mabuska, the naming of the Ireland related articles was fixed in a poll about a year ago and by ruling of ArbCom is not up for discussion for another year. Bringing it into the discussion could be seen as disruptive. Fmph (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Who says i want to rediscuss the naming of Ireland related articles? Can no-one use examples as comparisons anymore? Mabuska (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

On second thoughts, this will not solve the problem of where the name of the city appears in articles other than the city article. There does need to be a decision on this. Although I still think the two-articles idea is a good one and worth implementing.GSTQ (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The two copies idea does seem like a good idea, but I'm struggling to think how it could be implemented smoothly, like you said. It shouldn't be ruled out though. Maybe users clicking either Derry or Londonderry could be taken to some form of landing-page, like the Disambiguation pages, perhaps? It really shouldn't be necessary to suggest these compromises in the first place, really... ★KEYS767★ talk 15:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
No way. If anyone feels *that* strongly they should fork Wikipedia. There's a slippery slope here that shouldn't be gone down. Frankly it would be preferable to make up a new word! Egg Centric (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not allowed, see WP:POVFORK. You'd have admins down on it like a ton of bricks and quite rightly too I think. As to Derry vs Londonderry a quick Wikipedia search give about 6 million compared to 4 million, that's hardly definitive but I doubt you'd find anything reversing it. Dmcq (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I think a case of WP:IAR may come in here. It would be improving Wikipedia as we'd end this whole dispute over which name to use once and for all and would save everyone a headache of going "oh no, not this again". as for that kind of search I believe that thanks to WP:GHITS you can't use search engines to detirmine that (I'm sure Wikipedia search counts for that as well. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
It definitely wouldn't be improving Wikipedia to have two separate articles, and what it would lead to would be even worse; now, perhaps a future could be introduced at some point to allow users to toggle between their preferred term, but surely that would be a very low priority. Egg Centric (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
You could list a whole lot of similar examples where the institution uses Londonderry, so the list of those that use Derry does not decide the matter. Londonderry Port, Londonderry Chamber of Commerce, Londonderry railway station, Foyle and Londonderry College, Londonderry Sentinel. The existence of such lists serves only to show that both names are in common usage, not that the other name is not.
Nor is any of the individual examples Bjmullan has used decisive of the issue. There is a Bishop of Sandhurst, but nobody would contend that Bendigo's real name is Sandhurst. The name of the borough council of Bury St Edmunds is St Edmundsbury Borough Council. There is a Londonderry Sentinel, so the Derry Journal example is neither here nor there. There is a Calcutta Football League based in Kolkata.
To state that usage of "Derry" is not confined to the nationalist community is off-point, it is not so much where the boundaries of usage are as whether both usages are current and widespread, which they are. The question is which of the two should be the name used in the Manual of Style. We should be focussing on cogent arguments one way or the other, rather than using a scatter-gun approach.
I re-iterate my view that, in such a case where two names are both in common usage, the official name of the settlement should be preferred.GSTQ (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Bjmullan you know as well as anyone else the "Derry City Council" is only the council name and has no bearing on the actual name of the city. Also the "Bishop of Derry" isn't of the city, he's of the Diocese of Derry which is older than the city of Londonderry. No-one is argueing over the Diocese of Derry, it's never been called Londonderry. The "Derry Journal" is also a county newspaper not a city newspaper. Bad examples Bjmullan for use for the city. Mabuska (talk) 13:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone on the side of change told the (Unionist) Apprentice Boys of Derry and the Church of Ireland Bishop of Derry that they've been wrong for rather a long time? The Siege of Derry was ever thus. It has only been in the last 40 years or so that the London prefix has come back on the scene to make a political point. The common name has always been Derry because Lunnonderry is such a mouthful. --Red King (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Red King, please stick to making relevant points. It doesn't matter when the London prefix "came back on the scene" or why. What matters is that it has, and that hence there are two widely-used names for the city, and there should be a decision made as to which is to be used on Wikipedia consistently. It is irrelevant whether all Protestants or Unionists use "Londonderry" consistently and in all contexts, what is relevant is that enough people use it so that it is in common usage. And to say that "Derry" should be used because "Londonderry" is a mouthful is tantamount to saying that the article on Wangaratta should be renamed "Wang".GSTQ (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Uhh Red King the Bishop of Derry is known as that as he is bishop of the Diocese of Derry. It is not exclusive to the city - and the Church of Ireland Bishop and Diocese of Derry predate the building of Londonderry and are based on the Roman Catholic diocese's before the RC's changed theirs. I actually find Red King's comments also deceptive - "It has only been in the last 40 years or so that the London prefix has come back on the scene to make a political point.". It has always been on the scene and if it wasn't due to republicans and nationalists making such an issue about trying to force a change of the city's name then unionists wouldn't have galvanised behind the name "Londonderry". Mabuska (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Why does everything have to be a secretarian issue? Haven't you guys learned anything in the last 40 years? Egg Centric (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Frankly, I find it two-faced that a lot of the same editors arguing for "Londonderry", based on the reasoning that this is the "true and official name" are the same lot who use "Republic of Ireland" instead of the true and official name, "Ireland". Really highlights the political agenda of these so-called neutral editors. --HighKing (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
High King, that's an ad hominem argument and logically invalid. Unfortunately, this is a sectarian issue even if it once wasn't. It would be helpful, though, if we could step back from the typical sectarian "arguments" and try to talk about the issues of why the city should be referred to in Wikipedia as "Derry" rather than "Londonderry", or "Londonderry" rather than "Derry". Those for "Londonderry" are sabotaging their own efforts for change of the current status quo if they swamp good arguments with bad arguments. Similarly, those supporting maintaining the current status quo are not helping themselves by simply posting comments without any reference to the arguments that have been put for change.GSTQ (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
GSTQ, No, it's not an ad hominem attack, it's a general observation and logically true, however unpalatable. If logically invalid, could you perhaps explain why this is so given that some editors argue on the grounds of "true and official name" for one article, but reject this argument for another? I don't know about the issue being sectarian, but it does appear to be divided along those lines, in general. And I'd guess the reason for the poor turnout and interest in both the naming of Ireland and the naming of the Londonderry article debates is that those debates are old and tired, and there's enough resistance to changing the status quo to thwart any "consensus" based change. --HighKing (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

High King, ad hominem is not a type of attack, it is a species of fallacy. Follow the link. You will find that your ad hominem argument fits under the circumstantial subcategory. Your statement in your most recent post that "No, it's not an ad hominem attack, it's a general observation and logically true" is an example of a different type of fallacy called denying the antecedent. Possibly your observation is true, but this is not a valid reason to support the proposition that "Londonderry" should not be the name prescribed by the Manual of Style. It is irrelevant to resolving the argument. Your argument that I might find this unpalatable is another ad hominem argument. Finally, the suggestion that the "official name" position should lead consistently to the conclusions you have nominated both in this case and in the case of the naming of the state versus the island is a species of equivocation. To address your valid arguments:

1. I can understand why people would get tired of the debate, given the fondness of some participants to ignore the arguments of the other side and engage in scattergun tactics. I am hoping we can try to rise above this. If we do this then this will at least make the conclusion more tenable than the consensus reached some years ago, which appears to have descended into a war-weary compromise.

2. The poor turn-out demonstrates that some are tired of having the debate. It does not demonstrate that "there's enough resistance to changing the status quo". There may be (and almost certainly are) both pro-Londonderry and pro-Derry editors who are not bothering to participate. It is a Wikipedian platitude that consensus can change, and for that reason I would discourage those who confidently assume that it cannot from not bothering to participate in this debate, lest their confidence prove ill-founded.

Now, I have done you the courtesy of responding to every argument in your post. I would invite future posters to respond to arguments raised in the preceding posts in a similarly-thorough manner. That would ensure that the quality of debate is much superior to the sort that has generally gone on on this topic to date. I will now re-state my principal reason for believing "Londonderry" is the appropriate name for the settlement. The substance has not been responded to as far as I can see by anyone yet.

  • Londonderry should be the accepted name of the settlement on Wikipedia. Common usage has its place, as with "Hull" as opposed to "Kingston-upon-Hull", but the term "Londonderry" could not be said to be rarely used, as in that case. Where two usages are widespread elsewhere, the official name of the settlement tends to prevail, as with "Mumbai", which is also commonly called "Bombay", including by many of its inhabitants. The settlement has been found by a Court having jurisdiction over the city to be still called "Londonderry", after an approach from the City Council, even though the City Council is now called "Derry City Council".GSTQ (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the substance of your argument has been responded to, just not in this section of this talk page. The fact is, we have a compromise because there are valid and good arguments on both sides. The facts haven't changed in three years and neither, apparently, has the consensus - it's still 50:50. Why bother to re-state the case endlessly back and forth when the consensus for change isn't there to begin with? Scolaire (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The major problem with HighKings "2-faced" comment is that the Republic of Ireland is an official description for the Irish state, unlike "Derry" which ahs no official status at all in the UK other than in the name of the city council which has no bearing on the actual city's name. How can we be two-faced on the official arguement when Republic of Ireland is official! Mabuska (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Please, GoodDay and Mabuska, if you want to talk about the naming of the state and the island, then start another subheading and leave this one to the discussion on Derry/Londonderry.
Scolaire, I disagree, there are not equally good and valid arguments on both sides. It is easy to say "I'm pretty sure the substance of your argument has been responded to," so why can't you reproduce or summarise the response? The only good argument I can see for the retention of Derry is that of common usage, an argument which applies as well in support of changing to Londonderry. But Londonderry has one up on Derry, and that is that it is the official name of the settlement. For what reason then do you say the current consensus is the most desirable status quo? You can't cite a reason that it will avoid disagreements, either arrangement would do that or fail to do that equally. Instead of saying that there is no consensus for change, which is effectively saying you'd prefer to shut the conversation down, why don't you justify retention of Derry? I don't think you can, but please try.GSTQ (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I reckon the fact that Londonderry is the city's official name, is a darn good argument for Londonderry. GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
GTSQ, you are by far the most reasonable and most sensible of all the posters on this topic. Nobody could conceivably accuse you of having a chip on your shoulder. But, strangely, what you are doing fits the classic definition of a chip on the shoulder: you are saying, "I dare you to knock down my killer argument". But you know and I know that no matter what counter-argument anybody comes up with, you're not going to say "gee, you're right, let's do it your way". It's an invitation to a scholarly debate, where neither side is ever going to concede ground, and where there is no referee. Which is fine, and very entertaining, but it's actually not what this page is for, and I for one don't have the time to put the work in; I've enough to be doing elsewhere. You say that I am saying I'd prefer to shut the conversation down. You're quite right. It's going nowhere and it will go nowhere. I am going to show the way by quitting now, and you can call me yellow if you want to ;-) Scolaire (talk) 07:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
BTW, has anybody noticed that the starter of this Rfc (an IP) hasn't been around for quite some time? GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Derry as the City Council website URL uses derrycity.gov.uk, the logo and titles of the pages on the site also stating Derry City Council – Foo Bar for any given page. Of course by vote, it may be, as the councillors give their addresses and the UUP and DUP councillors/aldermen gladly will take mail in Londonderry, but the SDLP and Sinn Féin councillors get theirs in Derry! Still, all the email goes to derrycity.gov.uk. Sigh. Looks like it is 24-6 or 4:1 in favor of Derry among the politicians on that page. Seems like that is how the City Council website goes, too. A search of just the City Council site for "Londonderry"[2] got 192 hits (6 of them those addresses of councillors, many others the Derry~Londonderry form) while "Derry"[3] got 1530 hits. I think it would probably be wise for Wikipedia to keep using Derry. Sswonk (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes you wonder do people read some if any of the points made by anybody above. Derry City is only in reference to Derry City Council which is only the name of the council and by law and by High Court ruling does not affect the actual name of the city. They could even call it Free Derry City Council, but it doesn't mean that Londonderry is now called Free Derry never mind Derry. Is it really that hard for people to distinguish between the council name than only refers to the council from the actual name of the city? The council only adopted "Derry City Council" as it was and is the only way they'll ever get to say on official documents "Derry City". Mabuska (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes you wonder do people read some if any of the points made by anybody above. Londonderry is only 'official' in the sense of having the word 'london' tacked on the beginning of the real and common name a couple of hundred years ago by some business men, and by reality and by consensusal ruling does not affect the actual name of the article. They could even call it Free Londonderry, but it doesn't mean that Derry will stop being used by normal people in normal conversations and writings. Is it really that hard for people to distinguish between the pseudo 'official' name that only refers to the bits inside the walls, rather than the actual name of the city? The merchants only adopted "Londonderry" as it was, and the only way that most people refer to it is "Derry". Fmph (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Fmph there is no need for such mockery. Either that or immitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Though you also show your clear lack of knowledge on the city's name. You say it was the business men that named Derry Londonderry? Thought it was King James I in gratitude to the London companies. Also you state that "Londonderry" only refers to the bits inside the walls, whilst "Derry" is the actual name of the city. According to what and who? Last i looked the two city charters that Londonderry received both state that the city is called Londonderry - something that hasn't changed so its not "psuedo-official". Try to find a reliable source for that, especially from the government of the country that Londonderry belongs to. It doesn't matter whether its "bits" within the walls - it applies to the city. Can you even accept and openly admit it here for all to see that Londonderry is the only official name of the city itself in the country it is part of? (ignoring the name of the city council which only applies to it). I cna easily admit that "Derry" is a common place name for it, and Londonderry can be argued as being common as well. Both names can be common, but the city charter only states one of them as the name of the city. Mabuska (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
... eh, Mabuska, yes, there is a need for such mockery. There is a long established neutral compromise consensus that has kept the peace around here for many years. But you seem hell bent on starting a war (edit war, that is). Fmph (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
There is need for such mockery? I highly doubt such childishness is needed. I do not intend on starting an edit-war and have only been replying to the many misconceptions on what status "Derry City Council" and the likes actual have, and especially the misleading information you posted above my last comment. Some of the "Derry" proponents are basing that opinion solely on the council name, that opinion is utterly baseless as the council name has no bearing on the city. Am i starting an edit-war by doing that and pointing out the facts of the situation whereas you try to mislead? If so where have i gone and changed against consensus? You won't find a single instance of it.
What is seen as "neutral" is PoV. If it has kept the peace for so many years then why does the issue keep cropping up and why are many articles frequently having to be reverted due to someone changing the name of the city and county from consensus? Or is that another misleading comment? Mabuska (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
No need to wonder about me, I did in fact read the other points made. I was thinking that one of the points, repeated actually three times, was "I am happy to go with the city's elected representatives and call the City Londonderry" and did not seem right, given the fact that 24 out of 30 elected representatives give their mailing/street address as Derry. So, I linked to that list, official and verifiable. They obviously are not sticklers, unless of course they are unionist which sort of lays bare one of the other comments I read: "It is irrelevant whether all Protestants or Unionists use "Londonderry" consistently and in all contexts"; I would have to say that it is very relevant if true, and it probably isn't. You have a city, with a website operated by its elected officials, called Derry. You have a city, officially named Londonderry. Which of the two names is more heavily used by the elected officials? Obvious to me that it's Derry by a large margin. Except for unionist officials. So it's not irrelevant, just the opposite. To answer your question directly above, "why does the issue keep cropping up…?" …maybe because unionists are behind the cropping up? Just a hunch, I'll bet it would crop up on the derrycity.gov.uk pages itself if that site were "The City Council website any councillor can edit". The part about wisdom is what I'm driving at, if you change the article to Londonderry when 4 out of 5 elected representatives in the city itself are using Derry, don't you think that questions like this might "crop up" degrees more frequently, raised by the non-unionists and neutral observers in the audience? I did read the other points, see? Sswonk (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Not all people who want to see Londonderry used are unionists here. Look at GoodDay, a Canadian republican. Hardly someone of a unionist viewpoint - but he is constantly labelled as such cause he doesn't tow the line of other non-unionists. That is an assumption that should be got rid of straight away. And you assume that if changed neutral observers would more frequently bring it up? Based on what? Its not hard to state in the article "Londonderry is the official name of the city though Derry is a very common alternative name." Mabuska (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
@Mabuska - you will start the war (edit war that is) by blowing the proverbial whistle to announce the start. You should know that as well as anyone. You can put your head in a dark place (i.e. in the proverbial sand, and not any other proverbial place) and pretend it won't start, but you know it will. And personally, when it comes to defining 'official' i'd suggest that the name used by the CURRENT city council is far more official than some abusive portmanteau coined by a grateful medieval king to reward his brutal barons. Just my opinion though, just yours is your opinion too. Fmph (talk) 09:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Fmph your idle threats over what this or that will do fall on deaf ears. Stop trying to provoke an edit-war by building momentum that its going to happen. So the London companies are now brutal barons? Can a company be a baron? If so, what was their barony and title? Was it Baron Drapers Company of Drapersbarony?? Oh and they where so "brutal" that they kept the native Irish on the lands as tenants rather than expel then as they were suppossed to do? I'd suggest you read some Irish history books that have at least some neutral stances in them. I'd also suggest using the name of the city as defined by the city's very own charter (both of them), as constantly defined by the High Court of the country it belongs to, as defined by its very own government. At least that way we can ignore the unionists and nationalists of NI. Unless of course the High Court is a unionist controlled mafia Fmph? Or maybe its full of brutal barons... Mabuska (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Idle threats? More like warnings, I'd say. You are quite welcome to ignore them. Luckily, sensible people won't. Fmph (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I doubt the city council had much of a choice between the 2 names for themselves, due to the potential of bodily harm. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Much, much, much more likely that a majority were in favour of using "Derry City Council". As simple as that. Fmph (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Fmph, idle threats on something that hasn't happened and won't happen. I can only assume your trying to tarnish my arguements by tarnishing me with a tag that i'm going to start an edit-war which is totally unfounded. This is a talk page... we are discussing the topic at hand. If thats wrong then we should ban all talk-pages on Wikipedia!
Sswonk's suggestion (which others have touted) of going by the council is also flawed. Reasons being each councillor is only the same as us. Its their personal preference. Yes they are elected representatives of the people of the council but they are hardly elected pure and simply because they use "Derry" or "Londonderry". If so then politics up in Derry City Council are very narrow and petty. You don't think nationalists are voting for Sinn Fein/SDLP because they are nationalist parties? Does their manifestos actually state that they are standing on a "The city is called Derry" ticket? It appears that the only reason why those that back Derry want to see the consensus kept is because all the arguements for Derry fall to pieces once you explore the rationale and logic behind each one. Whats the next arguement to pick through? Mabuska (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
@Mabuska - you can pretend it won't happen all you like. The rest of us know it will. It is not totally unfounded. On the contrary, its a near certainty. Fmph (talk) 07:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
You now speak for everybody? Where did everyone else conclude it at? Mabuska (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
At the last cabal meeting. It was decided that you didn't know everything, and I spoke for everyone. Fmph (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Whatever, you've proved above you don't know very much anyways on the topic at hand with the various points you made above, several of which show a very strong PoV, i.e. "his brutal barons". Mabuska (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Derry as per WP:COMMONNAME. However I believe references to the city in other articles should be according to what occurs in the body of the main citations. Lets not have the situation where in a biography the main citation says they were born in Londonderry but the Derry name police go around saying they have to ignore the citation. Dmcq (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the name should remain as Derry, but I think your proposal will lead to chaos. One source might use Derry, another might use Londonderry, another might use Derry/Londonderry or (London)Derry. Therefore, I think Derry should always be used unless we are quoting someone/something and they use Londonderry (or another variation). ~Asarlaí 20:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The proposal whilst not the worst idea, would lead to chaos especially with conflicting sources. I still like the idea of doing what the BBC do - state Londonderry first and then every instance of it afterwards is Derry. Mabuska (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: The obvious problem with this entire discussion is that both names are non-neutral and politically-charged whether we like it or not, because of the social situation in Northern Ireland. Whatever the consensus is, there is still going to be constant conflict and countless more discussions like this one, instigated by those opposing it.
Surely Derry/Londonderry is the only viable solution? Besides being neutral, the phrase seems to be becoming more and more commonplace. Is there a specific original reason why this couldn't be chosen as the article name? I know NPOV guidelines say that using 'slash' names like this is discouraged - but that doesn't mean forbidden. So surely we should ignore all rules, if the situation arises that we have to? ★KEYS767★ talk 22:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
My reason for supporting Londonderry, isn't political. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I didn't say it was. I just said that both terms are politically-charged. ★KEYS767★ talk 00:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Cool. GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree witht that comment. Hence perhaps the MOS should be to include both terms in an article, and not to edit war over them so long as there is reasonable balance? Egg Centric (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Derry per multiple previous discussions and one of the few stable compromises (Derry for the City, Londonderry for the country). Very dubious about how this process has been kicked off, smacks of forum shopping let alone the canvassing issues and the sock question. --Snowded TALK 11:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Snowded, I think that particular issue has been put to bed. The OP was an inexperienced user who wanted to change to "Londonderry" in a specific article for a specific reason, and thought that to do that he/she had to "apply for permission", as it were, on IMOS, and advertise the fact to the maximum number of involved editors. When it was pointed out that it wasn't in fact necessary, he/she left the discussion, leaving the old warriors to re-fight the old battle.
I do think, however, that since 23 days have passed, the RfC tag should be removed, and ideally somebody neutral should be invited to formally close the discussion. It's only taking up space at this point. Scolaire (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
This Rfc was about what to show in the article City status in the United Kingdom. Perhaps a RM should be started at Derry? -- GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
If you do, why don't you just copy/paste this entire discussion into the discussion there and save everyone doubly wasting their time on endless inconclusive nonsense. Fmph (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I won't be starting an RM there, I'm (personally) not permitted to. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
But you are obviously hoping someone else will do, otherwise why raise it in the first place? You do like stirring things up GoodDay, can I recommend getting at least one other hobby. --Snowded TALK 16:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
The name of the city itself is Londonderry. That's why I wouldn't object to such an RM being opened at that article. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I think there is a very strong case based on rationale, logic and sources to show there is no valid arguement for the keeping of the consensus other than by those who know they haven't really got a leg to stand on as all their arguements fall to pieces once examined and dissected. The usual crowd will disagree naturally as they have constantly throughout the entire of above, though if a proper discussion is opened on it somewhere sometime, instead of the typical way it usually goes as it no doubt will as its inevitable as it always does - i'll provide the full list of arguements for "Derry" and how each one is a fallacy. Especially crucial as some editors are basing their opinion solely on a fallacy. Then we can let those whose opinion isn't set in unmovable mountains be able to make up their mind without basing it on misconceptions or incorrect reasoning. I'll even let you try to retort it all but i think you'll find it hard to do so. Please commence the typical lashback... Mabuska (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Well obviously of course those against you are irrational, illogical, and blind to the sources. Is your argument supposed to swing over some of these misguided individuals, or what exactly was the purpose of what you wrote? Dmcq (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Nice twisting Dmcq. I didn't call anymore irrational, illogical, or blind to sources - thats distortion of what i wrote assuming that by saying i'm going to use rationale, logic etc. that everyone else who didn't is the opposite. I also never stated misguided. I stated that the arguements for "Derry" are based on fallacies, which means literally misconceptions or incorrect reasonings, and that some editors have based their opinion solely on this. They aren't irrational illogical, or blind to sources, i never said that so don't put words into my mouth Dmcq. I stated they have a misconcpetion. Not the same Dmcq and you know it. Though it does appear very clear that no-one here has actually tried to see whether their arguements are rational or not, logical or not, etc. Where is the problem in actually applying logic and rationale etc. to each arguement Dmcq especially when its clear its not being done so? By doing that we can give those editors who aren't biased to the whole situation a chance to make up their mind without being swayed by false arguements of which there are many. Mabuska (talk) 11:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
So it's now a fallacy that the city is administered by Derry City Council, is it? Talk about bad faith ... Fmph (talk) 11:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
A typical misconception, or "fallacy", and hardly bad faith Fmph, though your mockery and sarcasm up above and "arse" are clear signs of bad faith. I even pointed out to you above how it is. Derry City Council is only the name of the council and has no bearing on the name of the city. Councils can rename themselves whatever they want, just because they renamed it "Derry City" Council doesn't mean that is has any affect on the city or gives it ay credence. The UK High Court even declared this last year in proceedings brought by the council in an attempt to get the name of the city changed. So the arguement that "Derry City Council" means the city should be or is called "Derry City" is incorrect. So unless you can overule the UK High Court Fmph, which i highly doubt, its a fallacy. Mabuska (talk) 13:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The bad faith part relates to your portrayal of your opinion as the only true opinion and everyone else's as a fallacy. I recognise that you have a valid opinion, but I don't accept it is the only valid one. My reading of your post above is that you do not recognise our opinions as being valid. Fmph (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I never said your opinions aren't valid or that mine was the only true opinion, in fact i never once stated that my opinion was the correct one never mind the only one. I'm talking about the arguements being used and how they have fallacies, not people's opinions. You have your opinion that it should be called "Derry", and that is your right and i don't deny you your right to that, however i am not challenging that, i am challenging the arguements being provided to back up those opinions. Actually i did say above and repeated several times i am on about people who are basing their opinion on this issue solely on a fallacy - but thats not meant to be in reference to you, O Fenian or anyone else firmly in the Derry camp or are involved in this discussion, but to those outside editors who pop in and give a vote basing their opinion on a misconceived arguement. I don't always make myself clear.
I'd happily take any dissection of my arguements for Londonderry, and wouldn't take it as an attack on my opinion but rather my arguements - but how else can anything be challenged unless you challenge it.
Also i think this thread has run its course as few of the many who contributed above to the "vote" probably aren't even reading it anymore or have lost interest until it kicks off again so its rather pointless argueing on here the same things over and over. Though Fmph i am more than happy to discuss, answer and retort any new arguements you can provide or scavenge from elsewhere over at my talk page. Mabuska (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I am a signatory of the WP:IECOLL membership, but have done limited editing to articles and templates related to Ireland; I think however Mabuska that you may count me among "those outside editors who pop in and give a vote basing their opinion on a misconceived arguement"? I'm certainly "outside" if by that you mean physically off the island. I have to say, you are not winning any points by continuing to assume that people are not reading or understanding your position regarding the official nature of the city charter versus the unofficial nature of the council name. I have understood your points, and disagree with not only your characterization of most who wish to see the city called Derry in Wikipedia as having a simplistic, "Derry City Council"-based rationale, but also with your belief that what the council has voted to call itself is utterly without weight. GoodDay has his Canadian republican reasons, as they are respected, that I understand. He says flatly that the official name is what should be used. He doesn't spend time pounding the table on and on about the unofficial nature of the sourced statements about the council. You however are quite obviously a very staunch, opinionated NI Unionist and like those "aldermen" or councillors who give Londonderry as their mailing address, you are opposed to the name Derry for anything official like letters in the postal realm or even unofficial but highly visible like the nomenclature on Wikipedia. That is that, and you are right, the discussion has played out. I personally think you should archive this entire section headed ==Derry==, but ask that you do so only after realizing that all of those who use the council name as an example are fully aware that it is not official, but represents, by shear force of 4 to 1 elected membership who use Derry, a strong an indication as one can find that the commonly used name of the place by people who live and vote there is Derry. I also personally could understand if Londonderry were used to title the article, if that helps you. I wouldn't agree, but I would understand, just like I wholeheartedly disagree but understand about the title Republic of Ireland. So I'm telling you that, in hopes you will realize that if you want to influence anyone, then you shouldn't assume such ignorance among those who disagree with you. Ciao. Sswonk (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Londonderry It should be called londonderry because that is the offical name of the city, I could go on and on.. Why do editors want to fool other readers into thinking something it's not. I would also ask the editor state why they think it should be called Derry based on facts and not their opinion, "It what everyone sees it as" "This is a waste of time debating about this" "It has worked for year". It clearly dosn't work if so much debate has occured about it.Cbowsie (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate venue and other concerns

In addition to the IPs canvassing with a non-neutral message in highly selective locations, there has also been canvassing of partisan editors by another editor. As such the entire discussion is already tainted. It is also in the wrong place. The first post of call should be a requested move for the article, since while it remains at Derry that is clearly how Wikipedia refers to it. O Fenian (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Eh? Firstly, I'm not wanting to move the article. I'm only interested in being able to call it Londonderry in one specific article, and have found out that means I need to change the manual of style (right?). Secondly if there was anything non neutral about either the message or the locations (I assure you they weren't selective to *me* but whatever) then that was accidental. 86.178.52.148 (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
That is clearly a non-neutral message. The discussion was tainted before it even began due to partisan canvassing. O Fenian (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Listen - to me that is perfectly neutral. It doesn't express any viewpoint at all. Could you explain why it isn't neutral? And even if it was a super duper non neutral message like "COME HERE AND VOTE DERRY" or "COME AND VOTE FOR LONDONDERRY" what difference would it make now that GM (sorry, forget his/her name as I don't speak German) has helpfully tagged this with a thing to put it in a neutral venue where hopefully plenty of people should come along? 86.178.52.148 (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, all ya needed to do was stick to the article-in-qeustion & get a consensus there for using Londonderry. The MoS isn't policy, therefore it can be ignored at the article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
So we can ignore Manuals of Style in individual articles if we like? Excellent, given that I'm out of here, I'll leave the "sensitive folk with strong feelings" (the way what ought to have been a simple discussion has gone dismays me) to argue amongst themselves 86.178.52.148 (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
If you cannot tell how that message is non-neutral, then I fear no amount of explaining from me will help. In your zeal to use a certain term, you even manage to create nonsensical passages such as "Londonderry, created a city in 1604, and renamed "Londonderry" by a subsequent charter of 1613". O Fenian (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
blah blah blah, yes it could have been written better, but the zeal is entirely yours, my friend. 86.178.52.148 (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
O Fenian i take that as a personal attack from you. I am by far a more neutral editor than you yourself have ever been and am more open to reason and common-sense than you appear to be. At least my stance is backed up by fact and rationale, and i don't cherry-pick when something suits as an arguement and when it doesn't. There is no official arguement anywhere that "Derry" is official for the city as Derry City Council is only official for the council name. How does that make me partisan when i am only declaring we use the official name of the city for the city??? Mabuska (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Also in regards to IP, there are certain editors, who you can probably guess by now, who'll ensure you don't get usage of "Londonderry" for the city no matter where it is at and for whatever reason an rationale you give. That is partisan. Mabuska (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I've already realised that, one of them seems to have been stalking me. Luckily I have a sense of humour :) 86.178.52.148 (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing neutral about naming a city what it isn't. O'Fenian is correct though, an RM should be held at Derry, since that's the core of these disputes. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Whilst that talkpage may be inappropriate, it more than likely would be referred to the Ireland collaboration. Though as this is a matter about the IMoS, is it not relevant here? As long as all the other project and article pages have a notice posted. Mabuska (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
There's an RfC going on right here right now. If there isn't a consensus for change (and it's more or less 50:50 at the moment, which means no consensus for change), then what would be the point in starting an RM? Not to mention that even the OP has said he's not trying to change the convention, he only wants to break with it on one article. Scolaire (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
For other reasons, I won't be starting an RM at Derry. But, if anybody does? I'll be there. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I personally don't see a break with convention for one article going by the last time someone requested we could for an article on some place in America where the guy wanted to use the term used by the source he was using (Londonderry by the way). After a long and heated discussion the same old crowd ensured that the IMoS convention was enforced with no exceptions whatsoever no matter what. Mabuska (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll take your word for it, but to give the fanatics their due City status in the United Kingdom has stayed with Londonderry for a day now without them trying to impose their POV on it, so I'm happy enough. 86.178.52.148 (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
More than likely someone will change it sometime, whether openly or via an IP. Mabuska (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, sometimes I wonder though that these kinds of Wikipedia policy discussion are less about improving the worlds largest online encyclopedia for the good of others and more about politics and POV pushing. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
It seems to be a sensitive topic for some on both side of the debate. Interestingly this leads to polarised opinions for the rest of us initially not-particularly-bothered editors as imo one needs to fight fire with fire. In a strange way this little foray has made me appreciate a little bit about how difficult the peace process must have been (and what an acheivement it was) - so thanks to O Fenian for that, at least. 62.189.161.120 (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This is as good a place as any for the discussion to take place. There is a link on the Derry talk page, the only other real candidate for the appropriate venue, to this talk page. By the way, the form of the link may be flippant, but I hardly think it prejudges the issue, or canvasses one group more than the other, so how is it inappropriate?GSTQ (talk) 09:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a reasonable place for the discussion. There was another discussion only a short while ago on a village pump noticeboard and there was no change, that would normally take precedence over a MOS and require it to be changed so the decision here is pretty firm. Dmcq (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Volunteer"

Right i can't remember where the way older discussion on the issue of labelling IRA members and others as volunteers or what the agreement was in the end regarding it. Can anyone point it out to me? As far as i can remember, it was agreed that its use was contentious, troublesome, and PoV - and i require confirmation of what was agreed in regards to it. Mabuska (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't point you to the discussion, but as far as I can remember the agreement was to use "volunteer" (lowercase) whenever that was the person's rank in the IRA. "Volunteer" with a capital V was only to be used in exceptional circumstances. Scolaire (talk) 08:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
There was a mediation case on it a few years ago Valenciano (talk) 08:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Looks like most of the editors you could say come from the same or similar viewpoint. I wonder is there grounds for redicussion on it? Or maybe not. Mabuska (talk) 11:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Ultimately, the use of "volunteer" as a person's rank in the IRA in any article should be reliably sourced. If it can be sourced (see for example Joseph MacManus),there is no reason it shouldn't be used. Using it on WP as a general term for "member" is perhaps more contentious, but that mediation seems to have reached a reasonable consensus. I would note, though, that many articles do not seem to follow the consensus (i.e. introduced in the lead as an IRA "member", followed by the use of "volunteer" in the main body, again see Joseph MacManus for an example). Is this because consensus has changed? If so, it could be useful to get a more contemprary feel for how we should use the term. Rockpocket 11:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I orignally asked as elsewhere i twice changed "volunteer" to "member" in the body of the text, but then wondered what was the actual agreement on the issue. So my issue on it was to do with in the article text instances. Though it appears the consensus isn't being adhered too in regards to the lede.
Obviously looking at that mediation its okay depending on circumstances or objections as long as its in the body of the article and makes sense to change it? For example if its not sourced or reads awkwardly or is out of context?
So let me see if i've got it right: All articles on IRA people must state that they are an IRA member in the lede and then state that they are a "volunteer" - as long as its sourced? Volunteer or member or whatever can be used throughout the article depending on situation and sources?
This means that the Joseph MacManus article needs edited to add "member" back into the lede followed by volunteer? Though what about Martin Savage? It states right from the off "Volunteer Martin Savage" and doesn't state member. Is this correct or is this against that concensus?
Mabuska (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd say both of those articles need to be edited. Mooretwin (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd say you have interpreted the resolution of that mediation correctly. It is quite old, though, there is a possibility the discussion has advanced since then. Rockpocket 17:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's the link. Consensus has moved on since the 4-year old mediation, John and Tyrenius are in agreement, and the articles in question have been stable for 3 years. Why alter the wording, or the discussion about the wording, now? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Because consensus can change especially after 3 years and just because two editors had changed position doesn't equate to everyone else as was quite obvious from a few editors reactions reading that link. If anything a new consensus should of been sought with all interested parties notified by ads on the appropriate WikiProject talks. For something highly contentious a new consensus should of been reached with proper discussion.
Personally i still see the mediation, seeing as it appears to have been properly discussed, as a good outcome that should be adhered to - rather than a "consensus" that is entirely one-way on a contentious issue. Also it is pretty obvious that most people who'd object to the change wouldn't even read articles on IRA men - but that doesn't mean that they should be ignored. Mabuska (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Good grief. I am barely able to understand what it is you are saying here, but I'll give it a shot.
Who is suggesting that anyone be "ignored"? Who is raising objection? What is this one-way consensus you are talking about? Look at this link and you will see that the admin who closed the mediation agrees that things have changed since then. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm basing my opinion on what i have read in that link and linked talks. In regards to "ignored", thats in relation to ONiH claim back in 2007 that "no-one has reverted it yet". I'm stating a likely reason as to why.
The admin (Tyrenius) who closed it did not state a new consensus had been formed or even point out that a proper discussion of it happened. They even stated Beyond that, I will not get involved meaning the issue hadn't been resolved properly and that they where washing their hands of it - thus killing it. A one-way consensus is where it appears that those in favour of "Volunteer" and nothing else have essentially gotten there way despite the fact there is dispute and contention over the term.
I think a new discussion should be held to see what should be the position or consensus. Mabuska (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
If you want to start a discussion, Mabuska, then you should do so. I expect it will not take long until others join in ;). I would say that, irrespective of what the 4 yr old mediation agreed, there does appear to be a relatively stable situation, which is that "volunteer" (small "v") is used throughout articles, interchangeably, with "member". Volunteer (capital "V") as a rank requires an reliable source explicitly stating that was the individual's rank (rather a general description as a member). I think its fair to say that a de facto consensus has evolved on this. But if consensus has changed, it can change again. It can't hurt to revisit the issue if enough people have a different opinon. Rockpocket 20:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I got to agree with what Rockpocket has just said. Bjmullan (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
As you said, it can't hurt to revisit an issue, and this time we could do a proper discussion on it. At least a more finite and clear outcome could be achieved and thoughts can change over years. Though it is important to ensure that all those who may have an opinion on it get to know about it via mentioning it on WikiProject pages.
From what you say Rockpocket on what you read this new "consensus" as, it is very similar to the mediation but without the need to call an IRA member a member first before volunteer. Volunteer can still be regarded as a POV term, whilst calling them a member first beforehand would be less-POV.
The capitlisation is also open to abuse. It allows for an IRA member to be called as in the Martin Savage article "Volunteer Martin Savage" with no need for a source. How? By sticking the volunteer at the start of a sentence it will always be capitalised and no source needed for the capitlisation. (Just realised this has now fallen into what Egg Centric's comment below... dang!) Mabuska (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
In fact that Martin Savage article has volunteer capitalisaed in every instance it is used, even when its use is absurd in the narration of the article. Is this part of the new consensus? Mabuska (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Its probably worth considering that there are different IRAs, and Savage was a member of a historical organization that was perhaps more military and less paramilitary (in the view of neutral third party sources). There may be an argument for treating them differently when it comes to ranks, I don't know. Rather than focus on individual articles here, I would suggest you come up with a general frame-work for how we should should use the term. Then we can invite interested parties to offer an opinion on that. Rockpocket 23:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
You see there is no clear idea on what policy there is anymore. "Volunteer" doesn't appear to be used as a rank as it quite clearly calls him an "Officer" linked to the officer rank article. Anytime any member (or members) of the IRA is mentioned in Martin Savage. For example: "One of Volunteers lobbed a grenade at him," and "on the now exposed Volunteers." We can't mistake them for meaning the Irish Volunteers as when the events these sections these examples are taken from, the Volunteers no longer existed and it was just the IRA. Mabuska (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Quote:"All articles on IRA people must state that they are an IRA member in the lede ", I don't think that is fair to say though it may hold true in most cases. If being an IRA member is one of the most notable things about a person it should be noted that they are. If something they did in service of the IRA is the particularly notable thing, that thing should be noted. But if a person has been a member of the IRA, and that fact is not particularly notable on some sort of merit, it's not neccesary to put in the lede with any more importance than it actually has. (Yes, for all we know, you could be volunteering for the IRA and doing nothing ever just want to make that point) I don't doubt that in most cases known IRA membership will be very notable but I also don't doubt that in some cases it would not, or at least, it is conceivable for IRA involvement to be less notable. Finding it hard to write this down readably just now with all these repeating words but I think the general point is clear, even if it never applies. ~ R.T.G 19:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmm i think i get the jist of what your talking about, but it always seems to be in riddles RTG. If its not notable to state certain people as members, then its less notable to state they are a volunteer then. Mabuska (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
And let me just point something out. "Volunteer" has a meaning. I have not poured over very carefully but it seems that people have not actually tried to discuss its meaning here, though there are discussing the correctness of its use at great length. Now when people do things like that and come up with the right thing, I tend to get annoyed with them. I fail to see the right thing. I see talk of "Volunteer" with a capital V being used in exceptional circumstances. Let me tell you what an exceptional circumstance is. A granted title. A given name. It is also an unexceptional circumstance because that is how we use the capitalisation. I don't want to piss anyone off here but when I go to the futurology article and read all the fancy poetics, I start to get pissed off. I want to learn. If I want to swim instead I know where the beach is. I find the word "member" equally insufficient to the word "volunteer" in describing the role of an active participant. The only difference between a member and a volunteer is that the member is accepted and may have been coerced. I'd like to give a one word solution here but I don't think that is fair. I should think that the word "participant" however, and words like it, may seem under-considered. We are told to avoid POV but in fact we should instead render it moot as much as possible. Volunteering, membership, granted titles and active participation. There is no one size fits all in that. ~ R.T.G 16:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Anymore opinions on what to do next about this issue seeing as there doesn't seem to be a policy anymore. Mabuska (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

There never was a policy. There was a consensus. The consensus apparently hasn't changed, although its application may have become more relaxed lately. I would say, if there is a specific article or articles that you feel has/have too many capitalised Volunteers in it, then change it in line with the mediation agreement. Otherwise, I don't see any need to do anything. Scolaire (talk) 09:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
All i'm really wanting to know is whether the mediation still has any effect and can be "enforced" so to speak or has it truely "moved on" as suggested by RepublicanJacobite even though their didn't really seem to be a proper discussion about it. If the mediation is still in effect i'm happy enough otherwise i suggest we readopt the mediation. Mabuska (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd just like us all to get away from the idea of "enforcing" anything, with or without scare quotes. If the majority of articles more or less follow the agreement that followed mediation then there doesn't seem to me to be any problem. There's no need to formally "readopt the mediation" (and no mechanism for doing so). What I'm suggesting is that you post to, say, Talk:Martin Savage, simply saying you're going to edit the article in accordance with the agreement, and then do so. Then you will find out whether there is an "issue" or not. I suspect there isn't. On a point of information, there was no single date, or even year, when the Volunteers became the IRA; at the time of Savage's death they would still have been commonly called the Volunteers. Scolaire (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
When i say "enforce" i don't mean the actual definition of "enforce" thats why i added quotes to it. I mean, if a far more weaker way of putting it, to implement. Mabuska (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Which is why I said "with or without scare quotes". Each individual editor can implement the agreement on any article. If that leads to an edit-war then there may need to be a centralised discussion. But I don't see the point of anticipating a war before doing the edits. You asked a question and you got a variety of responses, but nobody has said they're going to fight you tooth and nail. So why not just get on with it? Scolaire (talk) 10:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thought for the day

At least, now, in 2010 the argument is about the capitalisation of a letter. No more is it about whether the individuals in question are blood thirsty terrorist murderers or heroic martyrs who fought for freedom against tyranny. When one thinks about how far everyone has come, these little disagreements are put into perspective.

Peace,

Egg Centric (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You might want to lay off the weed a little: Its 2011, dude. Rockpocket 21:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Shit, is it that obvious :D Egg Centric (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Also we aren't arguing over the capitalisation of a letter lol. Mabuska (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
No wait Rockpocket and now me have taken it there. Mabuska (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

2 pennies

I see it must be national selective quoting month. From User talk:Tyrenius/Archive7#Volunteer, this is the full quote.

I have every sympathy with your position, Logoistic, but am genuinely inclined to think that things have shifted a bit since the mediation, which was essentially a provisional measure so the situation could be assessed more calmly over a period of time. This seems to have happened. I think "volunteer" reads OK. I noticed John had used it with lower case. Upper/lower case may or may not need further scrutiny. The IRA refer to their members with this word "volunteer", so it seems appropriate. I don't object to the usage in itself, as long as it's not trumpeted in a way that jars. Beyond that, I will not get involved, as my time on wiki is very restricted right now.

The original (and to be frank, barmy) consensus from the mediation was that leads were written "..was a member (Volunteer (Irish republican)) of the..". Let's not go back there, it looks so stupid those advocating for it can only have suspect motives. Virtually every book written uses the correct term to refer to members of the IRA - volunteers. 2 lines of K303 13:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

As pointed out above, Tyrenius virtually wipes his hands of the whole issue with his last sentence. Also not EVERY book refers to them as volunteers. Though did the idea of pipe-linking "member" to Volunteer (Irish republican) never arise? Or wording it like: "..was a member, also known as a volunteer, of the IRA". I would like to say i don't have suspect motives - the intro does have potential for trouble due to a romantic style name it gives to members of terrorist organisations. I wouldn't advocate calling UVF members volunteers pure and simple in their articles. Mabuska (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Which books do not? And since you're apparetly incapable of sourcing a single negative piece of information about unionist paramilitaries, you kind of prove my point despite your denials. Can't you be bothered improving the encyclopedia, or were you wanting to hide the truth? Or did you miss that the policy says "It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself that support such material, and cite them"? Since you claim to have books, do none of them source it? If not, then it kind of blunts your other point somewhat doesn't it since they can't be very good books in the first place? Lots of choices there for you, none of them particularly good though....

Yes it is laziness on my behalf, pure and simply because i had not the time to go all the way home from my better half's to hunt through my books when i added the tag. You do know some of us have things to do in the real world or aren't always at home in easy reach of our bookshelves? Why didn't you add a source when you put the sentence back into the article? Surely you can't chastise one person when you didn't do it yourself. All i did was add a citation needed tag for your original laziness to add a source.
Also elaborate on what your saying your sources are labelling as volunteers. Are we on about in reference to members of the Volunteers, as in "the Volunteers", or stating that indiviudally that someone's a volunteer as in "Foo McFoo, IRA volunteer"?. I have no issue with the former. Also "Which books do not?", do you have a collection that contains every single book in creation? Jonathan Bardon's "A History of Ulster" i can't find a single reference to him calling any IRA member as a volunteer. He either says commander, member, or Provisional(s), and even in describing for example page 675 - "In Belfast fewer than sixty men regarded themselves as IRA members". The only time he uses volunteers is in reference to members of the Volunteers, but not as "Volunteer Foo McFoo" of "Foo McFoo was a Volunteer". I'm guessing its books that are specifically dealing with the IRA and republicanism that call them volunteers. Mabuska (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh wait here's a book about the IRA specifically. Martin Dillon's "Killer In Clowntown" does state IRA volunteer but not in the context we're seeking: "It would not have occurred in a British court where lawyers were more adept at dealing with the strategy used by accused IRA volunteers". It sounds more or less he's on about people who are accused of having volunteered for the IRA not that they were called volunteers. I am finding it hard to find any other reference to volunteer in the book, i do see however several references to "members" though. Unless you can pinpoint exactly where in this book as you seem to suggest that you have every book? Mabuska (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this is getting away from topic and into a needless tittle-tattle. Mabuska (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

In closing i would say ONiH that your attack on my laziness to source a statement is a classic case of Ad_hominem#Abuse - trying to use something slightly connected but not exactly to prove something else. Mabuska (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Irish names for people who did not use them (Re-visited)

Regarding Naming people, recent edits by User:AjaxSmack mean that this issue will have to be-revisited; whether there should be an Irish language version of a persons name when they do not use them and are not know by them. This isssue has been discussed before here and here. User:AjaxSmack has found an apparently reliable source at the Oireachtas website, and has been adding these Irish names to Irish politicians articles, so now Bertie Ahern's intro reads: "Patrick Bartholomew "Bertie" Ahern (Irish: Pádraig Parthalán Ó hEachthairn; born 12 September 1951) ...". Ahern is not known by this name and does not use it, it is unknown if he even speaks Irish. This list may have been created by a Civil Servant or maybe the result of a questionnaire, curiously Trevor Sargent, a fluent Irish speaker, has no Irish version of his name.

From the archives, the following was added by Jnestorius on this talk page on 22 February 2008. Since it very clearly and succinctly outlines the naming issues, rather than re-invent the wheel, I'll just copy the text instead.

[Begin archive quote]
Introduction paragraph:
1. Where someone used the Irish version of his or her name but this does not enjoy widespread usage among English speakers, then use the English version when naming the article but refer to the Irish version of the name in the first line.

2. If a person has since birth been known in English by an Irish-language name, the article should be at that name and no English version of their name should be listed, even if a well-sourced version is available, as to provide it suggests the person was sometimes known by that name.

3. Some people were known by an English name in their early life, and later adopted an Irish version of their name.

  • "Proinsias De Rossa, born Francis Ross ..."
  • If someone is always known in English by an English name, but regularly speaks/writes Irish, and uses an Irish version of their name when doing so, then this Irish version of their name should be mentioned but not bold:
  • "Michael D. Higgins (born 18 April 1941), known in Irish as Micheál D. Ó hUigínn..."

4. If someone is always known in English by an English name, and rarely if ever speaks/writes Irish, then no Irish version of their name should be listed, even if a well-sourced version is available, as to provide it suggests the person has a greater knowledge of/interest in Irish than is in fact the case

5. Note some people have mixed-language forms

  • "Patrick Henry Pearse (also known as Pádraig Pearse; Irish Pádraig Anraí Mac Piarais ..."
  • "Peig Sayers ... (I think this should have Maighréad Sayers as well)

Mentions in other articles:
6. References to a person in articles should generally use the name in the same language as the article title; sometimes the opposite language may be more appropriate in the context.
[End archive quote]

Points 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 are not in dispute. The current issue centres on point 4. AjaxSmack interprets the current wording of the IMOS naming convention for people to allow the insertion of Irish language names for those who don't use them, whereas I disagree and say it isn't allowed. So the questions are, is the insertion of Irish names (from an apparently reliable source) allowed in articles of people who don't use them/are not known by them? If it is not allowed then does the current wording need to be amended? Tx, Snappy (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Name should be in english only, as this is the english-language Wikipedia. It's like that name for the Irish government head, which in english is prime minister. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
AjaxSmack is reading something that clearly isn't in the IMOS and thus his edits shouldn't be allowed. If Bertie has never used an Irish version of his name then he meets criteria 4 which means no Irish version even if sourced. We shouldn't imply people use a name that they don't. Mabuska (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Criterion 4 is not in the IMOS guidelines. It is merely part of a discussion and is not really tenable as an editing principle (i.e., a referenced, relevant name of a person can't be mentioned in an article.) — AjaxSmack 01:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is copied from User talk:Snappy:

Please read WP:IMOS carefully before deleting referenced material from articles (e.g., this, et al.)

WP:IMOS: Naming people reads in part: "When giving the Irish version of the name of a person who is normally referred to by an English-language name, a source can only be considered reliable if it provides an Irish version explicitly for that individual. It is not acceptable to cite a generic English-Irish dictionary of names to translate the person's forenames or surnames and present this combination as the person's name in Irish. If someone did not use the Irish version of his or her name, it is not appropriate or encyclopaedic to "invent" such names, as this constitutes original research." (My emphasis).

If you'll note, all of the names you deleted were sourced to official website of the Oireachtas Éireann, a reliable source, and inclusion of such names is in full compliance with the IMOS guidelines. The source clearly provides the English and Irish names of the subjects as well as their titles and a photo of each so there is little likelihood of misconstruing the identity of the person in question. In short, these are not the "translations" or "inventions" that are the target of the IMOS guideline. — AjaxSmack 21:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

None of these people are known by their Irish name or use this version of it. I mean who has heard of Parthalán Ó hEachthair, and how come Trevor Sargent doesn't have one. Its OR by some civil servant. This issue needs to be discussed at Wikiproject Ireland, until then please stop adding these names. Furthermore, the text quoted applies to article name not translating the english name in the article. Snappy (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I have heard of Parthalán Ó hEachthairn from TG4[4]. But I didn't know John Gormley's Irish name and when went to the Wikipedia article to find it, I was surprised it wasn't there, especially since he's in government. That is precisely what an encyclopedia is for: to provide information that I don't know. The addition of referenced material to an article that is relevant to the subject (the Irish name of a member of a government in the "national language" of Ireland) and compliant with the related guidelines is hardly controversial. The guideline does refer to article test when it says: "If the Irish version [of a personal name] does not enjoy widespread usage among English speakers then use the English version when naming the article. In [this] case, refer to the Irish version of the name in the first sentence of the article." (my emphasis) If you disagree and wish to discuss it at Wikiproject Ireland or if you have evidence the Oireachtas website is "OR by some civil servant", fine but please refrain from deleting material simply because you haven't heard of it. — AjaxSmack 22:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
A couple of asides on the same topic. Two things convince me prima facie that the Oireachtas names are not OR. One is that a noted Irish speaker, Trevor Sargent, doesn't have an Irish name listed as you note. If some civil servant were making these up, I can't imagine him skipping that one. The second are the four different spellings of the Irish form of Ahern for Bertie, Dermot, Michael, and Noel. Four different civil servants or just a liquid lunch? — AjaxSmack 22:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
You are misinterpreting the guideline at IMOS. Referencing the Irish version in the first sentence is for people like Geoffrey Keating who are known by both versions. Apart from Éamon Ó Cuív and Seán Ó Fearghaíl, none of these politicians use their so called Irish version of their name in the English language media. John Gormley doesn't have an Irish name, no mention of it on his website. Trevor Sargent doesn't use one either and he is a fluent Irish speaker. What you are doing is adding in a name that the person never uses and is never used in the English language media to refer to them. A persons name is either in English like Trevor Sargent or in Irish like Proinsias De Rossa, we don't add versions of names that the person would have in Irish, if they used them. If the person's name is in Irish then the article title will follow, otherwise its just the English name. Snappy (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I didn't imply English media usage of the Irish names and that's not required by the passage "If the Irish version [of a personal name] does not enjoy widespread usage among English speakers then use the English version when naming the article. In [this] case, refer to the Irish version of the name in the first sentence of the article." (my emphasis) Nicolaus Copernicus never referred to himself as Mikołaj Kopernik; nor is he referred to as such in English sources but the name appears in the first line of the article since he is from what is now Poland. Providing a sourced Irish name of an Irish politician is hardly a stretch and it strikes me as something a reader might want to know. Do you have any affirmative reason for not wanting to include this information? — AjaxSmack 23:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, because they are made up! Not talking about people from Poland dead for 500 years. I'm talking about living Irish people, people with birth certs saying their English language name. Giving them an Irish version of their is OR, by you or by a civil servant. How can John Gormley have an Irish name when he never uses it and is never referred to by it? It is my contention that the naming section of IMOS be revisted and clarified. I will open a debate on WikiProject Ireland tomorrow, where I hope there will be a full and frank debate. Until then, I suggest that neither add or remove any Irish names from any articles. Snappy (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I certainly didn't create these myself and you have as yet given no evidence that civil servants are responsible. Since they appear on numerous official Irish webpages I can assume that they are at least tolerated if not sanctioned. As far as birth certificates go, many people have notable names that are neither English nor on a birth certificate. Some are even still living such as Kevin Rudd, whose Chinese name, Lù Kèwén (陸克文) is considered noteworthy enough for inclusion in his Wikipedia article despite no reference mentioning that he uses this name himself. — AjaxSmack 00:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
You've only provided one source (the Oireachtas). Anyway, I still believe you are violating the intention of IMOS naming. Worth familiarising yourself with a previous debate here. No doubt you will have plenty to say in the new discussion. See you there. Snappy (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Reword the section: the criterion should be whether the Irish name is commonly used, not whether the person commonly used his or her Irish name. In nearly every case the result will be the same, but there are exceptions. One exception is James Connolly, where the Irish name was removed in accordance with IMOS, even though it is a commonly used name, appearing in reliable sources, as I pointed out here when I replaced it. For people such as TDs, where reliable sources exist, I would suggest as a rule of thumb that anybody considering adding an Irish name refer to the Irish language media. If they say, for instance, "An Taoiseach, Brian Cowen", then it's safe to conclude that Cowen's Irish name is not commonly used, the Oireachtas website notwithstanding. Scolaire (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
On AjaxSmack's comment "Some are even still living such as Kevin Rudd, whose Chinese name, Lù Kèwén (陸克文) is considered noteworthy enough for inclusion in his Wikipedia article despite no reference mentioning that he uses this name himself.". That has nothing to do with Ireland Manual of Style. What the Australian MoS does is entirely different to the IMoS. Though this appears to be a twist on reality for if you read the Kevin Rudd article it states in the article:

Rudd studied at the Australian National University in Canberra where he resided at Burgmann College and graduated with First Class Honours in Arts (Asian Studies). He majored in Chinese language and Chinese history, became proficient in Mandarin and acquired a Chinese name, Lù Kèwén (traditional Chinese: 陸克文 or in simplified Chinese: 陆克文)

This is hardly the same AjaxSmack as it isn't even in the introduction, and the source provided makes it clear he "adopted" the name for his studies. Mabuska (talk) 11:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Taking names from a text written in Irish is just as wrong as taking their name from a Greek newspaper, this is the English Wikipedia. An Irish name should be listed only if the person identifies with or is identified with it in some way rather than just it is something that has to go into a form written in Irish like a list of members of the Oireachtas. And the reasoning goes the same way with Éamon Ó Cuív, English texts use it straightforwardly and the fadas cause no problems so there's no need for messing around with an English translation. Dmcq (talk) 12:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Not sure what point you're making there, Dmcq. You obviously agree with me that it should be given if the person identifies with or is identified with it. Are you saying my rule of thumb is a bad one? If so, have you a better one? If not, who or what precisely are you responding to?
BTW do you also say that the Mahatma Gandhi article should not show his name in Gujarati and Hindi because they were (presumably) taken from foreign language texts? Scolaire (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Thinking over it again, I guess I agree with the archive and disagree with James Connolly being given an Irish name in the lead based on the name of a station in Irish. I think giving a person an Irish name just because they are mentioned in Irish with an Irish sounding name doesn't seem enough to me to start sticking in an Irish name, I really do think we need to establish that they had an identity in Irish, for instance that they wrote or talked in Irish otherwise it implies something that isn't true. Mahatma Ghandhi established an identity in those languages by writing and signing loads of things in them. Dmcq (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Jack Lynch never used the name "Jack", and tried to discourage the media from using it. Charlie Haughey never used the name "Charlie", and didn't like to be called that. But both those names appear at the start of the first sentence in the respective articles. Not only that but, as you can see from my links, they are the titles of the article itself or of a redirect. We know that Pádraig Pearse called himself "Patrick Pearse" or "Pádraig Mac Piarais", but we don't know if he ever called himself "Pádraig Pearse". Yet there is is at the start of the first sentence, and as the title of a redirect page. Ghandi may have established an identity in Gujarati and Hindi, but he never used the name (or honorific) "Mahatma" in any language, yet...you guessed it. These things don't "imply something that isn't true"; they simply provide the information that these are names by which people are or were known. That's what an encyclopaedia is for: to provide information. Scolaire (talk) 09:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

According to the Constitution of Ireland (Art 8, Sec. 1), "The Irish language as the national language is the first official language".[5] To provide referenced names of officials of the Government in the national and first official language of a country is hardly controversial. We do it here for every other country on Wikipedia as far as I can tell. We don't ask whether or not Nursultan Nazarbayev really speaks Kazakh or if Rahul Gandhi speaks Hindi before giving their names in those languages. Alexander Lukashenko, president of Belarus, is openly hostile to the Belarusian language and says, "people, who speak Belarusian, cannot do anything else but speak Belarusian, because one cannot express something great in this language...Belarusian is a weak language. Yet his Belarusian name is given in the lead because the language is one of two official languages of the state.

I am mystified at the strenuous effort to shield this information from encyclopedia readers. Is there any affirmative reason why the case of Ireland should be different if citations of the Irish name usage in official websites (e.g., the Oireachtas official site) or in national media (e.g., TG4) is given? — AjaxSmack 01:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I can see the merits of everybody's argument in this, but I find it difficult to set a hard and fast rule for Irish names. Allowances should be made for our history, and the fact that our native language was beaten out of us by the occupying power, and that people changed their names or were forced to change their names from one language to another. I have noted in Eastern European and Caucasian articles, where languages changed with the occupying power, that an effort is made to provide the names of places and items in several different languages, at least one of which (for example Ubykh) is even extinct. And since I work on a lot of historical articles, I'm also thinking about Irish/English names of Irish people since the Normans arrived. It may seem that the English name was used, because the printing press was owned by English-speakers, but in fact a person may have been known throughout the country by the Irish name. So I'm not happy with point 1 or 4. I see no problem, even in those cases cited above, with having the Irish name included; verifiability is where it's at. Anyway, at the end of the day: KISS, for example, Patsy Hearn. Hohenloh + 03:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The language wasn't beaten out of people like in some other places. People paid good money during and after the famine to bring in English teachers and tried to speak it at home so the children could emigrate and get a good start. The business about reviving Irish at the beginning of the 20th century was after this transition to English was so universally accepted as a good thing. Dmcq (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Its about common usage if Willie O'Dea was as known as Liam Ó Deaghaidh or used that name himself then it should be added to the article but since he doesn't use it and is never referred to by it, it shouldn't be used. We shouldn't put false information into articles. Simple! Snappy (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Snappy, you also seem to be in agreement with what I said: the criterion should be whether the Irish name is commonly used, not solely whether the person commonly uses his or her Irish name. Would you agree to making that small change to the wording of the MOS? The onus would still be on the person adding "Liam Ó Deaghaidh" to show that that name was commonly used. Scolaire (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I would agree to making a change in the MOS wording to put the onus on the person adding the Irish version to show that it is commonly used. This would mean multiple reliable independent sources, not just one dubious document on the oireachtas website. Snappy (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I have some sympathy for AjaxSmack's actions; although I disagree with the current MOS, one cannot be faulted for conforming to it rather than to a 3-year-old archived proposal. While instruction creep is bad, it would be better to have a longer more explicit MOS than to attempt to condense it and then deal with arguments over whether the text means what you thought it meant. My own views about what the policy ought to be have not changed since 2008. It is true that Bertie Ahern has, on occasion, been called "Parthalán Ó hEachthairn" in Irish-language sources. However, it is also true that he is far more often called "Bertie Ahern" in Irish-language sources. I venture to suggest that modern native Irish speakers will naturally use the English name, while cúpla focal tokenism may insist on the Irish. Simply starting the article...

"Patrick Bartholomew "Bertie" Ahern (Irish: Pádraig Parthalán Ó hEachthairn; born 12 September 1951) ..."

...is therefore misleading; it suggests that the Irish name has a greater currency than is in fact the case. One might make a more qualified assertion, such as...

"Patrick Bartholomew "Bertie" Ahern (in Irish occasionally rendered as Pádraig Parthalán Ó hEachthairn; born 12 September 1951) ..."

...but to my mind having sufficient qualification (to forestall any misleading inferences being drawn from the fact that a translation has been given at all) will make the introduction unwieldy. One possibility is to relegate a rarely-used Irish (or English) form to the Infobox, with an indication of how rare it is; but that is probably not possible without violating WP:OR. It may be that, as AjaxSmack says, people expect to find an Irish translation of the name of every Irish bio; but Wikipedia does not have to satisfy expectations if those are unreasonable. As I said in 2008, the Irish name article needs to be improved to provide better detail about the politics and social nuances of name and language. jnestorius(talk) 16:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. That was what I had in mind when I said that as a "rule of thumb" editors should refer to Irish-language media. If "Bertie Ahern" is more commonly used there, then there is no need to add the Irish version, per K-I-S-S and WP:COMMONSENSE. Note that even in Ajax's example "Bertie Ahern" was used in the headline, presumably because people might not know who "Parthalán Ó hEachthairn" was otherwise. Scolaire (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Just to put it out here that I didn't add Irish names to articles to push an agenda or because somebody's language had been stomped on. It was simply because it is encyclopedically relevant information. Other sources, e.g., the Statesman's Yearbook, have included such information over the years and, to repeat, having referenced names provided in the official language of a country simply should not be controversial. However, I understand the concerns of the Irish name opponents here and the Irish case is probably sui generis in the English-speaking world (but not, as I have illustrated, in other areas). If other users are worried about the prominence of the names in the lead, how about inserting them in a note instead? E.g.,
"Patrick Bartholomew "Bertie" Ahern[1] (born 12 September 1951) ..."
with a note reading:
[1]Ahern's name is rendered as Pádraig Parthalán Ó hEachthairn in some Irish language contexts. or [1]Ahern is known by the Irish name Pádraig Parthalán Ó hEachthairn in some Irish language contexts. or something similar
Or, alternatively, putting the name in the bio section instead of the lead when an article allows. E.g.,
"== Background and family life ==
Ahern, known by the Irish name Pádraig Parthalán Ó hEachthairn in some Irish language contexts, was born in Drumcondra, Dublin. This is..."
This should satisfy concerns that such a prominent display of the name implies frequent personal usage of the name. Then Irish names in the lead could be reserved for those who have actively used them. Any other suggestions? — AjaxSmack 20:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The revivial of Irish was instigated by people like Douglas Hyde to reinstate an indigenous cultural identity for the Irish as opposed to the English culture that had become dominant as it had in virtually every part of the British Isles. I wouldn't say it was beaten out of the Irish, but a lot of their traditions, such as languager and dress, where surrendered to "fit in" and get what favourable desposition where they could.
Whilst i'd prefer to only have Irish names in the lede if the person themself used it, i wouldn't be against a line somewhere in a biography section or whatever stating that the name is rendered in some Irish medium sources as such and such. Mabuska (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Leaving aside for the moment the way in which less-common Irish names might be treated lower down in the article, I want to propose the following to replace the second paragraph in IMOS:

  • An Irish version of a person's English-language name may be given in the first sentence of the lead of an article on that person if it is a well-known, commonly-used name for that person. In particular, if that person used the Irish version of his or her name, it would be appropriate to include it. If there is no commonly-used Irish version, it is not appropriate or encyclopaedic to "invent" such names, as this constitutes original research. On the other hand, the mere fact that an Irish name appears in certain sources is not sufficient evidence that it is commonly used. When giving the Irish version of a name, a source can only be considered reliable if it provides an Irish version explicitly for that individual. It is not acceptable to cite a generic English-Irish dictionary of names to translate the person's forenames or surnames and present this combination as the person's name in Irish.

Scolaire (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good, though the "When giving the Irish version of a name, a source can only be considered reliable if it provides an Irish version explicitly for that individual" could be misinterpreted, unless you state it "provides an Irish version that is explictly rercognised for that indiviual"? If you get what i mean? Mabuska (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not exactly KISS, is it? Hohenloh + 03:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's a great deal more simple than some of the above suggestions re "occasional use", "used in some Irish language contexts", use in the infobox etc. But if you want to simplify it, please do. That's what talk pages are for. I never make any proposal on a talk page without assuming that others will edit it as required.
Mabuska, I think your use of "recognised" in that sentence is ambiguous. Does it mean that a third party would need to "recognise" the name as given in the cited source? I didn't compose that sentence; it's in the current version. But I can't see how it could be misinterpreted - either a source explicitly states that X's name in Irish was Y or it doesn't. Scolaire (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

On second thoughts, it can be considerably shortened. The last two sentences are redundant given the requirement for a name to be verifiably well-known. If it's well-known there's no need and no point in taking it out of a dictionary. Similarly, if it's well-known the "did they use it?" test is no longer required. What if a person used their Irish name on census returns, in correspondence with civil servants or in conversation with certain friends, but didn't use it in public? Including a name on those grounds would be equally absurd as including it just because it was on an Oireachtas database. My revised proposal, therefore, is:

  • An Irish version of a person's English-language name may be given in the first sentence of the lead of an article on that person if it is a well-known, commonly-used name for that person. If there is no commonly-used Irish version, it is not appropriate or encyclopaedic to "invent" such names, as this constitutes original research. On the other hand, the mere fact that an Irish name appears in certain sources is not sufficient evidence that it is commonly used. Scolaire (talk) 10:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
    • That covers the usage of an Irish name in the lead but doesn't proscribe a sourced Irish name somewhere else in the text according to context. Is that a correct reading of what you've suggested? — AjaxSmack 03:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
It is, and I think it would be instruction creep to add detailed instructions to the MOS as to where an Irish name might be added and in what circumstances. That should be done by discussion on the individual article talk page. Having said that, I have the sense of a consensus here that there should not be blanket addition of Irish names on TD and senator articles. Scolaire (talk) 07:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the wording. People can modify it further if need be. Scolaire (talk) 07:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the revised wording. I feel it clarifies the matter, and is clearer than the previous wording. I also agree with Scolaire statement that the instructions should not be too detailed but when a dispute arises this should be discussed on an articles talk page. Snappy (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The revised wording sounds fine and I am fine with keeping Irish names out of the lead but still believe that cited names can be included at other points in an article, e.g., as a footnote. Does anyone have suggestions such as I gave above on how to word such entries? — AjaxSmack 03:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it is proper to give the Irish name in the case where it may be used a lot anyway, such as in government institutions, and not just based on wether the person uses it or not. Moreso than not to give it. I would err more on the side of giving it every time in the lead. Why not? It is association by the numbers, Irish people, Irish institutions etc. You could be Irish and not associated with the Irish language but if you are you are. As for saying "**known by** the Irish language name", that should probably be sourced. ~ R.T.G 04:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles/Archive_4&oldid=1090633040"