Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Derry/Londonderry: Exceptions

Not with a view to opening up the whole issue again, but I want to make a case for allowing a specific exception to the general rule that the city is always 'Derry'. The exception would be where the context is clearly, unambiguously and only Unionist. This is inspired by articles such as the biography of Gregory Campbell. To refer to him as having been 'born in Derry' strikes me as not merely factually inaccurate, but bordering on the insulting. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree. I believe that if the main citations in an article say Londonderry it should say Londonderry, we should be following the sources. Same with Derry. This does not affect the article Derry itself, only references to it. I think the whole business has been done recently and there will be too many people who jump in without thinking about it to do it this soon though so I'd wait another month or two. Dmcq (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, can you show us the proposed the change in wording? Fmph (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC).
I think what I said above is clear enough without starting a formal proposal. By the way the last discussion has a note requesting when this is brought up again the main discussion be at WP:IECOLL. Dmcq (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
As per the WP:MOSBIO the place of birth should be removed from the lede. The opening paragraph of the body could then be changed to "Campbell was born and raised in Derry's Waterside area and was educated ...". I see no reason to make the exception from the removal of the name Derry. Surely if the name Derry was so insulting to unionists as Sam Blacketer implies then the Apprentice Boys would have changed their name years ago? Bjmullan (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with that proposal, Sam. Also where official names are needed for example in City status in the United Kingdom that Londonderry should be used there only when it is used in official context (ie. the name on the city's Royal Charter is Londonderry) and Derry should be used everywhere else and when Londonderry is used it should be pipelinked like this Londonderry. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm fully against that proposal. It would lead to chaos. Some editors might think an article's context is unionist and others might not. This is almost as mad as proposing to use "the Six Counties" (instead of Northern Ireland) on articles with a republican context. ~Asarlaí 14:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
What chaos? It would lead to better citation of articles which is no bad thing. If you wished to disagree with an editor who started up an article and said 'Londonderry' you'd have to show the main citations about the subject of the article used Derry. It wouldn't be a case of just stomping on every mention of Londonderry, you'd have to do some work. Dmcq (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
It would lead to editors stacking-up citation upon citation just to support using Derry or to support using Londonderry. It would be a case of "who can get the most citations" for something so trivial. ~Asarlaí 14:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Asarlai. We need to be consistent here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Why? We have different English variations in Wikipedia for instance. What's so important about consistency between articles that we should ignore our sources? I very much doubt that there are many articles which would balance out Citation needed is the bedrock of Wikipedia. Derry would win fairly easily in the main for most big articles because it occurs most often and for small articles you'd only have a few main sources. I'm talking about proper main source citations for an article that directly address the subject of an article not just also mentions in some list somewhere. Dmcq (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Without a clear formal proposal including a change in wording, this is going nowhere. It's just more disruptive talk page bickering. Status quo is as-is. The onus is on those who want change to make the running. And that includes formalising the process. I have no idea what " ...the context is clearly, unambiguously and only Unionist" actually means in reality. The current WP:IMOS is clear and unequivocal, whether one likes it or not. Any change needs to be too. Lets move on. Fmph (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It was you that went on about wanting a proposal after I said I thought it should wait a couple of months. I also pointed out that there was a request that when it does come along again it be done at WP:IECOLL. Dmcq (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem with a change of venue. Fmph (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
So much for the general issue at the heart of this not really being an issue that is contiinually raised by random editors. Whilst i agree with Sam's idea, it is equally insulting to Gerry Adams to state that he was born in Northern Ireland seeing as he has probably never uttered the phrase in his life. So there is a parity in regards to Gregory Campbell "Derry" and Gerry Adams "Northern Ireland" etc. Mabuska (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Well I'm sure that the Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead has said Northern Ireland at least once in his life but the principle is sound that he probibly wouldn't like being called Northern Irish. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Against, this proposal. The current consensus is brutal but it is a bright-line rule and it has lasted the test of time. Britain and Ireland-related articles are blighted by semantic wars (e.g. British Isles/Britain and Ireland, Ireland/Republic of Ireland, country/constituent country/etc, devolved government/national government). The agreement on Derry/Londonderry is the one cradle of pragmatism, collaboration and good sense amid all that mess. It ain't broken, and god knows there's enough broken before we go fixing things that aren't. Divving up articles between "unionist" and "nationalist" would be a recipe for chaos. Neither name is "correct" and neither name is "wrong" in any context. --RA (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
For a non-proposal people are sure keen to vote to shout a persons complaint down. Dmcq (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There was no straightforward proposal. Please stop just jumping in with supports or againsts. Please make your own proposal if you want a proposal. A person wanted to discuss what they saw as a problem. I don't want my reply to them formatted as being anything except a reply to them. Dmcq (talk) 07:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I did wonder why suddenly everyones post was bulleted and againsts and supports where flying left right and centre. Ah well don't worry Dmcq i didn't voice a vote as there was obviously nothing to vote for. Mabuska (talk) 10:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Neither do I and I have removed his place of birth as per WP:MOSBIO. Bjmullan (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
As I read it @Dmcq, they are obviously supporting my proposal that there needs to be a formal proposal, arent they? Fmph (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how you read that into 'Not with a view to opening up the whole issue again but I want to make a case' from them and 'I'd wait another month or two.' from me led to 'Well, can you show us the proposed the change in wording?' from you in a reply to me. You just jumped in both feet to where a person was expressing a concern "To refer to him as having been 'born in Derry' strikes me as not merely factually inaccurate, but bordering on the insulting." to requiring a formal proposal all worked out rather than discussing the problem that they saw. Now could you please desist in trying to change a discussion into a proposal. If you want to start up a proposal do it yourself in a new section. If the ioriginator wants to put iut to us I'm sure they're well capable of doing it themselves. Dmcq (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
How can we discuss something, if we don't know what we are discussing? "Not with a view to opening up the whole issue again, ..." - eh, actually, thats exactly what IS happening. There is a half-baked, ambiguous 'proposal' to change the way stroke city references are handled. Its disruptive. It's not how WP works. This matter has been done to death already. Unless there is a formal proposal, this discussion should be closed as disruptive. Its not what Talk pages are for. Fmph (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I thought it might be helpful, rather than disruptive, to discuss the issue in the round before jumping in with a provocative formal proposal. That's why it is not a precise proposal at this stage, but I did think I had indicated that it is a relatively specific issue and not a general disagreement with the previous agreement on the whole Derry/Londonderry manual of style. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The divil is in the detail! Fmph (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Well my take on it is that WP:verifiability is a wikipedia policy and WP:OTHERSTUFF indicates that consistency is a fairly low priority at the 'would be nice' level, for instance WP:ENGVAR normally trumps consistency except in very strongly related topics. We should normally treat each article as an independent entity and only look at the citations in that article. The second pillar of WP:5P says "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. We strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics and when the subject is a living person. When conflict arises over neutrality, discuss details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution". So how well does the current decision stand when confronted by a bio about a person where the source says they were born in Londonderry? I think all one can say is that there is a consensus which ignores policy so people follow dispute resolution but nothing else. Dmcq (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Dmcq@23:51, 15 March 2011, the proposal was made by Sam Blacketer@11:36, 15 March 2011 in the sentence beginning with, "The exception would be.."
Verifiability does not mean that we have to use the exact words used in a source. Derry = Londonderry. If a sources uses Londonderry, there is no inconsistency with WP:V if we use Derry and vice versa. What matters is that the statement made in an article is verifiable, not that the statement uses the same words as the source. There are less contentious examples of this, of course. For example, a source might refer to the French Republic, whereas we might say France in an article. It is the substance of the what is being verified that matters, not the syntax. --RA (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
It is clear to me that this 'proposal' is about breaking the current status quo, and as such is disruptive. There is nothing new in any of the 'arguments'. Its all been trashed out before, and each time stability of the project trumps everything else. Lets move on! Fmph (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I tried discussing a persons point with them and you jumped in with your disruption. Why on earth couldn't you just shut up if you had nothing worthwhile to say and wait till there was some proposal if ever to say yes or no to? Are you really intent on ensuring that other editors may not even discuss the basis of the decision? Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative enterprise. I was quite happy to wait a couple of months for things to die down and had said that to the original person. What had you to add except rancour? If this is brought up again in a couple of months and you behave like this I will certainly be reporting your disruptive behaviour and opposition to discussion to AN/I to try and improve your discussion style. Dmcq (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for not replying earlier. I was quaking in my boots in a dark corner. Just to clarify, I have no opposition to discussion. I just need to know what we are discussing. And when discussing changes to sensitive stuff like WP:IMOS, I like to know exactly what the proposal is. And if its something as stupid as 'where there are unionist references, we should ignore IMOS', then I will make clear how silly such a proposal is. I look forward to the ANI discussion eagerly. Fmph (talk) 07:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Nobody said here that 'where there are unionist references, we should ignore IMOS' so there's no need to put it in quotes as if you're quoting it. And saying 'It is clear to me that this 'proposal' is about breaking the current status quo, and as such is disruptive' is a clear assumption of bad faith and disruptive in itself, see WP:AGF. Discussion is talking about something, seeing what the problems are and possible solutions. It isn't people trying to work everything out for themselves and putting forward 'a proposal' fully formed. See WP:BRD about the discuss part of bold revert discuss and WP:CONSENSUS about consensus building on Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
If discussion is talking about something, don't you think it should be clear what we are talking about? We have done the problems and the solutions to death here and elsewhere. There is already a strong consensus that we have a workable solution, albeit imperfect. What Sam seems to be talking about is changing that. Fine. Lets change it. How? We need to know what exactly is being proposed, not all commenting on different things. I want to know CLEARLY, and UNAMBIGUOUSLY, what does "...where the context is clearly, unambiguously and only Unionist" actually mean? Because, for me, Gregory Campbell wouldn't fit that criteria in my mind, given he has had strong interaction with the nationalist population north and south. So the context is not only unionist. So there, already we have ambiguity. Fmph (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
There, you made a constructive point, that wasn't so hard was it? You have pointed out that the idea of "...where the context is clearly, unambiguously and only Unionist" has problems if based on personal opinions, that it would need to be verifiable, and more sources might be by the 'other side'. That is a common problem with ideas initially on Wikipedia, they have to be translated into something concrete that can be checked by looking at the sources rather than editors personal opinions. So an implication there is that a republican might have their bio saying they were born in Londonderry or a loyalist might have theirs saying they were born in Derry based on sources. How would Sam Blacketer or others feel about that? Dmcq (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Do we have a source that the city is named Derry? GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The Derry article itself has very little relevance, this is about references to it. Articles are supposed to stand on their own feet. Dmcq (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Another verifiable criterion often used in articles is use by the subject themselves. Dmcq (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
@Sam Blacketer, I think you can see now that some change to the absolutist stand of the decision would be the only real way forward in your instance. There was quite enough trouble even saying Londonderry when referring to the actual statutes with that name in. I believe the decision should be revisited but a decent interval should be left between times and am just sorry and ashamed that you have been exposed to all this fighting. Dmcq (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey Sam, I like your suggestion. When are ya gonna submit your propsal? GoodDay (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Hm. Seems to me that The Sash is pretty much an "exclusively Unionist context". Would this proposal mean the lyrics get re-written on Wikipedia as "It was worn at Londonderry, Aughrim, Enniskillen and the Boyne"? Ivor Stoughton (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Question

Is this (non-)proposal a strictly one-way proposal, or are "offensive" terms such as Northern Ireland and County L/Derry going to be removed from nationalist/republican articles? O Fenian (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The city-in-question is named "Londonderry", the county-in-question is named "Londonderry", which is simply how it is. Whether or not that 'offends' anybody, is irrelevant. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The idea of a discussion is to discuss. What would you like? Dmcq (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Poland doesn't give a hoot about the German minority who'd rather call Gdansk its original German name of Danzig. Though if what was said was a proposal it would be best if itsn't one-way only. Equal treatment should be ensured. Mabuska (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I would say that O Fenian's argument works both ways. Are "offensive" terms such as calling the Republic of Ireland, just Ireland going to be removed from Unionist/Loyalist articles? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
What is a unionist/loyalist article? Or a nationalist/republican article? There is no such thing. This is Wikipedia. We have articles about unionists and loyalists. We have articles about nationalists and republicans. But we don't have unionist articles or nationalist articles. We don't have loyalist articles or republican articles.
What is "offensive" (or "correct") about Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Derry, Londonderry, British Isles, Britain and Ireland, Britain, Great Britain or any other of these terms unless we are writing from or for a specific POV? ... which of course, we don't. This is Wikipedia. We write from a NPOV.
The current situation is perfectly fine from the perspective of the encyclopedia and is neutral towards the real-world disagreement over wether to call these places "Derry" or "Londonderry". It is balanced and NPOV because of its balance and arbitrariness in use of both terms. Loyalist, unionist, republican or nationalist, the city is Derry and the county is Londonderry. There is no confusion over which terms to use and there is scope for fighting over which term to use in any given context. It is the ideal of a MOS entry. --RA (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
If we could somehow find out what (for example) Campbell prefers -Derry or Londonderry-, that would be a big help. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't. Campbell's preference is irrelevant. Also, if the MOS said, "use which ever the subject of the article prefers/preferred", editors would consume their time trawling books and the internet for "evidence" of what the subject of one article or another "preferred": Derry or Londonderry, instead of contributing positively to the development of the encyclopedia. --RA (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Well I've tried to translate that into Wikispeak in two different ways above. One is the balance of the major citations and another that could be used in some circumstances is use by the subject themselves. Consistency between article is not a major concern in Wikipedia. Balance of arbitrary decisions doesn't sound like a good basis for an encyclopaedia and is recognised as a bad argument in deletion discussions. Dmcq (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Reliable sources seem to say RM Derry to Londonderry. But, we've been down that road before. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
No need for "wikispeak".
Regarding major usage in citations, both Derry and Londonderry are widely citable as common names for either place (the city or the county). We don't use citations to decide the words to use in individual articles. We use citations to verify facts that are stated in those article. There is no factual difference between saying "X was born in Derry" and "X was born in Londonderry", only a syntactical one. Citations in article are use to verify facts, not syntax.
"Consistency between article is not a major concern in Wikipedia." Consistency between article is the purpose of a manual of style. WP:LDERRY is an example of an entry in the manual of style.
You don't provide any reasoning for your last statements. This is not a XfD discussion: it is the choice of one word or anther to indicate the same thing. That kind of decision can safely be made arbitrarily (or at least semi-arbitarily, it's not as if there is no reason to it). If X = Y then in any given case we can use either X or Y to indicate the same thing. In this case, since the choice of X or Y can be heated. So, for NPOV, it is necessary for Wikipedia to distance itself from that heat. So, we have an "arbitrary" system to decide which to use: for the city use X, for the county use Y, irrespective of individual editors' preference or the subject of the article. --RA (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't except the City/County agreement, as it panders to political PoV concerning the city. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
An article about a person is not an article about the city he was born in. The only citations relevant to an article are the ones that deal with the subject, dragging in anything else is considered as constituting WP:COATRACK. An article should be based on the citations within itself, that is what verifiability is about. If the sources in an article say Londonderry then the standard way of working in Wikipedia would be that Londonderry is what should be said and that what other articles say is irrelevant. The MOS changes that and a number of people believe that is wrong. You are right that consistency is the purpose of a manual of style. However Manuals of Style are guidelines and not policy for the very good reason that consistency is a 'would be nice' rather than 'necessary'. I never said this was a XfD argument, I only pointed out that in other areas of Wikipedia that consistency was not only not a requirement it was not even a very highly regarded desirable. Saying if X=Y then X can be used instead of Y is original research when applied within Wikipedia and is not covered by WP:CALC. The argument about Derry and Londonderry having no factual difference is irrelevant in Wikipedia as Wikipedia is based on citation not fact or truth and the only citations in an article are the ones directly relevant to it. Dmcq (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ventura highway

At times it seems a spiral into stalemate can only be the stunted result of discussion on this issue. I hope not, for the sake of the future and looking to help inform and relate knowledge to people as an encyclopedia should. I have the same opinions about it since writing in February above; here to name two Jeanne Boleyn and RA both have made the basic consistency argument which I support. From the perspective I offer, which is that of a fairly well-educated native speaker of English living his entire life in the United States, I can't see a reason to hold out a lot of hope for that consistency—the Derry (city), Londonderry (county) compromise—always being seen as beneficial by all other well-educated editors, and unfortunately so.

It looks to me like there are generally unionist and loyalist, whatever non-Irish republican opinions here, that do want to promote the old city name, the official name, over the common and commonly used name, against the wiser choice of a good compromise. In the open above, it is even called "not only factually inaccurate, but bordering on the insulting" to call the place Derry. Well, we could go on and on about why it is only so unsavory to a few and obviously not to the majority of the people who live there. I do understand the perspective that sees this Derry naming in Wikipedia as really just a sly manipulative bone thrown to republicans so that they won't challenge so hard the unofficial "less ambiguous" Republic of Ireland article title; I don't think that's it though. I think this is a sincere and rational compromise, a good style choice that helps readers and also faces reality: it is fairly undeniable that a large majority of Derry residents, and most of the people of Ireland the island, use Derry in daily speaking.

So, and this may be very old news to some, when the other day I read the lead of the article about Ventura, California, I thought it may be worth relating it to this page's readers. Did you know, the city is really named San Buenaventura, officially so? Look here for reassurance. Even in the top right of that page, you see the address given for the city: "San Buenaventura, CA, P. O. Box 99, Ventura, CA 93002": in my mind a pleasant, self-contradictory and somehow lighthearted inclusion of both names within a single thought. It's a small thing, the official versus actual name situation out there on the Pacific. I hope just a little of that lessening of worry over what we call Derry in articles with a lot of non-republican cited materials can occur here. The place is naturally, effectively called Derry just as San Beunaventura is called Ventura throughout the world. The compromise in place recognizes that and also the historic name held when the county is written about here in Wikipedia articles. This is from someone who likes Gerry Adams and supports quite a lot of what he does for Ireland, but I really don't make bones about calling the six counties NI, that's what they are right now, so Northern Ireland it should be in Wikipedia articles. I think Adams is not going to waste energy on what Wikipedia currently calls where he was born, but rather what it will call it when he's buried there. At any rate, the inclusion of discussion of whether he would be insulted shines a light on why political correctness is an impossible guideline to follow here; I can't see a sixth pillar called WP:PLEASE, as in "always please everyone", being raised into place.

In general agreement with Asarlaí, to use some measure of what cited material calls a place on an article-by-article basis is a more slippery slope than editors should be forced to climb, ever. It could lead to severe problems in many areas totally unrelated to Ireland. We need less reason to fight over the validity and reliability of sources, not more. So I cite Ventura, and ask that others who see an insult or inaccuracy in Derry might soften their stance in view of the anecdotal evidence from the more western city. I am fully aware the situations are in no way comparable in light of the tragedies of war and the Troubles, and pride is a powerful force. Ventura is at least something to contemplate, the real, common name of the place in daily use in 2011. Derry isn't called Derry just to insult unionists, it's the city's common name and what the article and references to it in other articles should be titled. Sswonk (talk) 05:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Well to be fair Derry may be more commonly used within Ireland however I'm sure that in the UK (where it is located), it's more common to use Londonderry. Also I think you're right that The Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead doesn't care what Wikipedia says about him. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
And of course you don't persistently use that title just to gratuitously offend republican sensitivities! Scolaire (talk) 11:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it's quite funny myself. Do you really think he could actually care less what Westmister calls him? Dmcq (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
In Wikipedia using what editors think rather than cited sources in an article is considered the more slippery slope. Dmcq (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I call him that because it's what he is! I use it because I find it rather ironic that in leaving the House of Commons he is given a title which means that he serves the Crown he claims to dislike. So if I were to link CSABOTMON to the source that says that's his title then would that not be such a slippery slope? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Both articles are linked to each other currently, what's your point? By the way there is no need to dislike the crown or England or anything like that for wanting to have one's own government. I was not referring to your comment under slippery slope but the originators saying that they should just change things because of what they think something should be rather than what the sources say. Dmcq (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Nice bit of trolling by C of E. Also agree with Sswonk the compromise is not done to annoy loyalist/unionist editors here, unlike the comments of others which I have just stated.Mo ainm~Talk 12:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I was not trolling, I was being ironic. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Official names of organisations, companies

I believe that Derry City Council, Port of Londonderry, and City of Derry Airport are the actual names of these organisations. They are exempt from wiki's famous Derry City/County Londonderry agreement, right? --Eamonnca1 (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Dmcq (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
And yes again and also Derry GAA which covers the County of Londonderry. Bjmullan (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Of course, same as the "East Londonderry" parliament constituency is exempt. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Very well done Eamonnca1, you ask questions with obvious answers but don't ask the real question at the heart of the issue. I'll do it for you below. Mabuska (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Interpretation of IMoS

The IMoS in regards to Londonderry/Derry is being flouted over at Gaeltacht, where Eamonnca1 insists it should be "South Derry" as that is suppossedly the projects name, and that as organisations etc. are called what they are actually called then this project should be to.

According to the original source original source it isn't even a project of any sorts, but a strategy which is called An Bealach chun Tosaigh which means "The Way Forward". Doesn't sound like South Derry Gaeltacht to me. An Internet search for this suppossed project provides us with almost every single hit being mirrors of this Wiki article or references to the An Carn link above.

This is a lame excuse for flouting the IMoS and would like everyone elses opinion on whether we should enforce the IMoS in regards to county names in this instance. Also as the sub-section title is dealing with the county it should at the very least have the county as Londonderry.

Mabuska (talk) 11:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

"flout Verb: Openly disregard (a rule, law or convention)"
To 'flout' is to say that I openly and deliberately violated a rule. I did no such thing. I checked in here first before making the edit. I can see that you're having a hard time with this WP:AGF thing but you must try harder. Comments like the one you've just made could be considered WP:UNCIVIL. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
You didn't check here first. Read what you asked up above and you never once mentioned this exact issue but places that aren't an issue. To then use the answers that don't even deal with exact issue as justification when none was given is very misleading and deceptive, and can be assumed to be flouting. This is hard for anyone to AGF with never mind me. Mabuska (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If it's not the official name of something that can be specifically sourced, then it should use County Londonderry. No interpretation or opinion on intent of user. Canterbury Tail talk 18:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Have to agree if it is not an official name then we have to go with LDerry. Mo ainm~Talk 18:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I've read that document and there is no mention of South Derry Gaeltacht that I can see, it is just in an article title reporting on it rather than a name. In fact I have my doubts it would even be called that eventually if it all pans out so I couldn't even justify it if crystal balls were allowed. This is the sort of reason I'd prefer that articles just go by the main references cited, but yes the guideline seems fairly clear it should be Londonderry when just referring to the area like this. Dmcq (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
If anything it'd more likely be called the Carntogher Gaeltacht as that is the small area it is centered on. Mabuska (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

RFC - Use of the Ulster Banner in Darts articles

Should Darts articles use the Ulster Banner to represent players from Northern Ireland? Discussion can be found here.

In addition to this there is a general discussion about the use of flags at the MOS which may be of interest. Find it here. Bjmullan (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be spill over from other Northern Ireland related articles. Questionable motives here I'm afraid. Afterlife10 (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Flags?

This article is misleading. The section on Flags at the bottom suggests, in contradiction with actual fact, that "At this time, neither the island of Ireland nor Northern Ireland has a universally recognised flag." However, the flag of Northern Ireland is a universally recognised flag that is used to represent Northern Ireland in many spheres. There is no flag to represent the whole of the island because it isn't a political entity. Likewise there is no flag used to represent North America, as far as I'm aware. However, one flag which is often used to represent Ireland is the St Patrick saltire. It is still used to this day in the Union Jack. --81.135.29.171 (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Currently Northern Ireland (the political entity) does not have a flag. Neither does the island of Ireland. However, in certain contexts different flags are used to represent both Ireland and Northern Ireland. Where a flag is used by an organisation to represent either Ireland or Northern Ireland in a particular context that is under its aegis, we use that flag.
For example the Northern Ireland national football team uses the Ulster Banner, the Ireland national basketball team uses the tricolour and the Ireland cricket team uses their own flag.
However, where there is no flag, we leave it blank rather than choosing one of our liking. --RA (talk) 07:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I think you'll find there is a flag for Northern Ireland, RA. You have stated so yourself. There is also a flag for Ireland, while it may not be used as commonly as it once was. These flags are the flag of Northern Ireland and the St Patrick saltire, respectively. Both these flags are used "universally" around the world to represent these different, though overlapping, entities. To state that there is no flag for either of these entities is misleading and, in fact, incorrect. --81.135.29.171 (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
"Universally"? Are you serious? I honestly don't know what else to say. - 46.7.141.61 (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Well why say anything then? To get back to the discussion - the Ulster Banner has as much status as does the Flag of St George. The former was the flag of 'the government of Northern Ireland' and it came to be used to represent the province as whole. Just because the goverment ceased to exist does not mean the flag can't be used any more. As I say, its current status is about the same as that of the Flag of England, but I don't see anyone (seriously) complaining about the use of that flag. This MOS needs re-writing with regard to the use of the Ulster Banner. In its curent form it it too restrictive and pushes the POV that the UB is not 'the flag of Northern Ireland' instead of 'not the flag of the government of Northern Ireland'. As regards a flag for the whole of Ireland. a come to mind; St Patrick's Saltire and the Four Provinces flag. Either could be used in Wikipedia to represent the island. A final note; replacing the UB with the Union Flag in articles is quite a stupid thing to do. It misleads the reader. Better to convey information accurately, even if some editors don't like the symbol being used to do so. WizOfOz (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Want to take a vote on the people who object to the use of the UB to represent NI? I for one STRONGLY object to it use outside the current IMOS guidelines. As the opening paragraph of the UB article states "Today it is mostly viewed as a loyalist symbol." Enough said. Bjmullan (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's a reasonable suggestion. After a few others have contributed to the debate it might be good to take a vote. I agree, it is viewed as a loyalist symbol (by the nationalists, mainly) but my point is that it can be used to represent NI here, because it remains a well-known emblem of NI, and also we should not acquiesce to this type of POV. Enough said? Well no, actually - Not enough said. WizOfOz (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Have fun with that. Just to make it clean I feel that any discussion on the use of the UB to represent NI is totally pointless but of course people are free to start any discussion here, pointless or not. Bjmullan (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Well that's fine if it's your point of view, but I think it's worthwhile to open the debate again. Other points of view may emerge and we may be in a position to amend the MOS. Just to get back to the issue, I wonder what views there are on the official status of the UB versus the official status of the Cross of St George? WizOfOz (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Of you go and open a new discussion but never remove my comments again. As for the English cross why don't you take that to that project for a deep discussion? Bjmullan (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes sir! Certainly sir! WizOfOz (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Irish Rail?

I wonder if anyone is willing to defend the continued statement that Iarnród Éireann is the most common name for Irish Rail in English. Certainly I haven't heard it called that in English in quite a few years since they started pushing Irish Rail as the brand. - 46.7.141.61 (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

"Derry" once again...!

I'm wondering if the policy on referring to "Derry" should be modified slightly. It seems slightly ridiculous in the article on Nigel Dodds, for example, to insist that it is always incorrect to refer to his home city as "Londonderry", when he would (presumably) refer to the city by that name. My suggestion is that for "unionist" topics we relax the rules a little, so that [[Derry|Londonderry]] is considered an acceptable option. Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC).

And do we do the same with County Derry/County Londonderry and do we guess of what they would like or get it in writing first or use OR? Unworkable. The Derry/Londonderry IMOS guideline is one of the most stable here on WP. Bjmullan (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Bjmullan if we were to go down that road we woud begin a guessing game as to what we believe the person would call Derry/LDerry. Mo ainm~Talk 19:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The proposal's been made and rejected before. The obvious difficulty with it is that there'll be a grey area over what constitutes a "Unionist" topic. Valenciano (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate that point. But that leaves us with a policy whereby it is always "wrong" to refer to "Londonderry" in an article. Dodds' website unambiguously states:

Born in Londonderry, Nigel is married to Diane and they have two children.

If a person self-identifies as being from "Londonderry", and our article on the city accepts that this is a valid name for the place, why do we not accept the validity of that name in that person's article? British spellings are considered as a matter of Wikipedia policy to be appropriate for "British" articles; surely this is a parallel case? After all, it doesn't get much more "British" than a unionist politican!
Andrew Gwilliam (talk). —Preceding undated comment added 19:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC).
Consistency and to avoid edit warring. There'll always be the flip side, nationalist politicians websites will refer to County Derry, not County Londonderry, yet we also don't include that there. Valenciano (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Consistency? Hm. I stumble across that argument from time to time on here, and it often fails to convince me. For one thing, we don't insist that all articles refer to (say) "the United States" rather than "the U.S.", "America", "the US", etc. Obviously that example doesn't have a "naming controversy" attached to it, but what's good for the goose should be good for the gander if "consistency" is to be involved.
I've not been around here long enough to comment on edit warring. But we clearly already have people who will "correct" from "Derry" to "Londonderry" in articles such as the one on Dodds, and have people who will correct those edits back, referencing the policy. Surely any proposal, whether the status quo or otherwise, will have this situation.
I don't think I can add anything without repeating myself (if I haven't done so already), and it looks so far like I'm going to completely fail to convince anyone here! {sigh}
Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC).
I mean consistency in order to avoid edit warring where it's likely to occur, as it undoubtedly would here. I'd think of this as similar to the policy at WP:ENGVAR. We have a clear, agreed upon policy in difficult cases and follow it. Valenciano (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

RFC: restructuring of the Manual of Style

Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation:

Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?

It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. NoeticaTea? 00:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Sigh Derry again

Editors are attempting to ignore IMOS and pipelink to the Derry article using LDerry as the text, on the County Londonderry article. So should we ignore the MOS in an attempt to state how the name of the county was derived. Bear in mind that the county is also called Derry. Mo ainm~Talk 18:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Mo ainm, you'v got it totally wrong. My proposal was (and still is) to write County Londonderry or County Derry (named after the city of the same name). I even provided a reliable source to support it. What's the problem with that? ~Asarlaí 19:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
As I said before see WP:EASTEREGG. Mo ainm~Talk 19:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
What's wrong with a wording along the lines of "both variants of the county's name come from its county town, which is alternatively called Derry or Londonderry" ? Factual and respects WP:IMOS and WP:NPOV as well as avoiding confusion for readers unfamiliar with the naming issue? Valenciano (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Agree, I have copied your proposal to the talk page. Mo ainm~Talk 09:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Flags

"For Irish states and polities at various times use the following:

Northern Ireland was never a State! Eog1916 (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, whatever it was, it was a polity. --RA (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Establishing consensus for proposal

GoodDay has proposed that on all articles relating to Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales we are to remove all mention of these entities and replace it with United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland obviously only between the dates 1801–1922, so is there consensus for this proposal? Mo ainm~Talk 15:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in including both. It's ridiculous to remove Ireland altogether, considering 5/6ths of it is now in a separate country, but I'd support "Ireland, UK" for the period specified. I think that's accurate and reasonable. JonChappleTalk 15:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Where is this proposal? Mooretwin (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
See above discussion. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
This is a question that relates not only to Ireland but to all of the places that were a part of the UK at the time. I've just quickly looked up a number of people who lived in the UK during that period, none of these give UKGBI but rather the relevant constituent country:
To be honest, as far as I can see, the proposal has no grounding in current practice as it stands. Of course there is nothing to stop GoodDay from opening an RFC on the matter but it will require more input than simply the IMOS. There are a number of (highly fraught) questions that hang over the treatment of places and nationality, not only historically but in the present day also, and involves all of the places in the archipelago. A general discussion/RFC on all of these issues might be worthwhile. --RA (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I have notified the England, Scotland and Wales wikiprojects about this proposal. Mo ainm~Talk 16:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I see that people in the Ukraine have been put under the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union and it does look a bit silly and unininformative. However it is also wrong to just say Ukraine. The target of any link should be correct but it might be better to say something like Ireland (UK) and I don't think it matters for Scotland or Wales or England - though they should still point at the historical country. So there's two problems, what should be displayed and what it should link to. Dmcq (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
The Ukraine didn't exist before 1922. Ireland did. Both before the UKGBI and within it. There is nothing historically inaccurate, misleading or "plain wrong" about linking to Ireland, No more than there is about linking to Scotland or England.
"...I don't think it matters for Scotland or Wales or England..." If it matters for one then it matters for them all. The equivalent of [[England]], [[Scotland]] or [[Wales]] is [[Ireland]]. We are not talking about linking these people to [[Republic of Ireland]], are we? That would be ridiculous. --RA (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, this is already covered in the MOS:

For people born before independence in 1922, describe their birthplace as simply Ireland (not [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|Ireland]]). Similarly, for people born before 3 May 1921 in what today is Northern Ireland say Ireland, not Northern Ireland or [[Northern Ireland|Ireland]], and do not describe them as Northern Irish.

--RA (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I think that there should be an RfC for this, as it may be more appropriate to gather greater consensus, especially on something that could be contentious with some people. JoshuaJohnLee talk softly, please 17:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose any change from current practice. GoodDay's argument is that at a given point in time, say in 1919, Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. Well, then, do contemporary sources use "United Kingdom"? Are there books or magazine or journal articles written in 1919 that say that George Bernard Shaw, for instance, was from Dublin in the United Kingdom? Or do they say he was from Ireland? If contemporary sources say Dublin was in Ireland, then so do we. Scolaire (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
You've a source that prooves Shaw wasn't born in the UKoG&I? GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Answering a question with a question. Scolaire (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Discuss What we have in the MOS looks wrong, it puts a geographical entity in the place of a political entity. And just using a large political entity also looks wrong, Algiers was a department of France for quite a time doesn't mean it didn't have a separate identity which reasserted itself like the Ukraine or the Baltic republics did. Putting in either just Algiers or France for someone born there while ruled from France looks wrong to me. Dmcq (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
What of it? If you're going to use an island as a locator for birthplaces, then use the other island [when necessary] too, for birthplaces and deathplaces. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
The Kingdom of Ireland & the Kingdom of Great Britain joined as one sovereign state in 1801. We're not concerned about things before that union. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Staunchly oppose A question for GoodDay. Have you ever seen John F. Kennedy described as a United Kingdom-American? British-American? I ask this because at the time his ancestors arrived in the United States Ireland was legally part of the UK. Yet it was recognised as having been a country named Ireland and the people were hence known as Irish.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
JFK was born in the United States, he was an American. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure you have read and heard the Kennedy family described as Irish-American?!
Old Patrick Kennedy was British-American, no matter how he styled himself. His descendants are American, no matter how they style themselves. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
And no matter how a whole sub-continent styles them, because Mr. GoodDay says so. Very sensible! Scolaire (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Whatever. Anyways, I'm acceptable to the linkage [United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|Ireland]. Some don't wanna single Ireland out, but unlike the other island [Great Britain], Ireland went through a partition. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. putting Ireland (UK) as the displayed version pointing to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland as in Ireland (UK). This could be used for places anywhere in Ireland before 1922. Ireland would give the straightforward bit and the (UK) would show that Ireland means something a bit different from what might be assumed nowadays. And wouldn't it have been better to do an RfC first? Dmcq (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support as proposer of using United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for anybody born in that sovereign state - which would be between 1801 & 1922. Also, birthplace & deathplace should be treated the same. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
That's an option, too. GoodDay (talk) 03:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Very strongly oppose singling out Ireland and Irish people only for this treatment. I would perceive that as another throw of the regular nationalist pissing matches that occur on articles to do with this region. This suggestion however — if Ireland is to be singled out — is a particularly low and overt form of it. I am not opposed to indicating that England, Scotland, Wales and (Northern) Ireland are/were in the United Kingdom (e.g. that Charles Darwin born in "Shropshire, England, United Kingdom" or that George Boole died in "Ballintemple, County Cork, Ireland, United Kingdom"). As pointed out by Scolare — and more creatively by Jeanne Boleyn — this is not usual practice. However, if we do so, it needs to be done neutrally and consistently. This means that Liam Gallagher was born in "Burnage, Manchester, England, United Kingdom" in the same way that Robert Emmet was executed in "Dublin, Ireland, United Kingdom". I don't see that flying (for the reason that it is not usual practice). However, singling out Ireland — if that is the proposal — is no more than nationalist territory marking, IMO. Finally, agreeing to change to current practice will require wider discussion. The IMOS is not the place to determine the style to be used in all articles to do with the United Kingdom. --RA (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm acceptable to the linkage [United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|Ireland], aswell as [United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|Scotland] etc etc. One can however understand why Ireland is a special case, considering its partition. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Partition has nothing to do with it. If there is a special case it is because Ireland is an fought for and won it's independence in 1921. Whether it's 26 or 32 counties of independent country is irrelevant. It's the fact that it is independent that is key. Fmph (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Great Britain wasn't eventually partitioned, but Ireland was. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
It'll be partitioned soon enough. So will Canada, maybe. Scolaire (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Thou shouldn't comment on the contributor. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
No, he shouldn't. It brought a smile to my face, though ;-) Scolaire (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Limerick was, and is, in Ireland. Cambridge was, and is, in England. Noting the UK (of whatever era) is pointless. This is classic GoodDay trolling. Why do Admins never intervene? Are they blind to this? What a waste of time and energy. Daicaregos (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Nice try. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
For what? Do you disagree with anything I said? Daicaregos (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
You're not even scratching the surface. Try again, what's the reason for your opposition? GoodDay (talk) 03:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we just pipe-link England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland? That way we get to say the constituent country whilst providing a relevant link? Mabuska (talk) 11:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

12-4 against, after a day. Too early to call WP:SNOW? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to say the current trend is a no go. With 12 opposes, there'd have to be something around 40+ supports, to be considered a go. There's little chance of 40+ editors showing up & less chance (if that many showed up) of all 40 supporting. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, if GoodDay is calling SNOW, I guess we can call SNOW. Scolaire (talk) 07:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Ireland is Ireland, North or South, Now and Then. All the world knows that. As a geographical place, culture, fount of Irishness. Regardless of invasion, immigration, emigration, Great Britain, the United Kingdom, Scotland, Wales or even the Isle of Man. Let's just keep politics out of it and not confuse ourselves, each other, or the rest of the world. Dorladem (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. In case all the talk of SNOW confused you, it means that opposition to the proposal snowballed, so there is no longer any need to continue this discussion. Scolaire (talk) 07:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Lang template

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Other languages, this part of the MoS should advise editors to wrap non-English text in {{Lang}}. How should we word that, in this case? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice catch. I've added a section here based on the section in the accessibility guidelines. Feel free to add to/change it. --RA (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
That looks fine to this English monoglot. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Gaeltacht villages names: which language should have primacy?

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

The nearest case to the present issue seems to be "Where the English and Irish names are different, and the Irish name is the official name, and has gained favour in English usage, use the official Irish name.". I don't think that the case covers the situation as it assumes that English usage is the common usage; why would anyone assume this of a Gaeltacht? Surely Gaelic is the common usage in a Gaeltacht? Would it matter what the English/French/German usage was? How would it be relevant in a Gaeltacht?
Arguments for the Gaelic primacy: per the "Official Languages Act 2003". Quoting from a Seanad debate of Wednesday, 15 June 2011:

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

.
While the name has been changed again by Ministerial order, the point is that until that time, the official name of the town was "An Daingean" despite lots of local, possibly even exclusive, use of the name "Dingle". While this is an English language Wiki, nevertheless, certain institutions that have the force of law get Gaelic primacy. For example, Seanad Éireann is still the primary address, not "Senate of Ireland" and Oireachtas is still the primary address, not the "Irish parliament". The example of Spiddal is particularly egregious as two of its references either support the Gaelic version (C.S.O. census) or support a differerent English spelling - Spiddle (Placenames Database).
Do we not need a new case like: "Where the English and Irish names are different, and the place is part of an official Gaeltacht area, use the official Irish name." ? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
No, we don't. At least in my opinion. It's Seanad Éireann and the Oireachtas because that's what everyone calls them - WP:COMMONNAME - nothing to do with the law. The same should apply to town names. So what if Éamon O Cúiv reckons Dingle should be called An Daingean - he's the only one who calls it that, everyone else, local Gaelteacht residents included, still call it Dingle. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
And yet we have a completely different set of rules for places in India compared with those in Ireland. For example, you won't find any article about Calcutta - instead you will find an article about Kolkata, despite the fact that Calcutta is by far the more common name for that city. Either we stick to official names throughout, or we stick to COMMONNAME throughout. The current WP system whereby there are radically different systems for topographic and geographic naming according to local political leanings is just farcical and really only undermines all other WP naming policies. Mac Tíre Cowag 13:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
For a long time now, I've been of the opinion that WP is messed up when it comes to arguing between Common names and Official names. I'm of the opinion that the article should always be located at the official name, with redirects from whatever common names exist. --HighKing (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

First off, Irish is the first official language of the whole country, according to the Irish Constitution. Second, this is the English language Wikipedia. That's why we have an Irish Manual of Style - to agree on the most appropriate use of Irish and English terms. IMOS is based on common sense and consensus, not on bureaucratic wrangling. Laurel Lodged has a problem with the current consensus (though I'm not clear exactly what it is); if more people have the same problem we might have to look at it again. At the moment though, nobody else seems to share LL's specific concerns. I for one think the current convention is just fine. Scolaire (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW, if I had voted, I would have voted for "Calcutta". I like to find what I would expect to find, not what some bureaucrat tells me I'm supposed to find. Scolaire (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Just for the sake of clarity - I am neither arguing for, nor against, the usage of official names over Common names. What I am simply stating is that currently in Ireland-related articles WP has stated we should use the Common Name over the Official Name (even if this is not always adhered to), while in India-related articles WP has stated we should use Official Names over the Common Name. This just does not make sense. Why is it one rule for one geographic area but another rule for another geographic area? Mac Tíre Cowag 14:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't have an answer to the main question, but a difference with the India situation is that India has declared Kolkata, Mumbai etc to be the official English language names of those cities, whereas in this case Ireland has declared only that Irish be used for official purposes in some areas (i.e. there doesn't seem to have been any attempt to rename any place as such). --FormerIP (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I've no idea. Maybe Kolkata is the common name in India - and there are a lot of Indians? But this isn't the page to discuss wiki-wide MOS policies, just Irish-related ones. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually there has. All places in the Gaeltacht have been renamed according to their Irish language version for official purposes, leaving private usage up to the individual - this includes all references to Gaeltacht places in legislation, acts, bills, planning, county development plans, maps (although private companies to have the option to include, in italics, brackets, or some other inferior position, the name in English), etc.. This is the exact same in India. The difference in India is that in many instances the public have gotten on board with the government's plans and implemented official government policy on a local private level. This has happened in Ireland too, albeit on a smaller level. Mac Tíre Cowag 14:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I think there's a difference between, on the one hand saying "Irish place-names shall be used for official purposes such as road signs and planning" and, on the other, saying "the English language names for these places has now changed". It's the first one that seems to have been done in Ireland (although I'll admit not to having examined the legal orders or whatever). I'm not saying this means anything in particular in terms of WP policy, just that the cases of Ireland and India look to be slightly different. --FormerIP (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Well the Placenames Order states all places in the Gaeltacht will use their Irish name as the official name. All places outside the Gaeltacht can use either the English or Irish name as the official name. It couldn't be any clearer than that. Mac Tíre Cowag 15:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Should it matter about India and the number of them though? How would you define common name? Is a common name one that is common universally? Restricted to one language group? Restricted by continent, country, province, state, county, district, parish, townland, family? I thought WP was an international encyclopaedia, not a parochial one. I tried to bring the topic up before in the general MOS but it was simply ignored. So....what does one do?
It does not matter what some articles about India do. We should just follow the policy which is WP:COMMONNAME. The common name in English documents should be used until a reasonably high percentage use the Irish instead. I'm happy for it to be a bit less than a half if it is indicative of a growing proportion. Dmcq (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying Dmcq, but when you are ignored on the general MOS (in my case told to bring it up here) and when there couldn't be a clearer case of double standards, what can you do? And how can you determine the percentage? Does historical use come into it? Even google searches are restrictive as Google does not always manage to determine the correct language used in web pages, as well as bringing up pages which include content which predates the internet itself via google books, scholar, etc. as well as early internet stuff via cached pages etc. There are also never any surveys done on usage (to my knowledge there were no government sanctioned surveys to determine whether or not the locals prefer Poll a' Tómais or Rossport. Again I state, why is there not a single policy? Or is it that we acknowledge the superiority of those on the Indian subcontinent of a nationalist persuasion, while look down on those of [substitute Indian with Irish and subcontinent with island] nationalist persuasion. The vast majority of English-speakers use Calcutta, including many Indians including Rohinton Mistry and others. Yet it is Kolkata the name used on WP. The majority of locals use Inis Oírr yet that article ignores preferred usage by inhabitants (unlike India), ignores the legally sanctioned name (unlike India) and instead uses Inisheer. It just doesn't add up. Mac Tíre Cowag 15:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
We're supposed to use a little common sense so no, historical uses don't come into it. The policy WP:COMMONNAME is what we should follow. It isn't a question of exact counting. In most cases the current common name should be fairly obvious and as I said above if you only got about 30% for a name but it was obviously newer uses then that's an indication the new name is now more widely used. What is done about India is irrelevant. Thgey have their own problems and we should not be picking and choosing a particular country over the policy.Dmcq (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
So where do you go then to discuss policy changes? General MOS tells me to refer to India and Ireland respectively. India tells me to refer to Ireland and the General MOS, and Ireland tells me to refer to the General MOS and India. In other words, no one is accountable and in the mean time we have two different policies despite the same criteria being available. It is senseless, hypocritical, non-neutral, biased, and displays, whether intentionally or not, that WP adheres to its own policies only occasionally. And worst of all, there is no comeback or possibility of change - in this case there are three groups involved with each group passing the buck to the other two. Mac Tíre Cowag 15:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
The relevant place is Wikipedia talk:Article titles. It's a policy, not a guideline. --RA (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
There is no gap in the MOS on this subject. The relevant section is:

"Where the English and Irish names are different, and the Irish name is the official name, but has not yet gained favour in English usage, use the English name.
...
Where the English and Irish names are different, and the Irish name is the official name, and has gained favour in English usage, use the official Irish name."

The relevant piece of policy (not a guideline) is Wikipedia:Article titles (see WP:COMMONNAME). An essay that may be of interest also is Wikipedia:Official names. On the English-language Wikipedia we use the common name in the English language. If that happens to be an Irish-language name, it doesn't matter. If it happens not to be the official name, it doesn't matter.
Please do not quote Irish legislation. It doesn't matter either. For the most part, the only legislation that matters when it comes the content of the Wikipedia project are the laws of Florida, USA. And even then it is, for the most part, only copyright and libel matters that we might be concerned with. --RA (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I am not citing laws or anything like that to force through a change of name for all Gaeltacht places to their Irish language form. I actually believe that all places should be in their English-language format - this is, after all, the English language Wikipedia. What I am arguing about is why on the English language WP we use English names for Officially Irish language places, but use Kannada, Hindi, Bengali, etc. names for places with English names which are far more common. Even taking down all language restrictions, Calcutta is more popular in English than Kolkata is in English and Bengali combined!!! Using COMMONNAME we would expect to find the article at Calcutta, the more common English language name. Instead we find it at Kolkata, the lesser preferred local variant. In other words, all policies and guidelines are applicable to Irish placenames, but India gets special treatment. RA - I went to the relevant pages on naming policies and guidelines before adn was told there that this is a local (i.e. Ireland specific) issue and should be dealt with here. Now I'm being told here to just put up with the rules, procedures, guidelines and policies as already implemented. Can you not see how this is ridiculous? Mac Tíre Cowag 16:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I can see it is ridiculous to be discussing problems about names in India on this page. Dmcq (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
So let me get this straight, Dmcq. You don't believe I should discuss India-related placenames here. At the India page I shouldn't discuss Ireland-related placenames. And in the central location for such discussions they tell you to go to the local pages, which is what I did - it's why I am here. But without being able to compare what the problem is nothing can be done. So basically you are saying that the rules and guidelines as set down are there to stay, irrespective of how illogical they are, simply because those who created them have vested interests in maintaining them. And nobody else is allowed to change them.Mac Tíre Cowag 16:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
If you want to discuss India pages then the India place is the proper first place to complain. If you get no satisfaction you can discuss problems at WP:VPP or start aproposal at WP:VPPR or on the talk page of WP:TITLE. Dmcq (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Already tried that. This is the problem. I was told it was a local issue and should be dealt with locally. The Indian side of things say that the Official English name should be used for Indian placenames and supersede Common Names with the same methods being used here (substituting Offical for Common). The Irish side of things say that the Common English name (including Irish names having passed into common English usage) should be used and supersede the Official English name (which all Gaeltacht placenames now are). The Indians say not to mention Ireland as an example, the Irish say not to mention India as an example, and all central locations say to bring it up either here or at the relevant Indian local page. Which I did, and now here I am...back to square one. Mac Tíre Cowag 16:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, but seriously, you're discussing Irish articles at the Indian MOS and Indian articles at the Irish MOS. There's a problem right there.
Personally, I don't see the problem with using Hindi and Bengali. I'm a native English speaker and I cannot think of another word for these. I would have thought that Calcutta was more common that Kolkata. There was a recent move request on Talk:Kolkata. After reading that I did a Google trends search for Calcutta vs. Kolkata (i.e. which word do people search for). See the results here. I was surprised.
I never heard of Kannada or Canarese before but a Google trends result is very strongly suggests Kannada is the more common. --RA (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
This is the wrong place to discuss names in India. I really couldn't care less in this context about such things. They have been pointed at the correct forums. I really do not want to hear any more of their irrelevant moans. Dmcq (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks guys - you just proved my point. There is nowhere to discuss policies or guidelines. Just endless circles always bringing you back to square one. I am not discussing Indian policies here - I am using it as a comparison. Like what I did at the local community for Indian placenames. And Dmcq's opinion directly above illustrates the type of attitude people like me encounter. The bottom line is this: either agree with double standards or, if you have a genuine concern, go somewhere else but not here. But no one is willing to inform me of where that somewhere else is. Either that or you simply can't wrap your heads around the fact that there is a serious inconsistency in WP's naming policy, but that if you have a concern you are supposed to just keep it to yourself and shut up. There is no one willing to discuss the issue and certainly no one with a bit of help. Mac Tíre Cowag 17:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Mac, I don't think there is a double standard. The Calcutta example for India was the only one I would have picked out as being not the common name. However, since looking a little more into it, I'm convince that it is in fact the common name. --RA (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think some of us may be showing our age here. My daughter's friend was in Kolkata. She had never heard of "Calcutta". Scolaire (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Modest proposal That the IMOS be amended as follows:

"Where the place is in the Gaeltacht and a Ministerial order has not revoked or amended the official name, use the Irish name, which is both the official name and may be presumed to be the common name within the Gaeltacht itself"
"Where the place is not in the Gaeltacht and where the English and Irish names are different, and the Irish name is the official name, but has not yet gained favour in English usage, use the English name.
"Where the place is not in the Gaeltacht and where the English and Irish names are different, and the Irish name is the official name, and has gained favour in English usage, use the official Irish name."

What relevance does common usage have outside the place itself? Is self identification not the most important thing? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Common usage for who? The locals in Dingle call it Dingle, along with the rest of the country, even if Éamon Ó Cuiv and legislation calls it An Daingean. Even in the example used on the WP:IMOS page, the Muine Bheag example is dodgy - 91,000 ghits against Bagenalstown's 696,000 ghits. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I've amended the modest proposal to include "and a Ministerial order has not revoked or amended the official name". This provides an opt-out for Dingle. I am not aware of any other Gaeltacht village that has secured a similar exemption from the norm. Nor am I aware of any local plebiscites to secure such an Order. They presumption of local common usage would still stand then. Does this amendment assuage your concerns? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
"Where the place is in the Gaeltacht and a Ministerial order has not revoked or amended the official name, use the Irish name, which is both the official name and may be presumed to be the common name within the Gaeltacht itself"
I'm sorry, but there's only one way to describe that - verbal diarrhea! Some people need to get a life! Scolaire (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
How would it, LL? By that reasoning, you'd still have Dingle moved to Daingean, despite the fact that the locals call it Dingle. (The same way 5 of the 7 organisations or venues that take their name from the town, named on Muine Bheag call themselves Bagenalstown. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
We've a policy about this WP:COMMONNAME. Local conventions cannot overrule policy. All that something in IMOS can do is give the usual presumption about what the common name is but common name in English is the policy. Dmcq (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
To Bastun - Dingle would stay as Dingle as it has received permission by Ministerial Order to use the English language name. To Scolaire - just what I would have expected you to say. To Dmcq - local conventions can overrule policy when they become policy. If the modest proposal is accepted into IMOS it becomes policy. Is there anything in the revised proposal to prevent it being part of IMOS? Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, yes. It's rubbish. Scolaire (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
IMOS is a guideline not a policy. Policy takes precedence especially for things like this. See WP:POLICY. Dmcq (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
LL - I'd just leave it as is if I were you. Some editors refuse to discuss certain topics and refuse to give assistance. You're only banging your head against a very big brick wall. You will be ignored or mocked if you continue. Mac Tíre Cowag 07:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Advice

Should we use UK for places in Ireland as seen by this edit by GoodDay here. Or go with Limerick Ireland? Mo ainm~Talk 13:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

We should absolutely not use UK for places in Ireland. Scolaire (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Having said that, "an Irish-born philosopher from Ireland" does sound funny, so this edit doesn't seem unreasonable. Scolaire (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not altogether sure, saying United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, possibly prefixed by 'the then' might be okay. However abbreviating it just to UK is definitely wrong as that implies it is the same as the modern UK which it isn't especially as the UK now does not include the birthplace. Dmcq (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Agree Scolaire, see what you mean. Mo ainm~Talk 14:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I won't loose sleep over it, but the island then was a part of a country called United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The pipe-link clarifies it further, just like we use a pipe link to Republic of Ireland at other articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
The pipe link did not clarify, it obscured. A person would expect a country and a country was provided. When Ireland is written in a context where a country is required there is no confusion. Dmcq (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
The pipelink did clarify, the country-in-question in 1919, was the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland' - which though can be confusing, was often shortened to United Kingdom. One could equally argue that pipe-linking Republic of Ireland as Ireland is equally confusing. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Linking Ireland to Republic of Ireland in that context would be confusing okasy but that is not what we are talking about. What we are talking about is you linking to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland using UK in a context where a reader would easily be misled by what you wrote. In a modern article linking to Republic of Ireland using Ireland would not cause confusion in a context where a country is expected. Dmcq (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Not really GoodDay. Ireland covers both the RoI and Northern Ireland currently. The UK does not cover the RoI currently. All information in a page should be easily understood, even when printed. The use of UK for the UK of GB and I without clarification in the infobox does not allow a reader to easily understand the information, or at worst, provides false information. A reader unfamiliar with the history of the British Isles would be unaware that the independent Irish state came into being in 1922. They would, however, be very much aware of the UK. Without anything to prompt them they may simply not click on the pipelink and may simply assume Limerick was then, and is now, part of the UK. Mac Tíre Cowag 14:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Why did you not pipe-link Ireland to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland if you wanted to clarify what Ireland meant then? Dmcq (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
(responses to Dmcq & MacTire) Howabout this kinda pipe-link? [United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|Great Britain and Ireland]. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Better still leave it as Ireland the way it was. Mo ainm~Talk 15:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
If you're going to use islands, then do it for both 'birth' & 'death' places. In otherwords - Ireland & Great Britain. In the meantime, I've implimented my idea - for however long it stays. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Better yet, let's skip the pipe-link completely. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Leaving out the pipe link entirely is acceptable to me. Dmcq (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) So what you are proposing GoodDay is that every article on wikipedia of people born between 1 January 1801 and 6 December 1922 we are to use United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in the infobox? Mo ainm~Talk 15:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Exactly, as it would be accurate, informative & not confusing. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
So it is your intention then to begin this task? Mo ainm~Talk 15:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll have to see if it's accepted here first. If it is? then the task would keep me occupied & out of trouble (no pun intended). GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


I'm going with IMOS: "People born before independence in 1922 have their birthplace referred to as just Ireland, not Northern Ireland or Ireland or Ireland." Hohenloh + 11:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

New talk page header

I don't like the new header or the archive search box, but I don't want to just revert if this is some new directive that is being implemented across the project (or if everybody else thinks it's great!). Can anybody tell me why it was changed like this? Scolaire (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the way it was, more informative. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
The search box gives you access to archives. If you don't like it, feel free to remove it. The old header duplicated the page name, which is duplicated again in edit mode. So we now say the page name twice instead of three times. There was some fluffy stuff about being nice. The banner covered the entire width of the page. It was just my humble attempt at reducing stuff that we see a thousand times that gets in the way of content. If you don't like what I did, feel free to revert it, it's not a big deal. Lightmouse (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
The new header not just removed several useful links but also removed the MiszaBot's archiving code (are you going to manually archive the page?), the page shortcut and links to the individual archive pages, making it difficult to browse the archives. If you can readd all those features in a compact way, then I will approve, otherwise this seems like a seriously retrograde step. ww2censor (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
That's fine. Once I know I'm not alone, I'll revert. Scolaire (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
The removal of the archiving code and shortcut was unintentional. I can see why that raised your eyebrows. I've just done a temporary edit showing an archive box including links to archives. It's certainly more succinct and I think more helpful than what was there. Lightmouse (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Poll on ArbCom resolution - Ireland article names

There is a poll taking place here on whether or not to extend the ArbCom binding resolution, which says there may be no page move discussions for Ireland, Republic of Ireland or Ireland (disambiguation), for a further two years. Scolaire (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Famous 'Irish' people

I have been looking over the biographical articles of some famous people born in Northern Ireland. They are, without exception, described as being Irish. Since this carries political overtones not easy to ignore, mightn't it be better to do a wholesale review of the situation? Being Northern Irish myself, there are elements of national disenfranchisement to this that make me rather uncomfortable. I'm also an academic studying Northern Irish literature, and seeing Seamus Heaney described as 'Irish' certainly raises my eyebrows as well of those of my colleagues (particularly since Derek Mahon, Paul Muldoon and Michael Longley are described as Northern Irish). Other individuals who ought to be looked at: Stephen Rea, Louis MacNeice (a particularly egregious example), Terry George, Brian Friel, Ciaran Hinds, Liam Neeson (who manages to be described as Irish in the same phrase in which his OBE is mentioned), etc, etc. Is there a policy in place which covers this situation, and which might go some way to preventing further terminological inexactitudes? Or will we have to create one?BlackMarlin (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Being born in Northern Ireland doesn't make one Northern Irish and that is the case for Seamus Heaney for one, who identifies himself as Irish (see page 78). Bjmullan (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Technically your wrong Bjmullan. He is Northern Irish in the sense of a toponym, which simply means where someone is from without any overtones of citizenship or nationality.
There is an unwritten rule of thumb which works fairly well for most articles in regards to this issue (especially amongst UK citizens) - go with self-identification if there is an issue over it. If someone self-identifies as something then it should be assumed that is how they want themselves to be seen. If Seamus Heaney self-identifies as Irish and nothing else, then he is Irish, if someone says they are Northern Irish then they are Northern Irish, if someone says British then British. Fair enough compromise even though it flies in the face of UK nationality law. Unfortunately it doesn't solve the issue of someone who self-identifies as several things...
I also wouldn't worry about the OBE, Bob Geldof has a KBE but is still Irish. Mabuska (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
While we're on the subject BlackMarlin another of your examples, Liam Neeson, is also Irish. Not sure if the is technical Irish or just Irish Irish. Perhaps you should just stick to literature, in the literal sense. Bjmullan (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Bjmullan i'd suggest you read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL as there was no call for the remark at the end of your comment. Anyways i already discussed the Liam Neeson example (what other example above has an OBE?), along with the self-identification rule of thumb, so how exactly your raising "another" of BlackMarlin's examples i don't know. Mabuska (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Might I point out to there is a part of the Good Friday Agreement saying in effect that if people in Northern Ireland want to describe themselves as Irish or British or both or to hold either or both citizenships then they will be respected as such by the two governments. Dmcq (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Essentially the self-identification rule of thumb. Mabuska (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
And once this Ireland title business quietens down I'd like to propose the same sort of thing applies to Derry/Londonderry in references from articles. It's daft referring to Derry if all the citations for a biography say Londonderry. Dmcq (talk) 12:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
No it isn't Fmph (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
It is daft. The only problem with Dmcq's suggestion that would arise though is warring between editors with their textbooks claiming one says one or the other and abusing Google books in an attempt to outweigh the other. Though it would work well in many instances such a quotes. Mabuska (talk) 22:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
No it isn't Fmph (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Bjmullan, Helen Vendler's position is one that is contrary to the bulk of critical opinion on the matter - I would refer you to Edna Longley's 'Poetry in the Wars', Terence Brown's 'Northern Voices: Poetry from Ulster', Clair Wills' 'Improprieties: Politics and Sexuality in Northern Irish Poetry', Neil Corcoran's 'The Chosen Ground: Essays on the Contemporary Poetry of Northern Ireland' and, last but by no means least, Seamus Heaney's own 'Place and Displacement: Recent Poetry of Northern Ireland'. (Helen Vendler, incidentally, is notorious amongst critics of Northern Irish literature for her spectacular misreading of Paul Muldoon's poetry - a mistake which has led to her work in that sphere to be taken with a very large grain of salt). And Liam Neeson isn't 'simply' Irish - Ballymena was still north of the border last time I checked. Perhaps what I'm looking for is some kind of template along the lines of 'so-and-so is a Northern Ireland -born Irish/British actor/poet/playwright/whatever'. That would seem to satisfy the requirements of accuracy while satisfying the demands of political sensitivities. BlackMarlin (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you will find the Liam is simply Irish as he was born in Ireland and identifies himself as Irish (as do many people). That only complicated thing about him is his America citizenship. The rest is all well and good but adding the place of birth just for the hell of it in the opening goes against WP:OPENPARA. Bjmullan (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
What about the first chunk of BlackMarlin's comment? In regards to "is simply Irish as he was born in Ireland", thats as daft an arguement as argueing for the inclusion of European because he is born in Europe. Also in that regard Bjmullan you'd also have to accept that he is also British as he was born in the United Kingdom, and last i looked, country of birth is more relevant and important than island or landmass of birth. BlackMarlin you will discover soon enough, even compromises like that don't always satisfy the demands of some editors political sensitivities. Mabuska (talk) 22:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Mabuska, I do not accept that being born in Northern Ireland makes you British. Everyone born in Northern Ireland has the choice and Liam, like so many, choose to be Irish. Bjmullan (talk) 11:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
He was born in the United Kingdom, therefore he's British born. He can self-identify as a Martian & he'd still be British born. PS: This is true of all people born in the United Kingdom, including those who self-identify as English, Scottish & Welsh. They're (wheither they like it or not) British. GoodDay (talk) 05:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
The British and Irish governments will recognize him as Irish, not British as per their agreement. It is not always the case that a person born in Britain even is counted as British. Dmcq (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Being born in Britain does not make one British born. It makes one born in Britain. It's that simple. Fmph (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Since the bio articles are using English, Scottish & Welsh - the Liam Neeson article should use Northern Irish. Thankfully, he hasn't requested that he be recognized as a Martian. GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
You can work out a number of cases on your own, but one case I'm not sure about is coming up, will a person born within the confines of the Olympic stadium during the games be British? Dmcq (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
If one of it's parents are British citizens, then i assume it'd be entitled to it :-P Mabuska (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Peace Bridge

I notice that there is no article on the Peace Bridge as there is with the Craigavon and Foyle bridges. I'm asking here first as I don't want to start a dispute, what should the name of this article be? "Peace Bridge (Derry)"? - Cyanoir (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

"Peace Bridge (Foyle)"? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
As you asked here, go with IMOS. Mo ainm~Talk 20:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I like the Peace Bridge (Foyle) as it's neither a Derry or Waterside bridge but one the crosses the Foyle. Can't use just Peace Bridge as this is already an article. Bjmullan (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
BTW I have started an article here, which you are all welcome to contribute to until we decide on the best name. Bjmullan (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Well that was a nice peaceful resolution ;-) Dmcq (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I have now created the article, which can be found at Peace Bridge (Foyle). Bjmullan (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Open Ireland page move discussion

After a two-year ban imposed by Arbcom, a page move discussion for theRepublic of Ireland can be entertained.

Bios

MOVED
Discussion moved to WikiProject Biography

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.

I propose we use United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland pipelinked as Ireland, for those born on the island between 1800 & 1922. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Some questions:
  • Do we use Kingdom of Great Britain pipe linked as England, Scotland or Wales between born in those places between 1707 and 1801? No?
  • Do we use United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland pipe linked as England, Scotland or Wales for people born in those places between 1801 and 1922? No?
  • Do use United Kingdom pipe linked as England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland for people born in those places since 1922? No?
Other may be interested in a previous related discussion. --RA (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
In the first instance: we should be pipelinking as Great Britain. In the second instance: we should be pipelinking as Great Britain and Ireland & in the third instance: we should be using United Kingdom, as E/S/W&NI aren't sovereign states. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
What we should do and what we do do are different things. The MOS reflect current consensus. Common practice is to give the place of birth of people born in the United Kingdom (1801—present) as England, Ireland (or Northern Ireland), Scotland or Wales and as being English, Irish (or Northern Irish), Scottish or Welsh. Similarly, it is common practice to give the birth place of people in the Kingdom of Great Britain (1707—1801) as England, Scotland or Wales and as being English, Scottish or Welsh.
You are certainly free to seek to change that consensus. However, I don't think the IMOS is the proper place to do so. The issue affects more than just Ireland. It affects the whole of the United Kingdom (and the Kingdom of Great Britain before it). --RA (talk) 20:26, 12 November 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.

Disam

I have edited Ireland into articles that I believed were disambigious ,[[1]] and [[2]] for example , user:Snappy has reverted these edits claiming the need to disambiguate , I left a message on his talk page and still have got no response , I have done a lot of these edits and now am wondering is it correct? (based on "In other places prefer use of Ireland, except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context or where confusion may arise. In such circumstances use Republic of Ireland (e.g. "Strabane is at the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland"). An exception is where the state forms a major component of the topic (e.g. on articles relating states, politics or governance) where Ireland should be preferred and the island should be referred to as the island of Ireland, or similar (e.g. "Ireland is a state in Europe occupying most of the island of Ireland"). ")

Also in Football (word) an editor is editing out Irish media and replacing it with media from the Republic of Ireland , to disambiguate but already under the title Republic of Ireland , I see only POV (as they didnt correct the part about Northern Ireland ) as something from the state should surely be described as Irish . I AGF on this the first time and didnt on the second . Murry1975 (talk) 13:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with you on both set of instances. However, a better place to get consensus on the application of the MOS may be the related talk pages rather than here. --RA (talk) 13:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Certainly agree with you on the Garda ones, having looked at the diffs - no need for disambiguation. No question but that they should point to Ireland. No idea on the others without the diffs. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Just went through 10 articles that I edited that are Gardai , CAB and Irish army that are all pipelinked Republic of Ireland all by the same editor , I need advice please .
Some are as easily confused as a lemon , eg- Póilíní Airm (Ireland) , if the editor was so concerned why not change the title ? Instead the country in the infobox reads Republic of Ireland . I need help on this one as I dont know what to do . Do I re-edit and get them edited again , also here [[13]] on an edit he reverted I left well alone after this comment "Reverted to revision 453854413 by Snappy: rv - is wikipeire back again?. " Murry1975 (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
In my view, there is no need to distinguish one "Ireland" from the other in those examples. There is no more risk associated with saying the Gardaí are the national police of Ireland than saying they are the national police of the Republic of Ireland. I'll drop a line at WP:IE to invite comment here, I'll ask Snappy to comment here too. --RA (talk) 09:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Usage of the pipelink is fine in these circumstances, as per the WP:IMOS. The articles should use [[Republic of Ireland | Ireland]]. --HighKing (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
From my perspective, Snappy has a 'revert' finger that's 'too heavy' around Irish related articles. GoodDay (talk) 13:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted nos. 4 to 13 above. I removed the redundant sentence in #3 (which had been changed); the first sentence already read "[[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]". BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with the consensus here regarding my edits. I am not involved with the Football issue. GoodDay, as you should know, please refrain from commenting on the individual and stick to the issue at hand. Snappy (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Snappy , comment on the editor , I draw your attention to the implication you made "is wikipeire back again?" , that most certainly is on the editor, as GoodDays comment was on reverts that was a comment on your reverts , your comment was an implication of one of an editor who had more sock-puppets that I have socks in my drawer , not a comment I like and one I would prefer retracted .Murry1975 (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
HighKing speaks the current consensus. Per the WP:IMOS the articles should use Ireland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Second mention of Republic of Ireland

I am working on the article Gallon in which the effect of an EU directive is discussed. My proposed text is something like "The EU directive affects both the United Kingdom and the Republic ot Ireland. The Republic's response was .... and the United Kingdom's response was ..." . Is this acceptable; should I use just "Ireland" or always stick to the "Republic of Ireland"? Martinvl (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

In this case it should be clear that we are dealing with states, so the first reference should be to Ireland and any further references just to Ireland. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Ditto. It is clear in this instance that states are being talked about so, Ireland should be used. Aside from that, as no error can come about through misinterpretation. What is being spoken about applies is true for both Ireland-the-state and Ireland-the-island.
I don't think that referring to "the Republic" is appropriate ever on Wikipedia. We from the UK and Ireland are familiar with it as a euphemism, but for an international audience, I don't think it is appropriate. --RA (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Unless the island of Ireland is being mentioned, stating just Ireland pipe-linked to Republic of Ireland is the way to go. Mabuska (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Could some explain

When exactly, did proposals for amendments to guidelines not get discussed on the talk page of the guideline in question? Could someone also explain when this page became a Wikiproject? Many thanks. 2 lines of K303 10:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Irish free state Country of Birth?

Patrick Hillery was born in 1923 in Spanish Point so his country of birth is Irish Free State but another editor states that places of birth for that time are geographical and it should state Ireland, which one is correct? C. 22468 (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

A much-debated point on which there is little agreement. There was a long bout on ? Talk:Wikiproject:Biography ot long ago. I would suggest that few Irish bio infoxes say "United Kingdom" for 19th century people, as few American ones say "British America" etc for 17-18th century ones, so geography is the de facto norm here. Usually the argument centres on the Baltic States, medieval Germany/Italy etc. But "then in the ..." should give the state at the time in the text. Johnbod (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
A very debated point. Per Johnbod, the usual for the period when Ireland was in the United Kingdom is [[Ireland]] (as per [[England]], [[Scotland]], [[Wales]], and [[Northern Ireland]] today). The point is however, the Irish Free State was not in the United Kingdom.
There is a debate as to when the current Irish state began. One tradition is that it began with independence (and so [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] would be appropriate for Hillary). Another tradition is that it began with the enactment of the 1937 constitution (and so [[Irish Free State|Ireland]] may be more appropriate). A compromise may be "in what is now the [[Republic of Ireland]]".
I would argue that [[Ireland]] is inappropriate, just as it would be for someone born today, since Ireland was partitioned at the time. --RA (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
"For Irish states and polities at various times use the following: Ireland (or Republic of Ireland), 6 December 1922-"

I would go with [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] from this piece of IMOS , it states what flags should be used but never uses Free State maybe its an oversight and needs to be addressed. But I would use that piece of IMOS and that link , the article states from independence so it is relavent to the time period. [[Ireland]] would be incorrect as it states in IMOS pre-1922 and 1923 is after that (cant believe I just typed that !) .As a discussion is going on between Free state and Republic of Ireland , I will stick the latter in and remove with note the edit at the moment which by concensus and IMOS , not that I dont like coolguys idea but to go with the stable form for now .Murry1975 (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Its not just Hillery its anyone born around that time, the Richard Harris page has Limerick, Ireland formerly Irish Free State which could be used for it. C. 22468 (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes its a muddle on that , just goin through the history , [[Irish Free State|Ireland]] was used on that one . I wasnt around for the previous debates on the names of the state , maybe it came up in that , RA would know and some of the other editors , you might be waiting awhile for more comments.Murry1975 (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
So the options are [[Ireland]], [[Irish Free State|Ireland]], [[Irish Free State]] and [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]. I would suggest that [[Irish Free State|Ireland]] or [[Irish Free State]] would be the best one to use. C. 22468 (talk) 10:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd go for Irish Free State. As that's the correct for the time period. It didn't become the Republic of Ireland until 1949. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
How does this sound then "For people born after independence in 1922 but before Ireland became a Republic in 1937, describe their birthplace as Irish Free State" C. 22468 (talk) 11:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
But Ireland didn't become a Republic until 1949. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
what about changing the word republic to constitution of IrelandC. 22468 (talk) 12:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
That mean you'd have Ireland for pre-1922, Irish Free State for 1922-37, Eire/Ireland for 1937-49, and Republic of Ireland from 1949; or we could keep it simple and just use Ireland. Snappy (talk) 12:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Bit misleading just to use Ireland. I like that idea of using those 4 names for the respective time periods. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
It's not misleading once you grasp that it is not a historical statement, but a geographical one. Geography for the infobox; history and geography in the text. Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The problem with giving Irish Free State (with no more comment) as a place of birth is that it is, in the scheme of things, a relatively obscure to many. Indeed, it would tend to refer more to a period than to a place. It lasted only 15 years.
In a similar vein, we wouldn't give the place of birth of people born on Great Britain between 1653 and 1659 as the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland. Like the IFS, that state is today an obscurity to many and, to those who do know about it, it refers more to a period than to a place.
In an attempt to strike a balance between accessibility and accuracy, I would suggest that Hillary was born in Ireland, in what was then the Irish Free State. --RA (talk) 13:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but just Ireland in the infobox, with the history just in the text. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Its not just Hillary its any one born around that time. C. 22468 (talk) 13:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Of course, I'm just using Hillary as an example. --RA (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
That's a good point about The Protectorate, for example Sir Thomas Grosvenor, 3rd Baronet is described as born in England, not the Protectorate or the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland. Snappy (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, because biography infoboxes of anglophone subjects mainly use geography rather than history, and rightly so. Apart from anything else, actually determining the correct contemporary state for many Eurasian historical subjects can be complicated and beyond the capability of most infobox-fillers. Vast numbers of boxes that try to use history are plain wrong or misleading, as Irish Early medieval ones often would be if we didn't just use geography. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Anglo-Irish

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

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

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

This misconception needs to be addressed.

I propose that Anglo-Irish not be used in the lede or infobox as a replacement for Irish, because it is a term for a privileged social class that existed/exists within Ireland, it is not a nationality, it should be used only when we are discussing the individual after the lede, or the first line of the lede. Sheodred (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


Ango-Irish is an ethnic group (or even a sub-ethnic one) not a nationality , the biggest problem with nationality in regards to this time period seems to be what was a nation , was it the UK or one of the home nations; a term that dates from that time period . Neither Irish/Scottish/Welsh/English is mutually exclusive to British from this period , a recent dicussion on the BIOs talk page [[14]] indicated that a hard and fast rule could not be used and each must be judged and guided through the articles talk page .Murry1975 (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
In the above paragraph, Murry1975 has referred everybody on this here page to the discussion dating from two weeks ago at the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Infobox_of_people_born_on_the_island_of_Ireland.2C_in_the_United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland where is was concluded that for any biography of an Anglo-Irish individual, "a hard and fast rule could not be used and each must be judged and guided through the article's talk page" for the individual. I fully agree with that conclusion. Seanwal111111 (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
The nationalities of figures that are and were born in the UK at the time and now, are still referred to by their constituent nationalities (Scottish, English, Welsh, Irish (sometimes Northern Irish) not Anglo-Irish, it is in most cases that in the bio of Irish figures that some editors are trying to push British and get rid of Irish, and we do not see the same extent of that problem in Scottish/English/Welsh articles. Sheodred (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Anglo-Irish can not go in a lead or infobox as it is an ethnicity and should be replaced with either Irish or British , to which ever the figure was identified as ,by either himself or others.Murry1975 (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
British, should always be used, 'if' it's an individual who was born/lived/died, in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland or United Kingd of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Lots of Scottish articles would then need to be changed Lugnad (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
British should certainly not be used automatically for Irish persons who were subjects of the British crown during the 1801-1922 period. These people would generally have been regarded as Irish, and they certainly were not from Britain. I have yet to be convinced that describing them as British is anything other than an anachronism resulting from projecting the current practice of using 'British' as an adjective relating to the United Kingdom generally and uncritically back onto a previous period.
In any case, this is the third time you have brought up this proposal and it utterly failed on the previous two occasions. You must know by now that it's a non-runner, so why keep dragging it up? ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Good question, CCTO. GoodDay, why are you insisting on this, once again? Do you really think insisting on describing Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness, Michael Collins or Daniel O'Connell as "British" is realistic, viable, accurate, or in any way a runner?! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Being of Anglican descent is entirely relevant for those people of those days. Know why? Because it's still relevant today. If a figure is a recent descendent or consider theirself to live on foreign soil it is entirely relevant in any article about any person as it might discuss the persons origin and family background. The concise way to sum that up may be Anglo-Irish, and if it is not *concise*, let's hear it what is. Britain is an island. Being British is confered on foreign descendants as they please. There is no further relevance to that last, is there? Gerry ever lived in Britain for instance or feel that his family belong there in their hearts? Tish. ~ R.T.G 00:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
"If a figure is a recent descendent or consider theirself to live on foreign soil..." More often than not, people described as Anglo-Irish in Wikipedia articles were not recent decedents nor considered themselves to live on foreign soil. --RA (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed addition

No consensus on this proposal. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 20:44, 14 December 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.

There are a number of related issues, so I propose that the following be added to the Biographical articles section in the IMOS:

For most people born on the island of Ireland before 6 December 1922, describe their nationality as Irish ([[Irish people|Irish]]). For most people born in Northern Ireland after 3 May 1921, give their nationality as Irish or Northern Irish ([[People from Northern Ireland|Northern Irish]]) or simply say that they are "from Northern Ireland". For most people born after 6 December 1922 in what is today the Republic of Ireland, give their nationality as Irish.

For some people who were: (a) born in what became Northern Ireland; (b) before the partition of Ireland; but who (c) first became notable for activities in the United Kingdom after partition; and (d) it is difficult to reach consensus on their nationality, consider saying the person was "from [County XXX/City], Ireland" or describing them in relation to their activities "in Northern Ireland".

In some cases, particularly historical, it may be appropriate to describe people born on the island of Ireland as English, Scottish or Gaelic. Do not describe people as being Anglo-Irish in the first sentence of an article or give Anglo-Irish as their nationality in an infobox. Elsewhere in an article, use Anglo-Irish as an adjective, not as a noun. In line with common practice for the United Kingdom, people who have held seats at the cabinet table of the Government of the United Kingdom, should be described as British ([[British people|British]]).

Examples:

--RA (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, but there must be some room for judgement calls on individual cases. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Often forgotten is that there is a highlighted box at the top of every MOS entries that advises to, "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." --RA (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Meanwhile I note that John Tyndall isn't Irish any more ? see [15] . So the sooner something such as the proposal above is agreed, the better. Lugnad (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Another: there is a statue of Irish-born Thomas Spring Rice in Limrick, who was well regarded ("good landlord" during the famine, brought Jesuits to Mungret etc). He's British while his grandson Thomas Spring Rice is Irish. If guidelines could be agreed, wp could be consistent. Lugnad (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I strongly support the idea of having clearer guidelines in this area. But I have two quibbles with the proposal above.
Firstly, with regard to the second paragraph, for people born on the island of Ireland before 1922, no distinction should be made between people born in what would become the North and those born in what would become the Republic. To make such a distinction would be anachronistic. In both cases, there may be exceptions (most obviously, someone who later took citizenship in another country or someone who has no real connection to Ireland other than the accident of being born there). But there's a bottom line that if someone was born in Belfast in 1921, they were born in Ireland, not Northern Ireland.
Secondly, I think the phrase "for historical reasons" is unclear. The guidance is not helpful unless it is clear about what it means by this. I can't actually work out what it is intended to convey. What's the "historical reason" we would call someone born in Ireland Scottish or English? --FormerIP (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The bright line rule that if someone was born on Ireland before partition then they are "Irish" sounds attractive. Unfortunately, it doesn't garner consensus for every subject. The intention of the second paragraph is to give a "way out" for both sides in particularly troublesome debates. Ultimately, the purpose of biographical articles is to enlighten readers. Squabbling over whether to call a person "Irish" or something else rarely benefits the reader greatly. It is better to simply say they were "from Ireland" or were notable for something they did "in Northern Ireland" as in the example of C. S. Lewis or Ivan Neill above.
The "some cases, particularly historical" in which it may appropriate to describe someone born in Ireland as being English or Scottish (possibly in addition to "Irish") are to do with people born in the 16th and 17th centuries (and earlier). An example may be Robert Boyle. --RA (talk) 09:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Squabbling over whether to call a person "Irish" or something else rarely benefits the reader greatly. That's precisely the purpose of having a guideline. There's no point in a guideline that skirts around the issues in order to allow the squabbling to carry on. --FormerIP (talk) 12:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: I do not understand the above. The current manual of style says to call an "Irishman an Irishman". An encyclopaedia should call a duck a duck, an Irishman an Irishman. Where is the problem ?
The term Anglo-Irish has varied throughout the years with different meanings at different times. It was originally a term of satire, written about by the Irish author John Banim The Anglo-Irish of the Nineteenth Century by John Banim, (published anonymously), 1828. It has nothing to do with the subject of nationality. [[Special:Contributions/203.206.87.131|203.206.87.131 - sockpuppet of indef blocked disruptive editor George SJ XXI]] (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, guidelines that do exist on the specific questions that arise on Ireland-related biographies. As such, there are no clear guidelines. While it may seem clear to each one of us individually to simply call an "Irishman an Irishman", not everyone agrees on who was an "Irishman". The question of Irish nationality (particularly historically) has been the subject of debate and dispute for a long time. The proposal above is an attempt to capture consensus as it is at present. --RA (talk) 09:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
RA: Please clarify an item in the above: To what "common practice" do you refer to. ? [[Special:Contributions/203.206.87.131|203.206.87.131 - sockpuppet of indef blocked disruptive editor George SJ XXI]] (talk) 07:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Common practice appears to be to ordinarily give people born in the United Kingdom as English, Irish (or Northern Irish), Scottish or Welsh. However, an exception appears to be for UK (central) government cabinet ministers, for whom common practice appear to be to described those people as "British" (for example, "British politician", "British statesman", etc.). --RA (talk) 09:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I've always understood this to refer to their post, i.e. British government minister means minister in the British Government, rather than a government minister who was also British. Peter Hain, Ruth Kelly and Patricia Hewitt are 3 cases in point. I don't think anyone knows for sure what nationality these are. Fmph (talk) 10:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you RA, I am still confused. "Common practice" appears to be. How does something appears to be ? Whom decides upon this "Common practice", how does it "Common practice" appear ? How can "Common practice" change an Irishman into something else ? An Englishman, a British Man, how can this occur ? [[Special:Contributions/203.206.87.131|203.206.87.131 - sockpuppet of indef blocked disruptive editor George SJ XXI]] (talk) 10:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
203.206.*, something can "appear to be" if what it is can be observed with the eyes. Who decides if something "appears to be"? Well, I'd hope we could agree on that together.
As you probably know, the citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland are known as "British". Common practice, however, in biographies on Wikipedia is to ordinarily describe the people of that state as being either English, Scottish, (Northern) Irish or Welsh. Check out some biographies of people from the UK to see what I mean. For example, Charles Darwin is described as being an English naturalist, Sean Connery is given being a Scottish actor, and so on. So, it s not so much a matter of turning an Englishman or a Scotsman (or an Irishman or a Welshman) into something else. It is simply a choice of whether to describe them as British or otherwise. --RA (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Still confused. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland does not exist. Common practice on Wikipedia is to describe people by their nationality, i.e. a Frenchman is described as a Frenchman, a German as a German, an Irishman as an Irishman, an Englishman as an Englishman and so on. I do not see where the "choice" comes into it. Who's choice is it ? If a Frenchman becomes a member of the cabinet in Westminster, does he then become British ? By what means does he become British ? Convention is to call an Irishman, an Irishman.[[Special:Contributions/58.7.129.113|58.7.129.113 - sockpuppet of indef blocked disruptive editor George SJ XXI]] (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I would describe both Tyndall and Wellington as Irish born British. Dmcq (talk) 10:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

How can Wellington be an Irish born British ? He was born in Ireland in 1769. He was an Irishman. [[Special:Contributions/58.7.129.113|58.7.129.113 - sockpuppet of indef blocked disruptive editor George SJ XXI]] (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

and I would agree with the sentiment, however "Irish born British" sounds cumbersome, I haven't a suggestion, myself, but would prefer another phrase or adjective. Lugnad (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
It's not so bad when followed by scientist soldier or statesman. I think having a separate phrase like British statesman born in Ireland is harder to fit in and longer so you'd probably be looking at having another sentence to say it. Dmcq (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
And that gets to the nub of the issue, Charles Stewart Parnell can also be described as an "Irish-born British" politician. If Tyndall was "British" and not Irish, why is Darwin "English" and not "British"? -RA (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I fail to see your point. Parnell was Irish just the same way as Darwin was English. Someone like William Rowan Hamilton would be an Irish mathematician without any of the British qualification. As for Tyndall I've no great problem with him being just described as an Irish physicist who spent his life in Britain like Boole was a British mathematician who spent his life in Ireland. Dmcq (talk) 13:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
You say above that you "would describe both Tyndall ... as Irish born British". OK. Let's accept that. Now, why would you not describe Darwin as English-born British? Or Parnell as Irish-born British? etc. What criteria are you using to determine that Tyndall should be described differently? --RA (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
(ec)I must enter a reservation on the statement that 'the citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland are known as "British"'. I am not sure that Irish people before 1922 could be accurately described as "being British", and I certainly am not familiar with this usage. They were British subjects (this, not citizen, is the correct term for that period), but that does not mean that they were British people - for a start, they weren't from Britain. I would need to see some pretty conclusive evidence that this usage is widespread in reliable sources dealing with the period before concluding that one can generalize from their legal status as British subjects to an application of the adjective British tout court to them. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't generalise from it. I'm not proposing that. In fact, the contrary. I'm want to clarify that in most cases (before 1922), we say "Irish". --RA (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Strongly object as written at present. "For most people born in Northern Ireland after 3 May 1921, give their nationality as Irish or Northern Irish" - what? All the surveys done by ARK show that Northern Irish is a minority term, people consider themselves Irish or British. Yet we're suddenly saying people are Irish or Northern Irish, despite a reliable source saying the use of Northern Irish is politically loaded. Fair enough using it for certain sportspeople or people who do self-identify as such, but including that while leaving out British is a no-go. There really needs to be some guidance about self-identification in there either, just so people know when a particular term should be used. 2 lines of K303 11:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment - the surveys also show that the description 'Northern Irish' is accepted by large numbers of both Catholics and Protestants. It's not at this stage confined to either community. I think that the term is losing its partisan identification, which admittedly was present previously. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The majority of Protestants in Northern Ireland label themselves as "British" first and foremost. About half of the Catholics in Northern Ireland also label themselves as "British" but only secondarily. See the year 2007 survey at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_Northern_Ireland where 78% of all the people of Northern Ireland label themselves as "British" and 37% do so "very strongly". Seanwal111111 (talk)
And the same goes, mutatis mutandis, for "Irish". 77% identify themselves as "Irish", 36% "very strongly". Protestants are actually less likely to reject the label "Irish" than Catholics are to reject the label "British". 47% of Catholics feel "not at all" British, compared to 38% of Protestants who feel "not at all" Irish. Of course, one could argue that this may have something to do with the fact that in Northern Ireland, one can consider oneself Irish on the basis of geography, whereas "British" can only be a political identity. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Annual survey question to persons in Northern Ireland asking for the primary nationality label the person assigns to himself or herself: "Which of these best describes the way you think of yourself?" Answers (year 2008): "British" = 37%, "Northern Irish" = 29%, "Irish" = 26%, "Ulster" = 4%, "Other" = 4%. When those answers were broken down by religion, 57% of the Protestants pick "British" as their primary nationality. Only 4% of Protestants pick "Irish" as their primary nationality. 32% of Protestants pick "Northern Irish" as their primary nationality. http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2008/Community_Relations/NINATID.html Every person who picks "British" deserves to be called "British" by Wikipedia. Seanwal111111 (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the survey doesn't come with a list of the population of Northern Ireland that will allow us to decide whether or not any given individual is one of the 37% who gives "British" as their primary identity. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
It's disappointing that people have chosen to ignore the more important parts of my post, namely that the proposed addition says to call people Irish and Northern Irish and does NOT include British as an option, despite, for example, British being the highest preferred option by the people surveryed by ARK in 2008 linked above. I also said the proposed addition doesn't say *when* to apply a particular label to a particular individual, and that some guidance on that will be needed in the guideline. 2 lines of K303 13:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

"Irish born British" is cumbersome and implies that the two are exclusive when in fact you can easily be both and Wellington would have referred to himself first and foremost as British for most of his career - so individual cases need to be judged properly. Also if we call someone British for being part of the British government, then surely we should call historical figures who were officers in the British army British then. On Northern Irish, it is simply a toponym describing where someone is from, it has no nationality or citizenship quantification. Mabuska (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

How do you know that he would have called himself British? Fmph (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Maybe i was too definite in my statement there. Regardless of that Arthur's vast career in the British army and the fact that he was also British Prime Minister twice - trying to argue he wasn't British wiuld be absurd. Mabuska (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
The reason I ask is that I would suggest that 'Britain' and 'British' were not widely used. Instead, people used a generic 'England' and 'English'. Now, just like you, I haver no firm evidence of that to hand, but I'd suggest that if we did a little bit of WP:OR we would find I'm closer to the actualite. Fmph (talk) 08:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think so Fmph. The term British was used well before Arthur was even born, case in point being that the British Army was founded in 1707 and that the term British was used frequently to refer to the country created by the union of England and Scotland. After the Act of Union between Great Britain and Ireland, the term British then emcompassed Ireland, a union that existed for more of Arthur's life than not. Also consider that the English East India COmpany became known as the British East India Company after the Act of Union between England and Scotland amongst many of things would show that a little OR would not find you closer to the actualite. Mabuska (talk) 11:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
"After the Act of Union between Great Britain and Ireland, the term British then emcompassed Ireland..." Then why was it called "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland"? ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't get what you getting at? I'm saying that the term British came to properly encompass Ireland once it merged in union with Great Britain. Mabuska (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
And I'm saying that it didn't. Sure, the state, in its new enlarged form, continued to be referred to by the shorthand adjective "British", but that doesn't mean that everything relating to Ireland after 1801 could properly be referred to as "British", except perhaps in a sense of ownership. As I've said below (or possibly above, it's very hard to keep track of the various strands of this discussion), as far as people were concerned, just because they were British subjects does not mean that they can automatically be referred to as British people despite not being from Britain. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't saying that they were automatically this or that, just that the affairs of Ireland were tied to that of the state it belonged to and was thus British for the duration of its stint in the UK regardless of whether or not some of it's inhabitants thought of themselves as British or not. My original point is getting lost however it matters little anyways. Mabuska (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Above, editor Rannpháirtí anaithnid asks: If Tyndall was "British" and not Irish, why is Darwin "English" and not "British"? First of all, we must all accept that this is a political question; we are not arguing about the hard facts, we are arguing about labels where choices exist, with controversial political connotations. Let me illustrate that for the benefit of Commenter 58.7.129.113 above who says "I do not see where the "choice" comes into it." A number of well-known 19th century scientists lived in places that were under German rule back then and are not under German rule today. When these individuals had German as their native language, and were German in identity and culture, they are labelled German today. E.g. Ferdinand Cohn lived for the bulk of his life in what is now the city of Wrocław, in Poland (Breslau in German language). He's labelled "German". I can think of examples where a 19th century scientist who was born and lived for some of his life in the territory of today's Czech Republic is labelled "Czech" today if he identified himself Czech but labelled "German" if he identified himself German. That's resolving the "choice" by being respectful to the self-labeling of the individual concerned. The same should go for the Anglo-Irish and "British" of Ireland. When somebody in Northern Ireland today, and in the territory of Irish Republic in the 19th century, labels himself as "British" first and foremost, and "Irish" only secondarily, then he is entitled to be labeled as "British" at Wikipedia, regardless of what the Irish nationalists want to label him as. Irish nationalists reject the "British" label, for reasons that involve a certain political and disputable defintion of "Irish". Everybody who was born and lived in the UK is a "British national", you know.

The 19th century scientist John Tyndall is an example of someone born in Ireland who should be labeled "British" because that's how he labelled himself. Here's what I said back in 2009 at the discussion page about John Tyndall -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Tyndall :

Tyndall is properly labeled British, not Irish. He departed to England at age 21 and never lived in Ireland again. Thoughout his lifetime Ireland and Britain were a single country and everyone in that country was a British national. Irish nationalists may reject the British label, but Tyndall was vehemently anti-Irish-nationalist. He believed that a nation of Ireland would be an "unspeakable crime". His father was an Orangeman, and he married the daughter of an Orangeman. He was not Orange himself in the religious sense, but was Orange in the political sense of defining himself as British first and foremost. (The Orangemen in Ulster today define themselves as British first and foremost as well). Tyndall strongly self-identified himself as British. As one illustration, the biography of him in Nature (magazine), August 20, 1874 is based on information he supplied about himself, and in it he chooses to spend nearly as much time talking about his father's Gloucestershire ancestry as he does talking about his immediate family and boyhood in Ireland. Tyndall can be said to be Irish only in the sense that a man who spent his boyhood in Yorkshire and lived his adult life in London can be said to be a Yorkshireman. Such a man is properly labeled British at Wikipedia. As another analogy, consider an Anglophone Canadian Unionist today, who grew up in Quebec and moved over to Ontario at age 21, who self-identifies himself as Canadian, and who believes that an independent Quebec dominated by the Quebecois would be an unspeakable crime. Such a man is properly labelled Canadian, not Quebecois (and that will stay true regardless of whether Quebec ends up becoming a separate country in the future). The following is excerpted from John Tyndall's pamphlet Mr Gladstone and Home Rule published in 1887. It provides information about Tyndall's nationality in Tyndall's own words:

"It is my privilege to have been born in Ireland. Twenty years of my life were spent continuously in that country; and many times since striking root in England I have revisited the 'Emerald Isle'.... The [Irish] people as a whole, when I knew them, were kind, unselfish.... In my early youth my political colour was taken from my environment; it was 'orange' in hue. This faded as manhood was approached and my politics became liberal -- in some respects, indeed, radical. At no time, however, could I accept the creed of the 'Separatist'; and to speak of Home Rule as distinct from complete separation implies either mendacity or delusion [i.e., Tyndall believed the Home Rule proposal, if enacted, would obviously and inevitably be followed by complete separation of Ireland from Britain].... We, sturdy British Protestants, glorying in the freedom of our private judgment, sneered at the [Catholic] bishops who opposed the decree of the Pope's infallibility [in 1869], and afterwards caved in [in 1870]. We pointed to the occurence as an illustration of the cowardice of clericals and of the grinding despotism of Rome...."

There you see Tyndall speaking of the Irish people as a whole as "them", and British Protestants as "we".

Here's what I said about the 19th century scientist William Rowan Hamilton in 2009 -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:William_Rowan_Hamilton:

Hamilton lived for most of his life in Ireland and said he loved Ireland but considered himself a British national. In June 1855 he wrote: "My heart still throbs with sympathy for that great British Empire to which, from childhood, I have been accustomed to consider myself as belonging as to my country" (quoted on page 26 of Life of Sir William Rowan Hamilton, Volume Three, downloadable at Archive.org). Throughout his lifetime, Britain and Ireland were united as one country and Hamilton was intellectually and politically, as well as legally, a person of that country. Any person of that country can be and is labelled "British" when that person labels himself as "British". Hamilton also expressed his estrangement from the Catholic majority in Ireland: See e.g. pages 103 and 481 of Life of Sir William Rowan Hamilton, Volume Two where he says the Catholic Association "have done what I think so much harm". Most Irish Unionists, and Hamilton was no exception, identified their nationality as "British" first and foremost, and "Irish" only secondarily.... This self-identification as a British is the main basis for labeling them British at Wikipedia.

I would prefer William Rowan Hamilton to be labelled "British" not "Ango-Irish". I don't object to "Anglo-Irish" as much as I object to "Irish". In my view, according to my defintion of "Irish", labelling Tyndall and Hamilton as "Irish" is as bogus and spurious as labeling Ferdinand Cohn as "Polish". I know well that others take a different defintion of "Irish". In the end, the right choice is that the man should be labelled the way the man would label himself. Seanwal111111 (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Never minding that my question was about Darwin, not Tyndall, the above shows the common error of imagining that no Irishman (or no true Irishman?) could support the union or have an affection for anything British or England. This is a particularly post-1919 view (in the Republic anyway), and one that is possibly receding again. There was no such contradiction in Tyndall (or Hamilton's) day.
Maybe a 19th century description of Tyndall, which addresses the questions you raise, will enlighten things:
John Tyndall was an Irishman. Much of his history is explained by that illuminating fact. The Celt was strong in him. People forgot too often how much Ireland contributes to the general life of our complex nationality. How many Englishmen are aware, I wonder, that Lord Kelvin (Sir William Thompson), Lord Wolseley, Professor Bryce, Oscar Wilde, Comyns Carr, Harry Furniss, Lord Dufferin — to take a few names at random out of many that occur to me — are every one of them Irishmen?

About Tyndall, at any rate, there was never any doubt. He retained to the last no small physical traces of his Hibernian ancestry. He was born in 1820 at Leighlin Bridge, in County Carlow, so that his age marched, year by year, abreast with Herbet Spencer's. It is usual to say the he was of English descent, and I believe he claimed kinship with Matthew Tindal, one of the stoutest defenders of freedom of thought in the seventeenth century. That may have been so, and his ancestry in the direct paternal line may perhaps have been English. But those who know the ways of Irish Protestants well are aware of the tenacity with which many families cling to the vaguest shred of what they are pleased to call "Anglo-Saxon" descent. To be English in Ireland is like being Norman in England, or coming over with the "Mayflower" in Massachusetts. You will find scores of Irishmen bearing English names and boasting an English origin who are nevertheless as Celtic in type as the McCarthys or the O'Donohues. How could it well be otherwise? Mothers count in heredity for just as much as fathers; and members of English households, which have settled in Ireland, and intermarried with Irish women, become in a few generations, as Gerald the Welshman (whom we absurdly call Giraldus Cambrensis) long ago remarked, "more Irish than the Irish," — ipsis Hibernis Hiberniores. Certainly a family domiciled at Carlow, in the heart of Leinster, could hardly have failed to show traces of Irish blood. As a matter of fact, John Tyndall himself was a thorough-going Celt in physique and in temperament. He had the iron constitution, the wiry strenght, the reckless love of danger and adventure, the forvid imagination, the fiery zeal, the abundant eloquence, the somewhat flowery rhetoric, the tenderness of heart, the munificent generosity, which distinguish the character of his Celtic country men. Even the obstinate determination with which in later life he opposed, tooth and nail, the claim of his nation to national self-governance was itself thoroughly Irish. He fought Home Rule with the vigorous spirit of the Kilkenny cats; for ever since Ireland was a nation at all, Irishmen have always been divided into factions, and have harried one another, unfortunately, with with more bitter hatred than ever they have displayed towards the common enemy. No Englishman has ever shown the same hatred of Home Rule that has been shown by the Leckys, the Burkes and the Hamiltons.
Tyndall rose from the ranks, or very near it. He was one of those Irish men whose industry, ability, and ancestoral vigor enabled them to push their way boldly to the front from through the most adverse circumstances. It is said, I know not with what truth, that his father was a member of the Irish Constabulary. Originally employed on the Ordnance Survey, the young fellow, accustomed to live on a pound a week, established himself for some years as a railway engineer at Manchester. But his love from the first was for chemistry and physics. ... (Grant Allen, "Professor Tyndall", in Albert Shaw, William Thomas Stead (ed), The Review of Reviews, Volume 9, 1894)
--RA (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I am reminded of the row between John Richardson Wigham and the Stevenson brothers about oil v gas for illuminating lighthouses. Tyndall described the arguments against Wigham as the inaccuracy-of-the-Irish-mind hypothesis. Lugnad (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
If Darwin called himself an Englishman, we can call him an Englishman too. Tyndall on the other hand didn't call himself an Irishman: He called himself British. (I mean British first, Irish secondarily, as I said earlier). Rannpháirtí anaithnid's rambling quote from some late 19th century commentator claims that Tyndall was a "thorough-going Celt in temperament". That is nonsense because there was and is no such thing as a Celt temperament. That 19th century commentator is an idiot who really thinks that "Irish blood" can form temperament distinct from culture -- he says "Certainly a family domiciled at Carlow, in the heart of Leinster, could hardly have failed to show traces of Irish blood"). Other than that scientifically rubbish idea about "blood" and "temperament", that commentator doesn't present any evidence that Tyndall could be labelled "Irish" not "British". In particular, he doesn't show anything about what Tyndall himself thought, which is the thing that must be shown if you concede that in the end, the right choice is that the man should be labelled the way the man would label himself. Seanwal111111 (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Of course it sounds funny to us to hear talk about "Celtic temperament" and "Irish blood" but the quote gives a picture of how the people of 19th century Britain and Ireland thought about these things. To them, as to most people today, it would simply be matter-of-fact that Tyndall was Irish. Another example:
Of course he was not English; he was Irish, or at most Anglo-Irish; his ancestors having migrated two centuries ago from Gloucestershire to Ireland. But he and his forbears had during these two hundred years breathed the air of Ireland, and had become in many respects altogether Irish. You would never be in doubt when you heard Tyndall speak among what people his youth had been spent and his accent acquired.
Nor could you doubt that the fervour and force of his written and spoken style owed something, and owed much, to his Irish blood, or to Irish influences of some kind. He had the quickness of wit characteristic of the Irish and not characteristic of the English. He had the want of humour, or of a sense of humour, also, which his countrymen so often want, at least in the conduct of life and in the affairs of this world. The want of it leads men to take exaggerated views of the importance of things which concern themselves — George W. Smalley, Studies of Men, 1895
--RA (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
What will the Scots say if we have to relist Robert Burns as British?? It's ridiculous, as people were always described as Irish or Scottish while they were legally British or UK citizens. It's ahistorical and will bring wikipedia into disrepute. Also it was nothing to do with being pro or anti Home Rule.Red Hurley (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Nobody is suggesting relisting Robert Burns as British. To repeat what has already been said several times earlier by others and me, no general rule for all British biographies makes sense, and each individual is considered individually, and in the event of a dispute about the individual, the dispute is discussed on the discussion page of that individual. See the comments above by Murry1975 and the discussion two weeks ago at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Infobox_of_people_born_on_the_island_of_Ireland.2C_in_the_United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland. The same proposal that is being made by Sheodred, on this page you're now on, was made on 12 nov 2011 by GoodDay at the above page. After discussin, GoodDay withdrew his proposal with these words: "It's been over 3-days & it's obvious that my proposals aren't gonna be adopted. There's one thing in the Wikipedia:UKNAT essay, that I can't dispute -- It is impossible to gain uniformity across these bio articles. I imagine it would be 10 times as difficult to get uniformity with (for example) Italian & German bio articles." Seanwal111111 (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that Burns be described as British. He was born/lived & died in the United Kingdom. The only part of UKNAT, that I agree to, is that it's impossible to get uniformity on these British bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
GoodDay, thanks for correcting me. "It is impossible to get uniformity" is right, and putting it a bit more strongly I say uniformity doesn't exist. As they say in Ulster, the solution is "respect for diversity". Seanwal111111 (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Rannpháirtí anaithnid says what I've said above "shows the common error of imagining that no Irishman (or no true Irishman?) could support the union or have an affection for anything British." That statement reflects misunderstanding of all I've said. What I've said is that many (not all) 19th century unionists and pro-Britishers in Ireland saw their nationality as British, just as many (not all) in Northern Ireland do today. William Rowan Hamilton in the 19th century was politically, intellectually, self-consciously, culturally, and yes legally a British national, not an Irish national. The same goes for Edward Carson and the Duke of Wellington. The same goes for the following 19th century Anglo-Irish or Irish-born scientists who editor Sheodred has edited to label "Irish": George Gabriel Stokes, Thomas Romney Robinson, George Johnstone Stoney, and probably others. Sheodred has made the same edit on a number of other Anglo-Irish individuals. Repeating myself for fear of still being misunderstood, some Anglo-Irish individuals are better labeled "British" and some better labeled "Irish". For some individuals, the label "Anglo-Irish" is a useful compromise, notwithstanding that it's not a nationality strictly speaking. The idea of introducing a uniform global rule is a bad idea. Seanwal111111 (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
"What I've said is that many (not all) 19th century unionists and pro-Britishers in Ireland saw their nationality as British..." - You've shown Tyndall's political view of Home Rule. You showed his theological view of Roman Catholicism. From that you inferred that he would have preferred to have been called "British" and thus the label "Irish" would be inappropriate. Yet, you have not produced any evidence, either primary or secondary, to support that inference. Even, if Tyndall's "preference" matters.
What I have shown is contemporary sources describing his opposition to Home Rule, describing his opposition to Roman Catholicism, and doing so in the context of describing Tyndall as an "Irishman" - and indeed a typical Irishman! --RA (talk) 09:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I can quote you contemporary souces in Germany and USA labeling Tyndall and Hamilton as "British" and also as "English". I've quoted you Tyndall saying "Irish people as a whole" are "them", and "British Protestants" are "we". I quoted Hamilton saying "My heart still throbs with sympathy for that great British Empire to which, from childhood, I have been accustomed to consider myself as belonging as to my country." I've said a broad uniform nationality labelling rule for biographies of British nationals who lived in Ireland makes no sense because there is too much diversity among the individuals on the matter. Nobody disputes that they are British nationals. The rule we've had all these past years is that disputes about the nationality label for these British nationals should be disputed individually, at the talk page of the individual biography. Seanwal111111 (talk) 13:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "I can quote you contemporary souces in Germany and USA labeling Tyndall and Hamilton as 'British'..." - Undoubtedly. Tyndall and Hamilton were Irish. All of Ireland was a part of the United Kingdom at that time. In that sense, British is a superset of English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh. There is no more contradiction between Tyndall and Hamilton being Irish and British than there is between me being Irish and European, where by "Europe" I would mean the European Union.
  • "...and also as 'English'." - That's simply an error. And presumably, in the same way that all people from the UK (and Ireland even today) are frequently, but mistakenly, called 'English'.
  • "'Irish people as a whole' are 'them', and 'British Protestants' are 'we'." - The citation from Tyndall was "people as a whole", you added the word "Irish". Nineteenth century Britain and Ireland was a highly structued society. The reference you cited is an argument by Tyndall against Home Rule. Tyndall feared that Home Rule would lead to a break down in the structures of society. When he is referring the "them", he is referring to different social class, one he fear becoming powerful, not a different nationality. When he describes himself as a "British Protestant", he is using rhetorical device in a political argument. He is contrasing his social class, loyal "British Protestants", against, presumably disloyal, "Roman Catholics". Compare with the later anti-Home Rule slogan of "Home Rule is Rome Rule". (Additionally, be careful not to twist language. For example, when I am writing about Ireland, I write about "there", despite the fact that it is "here" i.e. I am writing from Ireland. Similarly, when people write about their own people, they often choose to use "they" or "them", rather than "we" or "us".)
  • The Hamilton quote you provide is no more than a Irishman expressing love for the Empire, to which he says he belongs to as much as to his country. That is in no way out of the ordinary for the time. In the 19th century, all of Ireland was an integral part of the United Kingdom and, thus, one of the four home countries of the British Empire. Irishmen formed half of the British army and (Catholic and Protestant alike) held position of authority in far-flung colonies. When an Irishman looked at the map and saw one third of the world painted red, he felt just as much pride as an Englishman, a Scotsman or a Welshman at that achievement.
  • "I've said a broad uniform nationality labelling rule for biographies of British nationals who lived in Ireland makes no sense..." - You write this as if Tyndall or Hamilton were immigrants or merely visitors to Ireland. They were born and bred there to families who had lived in Ireland for centuries at the very least.
--RA (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The 19th century people such as Tyndall and Hamilton were called British and were also called Irish (and, less often, Anglo-Irish). Such people were opposed to a nation of Ireland (Irish nationalism); they supported a nation of the British Isles (UK unionism). They belonged to the nation of the British Isles in the spirit and the practice of their daily lives. They were self-consciously British, and none would deny that they were living in Ireland. They were also legally British; there was no Irish sovereign state. Labeling them "Irish" is in defiance of the reality of their Britishness (while labelling them "British" is not in defiance of the reality that they lived on the island of Ireland -- in case you missed it earlier see http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2008/Community_Relations/NINATID.html ). Seanwal111111 (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Seanwal111111, there was legally an Irish nation then as referred to in the Act of Union it was joined with the other nations of the UK . The underlying problem is the terms nation and citizenship , they are similar yet not the same . There has been a proposal before to use the correct usage to apply to the relevant terms it was opposed and never gained much support , I wonder should someone not look at that again? Also by your stat qoute does that mean that 63% of people in Northern Ireland do not want to be British? Lies ,damn lies and statistics .Murry1975 (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone considered the 'when in doubt, throw it out' method? If an agreement isn't attainable for British or Irish usage in content or the infobox, then have neither shown. GoodDay (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

A very sensible suggestion, I would say. Place of birth is there already. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 11:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I like that idea too. Back in 2009 I proposed it and it was agreed to on the talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:William_Rowan_Hamilton but is wasn't enforced. It has an implementation problem. When the disputed nationality is omitted in the opening paragraph of the bio, some casual reader/editor comes along inserts one. I've seen that happen many times. In all cases I've seen, the person who inserts it knows nothing about the history of science, knows nothing about the biography of the scientist in question, and makes no effort to improve the content of the article in any other respect beyond the flagwaving aspect. Rather, the person doing the edit is just an Irish Republic flagwaver, or a flagwaver of some other stripe. As an example which was mentioned already above, take a look at the edit history of Robert Boyle. According to the data at http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl the Robert Boyle article has had 2893 edits from 1435 unique editors. A large fraction those edits -- literally hundreds of them -- have only been changing Boyle's nationality label back and forth, or removing it. Here's a typical example (I thank Rannpháirtí anaithnid for his fairness and correctness on this one): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Boyle&diff=385318733&oldid=385284170 . Despite the 2893 edits, today's article is largely and essentially the same as it was seven years ago in December 2004, as you can see at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Boyle&oldid=8967199 . The major difference between then and now is the addition of references for further reading and external links; the substantive text of the article is still almost wholly the 1911 EB (and that includes most of the Wikipedia article's sentences that are supported by footnote references to sources other than the 1911 EB). (By the way the 1911 EB labeled Boyle "English" while today's EB labels him "Anglo-Irish"). The edit history of Robert Boyle is just one illustration of the problem that there are a lot of editors out there who have no knowledge about the biography of whoever the subject may be, and they are only interested in the flagwaving aspect. They are the implementation problem. This problem is by no means confined to "these islands". The Persians or Iranians are horrendous at it when it comes to medieval scientists who wrote in Arabic. If a scientist in the medieval Islamic world has any connection to Persia, no matter how dodgy or remote or disputable, then the Iranians insist he must be labelled "Persian" not "Islamic" and especially not "Arabic". There have been a lot of "edit wars" about that at Wikipedia. And the Persians have won the wars. They won falsely, not by virtue of the facts. They won by willfulness, passion, numbers of editors, and the tactic of supporting it with multiple flimsy footnotes. Their tactic is to write that the individual was a "Persian", and attach a footnote to a supporting flimsy citation source. If anyone inserts a source that claims the contrary, they delete that source, and replace it with a second and third flimsy source to support the claim, and they don't tolerate removal of their sources. The generality of these editors never add historical or scientific content. They are only interested Persian flagwaving. I have found them to be even worse than the Irish Republic people. Seanwal111111 (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity why do you keep describing some Irish editors as "Irish Republic" people? Do you have a problem using the word Irish, because from what I can make out from your edits in articles and talk pages, you do have a problem. Sheodred (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
What about Lord Charles Beresford? there isn't a hint of 'Irish' in the article, but then read this: [16], Any opinions? Lugnad (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
It is clear from the silence that the editors pushing their POV onto Irish bios wish to ignore that fact Lugnad. Sheodred (talk) 23:48, 11 December 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.

Citizenship

If someone is / was a British citizen that should always be mentioned in the infobox. Robert Burns was Scottish and British. Both should be stated in his infobox but clearly Scottish is the best choice to use for the introduction in that case. It should not be just about how someone described themselves. Wikipedia is meant to state facts. Alex Salmond may hate being British and made it his life long mission to destroy the British state, but he is British none the less and has a passport to prove it. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

BritishWatcher the passport arguement is flawed and an unwise sidestepping of the issue .Being British is not - for fear of repeating myself - mutually exclusive to being Irish/Welsh/English/Scottish , a point you agree with , however following on discussions on the BIO project talk page it can not universally - or practically be done . Therefore we might have to go through this process everytime . All Rannpháirtí Anaithnid is trying to do is make it easier for people editing these articles to do so . The nationality that a historic figure saw themselves as or were seen to be by others is how we identify them .Murry1975 (talk) 13:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to comment on the idea of whether Burns was a "citizen" of anywhere. (He would have been a subject of the British crown.) But let's look at citizenship. Is citizenship what we should use?
Since 1993, nationals of the members states of the European Union are also European citizens. This is a simple matter of law. A fact. And, "Wikipedia is meant to state facts"? A person is a European citizen just as much as they are a British, Irish or French citizen. So, if citizenship is the determiner for what we use, we should use European (as least as well as something else). No?
Of course we won't. The example demonstrates that it is not in fact citizenship we are talking about. A person from the UK may be a British citizen (and a European citizen too) but more common practice is to identify a persons nationality as English, (Northern) Irish, Scottish or Welsh. It is those common means to identify someone nationality, not their citizenship, that we should be looking at. --RA (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
EU "citizenship" is merely a derivative of citizenship in a EU member State. The EU member States are Sovereign States. A person's citizenship in a Sovereign State is what his nationality is as well -- exceptions to that rule are allowed but that's the default rule.
Seanwal111111 would you mind signing your comments? It gets a bit scruffy . Thank you .Murry1975 (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
On a related note (i.e. British subjects) Australians were British until the passing of the Australia Acts 1986 , 1986!!! . So if as intended an admentment to whole-change nationalities to British from which we mean British subjects or citizens , a lot of Autralians would have to re-classified , then application of this change would have to be used without bias and conjecture throughout Wiki on other states of similar type and classification . Again I stress after the discussion on the BIO project page , this woud not be feasible as a task .Murry1975 (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Similarly, if we are to believe that citizenship is the rule, there were no Canadians until 1947. And no New Zealanders until 1949. --RA (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Can we break it down?

It seems to me that there is too much text in the proposal above for it to get agreement. Would it be better to deal with it one issue at a time? It looks to me that there is a consensus at least to add something about Anglo-Irish not being adequate as a statement of someone's nationality. Maybe we could start with that and then progress to the next thing. --FormerIP (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose (whatever that means) because in some situations being Anglo-Irish is the best way to summarise the social standing of an individual. Expressing nationality isn't the be-all-and-end-all in the lead of a biography, and we should choose terms that best express the form of the individual to our readers. The other issue is that this is a false premise - you are not required (see WP:MOSBIO) to list nationality in the lead. What you are supposed to do is provide context (and it then goes on to advise that usually this is nationality). Clearly, using Anglo-Irish as nationality is incorrect, but there is nothing to stop it being used as context. --Errant (chat!) 17:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Can you elaborate on whether Anglo-Irish belongs in the lede, that is the issue here. Sheodred (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
No, nationality is not obligatory, but MOSBIO says: Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. --FormerIP (talk) 17:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
The WP:MOSBIO guideline says "The opening paragraph should have:... (3) Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity)... Ethnicity should not generally be emphasized unless relevant to the subject's notability." That language means that mention of ethnicity is admissible in the opening paragraph if it provides context, as Errant has said. One other thing the WP:MOSBIO guideline says is: "the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless relevant to the subject's notability." That language is implicitly saying the country of birth is not determinative of the subject's nationality. Seanwal111111 (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
The famous scientist George Gabriel Stokes was born in Ireland in 1819, moved to a boarding school in England at age 16, and lived in England for the rest of his life. He lived in Cambridge for 66 years. Until last week the opening sentence of his biography was " ... was a mathematician and physicist, who at Cambridge...." But last week the Irish flagwaving editor Sheodred changed this to read "was an Irish mathematician and physicist, who at Cambridge...." The way it was beforehand provides adequate context (location: Cambridge), in full conformity with the WP:MOSBIO guideline that Errant and I quoted above. The addition by Sheodred does not add context and in fact it confuses the context. Seanwal111111 (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but check the edit summary [17]. He's using an in-discussion MOS proposal to justify the edit – a proposal he made, no less. Furthermore, this is double-standards and POV-pushing at its best: he proposed that Anglo-Irish should be removed from all leads, as MOS advises something about not to emphasise nationality/sexuality, etc in the lead. Yet he has added Irish into the lead, when clearly it Stokes' contributions to science that make him notable, and not his Irishness. Distinctly bad editing and a clear-cut example of the pro-Irish I've been saying this "proposal" enshrouds; such behaviour lacks neutrality and if used against dozens or hundreds of articles could create a storm. This bull needs taking by the horns before it gets loose. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 01:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Why is this Sheodred running about Wiki, rewriting history and heritage without citing sources? Editing a vast number of articles, with edit summaries in the form of "supported by MOS", when, in fact, MOS says nothing directly regarding the use of the term "Anglo-Irish"? What gives him the authority to determine who is "Irish", and who is not, based mostly on personal views of how the term should be applied to people? Why, also, are all his retorts to people who oppose his pro-Irish views often condescending, threatening (to use AN/I), and rarely, if ever, supported by reliable sources (the crux of Wiki), but are heavy in nationalistic rhetoric? Why is it, also, that his proposal at MOS:talk (found here) lacks any form of official or reliable neutral material to support these claims, and reeks of original research:

For most people born on the island of Ireland before 6 December 1922, describe their nationality as Irish (Irish). For most people born in Northern Ireland after 3 May 1921, give their nationality as Irish or Northern Irish (Northern Irish) or simply say that they are "from Northern Ireland". For most people born after 6 December 1922 in what is today the Republic of Ireland, give their nationality as Irish.

These are dates. Source them. "Most people" – who? Cite, reference. You can't base consensus on unsupported facts, and expect people to !vote without access to verification. Nor can you propose the same thing on 2 or 3 Wiki boards, and then point people in the direction of the one receiving most favours and call it "consensus" enough to edit/revert and threaten other editors with AN/I. Also, starting such a topic at WikiProject Ireland, before carrying it to MOS:talk, then waiting until many of the pro-Irish members support the motion, and then attempting to close the discussion and change articles in just 5 days (Opened: [18] — Seek Closure: [19]) is serious POV-pushing and possibly a matter for WP:ECCN to get involved in. WikiProjects are designed to focus on specific topics, however, they are not designed to develop COI issues, or to over-ride other projects. The term "Anglo-Irish" has as much relevance to historical personalities as the term "Anglo-Saxon", and as such projects such as History or Biography have equal right to be invited to discuss the MOS:talk discussion, without this purposefully selective and elusive discussion only reaching Irish interests and a few passing readers. All the better reason to rush the matter through after 5 days and avoid massive confrontation and opposition, as I see it. There is a distinct lack of good faith in this proposal. It should also be noted that the MOS is in fact a guideline, not policy, not "set in stone". The use of "Anglo-Irish" is not, technically speaking, a "style" due to its biographical nature. And when a historian can find 10 reliable sources stating that someone like Arthur Wellesley is Anglo-Irish, WP:IAR comes into play, as valid sources are more encyclopedic in value that MOS recommendations. Rewriting MOS:BIO will not achieve anything. You cannot reasonably claim that "Anglo-Irish is an inappropriate term, even if reliable sources use it, so we're going to write our own rules and rewrite the heritage any anyone we prefer to call Irish". That, lads, is racial, per se, and I think you'll find those of you who push hard enough, without following procedures or making transparent community gestures, will enjoy WP:BLOCK for disruptive behaviour.
FormerIP should also note that there is no clear "consensus at least to add something about Anglo-Irish not being adequate as a statement of someone's nationality". Only 3 or 4 people have made a !vote comment, the rest is debate, from which you could infer anything. Given that Former IP represents a pro-Irish policy, and therefore a COI exists, it would be inappropriate for him to either conclude the discussion or determine the outcome. An uninvolved admin should be requested to close the matter, once a proper consensus has been cast, representing a wider scope of the Wiki community through invitations to various WikiProjects, including Ireland, England, Bio, History, etc to partake. Unless such a neutral consensus takes place, I personally consider the matter tainted with too much WikiProject Ireland bias, and would request WP:ECCN review the matter, and prevent any such rewrite of MOS or any other policy until it takes place. That is how consensus works. And I have said all that without expressing any opinions of my own regarding the matter, so cannot be accused of anti-Irish sentiments, except by idiots.
I am bringing WP:CONLIMITED to the forefront of this discussion based on the fact that changing the nationality of a large number of Ireland-related biographies represents the wider Wiki community and probably a larger number of articles than might be expected. Such changes should be passed through a wide-scale community consensus, which over-rides WikiProject level discussion. Nationality is not a mere style, and affects more than just historical articles, but current BLPs. BLPs are a high risk area, and it would be against the WP:CONLIMITED policy to allow WP:Ireland to make this decision, or even for a few MOS:talk readers to make comment and create unsanctioned guidelines that leads to considerable uproar in favour of pro-Irish editors. Community consensus needs to establish a neutral means of determining whether "Anglo-Irish" and any other similar terms, are balanced, admissible descriptions. Such consensus should be monitored and closed by uninvolved admins, rather than carried out behind their backs in whispers and passed without serious deliberation.
Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 16:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
It may have escaped your notice, but this is the talk page of the Manual of Style for Ireland-related articles, and therefore the obvious and most appropriate place to discuss issues of style for Ireland-related articles. What we are talking about here are issues specific to Ireland-related articles. Anyone who has an interest in Ireland-related articles is able to follow this page, as it's the obvious forum for dealing with such articles. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC
Anyone "Irish" or disputed "Anglo-Irish" is Ireland-related. That means a lot of things, really, Ireland-related is an ambiguous term really. Anything Irish falls in that term. But as I said, nationality per se isn't a style. Placement of it may be, but rewording, changing from Anglo-Irish to Irish is not styling, its altering the context. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 17:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Marcus, that was TLDR. But if there are concerns about the right venue, it could always be opened up to an RfC discussion. My main point is not to declare an easy consensus, but to say that the discussion should be broken up so that we are not trying to decide various issues all at once, because that is not going anywhere. --FormerIP (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
TLDR isn't an attitude someone should take if they expect their proposals to be taken seriously. Doesn't matter though, only the last part applied to your comments. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 17:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
"Nationality is not a mere style, and affects more than just historical articles, but current BLPs. BLPs are a high risk area, and it would be against the WP:CONLIMITED policy to allow WP:Ireland to make this decision, or even for a few MOS:talk readers to make comment and create unsanctioned guidelines that leads to considerable uproar in favour of pro-Irish editors" .This is very interesting . Also given the tone you have used through out , which is aggressive , I am wondering have you came across this before ? Current BLP's meet certain criteria , as historical ones go you seem to find attempts here "limited" which could be true , but to add wieght to your point - unduly- you add in BLP's .There are BLP guidelines in place have any been broken or gaming taken place on them ? If so please give examples so we can learn .
"Unless such a neutral consensus takes place, I personally consider the matter tainted with too much WikiProject Ireland bias, and would request WP:ECCN review the matter, and prevent any such rewrite of MOS or any other policy until it takes place" I wil repeat this piece "I personally consider " that is a biased from you.
"is serious POV-pushing and possibly a matter for WP:ECCN to get involved in" that is a accusation . What you fail to realise is that there are many examples of Scottish/Welsh/English used on Wiki bios without the drama when Irish gets put in - I will give you that some do cause it and ask thge question have you deaalt with these in a similar way ?
The fact remains that it seems some editors fail to recognise that this talk page is IMOS not MOS , MOS prescribes down to here and then specific issues are dealt with here . This is the way it works on other projects why not here?
"Such consensus should be monitored and closed by uninvolved admins, rather than carried out behind their backs in whispers and passed without serious deliberation." I take this as an accusation and insult , your tone through-out has been poor but to throw a remark like that out at the end is unacceptable , these pages are here in full view and so are the comments . To suggest that this talk page is being carried out in whispers to avoid admin is not the type of comment I would accept as reasonable . Without serious deliberation ? An insult to the editors who spend their time and efforts here .Murry1975 (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
My experiences are unimportant. If you want to find some, go fish. This matter pertains to future changes and preventing rewrites of articles that could appear Irish-centric rather than neutral, and cause disruptions to more articles than it's worth. Claiming this is IMOS is really cloud cover. If you find an article saying someone is "British nationality, Anglo-Irish heritage" you could use IMOS as leverage to edit any article with the term Anglo-Irish in it, regardless of the actual Irish relevance beyond that. People wikilawyer, and the worst offenders are usually those who write the guidelines to suit their own agendas. As for what you call "my accusations", is there is no agenda, then there is cause for alarm. If there is a clear motive to this removal of Anglo-Irish usage wiiki-wide, then your retorts only serve to attack my concerns rather than AGF and consider that this is not about you, or IMOS, but Wiki.If I am not neutral, please quote my pro-English remarks. I think you'll find... none. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 17:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Here is comment by MarcusBritish
  • "I am challenging their proposals, based on what I've written in detail, as usual. Particularly note the bold/italic bit at the end, which should put a halt on this fiasco and prevent these unsupported pro-Irish rewrites being pushed across Wiki by a handful of nationalistic editors, contrary to RS/OR, and highly POV/COI based. Not sure if you'll agree with the consensus heading I've tried to invoke, but I think it stands to reason. I think if they were allowed to keep their ball rolling and rewrite MOS to their own agenda, it would disrupt a lot of British–Irish relations on Wiki, and not do anyone any favours. I also think it wise to bear WP:ECCN in mind, in future, given the nationality issue. That might serve to curb their determination, as I do not think they were ever set on representing anyone but themselves, and the use of MOS:talk has been a front to suggest "we brought it to consensus" but I don't see and invitation to discussion, beyond their own members, and a few passer-by remarks" . Only mentions pro-Irish and nationalistic editors . You are not nuetral in this from your phrasing . If I knew how to report you I would , thats not a personal attack just an opinion based on your one sided comments above .Murry1975 (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Your quote proves nothing. Malleus has already stated his views, therefore I don't need to give a neutral tone on his page. He has already made his mind known. Therefore you have little to gain from reporting anyone, other than to doube up Sheodred's petty report earlier and further prove that there is a pro-Irish agenda which reports people in an attempt to silence opposition. So make my day. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 17:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I'll take that as a threat. Bees Wasps only attack when they feel threatened. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 17:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
MarcuBritish , just read over your comments , you have looked one sided at it you only mention one side of the coin here , that is my concern , I never mentioned pro-English remarks so dont misquote me to belittle my comments - I have not misquoted you . I would AGF within the boundries that misunderstandings should be avoided but to use only comments like "these unsupported pro-Irish rewrites being pushed across Wiki by a handful of nationalistic editors" and not balance it out with also stating the other side , I would ask who states using Irish or Anglo-Irish as historical nationalities are pro-Irish or anything else ? If you think I am wanting to just blanket a label on please look at my edit on Newcastle Utd FC re Shane Ferguson and my edits abd comments on Adam Carroll (btw a BLP that one) . There is no agenda here , the discussion here directly relates to improve Wiki . On a side note your tone has not improved , even with the addition of sarcasm . Murry1975 (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Once again you claim pro-Irish agenda , be careful the way you misqoute , I said hornets not bees . Do you regularly misqoute ? As I stated I dont know how to report . BTW you are baiting here , so please continue incase I learn how to report .Murry1975 (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You're reading black and white text on a screen. It has no voice, and therefore no tone except what you apply in your own mind. I cannot be faulted for your own interpretations. I suggest you read it in a more neutral tone, than attempting to imply that I lack one. I'm not interested in what has been done, or what you have written. This is about what can be affected and cause wide-spread disruptions. Hornet's nests contain bees, bees wasps, who attack when threatened. Don't talk to me about baiting when clearly you're using silly sayings to make threats on behalf of a larger body. The saying is what it is. Going to rewrite that too? Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 17:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Hornets are wasps not bees . "talk to me about baiting when clearly you're using silly sayings to make threats on behalf of a larger body" Strike it out now please .Murry1975 (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
No. I don't take condescending orders. Don't change the subject to revolve around you or me, it's the lowest form of attempting to demerit an editor who opposes your "grand plan". I suggest you go away and find evidence, reliable, neutral evidence to support the claims being made that a large number of articles which currently express the idea that their subjects are Anglo-Irish, should have their identities removed, or replaced. I see it as a political agenda. I see it as pro-Irish. That is how I see it. Not my POV, my interpretation of the discussions I have read and the uderhanded manner in which they have been pressed rapidly and tried to avoid the red-tape of community consensus. Talk about the content not the contributor. I have my opinions, you have yours. I'm not interested in your bully-tactics, scare-mongering or buzzy-bumble-wasps. Go find some relevant data to support that Anglo-Irish is not a neutral, suitable or encyclopedic term. Otherwise, I have no further interest in your superfluous remarks regarding my or your past edits. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 18:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Its a request not order (PS who said it was written in a condescending tone). You state it is pro-Irish , i ask again why ? You make a claim " bully-tactics, scare-mongering or buzzy-bumble-wasps. Go find some relevant data to support that Anglo-Irish is not a neutral, suitable or encyclopedic term" I am again suggesting you strike that . I personally dont think an ethinicity should be used as a nationality , as it is in some case , it could be used to give a background on that person , but to call them Irish only , which I think you think I would advocate is not correct . The Duke of Wellington Irish born spoke the language and enjoyed himself in Ireland was still clearly British - as he would state in Irish . All I can gather from your comments are that there is a paranoia amongst some . If you would like to contribute to these pages on a regular basis please do . But dont accuse editors of a certain nationality to be POV pushers en masse , that is not AGF . Please strike your comments as they bring nothing to this discussion , thank you .Murry1975 (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Request denied. Moving on.. did I say it was a nationality? I believe, no if fact I know for fact, that I used the term "heritage" a number of times. As for Wellington, you are applying a modern 21st century concept, i.e. this "political correctness" BS to a man born in thw late 18th C. where classes were more distinct and where using the term Anglo-Irish represents not only his Irish birth and English roots, but his class. As for enjoying himself.. he pissed off out of Ireland and rarely went back after settling in England. That is history. And the same history books refer to him as Anglo-Irish. Only Wikipedians want to override historians, who have performed better research and engaged in long academic study to write those books. "Oh yes, Holmes spent 3 years writing this book and calls him Anglo-Irish, but in the 5 minutes it's taken me to consider that, I say he's Irish and wiki needs rewriting to express my views as a modern Irishman who does not agree with the use of the term Anglo-Irish whatsoever". That is the sense I get, and whilst you may very well be speaking for yourself, there is evidence, which I raised in my initial post, that another editor has been changing articles and claiming MOS supports those changes, despite the fact it is still under discussion. It is the case that left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing at WP:Ireland? He does appear to be the ring-leader in this matter, pushing for these MOS changes, making bullets for others to fire, are creating spurious reports that other editors are "being disruptive" for reverting his changes, which even admins found laughable. AGF, FYI, is not a required practice, and I only practice it when I see it, and the stupid report he made about Malleus' reverts and attempt to call him uncivil was a drive to block someone opposing his agenda. That agenda has been imposed on the WikiProject and spread to about 5 talk pages on Wiki. And each has received opposition. What next.. open a new talk page elsewhere, hope no one disapproves, then use it as "proof of consensus"? That's the pattern I've seen. Go find it. Until then I think you're attempting to argue a conceited point. And again, I only see the WP:Ireland people arguing in favour of "Anglo-Irish". What about Scotch-Irish and other such terms? I do dislike double standards, true. But when those double-standards have been raised and people still stick to them, then it creates more doubts as to the sincerity of the proposals being raised. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 18:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I've said all that I need to say now regarding this proposal. Clearly it has nnot been properly conceived, lacks anything beyond original research and questionable ideals, and leaves doubts as to its scope. I suggest someone go find material and try to engage and convince a wider community, as well as addressing the magnitude of the proposal and potential for disagreements from British editors. Ciao, Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 18:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I welcome MarcusBritish's contributions to the discussion. He has made a number of good points. Murry1975 has been too harsh on Marcus one point. That particular point of Marcus's I say is a reasonable and fair point, which is that an arbitrary discussion about Irish affairs doesn't attract British interest and British voices, as a general rule, usually you know, whereas for this specific discussion we do need British interest and British voices.
One point on which I'd like to take issue with MarcusBritish is his emphasis on the power of "reliable sources (the crux of Wiki)". Credentialed and semi-credentialed sources exist to support or oppose any and all of the alternatives here. E.g. today's online 2011 Encyclopedia Britannica states that John Tyndall was "British", and George Gabriel Stokes was "British", and William Rowan Hamilton was "Irish", and Robert Boyle was "Anglo-Irish". User Shroedred has changed Tyndall and Stokes to "Irish" with no supporting source, as MarcusBritish mentioned. Now the problem is that Shroedred, if he put his mind to it, could find some source or another with not-terribly-bad credentials that labels Tyndall as "Irish" and Stokes as "Irish", and possibly even maybe Boyle as "Irish". I myself say that Tyndall, Stokes and yes Hamilton were "British", and Boyle was "English". I can give you lots more sources to support it. But Shroedred too can come up with some sources to support the contrary. My sources disagree with Shroedred's sources. Thus I believe MarcusBritish is mistaken if he thinks the issue can be settled simply by citations to "reliable sources". Seanwal111111 (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to note that I pointed out a handful of strong sources calling the 1st Duke of Wellington Anglo-Irish, as well as no consensus to remove the term in his biog article. Yet is was still reworded to "Irish-born British soldier and... such and such" despite these sources by highly regarded historians and biographers. RS is an important policy, as it gives everything we publish on Wiki credence which can be verified and remove claims that wiki is inaccurate, biased, etc. Every instance of "X was Anglo-Irish" in Wiki is open to being tagged "citation needed" by anyone, even though pro-Brits who hate the term and want "British" the flip side of "Irish" but usually without merit and missing the point of the term Anglo-Irish to mean a heritage, not a nationality. Some editors, however, consider heritage terms less ambiguous than a fixed nationality, and the need for refs becomes all the more important when the term is deemed dubious. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 21:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Far too many issues with the current draft, only some of which are mentioned above. It is useful to note that for US citizens, you are not supposed to mention their nationality at birth in the first sentence ("Irish-born" etc). I wouldn't suggest going that far for Irish-born people who spent their adult lives in the UK, but they should not be described just as "Irish". I don't object to some people being described as Anglo-Irish, but this should be restricted to those from a clearly Ascendency background living in the 17th-19th centuries. Johnbod (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Given that the term is most used for earlier births, often notable nobles, I agree. There is a myopic view that the use of Anglo-Irish is a misconception, yet in those days it was even self-inferred to people, including generations of Irish-born family members whose roots descended from British soil, such as Arthur Wellesley and his relatives. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 21:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
It goes to show..... what... that they should have been invited in the first place, and your underhand attempt to usurp MOS and make major changes has had a spanner thrown in the works.. right? If you were discussing how to place the Irish flag on Irish rugby team articles, or whether to style Gaelic in italics, of if leprechaun should have an upper-case "L" or not, no one would be that affected from a British POV. Given that this matter targets a large number of articles with a British personality, you have acted in bad faith by proceeding of your own accord, pushing an agenda, making edits in the name of false MOS stipulations, making false allegations on AN/I, and generally being a dick in response to the matter. But now that the matter has come to British eyes, through no fault of your own from that AN/I fiasco you provoked, let's make damned sure this proposal is not approved after 5 days on a page that gets limited attention from the community and is dealt with properly, neutrally, and definitely not by you. And FYI, I have never been interested in biogs or BLPs, they bore me, except great military leaders, only Wellington being an Anglo-Irish individual that I know of. So for me, there is no POV, you have disrupted far more articles with your nationalistic changes and attacks on British editors who revert them. We all know who has the real issues here, as your anti-British remark above further implies. Further responses like that could lead you to trouble, given how you have applied double standards to your edits, minimising anything British, pushing anything Irish. Plenty of examples of subtle but not particularly neutral edits, which could be seen as disruptive and lead to community bans. Don't force some British editor's hand by provoking them to make an issue of it on AN/I or rather WP:ECCN, and you won't have to worry. There's a lot to be said for collaboration. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 18:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


Can I take it the outcome of this lengthy discussion is that the proposal of Sheodred and the related proposal of RA have run into lots of reasonable opposition and have been rejected? The most powerful reason to reject them was given by commenter Errant above (thank you, Errant). Neither Sheodred nor RA tried to rebutt Errant's point. If I can take it that rejection has happened, I ask approval to undo the unjustified nationalistic flag-waving edit made by Sheodred to a number of biographies on 29 November. Sheodred, in making those edits, justified them as implementing a "Manual of Style" policy, whereas they are contrary to the Manual of Style. As Errant pointed out, the Manual of Style says that an ethnicity or a geographical location of any kind can be mentioned instead of a nationality of it provides equally good or better context for the subject (WP:MOSBIO). Sheodred's edits of 29 Nov 2011 are viewable at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sheodred
Seanwal111111 (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree, per Sheodred and RA. Perceptions of Irishness, Britishness and anywhere in between have changed in the last few decades, and wikipedia has a world-wide audience, not just in these islands. Let's keep our Al Murray-isms at bay. Tyndall's view of Irish culture - or the lack of it - doesn't change the fact that he was born in Ireland. And I note that wee Rabbie is still Scottish.Red Hurley (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree on the following terms: The proposition to create an IMOS policy regulating the use of "Anglo-Irish" has been debased, as it was never sensible in the first place. However, please don't just go reverting every article because Sheodred simply appears pro-Irish. I'm not a British nationalist, nor am I a biographer, I'm a historian – I respect Brits, Irish, Germans, French, etc in the context of enemy soldiers or as patriots serving their country during war with the exclusion of terrorists, i.e. murderers, which is not the case here. The term, and relevance, of "Anglo-Irishism" has more historical context to people from the past, and is less commonly used today, because social classes have changed. Assess each article he edited objectively, there is no reason to not refer to anyone as Irish with Anglo-Irish ancestry. Bear in mind that nationality, British or Irish, needs to based on such things as place of birth and time of birth, e.g. pre-Acts of Union 1800 births are Irish – so someone like Wellington was Irish, but a British solider, and of Anglo-Irish heritage. Nationality, career, heritage. All are separate items. Don't remove Sheodred's use of "Irish" just because of this proposal failing, and don't re-add "British" without checking if it was wrong to being with. Maintain neutrality in the articles, use both nationality and heritage if necessary, as I have done with Wellington's recently. Such an IMOS would have been against WP:RS practice, NPOV and common sense. Now is the time to apply it, in a neutral, non-nationalistic manner. Revert with care, maintain a balance, and I'll support. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 23:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Disingenuous words above. The article, on Wellington, still does not state that "Wellington was an Irishman." It looks as if the report was on the nose. I checked and it is ok to post on these pages as they are separate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[Special:Contributions/203.59.115.155|203.59.115.155 sockpuppet of indef blocked disruptive editor George SJ XXI]] (talk) 12:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It says: a British soldier and statesman, a native of Ireland, from the Anglo-Irish Ascendancy, what is wrong with that? There are other articles which could be questioned, but since O'Connell did not consider him Irish, I reckon that this one is acceptable Lugnad (talk) 12:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Labeling them "Irish" is in defiance of the reality of their Britishness (while labelling them "British" is not in defiance of the reality that they lived on the island of Ireland One of Sean's many comments on Irish bios.
Have run into lots of reasonable opposition You and two other editors who refuse to compromise because of your POV, does not count as reasonable opposition.
I ask approval to undo the unjustified nationalistic flag-waving edit made by Sheodred to a number of biographies on 29 November Are you for real? No neutral party is going to give you approval to force your POV on those articles, especially when you call it "nationalistic flag waving edits" in a pathetic attempt to convince a larger audience that I am forcing my "POV" on those articles, whereas in reality it is the other around, those articles were victims of editors such as yourself who sought to remove all traces of these Irish figures as Irish. People will see right through the motivations of editors such as yourself. Sheodred (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Editors and admins really have no idea about the amount of absolute fucking bullshit that myself and other editors,admins have to go through on the encyclopedia on the Irish articles, being accused of being nationalists pushing our POV, when in essence we are correcting errors and rectifying articles that have been subjected to the POV of editors who than throw that exact same argument at us to be disruptive. It is 99% of the time only on articles about Ireland and Irish figures compared to Scotland, Wales and England, its f**king bullsh*t!Sheodred (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Talk to the hand. Or take it to ArbCom. Either way, shut up – you have been pushing an agenda, as identified by several editors who have never even been involved with each other before. You attempted to strip Anglo-Irish identities via a MOS policy which is against NPOV, RS and is COI. Period. Instead of acting all mouth, why not try WP:ECCN, and us "British PV pushers" will come make an official gesture instead of having to deal with your back hand shenanigans, especially using "MOS" as an excuse to edit articles under false pretenses. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 19:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Marcus.........to put it bluntly to you.......you talk a lot of shite. Sheodred (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I guess your lifelong personal experience in that department gives you insight. Might want to refrain from the PAs, they'll only add to your list of disruptions, as I foresee the day your disruptions are all listed on AN/I. Be a fair few British eyes on there ready to throw the book at you, me laddo. Don't tempt fate. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 20:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
You started with the PAs, anyone can scroll through your comments and see that. Work away, list all my "disruptions" on AN/I, typical of the bullying tactics yourself and other like-minded editors employ. Sheodred (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Bullying! LOL, now you're a comedian! Like to see you substantiate that claim, though. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 20:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Here: [[20]] is one fine example, I believe you got blocked (twice) for personal attacks. Consider my claim, "substantiated". Sheodred (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
That incident does not relate to you. Therefore it does not qualify your "you started with the PAs" statement. Debunked, moot point, as addlepated as you can get. I believe you got blocked for war editing, 3RR, and NPOV pro-Irish POV edits, PAs, COI, BLP vios. Keep it up as you have been doing, me and a half-dozen other editors have voiced concerns, so you don't have a leg to stand on. Consider your claim null and void. Whatchya gonna do when Sean starts reverting your nationalistic edits, cry "we ourselves" and revert back? Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 21:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
You asked me to back my claim, I did, and despite what you say it is relevant as it highlights everything about you (as does this discussion which you have hijacked and disrupted)Maybe you should look up the reasons how, why and who blocked me, two wrongly blocked me, their unblocks were lifted instantly, another block I was wrongly accused of using a sock to avoid the 3RR (obviously they were not penalised because they were admins), but you would have known that if you delved further into it. You drag all this up on the article talk page instead of my own obviously in an attempt to discredit me in front of a larger audience. Continue as you are, you are only shooting yourself in the foot. Sheodred (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Boo-hoo? Well, okay, I'll gladly give my last word. Your near-racist IMOS proposal was over-turned and any further attempts to push it without first going through the full community, will be challenged, again. A lot of eyes are on you now. It's not hijacking, it's consensus. And I'd do it again. It was WP:SNOWed, and you lost! The only thing that was disrupted was your agenda. Your proposal and contribs never had any credence to discredit. Remember: WP:CONLIMITED is policy, IMOS is not. Nah-nah-naaah! Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 21:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Canada?

In various parts of the discussion above, people assert that people born in Ireland post-Act of Union were British. This seems to be based on either a retroactive application of British nationality law (no such laws existed at the time in question, for many people talked about), an unsourced assertion that "British" as a general adjective applies to the people in question, or the fact that people who were "British subjects" were well, just that. The first seems to be right out, as does the second really. So we're left with the third. However everyone born in a British dominion was also a British subject, so I'm assuming there are no objections to me changing the lead of articles about any Canadian people born in Canada when it was a dominion to "British"? Or "Canadian-born British" maybe? If that's what you're doing to Ireland articles on the grounds the people were British subjects, there can't be any objections to doing the same for Canada articles right? 2 lines of K303 13:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Isn't there a rule about being a dick just to prove a point? The fact is that the average English speaker equates Irish and British (at certain historical moments) far more readily than Irish and Canadian. Do what is useful and constructive, not what proves a 'point'.Malick78 (talk) 13:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • You erroneously assume I was actually planning to do that, instead of using the proposal to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the "if they were British citizens, call them British in the lead" arguments. 2 lines of K303 13:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • " The fact is that the average English speaker equates Irish and British (at certain historical moments) far more readily than Irish and Canadian." Not sure about that, I would have said the opposite. "Irish" and "British" are seen as opposing and mutually exclusive concepts as well, at least in some contexts. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

What the MOS actually says

  • It may be useful, since, since Sheodred is given to claiming MOS support for his actions, to remind ourselves of what the MOS actually says, at WP:OPENPARA:
"The opening paragraph should have:
1. Name(s) and title(s), if any (see, for instance, also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility));
2. Dates of birth and death, if known (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Dates of birth and death);
3. Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity);
1. In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable.

- my bolding. This clearly resolves several of the examples mentioned above. We should start following the rules. Johnbod (talk) 11:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm just concerned about how we could verify which country that is? Without seeing an article subject's valid passport for the dates in question, how would we know whether they were Irish, English or Fijian? Fmph (talk) 12:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
No, it doesn't resolve any of the issues we're dealing with here. It would if it said "in all cases". But it says, "in most modern-day cases". We're left with dealing with how to convey the best and most succinct information on point 3 - "Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity)". It's worth noting that most of the issues being argued about here aren't contemporary cases but relate to periods before Irish independence, when Irish people's legal status as subjects of the British crown did not correspond to their ethnicity, geographical origins or, for many of them, their own understanding of "nationality". ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually if you follow the covoluted discussion & links above you'll see that is not usually the issue. Sheodred's edits are mostly affecting people who gave few signs of identifying primarily as Irish, and sometimes clear signs in the opposite direction. He ropes them in purely on the basis of their place of birth. Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I think the key word in all of this is context; it's not about decided which word to use (i.e. nationality or whatever) because it might involve several words. And what context is about is establishing the type of person and the situation they were in. So we have to look at what they are notable for, and in what context - and establish that. Sometimes (often) it may purely be nationality. Sometimes it might be class. Or their religion/views/ideals. Or a combination. For example Anne Frank is primarily introduced as a Jewish holocaust victim (which is the key aspect/context to her entire story), only then does it note her nationality (which in this case is also interesting because it was revoked due to being Jewish). It's somewhat frustrating that we are arguing over one or two specific words - when the point is to establish useful context for the reader :) --Errant (chat!) 13:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Hardly a typical example; few people, are notable for any of the things you mention, though I suppose she may be. Many of the issues around this question concern Irish-born Protestants (Francis Bacon, C.S. Lewis etc) who legged it to the UK & entirely or essentially had their careers there, which is where the MOS wording is exactly relevant. Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
On 29 Nov 2011 editor Sheodred saw a bunch of names of 19th century scientists who were Anglo-Irish listed on the page Anglo-Irish, then he visited each biography page and edited each lede to relabel the person as "Irish". As his justification he invoked "Irish Manual Of Style" (IMOS), which was a style proposal he had proposed on a Discussion Page. That proposal had not yet been adopted when he made the edits, and subsequently after discussion the proposal was defeated -- see all of the discussion above. Therefore those edits should all be reverted. I want to revert them all. I already reverted one of them, the one for John Tyndall. If you think any of them were actually okay and shouldn't be reverted, I say the appropriate place to argue about it should be on the Discussion Page of the individual biographical subject. I say the law at Wikipedia is very comparable to real law. In real law, when you set aside the parliamentary legislation, most of the law is formed by judges in the context of concrete cases. A lot of parliamentary legislation especially in the area of business and commerce was just a redeclaration of the law that had been created over time in Case Law, where the rules emerged over time from multiple somewhat different concrete cases. It is easier and more trustworthy for humans to argue in the concrete than in the abstract. Case Law is more in contact with the real world and more richly multifaceted than a set of disembodied rules. Returning to Wikipedia law, Wikipedia is a descendant of the 1911 Britannica, which practically always stated the subject's nationality in the lede. (By the way, the Dictionary of National Biography didn't do that though it always stated the place of birth very early on). Due to descent from Britannica, Wikipedia's lede has usually given a nationality label by default and by custom. The WP:MOSBIO lede guideline is wiser than the Britannica custom. It says: Include a bit of "context". The best way to include a bit of context is context dependent. In some cases "Anglo-Irish" is superior for delivering a bit of biographical context than "British" or "Irish" -- one concrete example is Thomas Romney Robinson, an Anglo-Irish scientist born in 1792. Seanwal111111 (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Sounds sensible to me. Note that if they had emigrated to the US there would be no question under WP rules of identifying them as Irish in the first sentence, they would just be "Irish-born" or something, usually in the next section. Personally I have no objection to "British born in Ireland" in the first sentence where the career was mainly in Britain, or of course "Irish" or "Anglo-Irish" where the career & identity remained in Ireland, even if the strict nationality was British. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable enough to me too, unless further objections are raised here. I agree that in many historical cases it will be better to come to an individual judgement in context rather than seek to apply a hard and fast rule across all relevant entries. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't really have any opinion on the central issue, but I'm really curious about Seanwal's contention that "Wikipedia is a descendant of the 1911 Britannica". I've never heard that suggested before! Scolaire (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
It's very true for the majority of the biographies of people worldwide who died before 1911 (excluding Americans, I'd suppose). It's true to a lesser extent for some other kinds of encyclopedia articles, and not at all true for some others. Early Wikipedia had a goal that every article title in the 1911 Britannica should also be an article title in Wikipedia. In 2006 that goal was fully realized and the 1911 Britannica was officially declared merged into Wikipedia -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:1911_Encyclopedia_topics. In most cases the goal was realized by copying the 1911 Britannica content -- I am foggy about what I mean by "most cases" but for biographies it was the great majority of cases. The style of the 1911 Britannica was deprecated and editors were advised (emphasis added by me): "Strongly consider using the [Britannica] article for information only. That is, restructure and rewrite the whole article, supplementing the encyclopedia information with other sources. That isn't always worth the effort, so the following are some points to keep in mind when using encyclopedia [Britannica] material...." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:1911_Encyclopaedia_Britannica . Not counting the top one percent most famous people, most British biographies today are still basically the same text as the 1911 Britannica. Up above on this page I gave details about the spectacular example of the Robert Boyle article which over the years has had 2893 edits from 1435 unique editors at Wikipedia and yet today's text is still almost wholly the literal 1911 Britannica. The following is a list of articles that are tagged as containing text from the 1911: List. A non-small number of other articles have such text but aren't tagged for it. E.g. Thomas Romney Robinson was created in 11 Jan 2003 as a straight duplicate of Britannica but was never tagged. Seanwal111111 (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Sean a quick question. Is that a copyvio "are still basically the same text as the 1911 Britannica"? Just wondering as it would mean these would have to be re-written.Murry1975 (talk) 09:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Anything published before 1923 has no copyright protection in the USA. Seanwal111111 (talk) 13:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Cheers for that ,didnt know that.Murry1975 (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
That was basically the idea as I understand it - the 1911 Britannica was the last major encyclopaedia to be fully available in the public domain, so it was effectively incorporated into Wikipedia. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

What Johnbod has neglected to mention when saying we should "follow the rules" is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/2007-2008 archive: British nationality - the issue of nationality regarding people from the UK has no consensus as to how it should be applied. If we were to "follow the rules" and accept, say for example, the viewpoint that everyone in Ireland born in the 19th century should be described as British, that would mean the lead of Patrick Pearse saying that he "was a British teacher, barrister, poet, writer, nationalist and political activist who was one of the leaders of the Easter Rising in 1916". I doubt you'll find many reliable sources claim don't describe him as Irish but describe him as British instead, just sayin'.... 2 lines of K303 11:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

As will be obvious to anyone who has actually read my comments, that is not what I'm saying at all. I'm not aware there is a British or Irish exemption from following the part of the rules I bolded above concerning people born in A who became notable in B, in fact I'm sure there isn't. It certainly doesn't apply to Irish emigrants to the US. Pearse is entirely notable for what he did in Ireland. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Solution to the issues surrounding Irish nationality and the use of Anglo-Irish

Concrete proposal here, to avoid disputes surrounding figures of the past before the creation of the Irish Free State, Eire, Republic of Ireland or Ireland, whilst Ireland was within the British sphere.

The proposed wording gives the true impression of people back than were not less Irish or less British at the time.

For bios;

  • 1st Example

Shackleton was an explorer, a native of [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|Ireland]] and from the [[Anglo-Irish|Anglo-Irish Ascendancy]].

For the infobox we can pipelink a relevant individual's nationality (if it is decided to include nationality, country of birth, or the infoxbox for that matter) as: [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland| Irish]] or [[Kingdom of Ireland|Irish]]'''
How is that? It is neutral and historically correct and avoids any misconeptions with the modern Ireland. TheFortunateSon (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like an Easter egg link to me. Is this supposed to be the opening sentence of the lead? Much too much detail on origin if so. And I think "native" is best avoided. Personally I think "Anglo-Irish" fits Shackleton well, but so would "...British, born in Ireland.." and other formulas. At least he doesn't have an infobox. He moved to London aged 10 in 1884, so the question of Irish nationality as such doesn't arise, & he is a relatively straightforward case. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Why is it good enough for Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, but not for what I mentioned? The other editors gave credit to MarcusBritish for that (I will also, despite our history), he was neutral and he was right to do that, so I was wrong about him being a POV pusher (my apologies Marcus). TheFortunateSon (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd change it there too, myself. I have changed his "nationality" from "Irish" in the infobox, which I think is pretty silly. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Good luck explaining yourself, that was a blatant POV edit, Irish in the infobox was piplelinked to the United Kingdom of Britain and Ireland, there was nothing wrong there, it was historical fact. Take your prejudices somewhere else, they don't belong on an encyclopedia. TheFortunateSon (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Me and Daniel O'Connell: "No, he is not an Irishman. He was born in Ireland; but being born in a stable does not make a man a horse." Daniel O'Connell during a speech (16 October 1843), as quoted in Reports of State Trials: New Series Volume V, 1843 to 1844 (1893) "The Queen Against O'Connell and Others", p. 206. Johnbod (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Adolf Hitler also stated that generations of Jews born in Germany were not German, does that make him right? TheFortunateSon (talk) 14:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I see that your edit was quickly reverted, nice to know that there are intelligent and neutral editors out there who see past all that kind of nonsense. TheFortunateSon (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, Mr NPOV, have a nice day! Johnbod (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, and you also have a nice day. TheFortunateSon (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

::Please indicate wether you support or oppose it and state your reason.

  • Oppose For reasons given above. In many infoboxes the "nationality" parameter is best just omitted, as there isn't the space to do things adequately there. Johnbod (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Then why make this recent edit if you feel that way about infoboxes, you are contradicting yourself and obviously have double-standards. This discussion is primarily about the lede, which is good enough for a good article like this one.TheFortunateSon (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. And I dislike 'native' too, can't they just say born in. Native brings up images of yahoos or how about native Britons covered in woad. Dmcq (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Whats wrong with native, even the British used to call the inhabitants of the colonies a "native". Ironic. TheFortunateSon (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. For the reasons of neutrality and historical fact, and reasons above. TheFortunateSon (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose , on the grounds that in this example MOS would indicate was Irish irrelevant to his notability , his Anglo-Irish roots gave him the means, power, and connections that made his exploring possible , not solely his Irishness or Britishness. As a discussion on the BIOs discussion page indictated, that I have previously referred to, each biographical subject should be decided on individual with no hard and fast rules. So for a general rule Strongly Oppose. Murry1975 (talk) 14:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with that Murray1975, there seems to be a lot of opposition from both camps for such a logical and neutral solution, it astounds me, no wonder people stay away from this area. TheFortunateSon (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Sheodred what do you mean both camps? And there is no "a" in my name. Its not logical MOS states:
  • "...the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability"
His Anglo-Irishness is relevant, not Ireland. Thats logical and neutral. If you see it otherwise its your view, but the most on here see it differently and it should be discussed - again- I have mentioned BIOs talk page and the guidance recieved from there over unflexible proposals. Murry1975 (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Anglo-Irish is mentioned in the proposed lede, what is the problem here? TheFortunateSon (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
@"his Anglo-Irish roots gave him the means, power, and connections that made his exploring possible" — no, his membership of the Royal Navy did, as it did with his colleague, Tom Crean. --RA (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
You constantly vehemently oppose anyone being implied as an Irish national even when there is overwhelming evidence, no surprise there. Your revert rampage on Christmas Eve of all nights will support that fact. TheFortunateSon (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment – given that the lead to Wellington's article was "my" wording and has been favourably supported, some thoughts. This is not a proposal that can be easily supported or opposed, because it is a blanket proposal. I agree with Murry1975, in that such a lead must be done on a case-by-case basis with common sense, not hard rules. What sounds "neutral" may not necessarily be "appropriate". And I'm not just talking "Anglo-Irish" or nationality here.. this practice could apply to many areas of wiki, such as where is it appropriate to describe someone as a "Jew" or "Muslim" where there is no certainty. An area I stay well away from. Wellington's lead works because all 3 areas, his Irish birth, Anglo-Irish heritage and British career, are all notable points throughout his life, as a lead aims to summarise what should follow.. a lead is a synopsis, in a fashion. In many individual cases all 3 points are not notable, and therefore it's less appropriate to reference them, but that is not always less neutral, just less pointed. Strength of the lead lies in the individuals background, not in the belief that it sounds right to be thorough. NPOV is good (being a 5P rule), but WP:V is also required to qualify neutral statements. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 15:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah you're responsible for the 'native' then. ;-) Yes I agree different people need different treatment. There's loads of ones where it's obvious and then there's the ones where there are different views. I believe in using something like the descriptions in the best sources as a guide if possible so a good biographical citation would be my favoured way followed by discussion and some general principles for the others based on similar more notable ones with biographies. Dmcq (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Technically, no.. [21], this editor objected to "Irish-born" as lead wording, with good and unbiased reasons. After much discussion I structured it to be a 3-way lead sentence based on all former discussion. Personally, I think it works and sounds "right" rather than "good". Wiki is about being an encyclopedia not a writing-competition, however, the wording here is unambiguous, neutral, and covers all ground fairly safely. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 15:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I had suggested born in Ireland, not Irish born above. Dmcq (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I know. His concerns about either phrasing was explained, briefly, here [22]. It's more about what is implies and settling ambiguity through careful wording. "Native" is to indicate a homeland, without conceding too strongly to a nationality. But to claim he was de facto British is a POV that doesn't balance out well, either and leads to issues. As it stands now, the article is fairly stable, with only a few opposers who have brought nothing in the form of support for their POV. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 16:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Even full-length biographies can be surprisingly unhelpful on information as to the actual legal citizenship held by Irish/British 20th century people at particular points (for example Francis Bacon's doesn't seem to have precise information), and perhaps earlier ones - I'd love to see a copy of Wellington's Kingdom of Ireland passport! Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The point is conceited. Nationality is what you are at birth, and related to ones origins. Citizenship is more about what state you are a member of and can change, more than once if necessary, throughout a person's lifetime. Being a British citizen does not override being an Irish national. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 17:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
That is an entirely personal OR definition - don't try using that when filling out forms, or when editing articles on immigrants to the US! Johnbod (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
OR my arse! "Citizenship" and "nationality" have two different meanings, and are only used interchangeably by the same people who think "irregardless" is a word. Just because US law is sometimes weird, doesn't mean it applies to the rest of the world. You can apply to be a citizen, it doesn't change where you were born geographically. A man born in, let's say France, is still French, even if he goes to live in Brazil and becomes a Brazilian citizen. Same with anyone. Stuff OR. Try WP:IJDLI in your case. Citizenship, nationality, ethnicity, heritage aren't all the same thing. Unless you're narrow minded. Ma®©usBritish [chat] 20:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Johnbod has pointed out the Americans disagree with Marcus. I point out that the people in Irish Republic disagree too. See e.g. Éamon de Valera and James Connolly. I dare you to change the nationality label of Eamon de Valera to "American" at Wikipedia! Seanwal111111 (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't see why we have to try and be more specific than a biography says. And in fact I'm not all that keen on saying more than the obvious so if there are problems my first reaction is why are we saying anything at all other than the very bare verifiable facts? Dmcq (talk)
Because the infobox-fillers and nationalist editors of all sorts won't leave the issue alone. And it is a basic piece of encyclopedic information, which is often not "obvious" at all. Johnbod (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Well my 'solution' to the problem is to have the MOS say 'if in doubt, leave it out' and place the WP:burden on people supplying anything like that to give a citation. if it isn't the sky is blue sort of stuff. Dmcq (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Johnbod said above "In many infoboxes the "nationality" parameter is best just omitted, as there isn't the space to do things adequately there." Editor Dmcq has just said the same. Editors GoodDay, ComhairleContaeThirnanOg, and myself said the same in the earlier Anglo-Irish thread higher up on this page. But as Johnbod also says, this requries ongoing police work. It can be done more easily if the police can have a quick and easy way to point the casual editor to the policy.
It is obvious that Sheodred's proposal above is getting more opposition than support. (Also by the way editor Sheodred himself has been blocked indefinitely at Wikipedia as of this afternoon). But I'd like to see the proposal supported by all the other editors I just named to be given more formality and adopted. Seanwal111111 (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I think GoodDay has a topic ban on such things, or is at the very least trying to stay clear of controversial topics such as this shilst being mentored. Best not reel him into this one. Ma®©usBritish [chat] 20:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Too many easter eggs to even consider. However, it does serve to show the double-standard in these kinds of biographies. We never consider these kinds of constructions for people from anywhere else in the United Kingdom. English people are called English and come from England. Scottish people are called Scottish and come form Scotland. But when it comes to Irish people, all kinds of hoops are thrown to leap through so that they can be in some way "Anglo" or "British" and come from the United Kingdom, not Ireland. Would we consider the following:
Noel Gallagher is a musician, a native of [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland|England]] and a descendent of the [[Irish migration to Great Britain|Irish diaspora]].
Hardly. The article on Neol Gallagher simply states that he is "an English musician and singer-songwriter". He is said to come from England. Not once is he described as being British or coming form the United Kingdom. --RA (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Half of the reason for that is that User:Mais oui! and other Scottish nationalists spend their lives splitting "British" categories into English and Scottish, and altering leads in the same way. But relatively few people on the mainland give "British" as their primary identity; that is mainly an Irish phenomenon. Johnbod (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
And if there was consistency across the UK it would be fine.
Regarding, giving British as a primary identity being a "mainly an Irish phenomenon": it is a specifically Northern Ireland phenomenon — and a relatively recent one. It dates from the mid-twentieth century and was heightened by the troubles. For example, in 1972, 39% of Protestants gave their identity as "Britsh", where as 32% gave it as Ulster; by 1989, 68% said "British" whereas 10% gave "Ulster" (source).
However, as I commented below, this is not even a practice that we do for people from Northern Ireland (i.e. as with people from elsewhere in the UK, we don't typically give the describe people from Northern Ireland as "British" in the lead). Furthermore, the examples we are discussing are pre-independence, and not Ulster. Wellington, or any of the other examples on this page, would not have identified as "British" (he would sooner have identified as "English"). The normal way to describe someone from Ireland during this time, whether Catholic or Protestant, was simply "Irish" (in the same way that people from England were "English" and people from Scotland were "Scottish"). --RA (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't disagree with any of that especially, though it is very often American editors who use "British", which is appropriate for them in a way, and it is also a safe bet for someone called Macintosh born in London etc. I was responding re the very much post-independence Noel Gallagher. Johnbod (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The same example could be given for pre-indendence people, e.g.:
William McGonagall was a weaver, a native of [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|Scotland]] and a descendent of the [[Irish migration to Great Britain|Irish diaspora]].
In fact, he's just (and rightly) given as being a Scottish weaver. Why would the children of English and Scottish migrants to Ireland at the time be treated any different? Never mind those whose antecedents had migrated to Ireland many centuries and generations before their birth (as in the examples of being being discussed here)? --RA (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Speaking in general (admitting exceptions) the difference is that Irish Protestants were British in culture and identity, and meanwhile the label "Irish" today is infused with the spirit of Irish nationalism, something which they rejected. Allowing myself a bit of repetition from last month, in Northern Ireland today the majority of Protestants pick "British" is their primary label and the great majority of any religion pick "British" as a primary or secondary label for themselves (refs at People of Northern Ireland). Seanwal111111 (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
"...Irish Protestants were British in culture and identity, and meanwhile the label 'Irish' today is infused with the spirit of Irish nationalism ... in Northern Ireland today the majority of Protestants pick 'British' is their primary label ..." — And therein lies the issue: the politics of identity and nationalism today being pushed back on to the people of two hundred years ago. What is the "British culture and identity" that you speak of that was not shared by the Catholics of Ireland? Were the rich in Ireland more "British" than the rich in England or Scotland that they should be described as "British" while their counterparts elsewhere in the UK should be "English" or "Scottish"? Were the poor in Ireland less British than the poor in England or Scotland that they should be "Irish" and not "British"? How should we identify the Castle Catholics, so that they can correctly be identified as British and not Irish? It's not nationality that it appears you want to describe, but politics.
Ironically, we don't do this even for the people of Northern Ireland today. Like people from elsewhere in the UK, people from Northern Ireland are typically described as Irish, Northern Irish or "from Northern Ireland", and not as "British" (or "Anglo-Irish" or "Ulster-Scots"). This is only a fuss that we experience for people born before independence, when, ironically, Irish was a less fought over term. --RA (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
19th century British science was British and not English Scottish or Irish. Science journals published in Scotland and Ireland circulated in England as non-foreign journals. It was the one country, the UK, as far as science was concerned. The British Association was either the most important or the second most important science organization in the country in the 2nd half of the 19th century, the other organization being the Royal Society of London. The famous scientist James Clerk Maxwell (1831 - 1879) published most of his research either in journals of the annual meetings of the British Association or in journals of the Royal Society of London. He lived for most of his adult life in Cambridge or London. Hence the better label for him is certainly "British" not "Scottish" says me. Hence I say to Rannpháirtí anaithnid "I don't have a 'double standard' ". I'll also disclose that with my political values I've got zero sympathy for Scottish nationalism. Rannpháirtí anaithnid, as an Irish nationalist, probably sympathizes with Scottish nationalism. I said above on 1 Dec 2011 "we are arguing about labels where choices exist, with controversial political connotations."
There's a lesson in the following massive amout of talk over the years from 2006 about whether the famous medieval mathematician Al-Khwarizmi should be labeled "Persian" in the lede and infobox. The evidence to support the "Persian" label is somewhere between scant and zero (absolutely zero IMO) but the Persians are taught in school that he's properly "Persian". The lesson is that a lot of readers and casual editors care about this national flagwaving stuff. You already knew that. But this is an impressive reminder: Talk:Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī#I suggest we remove Persian, and just say Islamic mathematician, Talk:Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī#Take "Persian" out of the lead paragraph, Talk:Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī#al-Khwārizmī was not Persian but Khwarezmian., Talk:Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī#Origin of Kharazmi., Talk:Muḥammad_ibn_Mūsā_al-Khwārizmī/Archive_2#Proposed introductions, Talk:Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī/Archive_2#Step back, Talk:Muḥammad_ibn_Mūsā_al-Khwārizmī/Archive_2#Khwarizm as Persian?, Talk:Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī/Archive_2#Arab mathematician - Articles, Talk:Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī/Archive_2#Khwarizm, Chorasm, Khorezmia, etc., Talk:Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī/Archive_2#It's That Simple, Talk:Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī/Archive_2#Another ethnic editing war, Talk:Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī/Archive_2#He was Persian, Talk:Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī/Archive_2#New info, Talk:Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī/Archive_2#Background of islamic civilization, Talk:Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī/Archive_2#Use of "Persian" without qualifiers is irredentism, Talk:Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī/Archive_2#Hijacking Al-Khwarizmi's background, Talk:Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī/Archive_2#The Article in Persian does not discuss his ethnic background, Talk:Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī/Archive_2#Sogdian is a more proper term, Talk:Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī/Archive_3#Was he Arab or Persian? Does it really matter?, Talk:Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī/Archive_3#His ethnicity (again), Talk:Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī/Archive_3#Issues resolved before I unprotect, Talk:Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī/Archive_3#Applying Wikipedia's rules in his ethnicity, Talk:Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī/Archive_3#fake infomation, Talk:Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī/Archive_3#Fraud, Talk:Muḥammad_ibn_Mūsā_al-Khwārizmī/On_Khwarizmi's_background, Talk:Muḥammad_ibn_Mūsā_al-Khwārizmī/Archive_1#Khwarizmi was NOT Arab, Talk:Muḥammad_ibn_Mūsā_al-Khwārizmī/Archive_1#Relevance of Islam, Talk:Muḥammad_ibn_Mūsā_al-Khwārizmī/Archive_1#Al-Khwarizmi has Turkish Origin., Talk:Muḥammad_ibn_Mūsā_al-Khwārizmī/Archive_1#Al-Khwarizmi: Persian Genius, Talk:Muḥammad_ibn_Mūsā_al-Khwārizmī/Archive_1#Persian again, huh?, Talk:Muḥammad_ibn_Mūsā_al-Khwārizmī/Archive_1#Why al-Khwarizmi is not Perisan, Talk:Muḥammad_ibn_Mūsā_al-Khwārizmī/Archive_1#Zmmz, what's with the obvious biased edits?, Talk:Muḥammad_ibn_Mūsā_al-Khwārizmī/Archive_1#Proof: Poem about Khwarezm by Al Biruni, Talk:Muḥammad_ibn_Mūsā_al-Khwārizmī/Archive_1#An Arab, Talk:Muḥammad_ibn_Mūsā_al-Khwārizmī/Archive_1#Khwarizm was part of the arab abbasid empire, Talk:Muḥammad_ibn_Mūsā_al-Khwārizmī/Archive_1#Khwarizm was part of the arab abbasid empire, Talk:Muḥammad_ibn_Mūsā_al-Khwārizmī/Archive_1#Not Turkic, Not arab, but Persian/Tajik, Talk:Muḥammad_ibn_Mūsā_al-Khwārizmī/Archive_1#We should stop debating, Talk:Muḥammad_ibn_Mūsā_al-Khwārizmī/Archive_1#Khwarizmi being Persian: Original research, which has nothing to do with Wikipedia, Talk:Muḥammad_ibn_Mūsā_al-Khwārizmī/Archive_1#History of Khwarizm, Talk:Muḥammad_ibn_Mūsā_al-Khwārizmī/Archive_1#More on the ethnicity of Al-Khwarizmi - clearing some misunderstaning, Talk:Muḥammad_ibn_Mūsā_al-Khwārizmī/Archive_1#ONLY FACTS - Why Al-khwarizmi is an arab!, Talk:Muḥammad_ibn_Mūsā_al-Khwārizmī/Archive_1#Again response to Jidan., Talk:Muḥammad_ibn_Mūsā_al-Khwārizmī/Archive_1#Funny thing written at the current version of the article, Talk:Muḥammad_ibn_Mūsā_al-Khwārizmī/Archive_1#Al-Khwarizmi is NOT persian - for the last time. Seanwal111111 (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Sean, please comment on the contribution, not the contributor. And please also resist posting inordinate number of links to the same page, as you do above. It makes it look as though you are labouring a point
About the points you do raise above: You say that, "19th century British science was British and not English Scottish or Irish." Possibly. However, in the two examples above relating to science, we are talking about scientists, not science. 19th century English scientists, were English men and women. Similar with Scottish scientists. For example, Charles Darwin is described as an an English naturalist and Thomas Graham is described as a Scottish chemist. The double standard that I am referring to is when it comes to their counterparts from Ireland. In that case, if they were protestant and owned a horse, it appears as though every effort is made to repudiate that they were, in fact, Irish, and all matter of other words, terms and pipe links are used instead.
The matter would be entirely different if people from the UK were ordinary described as British on the encyclopedia but that is not the case (even for contemporary biographies of people from Northern Ireland, about which reference to the the politics of nationalism and identity today has been made above). As you correctly say, "we are arguing about labels where choices exist, with controversial political connotations." My concern is that we are not being neutral in our application of those choices and we are departing from the conventional in the articles being discussed. --RA (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Sean, as you had to point out to make your statement above "the difference is that Irish' Protestants were British in culture and identity". Also commenting on the editor above is not really in the spirit of things is it Sean? AGF that you were merely trying to show parallels but it was still unnecessary. I could draw parallels over your point of view using your edits of scientists born in Ireland only ,outside your middle east edits, from as far back as 2007 that would appear to be edits of a opposite view and the fact that it seems to be one way traffic a point you seem to have a disdain for when the edits are flowing the other way. You seem to add unionism into your early edit summaries and your last batch you use here to justify even as you can read no consensus was reached. I dont think that is correct as you have already decided that this is long running discussion is concluded and it ,by the sheer amount of words on this page, has not. As I have stated before and repetition is a great way of learning , each case should be looked at individually not a blanket rule. Also as Marcus has put it - very well- there is a difference between nationality and citizenship, MOS states that we should use the relevant natonality/citizenship of the subjects when they became notable if it is part of the notability and mention the rest in the article or further in the lead. These are things most of us agree on now your edits of someone being born in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland being of British nationality are OR in most cases. Your points and edits make lovely soup.Murry1975 (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles/Archive_5&oldid=1198216772"