Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

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.

Verification needed

Would appreciate if anyone with first-hand experience or photos could attest to the accuracy (or otherwise) of this image. Responses directed here please. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I've asked User:Sarah777 for input - she's done loads of work on the Irish road network. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I've added my 2 cent worth. Limbo is certainly correct regarding the practice in Ireland (Republic of) :) Sarah777 (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland article names

Importance Level of Cork, Derry, Galway and Limerick

By what virtue are Dublin and Belfast of "Top Importance" to WikiProject Ireland while Cork, Derry, Limerick and Galway are merely of "High Importance"?

The ranking level clearly lacks objectivity, consistency, rationale and most of all credibility.

Says who? RashersTierney (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Moved this to the talk page if this IP really wants an answer, I would think its obvious though. Dublin and Belfast are the capitals of Republic of Ireland / Northern Ireland. All those other cities are not, hence why the capitals are more important. Happy now? BritishWatcher (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Belfast is not the capital of Northern Ireland, London is! And anyway, on what basis is a capital more important?

Cork's foundation predates Dublin's. Waterford's city charter dates from 1171, the same year as Dublin's.

Belfast, for example, has only been a city since 1888, whereas Derry, founded in 542, has been a city since 1662. Furthermore Derry is of much greater historical significance than Belfast ( the siege etc.).

It is the height of nonsense to dismiss the other cities as less important in an Irish context. Global context, arguably, but in an Irish context, utter nonsense. I mean, is this just about a population count? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.68.136 (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

London is the capital of the United Kingdom, but the countries of the United Kingdom each have capitals aswell, Edinburgh for Scotland, Cardiff for Wales and Belfast for Northern Ireland. Im not defending those other city articles not being marked as high importance, i would say all major cities should be but without doubt the fact Dublin / Belfast are capitals is why they are of higher importance than other cities right now.
Lets wait and see what others think if those other city articles should be classed as high importance. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Chirstian Conventions from Wikiproject Ireland

Christian conventions currently contains a notice that it is part of Wikiproject Ireland. This article concerns a little-known church originally formed in Ireland in the 1890s. Most of its membership is now found outside Ireland, however.

On multiple occasions I have requested reviews of this article by members of this project. It is now a rather robust article that is about to seek GA status. No member has answered my requests for peer review, nor my requests that the project change its status from "start class".

Based on this lack of interest, I am removing the article's Wikiproject Ireland notice. If some member wants to provide some focus and guidance, and relist the article as part of the project, your participation would be very welcome by the active editors. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Good work on the article, and sorry for the lack of response. WP:IE isn't a big project, and there may just have been no-one around who felt competent to provide some help. However, the article does fall within the scope of this project, so I have restored the banner. There's no guarantee that anyone from the project will contribute, but having the banner there places the article in the relevant project categories and may help to bring it to the attention of editors. Its presence does no harm :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

FAR for article Augusta, Lady Gregory

I have nominated Augusta, Lady Gregory for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Cirt (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Belfast#Sections to be deleted

Could someone pop over to the Belfast talk page and give an opinion on the deletion of a few sections. I don't want to delete someone's work without a second opinion. Thanks. Stu ’Bout ye! 12:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed bot edit to all Irish geography articles

I'd like to request a bot to make an edit to all Irish towns and villages (i.e. everything in Category:Towns and villages in Ireland by county). The purpose of the edit will be to roll out the {{Irish place name}} (see for example Ratoath).

Part 1: Roll out the {{Irish place name}} template

  • {{derive|Irish|XXX|YYY}} -> {{Irish place name|XXX|YYY}}
  • First instance in first paragraph of content of {{langx|ga|XXX}} in first para to -> {{Irish place name|XXX}}
  • First instance in first paragraph of content of (''XXX'' in {{Irish language|Irish}}) in first para to -> ({{Irish place name|XXX}})
  • First instance in first paragraph of content of ({{Irish language|Irish}}: ''XXX'') in first para to -> ({{Irish place name|XXX}})
  • Otherwise, if the articles does not contain {{lga}} (an alias of {{Irish place name}}), add to [[:Category:Irish towns and villages without Irish place names}}.

Par 2: Roll out the {{gaeilge}} template

I will then manually go through that category and remove the category link from pages that are not Irish language names e.g. Acton, County Armagh. I will then request that a bot to go through that category, removing the category link and adding {{gaeilge}} immediately after the first bolded word in the article body.

What think? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

None, only I had been working on towns/villages and no mountains/rivers. You'd be up for geographic features too? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Up for. All features, both human and physical geography, and anything else that doesn't cover. And why is {{Irish place name}} limited to places? It seems on the face of it (and I haven't looked beyond) that this logic should apply to anything with an Irish name. --Yumegusa (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Specifically the template differs from {{langx|ga}} (which just says something like Irish: somthing) and {{derive|Irish}} (which says that something is derived from something else, like from Irish something 'something else') in that it is tailored specifically for Irish places names and their meanings (like "Shinrone (Irish: Suí an Róin, meaning 'seat of the seal')"). The meaning is optional but if it isn't supplied the article gets added to Category:Untranslated Irish place names.
It's not really suitable for the names of modern places, like bridges, buildings and roads, because the Irish name is more than likely a translation of the English e.g. "Tolka Park (Irish: Páirc Tolca, meaning 'Tolka park')". Similiarly, personal names would be better served by {{langx|ga}}.
{{gaeilge}} is a tag like [citation needed] that can be added to a phrase needing an Irish translation. It adds the page to Category:All articles awaiting Irish translations. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the very clear explanation --Yumegusa (talk) 07:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

What's in a name

I'm creating an article on the Irish mercantile marine during the emergency User:ClemMcGann/timeline - a rather neglected area imho - it's far from finished - but wonder what name to give it - and perhaps it should be two articles? - advice welcome - and I'm not holding a vote ;) - User:ClemMcGann/timeline -input welcome - ClemMcGann (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't think there's anything better than what you have: "Irish Mercantile Marine during World War II". It's long, but there's no part of it that's dispensable. Scolaire (talk) 07:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thanks - ClemMcGann (talk) 00:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I have 'launched' it - but I still have a lot to do.! Irish Mercantile Marine during World War II. ClemMcGann (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Joseph MacManus#POV terminology

Could I ask for some input on this emerging problem, concerning the use of the term "killed on active service" in a few IRA articles. There are two viewpoints. One, that this is a term "used by PIRA and supporters/apologists to legitimise their actions as being on a par with military actions" to quote Mooretwin. The other, that this is a NPOV term used by other non-IRA sources.

Personally, I think that stating "MacManus was killed on active service during a shoot-out after an ambush in Mulleek" is presenting the facts from a Republican perspective. I feel that Wikipedia:Words to avoid applies here, as well as the "Volunteer" usage mediation. I'm posting this to the terrorism project as well, asking for their input here. Stu ’Bout ye! 18:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Once you get out of a senstationalist tabloid reporting of "The Troubles" and into scolarly publications the use of ASU, active service and active service unit is common place.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
It's not, unless the author is writing from a PIRA POV. No-one has objected to ASU or "active service unit", so reference to these above are red herrings. Mooretwin (talk) 08:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes I dont even know where to begin with some of the nonsense you come out with. I am not sure respect authors such as Tim Pat Coogan and Peter Hart could be accused of "writing from a PIRA POV". And of course ASU, active service and active service unit are linked. A volunteer would be on active service in an active service unit.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
And why would Coogan or Hart not be writing from a PIRA POV if they are writing about PIRA? It is possible for the author to write from the POV of his subject. Mooretwin (talk) 09:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
What would you propose we replace "active service" with? I can't think of anything more neutral off the top of my head. "Died for their country"? Obviously not. "Died while engaged in criminal activities" *click here to open massive can o'worms*. If I heard that an Al Qaeda member, for example, was killed on "active service" I wouldn't blink. He was serving the organisation he was a member of, whatever their ideals. Fribbler (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
There's no need to say "killed on active service" at all. It is adequate simply to say "killed". If you really need to say something else, it would be quite easy to use NPOV terms like "killed during an ambush", "killed during a PIRA operation", etc., etc. Mooretwin (talk) 09:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Fribbler. "Killed on active service" suggests a member of any militant organisation killed while acting for that organisation. The mere fact that it's used by the IRA does not mean it is not a suitable descriptive term. Scolaire (talk) 09:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
No. It suggests that the operation is legitimate, which is Irish-republican POV. The term is used deliberately to dignify the actions of the organisation by implying that they are legitimately military. There is no need to use the term. Mooretwin (talk) 09:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
No. In your warped and disruptive mind "It suggests that the operation is legitimate".--Vintagekits (talk) 09:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it's a useful catch-all term to say they were killed while performing an operation on behalf of group x. Rather than killed in an unrelated incident, which often happened. The idea of it being "republican propaganda" wouldn't cross my mind. Fribbler (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Scolaire is right when he says it's used by the IRA. So if we acknowledge that it is part of the republican lexicon, then why not use another term which is just as descriptive but not presenting the facts from a republican perspective? ie, "MacManus was killed during a shoot-out after an ambush in Mulleek", or "MacManus was killed in a shoot-out after an IRA operation in Mulleek" Neither of these two alternatives leaves the reader in any doubt of how or why he was killed, and uses neutral language. Stu ’Bout ye! 12:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, those work. I really don't think this is as important an issue as people are making out. But hey! This is WP:IE/WP:NI; we could pick a fight with be offended by our reflections ;-) Fribbler (talk) 12:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Quite. That is what I was suggesting - there is no need to use the quasi-military terminology. It is quite a straightforward matter to describe the death of the individuals in quesstion without referring to "active service". Mooretwin (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Just because it is in the "republican lexicon" does not preclude it from being in the use of other lexicons also. I dont see why we should have to dance around Mooretwin wants sentances worded when they are sourced. Active Service, active service and ASU all comply with WP:RS and WP:NPOV and I will continue to use them and maintain them in articles.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with Active Service Unit or ASU. (Provided the former is used first in an article) But the use of "on active service" does not comply with RS or NPOV. Some neutral souces may use the term, but they are using in context to the IRA and often in quotation marks. No one would have used the term in relation to the IRA, until the IRA started using it themselves. And there is absolutely no way it complies with NPOV. Stu ’Bout ye! 13:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by saying that is doesn't comply with RS or NPOV, and then in the next sentence saying that "some neutral sources may use the term". Is that not a contradiction? Regarding quotation marks - have you any examples? Searching on Google Books shows the opposite I'm afraid. --HighKing (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Those books all appear to be books about the PIRA, and therefore it is not surprising that they use PIRA terminology. WP, on the other hand, is an encyclopaedia, and NPOV should mean not using PIRA terminology if other terminilogy can readily be used. Mooretwin (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The term is used in neutral reliable sources. BigDunc 14:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I wonder how long the second sentence of September 11 attacks would last if altered to read "On that morning, 19 Al-Qaeda volunteers on active service hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners" before being reverted for NPOV violation. I similarly wonder how long "... was involved in a terrorist bombing/shooting/ambush" being added to any of the relevant WP:IR articles would last before being reverted on the same NPOV grounds, despite there being plenty of neutral WP:RS. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Bad example that article is censored with an iron fist by flag waving yanks any attempt at discussion leads to blocks. BigDunc 15:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd be curious to know what Bastun thinks of the use of the term "terrorists" on 9/11 articles and the way you will get blocked in the blink of an eye for even mentioning it on the talkpage. (I'm making no assumptions Bastun, I'm genuinely curious). Sarah777 (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
What BigDunc said. Either the "Words to avoid" policy (can't remember the link code offhand) should apply everywhere (in which case, the word should not be on the Sept 11 article - but good luck trying to remove it) or it should apply nowhere (in which case it should be added to WP:IR articles - but good luck trying to add it). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I already did try to change it at 9/11 (per suggestion on the talkpage). They aren't much into policy on that article. As it isn't something I care too much about one way or another I got out of town. If sufficient numbers (backed by numbers of Admins) support the proposition that "the moon is made of cheese" it becomes vandalism to even suggest there might be an alternative view. Sarah777 (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I too tried to change it and came up against the same disregard for policy I even attempted to get it delisted as a good article as it fails a couple of the criteria but I was warned off and policy was thrown out the window. BigDunc 21:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:List of UNESCO World Heritage Sites in the United Kingdom#Lead image

I'm currently expanding the article on List of UNESCO World Heritage Sites in the United Kingdom and am pondering what should be used as the lead image(s). It's not the most important issue in developing the article, but I thought that as the list includes Northern Ireland that editors here may be interested (Northern Ireland's sole WHS is Giant's Causeway although Mount Stewart has been proposed). I've left a note at the England and Scotland wikiprojects and the Welsh wikipedians' noticeboard to see if the discussion goes anywhere. Please leave any comments on the article talk page. Thanks, Nev1 (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:MEMORIAL and victims of Troubles atrocities

Any input to this discussion would be helpful. There appears to be an inconsistency in that the names of victims of some atrocities are being removed form articles under the guise of WP:MEMORIAL, but not others. Consistency and clarity about the scope of WP:Memorial would be desirable. Mooretwin (talk) 09:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the current situation strikes about the right balance. Sarah777 (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Cambrai Homily rating

I created the article Cambrai Homily. It's been rated with a C, and since I thought I'd been rather thorough in gathering the scattered info on this obscure text, I was hoping the deficiencies could be explained on the talk page. I would be grateful if additional sources could be pointed out, as I think this little text is rather interesting. Thanks. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Article ratings are subjective, and tend to be the personal opinion of the reviewer. I would suggest contact the user who reviewed the article for their opinion. In this case User:ww2censor. Fribbler (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Place for a picture?

I posted this on the NI Wikiproject, and including it here too for more ideas. Could anyone suggest an article which would benefit from this photograph? It is from my family photo album and is from the summer of 1970, featuring a street off the Shankill Road. A nice historical piece. Fribbler (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You could add it to the Ulster loyalism article, or even The Troubles article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
This looks earlier than '75 to me. Just going by the clothes and the vehicles in the distance. There was a unionist candidate called McRoberts in the '70 Westminster election, and the stencilled election poster looks fairly fresh. Stu ’Bout ye! 10:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I thought that myself. 1970-71 to be precise. Sometimes erroneous dates are retrospectively added on the backs of old family photos. Another thing, wouldn't there have been a mural instead of graffiti by 1975?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I also want to say that I wish more people would upload old photos of Ireland to Wikipedia. Photos taken in Northern Ireland in the 1970s and 1980s are hard to come by. This photo is excellent. Another clue as to its pre-dating 1975 is the fact that it's in black-and-white. By 1975, most people used colour.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually re-reading Fribber's post above he does say it's from the summer of '70, it's just the summary info on the photo's page that says '75. +1 on the photo, there aren't enough images like this on Wikipedia, depressing as they are. Stu ’Bout ye! 12:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Have you ever seen the video on YouTube taken in the Shankill Road in 1973? It's like a time warp. The clothes, hairstyles, vehicles, atmosphere.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Use of ROI national flag to represent Provisional IRA

Discussion here. Mooretwin (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly a hot new topic, is it? Scolaire (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The relevance/significance of your comment escapes me. Mooretwin (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ireland articles missing geographical coordinates

223 articles about geographically locatable subjects in Ireland are missing geographical coordinates. Finding the latitude and longitude of locations, and entering coordinates into articles is straightforwards, and explained at Wikipedia:How to add geocodes to articles. Having coordinates on articles mean that they turn up in GoogleMaps, MultiMap and other such places which link to wikipedia based on geo-coordinates, and have a link on them enabling the article's subject to be located on a wide range of maps. The articles are listed at Category:Ireland articles missing geocoordinate data. All help in geo-coording them is welcome/urged/implored. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Irish Mercantile Marine during World War II

and timeline - suggestions, opinions, advice welcome ClemMcGann (talk) 20:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Irish Tidy Town Competition Navbox

Hi, I have created a navbox for the winners of the Tidy Town Competition on my Sandbox. I would like if we could put it on each winners article, I just wanted to know if there would be any objections to this or if anyone had any ideas on how to improve on the navbox.--Pyrite101 (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks perfect. There shouldn't be any objections :-) --FF3000 · talk 14:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
You will likely have a problem using the non-free logo in the template. Non-free logos are used in infoboxes, with a fair use rationale for that use, to identify the company or organisation. All other uses are usually disputed and deleted or removed. Using it in a template does not satisfy that use, so I suggest you remove it now even though it looks nice. You might want to group the decades or larger number of years together to make it more readable, possibly like {{Isle of Man TT}} or even like this {{AMA Superbike champions}}. Cheers. ww2censor (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The template looks great now, though in future years you may have to combine 2 decades in one column so the box does not become too wide or add a line break. Good job. ww2censor (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I think i will go ahead with this navbox.If any one has any comments please don't hesitate to contact me.--Pyrite101 (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Potato - raiding cookbooks for references

Hi all - the Culinary_uses cold do with a stack of references, and some embellishment, from reliable sources, so I'd appreciated it if folks raided their cookbooks for references, or any other books for anything related to both potatoes and Ireland really - I am seeing whether we can get potato to GA...all help much appreciated :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTICE. Request For Comment: Changes to Naming policies which may affect WikiProject naming conventions.

Following recent changes by some editors to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy page, a Request For Comment, (RFC) is now being held to debate the removal of the passage specifying that individual WikiProject and other naming conventions are able to make exceptions to the standard policy of using Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles.

This WikiProject is being notified since it operates such a specific naming convention. Editors are invited to comment on the proposed change at this location. Xandar 01:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The above "notification" is a grossly biased misrepresentation of the changes under discussion. The old version of the naming conventions policy tried to lay down binding rules; we don't work that way, so it was necessary also to make explicit exceptions. The new version articulates principles, and allows for consensus to establish how they should be applied. Thus there is no longer any need for exceptions. In fact, making exceptions is nonsense, since there are no rules to make exceptions to. These changes are good for specific conventions. Xandar is trying to induce moral panic in those who stand to gain the most from this. Xandar is only opposed to the new version because he thinks the wording, not the general thrust, weakens his position in a dispute unrelated to this RfC. Don't be fooled. Hesperian 02:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Irish locations in Kerry Slug

Hello folks, there are alot of redlinks in the Distribution section of the Kerry Slug article. Given I know very little about Irish geography, if some locals could either create some stubs, or alternately some might warrant subsections of other geographical articles or exist under another name, this'd be very helpful. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Geographical co-ordinates in constituency articles

I am concerned that the application of geographical co-ordinates (or of {{coord missing}} tags) to articles on parliamentary constituencies may be misleading to readers. There seems to be a lot of this underway at the moment, including Irish constituencies such as Galway West. I have opened a centralised discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates#Use_of_co-ordinates_in_parliamentary_constituencies.

More input welcome! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Nationality/identify in NI Bio Articles

Following on from an ANI discussion, I'd like some input on this with a mind to adding to at WP:IMOS. As the ARC survey and others confirm, the issue of identity in Northern Ireland is complicated to say the least. Currently some NI bio articles state that "Stu is an Irish Wikipedian" or "Stu is a Northern Irish Wikipedian". The former is generally used in articles on Catholics, the latter generally on Protestants. Given that identity isn't as simple as this, I propose that all articles should be "Stu is a Wikipedian from Northern Ireland" by default. The only exception would be a citation directly quoting the subject regarding their identity. And to be clear on this, it should only be a direct quote from the subject. Holding a certain passport would not do - I only hold an Irish passport, but identity as Northern Irish most of the time. Being described as Irish/Northern Irish by someone else would not do, even if it's from a reliable source. I think this should apply to living people born prior to partition as well. They may have been born in Ireland, but they are currently "from Northern Ireland", as above. Pre-partition and dead = Irish.

Categorisation is another issue, I believe the categories changed recently shouldn't have been, for uniformity at least. But this is a seperate debate and one I could not be arsed getting into. But I think we could possible agree on the opening sentence bit.

Hopefully this will solve some problems. I'd ask people to respond only on the subject of discussion, and not let this turn into the usual embarrassing, mudslinging mess :-)

Thoughts? Stu ’Bout ye! 12:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not only a problem of Northern Ireland related articles. It sometimes seems to me that anyone that can be "grabbed" as being "British" or "Anglo-Irish" gets "wiki owned" by the opposing team. God help you if you call the The Duke of Wellington an Irishman - his wiki bio is stridently "Anglo-Irish". Did you know that Rober Boyle was a "British" citizens? Or that Francis Bacon was an "Irish-born British painter"? I've posted above about this. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Didn't see your section, but totally agree. Is an RFC the best way to proceed? What do you think of my proposal above, for post independence bios? Stu ’Bout ye! 20:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Unless "Northern Ireland" is crucial to the subject of "Stu", I don't want to hear about it in the first line. What is Stu? A Wikipedian, you say? Great. Now tell me why I should care. Compare:
  • "Edmund 'Eddie' Jordan (born 30 March 1948) is the founder and former owner of Jordan Grand Prix, a Formula One constructor which operated from 1991 to 2005. He is currently a pundit for the F1 coverage on the BBC alongside David Coulthard."
  • "Edmund 'Eddie' Irvine, Jr. (born 10 November 1965, Newtownards, County Down) is a former racing driver from Northern Ireland. He grew up in Conlig, County Down, and was influenced by his parents, who were also involved in motor racing. His father, Edmund Sr., and his sister, Sonia (now a physiotherapist), worked with him during his career."
Do I care what arsehole town Eddie Irvine comes from? Do I care about his dad and his sister (lovely as I'm sure they are)? Do I care what his dad's name is or what his sister works at? Why am I being told where he was born ... not just (which is nice) but twice!? How is any of this the kind of stuff to lead with in an international encyclopedia? It's colloquial stuff.
Meanwhile the Eddie Jordan article doesn't mention any of that colloquial business at all. Nothing about his dad or his sister. Nothing about where is was from. We don't need to hear where he's from or what nationality he is because none of that is the most important thing. It's all said in the article body.
So, "Stu is an Irish Wikipedian"? Or "Stu is a Northern Irish Wikipedian"? Neither. "Stu is a Wikipedian." And then state why he is notable. Later, in the body, you can mention where he's from. Rarely, will it be pertinent in an encyclopedia article to tell me what nationality he considers himself to be or what passport(s) he holds. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
While you're right, you're talking about improving/rewriting or even creating an entirely new lead in hundreds of articles. This is obviously the best solution, but also the most difficult. In a lot of stubs the lead states "Stu is a Northern Irish Wikipedian" and nothing else, failing to give any more detail on his notability. I'm just looking a quick fix solution to avoid some current edit wars, and prevent future ones. Stu ’Bout ye! 10:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I'm not of fan of "Northern Irish". "...from Northern Ireland" is fine. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree, describing someone as "Northern Irish" can imply that a political stance e.g. in favour of a independent "Ulster nation". "from Northern Ireland" strips away that implication.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
That is nonsense. Mooretwin (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
It works both ways. As I said above, unless we can find a citation directly quoting the subject regarding their identity then they shouldn't be "Irish" or "Northern Irish". Being called Irish by someone else doesn't count. People's reasons for identifying as Northern Irish are probably widely varied, but I don't see why that's relevant. Stu ’Bout ye! 12:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
It's relevant because "Northern Irish" is not a nationality - whereas British and Irish are.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The neutral from Northern Ireland is the only way to go on this as it just states the facts and makes no claims to a disputed nationality. BigDunc 13:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

As this is about a UK nationality, i think the debate will need a wider audience before anything is decided and whilst i have no strong feelings on which method is best i think this should be handled along with a larger reform of the Wikipedia:UKNATIONALS so there is consistent use. This matter clearly does not just impact on Ireland and WP:IMOS BritishWatcher (talk) 14:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree this is a wider problem taking in both the living and the dead. Personally, I'd be in favour of removing the letters i, s and h from all our keyboards. Although I would learn from the WO:IECOLL lesson. English editors have a very bad habit in my experience of "claiming" famous people. If this was put to a popular vote then before we'd know it everyone would "English" and there would be no such thing as "Irish", "Northern Irish" to worry about. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Well i would be voting for people to be labelled as British not English ;) BritishWatcher (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Cool - Irish, Welsh, Scottish, Manx, and ... British. I can live with that ;) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

British, is the correct descriptive, IMHO. Northern Ireland is within the United Kingdom (as are its people). GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct, people within the UK are British - however, Northern Ireland is (for now) treated different to the remainder of UK. In accordance with the GFA people from are can be either British or Irish or both. Thats the law - recognised not only by the Irish government, but the British government and also internationally.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
That's a rather big misunderstanding. The law does not legislate for how someone identifies him or herself: that is entirely a matter for the individual. All the law can do is confer citizenship. Under UK law, people from NI are UK citizens on the same basis as any other part of the UK. ROI law also confers an entitlement to ROI citizenship on people from NI, but there is no "legal" choice" between "British" and "Irish". People from NI are British citizens and may also be citizens of ROI if they so choose. As well as being UK citizens, however, people from NI are also Northern Irish, in the same way as people from England are English and people from Scotland are Scottishm etc. Mooretwin (talk) 09:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with the GFA, British & Irish governments choice. But, there's not much I can do about it. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't the governments choice but the people of Ireland. BigDunc 17:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Same thing (sorta), I still have no choice. 'Northern Irish' simply will not do. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Per normal BLP guidelines, I believe that "from Northern Ireland" should be used when there is a reliable source for the birthplace location, and "Irish" and/or "British" should only be used when there is a reliable source for the person's nationality or how they self-identify themselves. I think the problem in far too many articles is that editors extrapolate from the birthplace location to assume a nationality, but that doesn't work very well for people born in Northern Ireland. Since it is probably much easier to find and cite a reliable source for birthplace location, I think "from Northern Ireland" would be the phrase used for most biographic articles. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"from Northern Ireland" is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Worse than that Andrew, people assume an identity based solely on their religion - Catholic = Irish, Protestant = Northern Irish, or even in some cases British. There seems to be consensus on this, so I'm suggesting that we add the following to the WP:IMOS.
Biographical articles on people born in the six counties of Northern Ireland post-partition should not have a nationality/identity attached to them, unless a source stating their identity can be found. This source must directly quote the subject themselves. For example, the default wording on an article should be "Stu is a Wikipedian from Northern Ireland", and not "Stu is a Northern Irish Wikipedian" or "Stu is an Irish Wikipedian", unless a source can be found in which Stu states his nationality/identity. This applies to all people born after the creation of Northern Ireland in 1922 whether they are living or dead. People born anywhere on the island of Ireland pre-partition are Irish.
Feel free to improve my wording. As Rannpháirtí anaithnid says and explains with his Eddie Irvine/Eddie Jordan analogy, place of birth/nationality shouldn't even be in the lead paragraph unless it is relevant to theit notability, but that's another matter which requires the rewriting of hundreds of articles and can be dealt with in time. The problem of Irish born people being claimed as Anglo-Irish or British will remain, but again this can be dealt with in time as a separate issue. So how does my wording look? Stu ’Bout ye! 09:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
'"people assume an identity based solely on their religion" - which people? when? where? what article?--Vintagekits (talk) 09:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Shitloads, do a Google search. Some aren't even based on religion. Stu ’Bout ye! 10:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose It is all well and good allowing its removal if there is evidence the subject disputes it, that is how you correctly apply BLP, but to move into a default position of 'you are not Northern Irish unless you state it', is frankly not acceptable. There is no basis to the claim that readers see the words Northern Irish and assume it denotes a nationality, or worse, that the person is of a particular political or religious persuasion. Nobody would be so assuming as to claim that about use of the term Scottish or any other widely recognisable demonym, so nobody should be doing the same for Northern Irish. A default position of 'don't use Northern Irish' is actually Wikipedia taking a stance that 'Northern Ireland' is not considered a recognised place of origin - quite an outrageous violation of NPOV, given the fact there is a geo-political entity with recognised borders called Northern Ireland, to which Northern Irish cannot be divorced from (you would not for example ever get away with using Eastern Irish in other bio's instead of Irish, because the meaning is actually very well understood in the English speaking world). It is frankly not being neutral to erase a term from the entire 'pedia (and this has amazingly been attempted even on non-bio articles) just because some editors find it objectionable to their particular world view (and worse, want to see it as objectionable on behalf of article subjects they might know nothing at all about). And in addition to all of this weighty argument, from a less important sentence structure point of view, 'from Northern Ireland' is not a no-loss alternative, because it changes the use of the -ish demonym as an informative but otherwise unobstructive factoid which is quickly scanned over in normal reading, into an in your face integral fact that immediately implies it is of upmost importance to the article (assuming you can fit it in the sentence cleanly at all). That is when the 'Eddie Jordan' argument becomes relevant, not for 'Northern Irish'. MickMacNee (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with describing somebody as Northern Irish. Northern Ireland, even if it isn't a nation, does exist as an official and historically-important province (as evidenced by the extensive media coverage it received during the Troubles), derived from the ancient province of Ulster, therefore if someone was born in Northern Ireland they are by default Northern Irish. In some cases, such as Gerry Adams, the term Irish suffices, but he's also specifically from Northern Ireland, and as Ulster has often been described as a place apart, it's important that Wikipedia acknowledges Northern Irish people.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Mick, I agree with just about everything you're saying. When I see Northern Irish I take it as a demonym. I would think most people do. But some people, and admittedly not only those with a nationalist/republican viewpoint, see it as a nationality and therefore object. And they object very strongly, which has caused edit wars on this subject for as long as I've been on Wikipedia. I'm trying to find some middle ground. Maybe this isn't the solution. Stu ’Bout ye! 15:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
It is not middle ground if it is only being proposed to calm a tendentious minority pushing a fringe interpretation of simple words, who you just said yourself are well outisde the mainstream view. The fact that Northern Irish people can have British or Irish nationalities or both is explained perfectly well in that article, for anybody who might get confused. Transferring that confusion to every single biography by default is simply not helping readers in the slightest. MickMacNee (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think readers expect (or need) demonyms. Jack Lynch, for example, was a Corkman (a demonym), that is indisuputable, but his article doesn't even state his nationality ("Irish"). It doesn't need to. The value of encyclopedia articles are reduced when they are turned into local pissing grounds. Furthermore, if they see anything, I believe, our readers will expect it to be a nationality not a demonym. Otherwise, we all become Tryonemen, New Yorkers, Londoners, Westerners, South Americans, Asians. If you must do, state our subjects' nationalities ... but please don't even do that unless it is actually pertinent to understanding the subject. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
When have you ever seen such manufactured demonyms in any article? Nobody would ever think to use such unprofessional terms, but their uselessness is in no way comparable to describing someone as Northern Irish. And you hardly need 'Irish' in Jack Lynch when the first line is 'Taoiseach of Ireland'. MickMacNee (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Manufactured? Sources, my boy. "And you hardly need 'Irish' in Jack Lynch when the first line is 'Taoiseach of Ireland'." Eh ... Tony Blair ... just for example. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
BTW you now seem to be arguing the case for the use of "Northern Irish". Just to remind you - I'm advotacting stripping all of these "-ish's" out unless they are actually relevant. "from Northern Ireland" (just as "from Cork") is by far superior. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • 'British' is despised by some in Scotland, that fact doesn't make a similar request to stop using British/Scottish in Scottish biographies by default any less of a POV push than what is occuring is here. MickMacNee (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Completely different case Scotish people are not entitled to Irish citizenship by birth as people from NI are. BigDunc 18:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
What's that got to do with it? The fact that someone from Northern Ireland is entitled to ROI citizenship doesn't mean that they're not Northern Irish. Mooretwin (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
From my own personal experience, I have heard many Nationalists say they are are from the North of Ireland, whereas the Unionists say Northern Ireland.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm withdrawing this for now, needs more thought than I put into it. Specifically on RA's and Mick's points. Stu ’Bout ye! 08:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
What points??? BigDunc 11:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, if the choice comes down between using 'British' or 'Irish'. Then we use British. GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Queen of the Land Festival

An article has been created on Queen of the Land Festival, a beauty pageant in Ireland. Any improvements would be welcome. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggested article

I've recently added an article on the the murder of Shane Geoghegan. While researching it, I noticed there's not much in the way of background on the crime problems in Limerick here. I was thinking that an article such as Gangland crime in Limerick would help with this but its not an area I'm very familiar with and it seems quite complex with all the inter feuding. I'd gladly help if anyone else with a bit more experience was to take it on. Any takers? GainLine ♠ ♥ 15:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Breakdown by counties of Ireland articles missing geographical coordinates

Category:Ireland articles missing geocoordinate data now has a set of per-county subcategories, which I hope will make geotagging these articles easier for editors with local knowledge.

Note that, as with other top-level country categories in this hierarchy, this is for the state of Ireland; for the counties of Northern Ireland see Category:Northern Ireland articles missing geocoordinate data.

I'm now beginning the process of re-filing some 1,400 articles currently in Category:Ireland articles missing geocoordinate data into their respective county subcategories. -- The Anome (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering - what co-ords do you expect for a bus tour, which wanders? ClemMcGann (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland/Archive_10&oldid=1255666330"