Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21

When did Ireland become a republic?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The view as far as I am aware and can see across academia is that Ireland become a de facto and de jure republic in 1949 after the Republic of Ireland Act (1948). It would seem that in general or in all essentials it acted like one prior to this. No-one is doubting that, however @Frenchmalawi: strongly disagrees and calls this a common misconception, with their preference for the 1937 "republican constitution" (as they put it. I have seen no source that academia calls it that) as the starting point for Ireland being a republic.

Currently they are deadlocked at trying to get this accepted at Republic of Ireland. Back in March they added it to this article, without a single source to back themselves up. Who knows where else they have added their POV to.

Any sources they seem to have provided at Talk:Republic_of_Ireland#“It_was_officially_declared_a_republic_in_1949,_following_the_Republic_of_Ireland_Act_1948.” do not explicitly back their personal view and original research.

So when did Ireland become an actual republic? If not with the 1948 act then can alternative years be reliably and academically sourced? This means sources that state it fact not state it "in all essentials". Mabuska (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy with 'in all essentials' in 1937 being in the article. That has a good source. However the sources saying when it became a republic say 1949. Frenchmalawi quotes politicians who sya it was a republic before but I believe scholarly sources take precedence. I very much hope Wikipedia does not turn into a place where quotes from Boris Johnston or Donald Trump take precedence over scholarly sources! Dmcq (talk) 13:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
If here is an article where this is treated as a notable controversy then quotes from politicians could be put there. Dmcq (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Exactly, the personal views of politicians or even ordinary people do not always match up to reality and cannot be cited as sources for actual events unless academia agrees. Wikipedia is built upon reliability and verifiable third-party sources. Primary and secondary sources, whilst not bad, need to be treated extra carefully as Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources makes clear.
Citing "in all essentials" I have no problem with as it is clear that it does not mean de jure or de facto. "In all essentials£" is essentially stating it is acting like one but isn't. We all agree with that. Mabuska (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Mabuska, I’m happy to explore your question. When did Ireland legally become a republic? This is a question of law so we must look at the law. Well, United Kingdom law is very clear. United Kingdom law says that it happened in 1949. This is expressly set out in the Ireland Act 1949. In that Act it is provided that “It is hereby recognized and declared that the part of Ireland heretofore known as Eire ceased, as from the eighteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, to be part of His Majesty’s dominions.” So there is no doubt whatsoever that insofar as United Kingdom law is concerned, Ireland became a republic in 1949. Should we stop there? Should we accept that as the final answer and not consider anything else? Well, I don’t think so. The question, of course, is about Ireland so it makes sense that we also have to look at what Irish law says too. So, here goes, let’s look at Irish law:

1. Irish law removed the British king from its constitution in 1936. A secondary source that backs that up is “AN AMBIGUOUS OFFICE? THE POSITION OF HEAD OF STATE IN THE IRISH CONSTITUTION; JOHN COAKLEY; Irish Jurist; Irish Jurist; New Series, Vol. 48, 2012 pp 43-70. It includes QUOTE: “Two important Acts redefined the relationship between the State and the King. The first, the [Irish] Constitution (Amendment No. 27) Act, which went through all stages in the Dail on 11 December 1936, terminated any role for the Crown in the domestic affairs of the Free State and removed all references to the functions of the Governor-General (whose last official act was, indeed, to sign this bill into law the same day) but left space for the Government, for purposes of international affairs to avail of any “organ” used by the other dominions. The second, the [Irish] Executive Authority (External Relations) Act, enacted the following day and signed by the Ceann Comhairle made provision for the King to “act on behalf of the Irish Free State”, on the advice of the government “for the purposes of the appointment of diplomatic and consular representatives and the conclusion of international agreements.” In line with de Valera’s earlier thinking on the place of the King in the Constitution, then, this matter was now resolved: provision for the King would be made only in legislation, not in the State’s basic law.” This is very clearly explaining that under Irish law teh King was taken out of the Constitution in 1936; long, long before 1949.

2. Internationally, the constitution of the Ireland is often described as a republican one. Here is another source describing it in those terms: “A Federal Republic: Australia's Constitutional System of Government” By Brian Galligan, Cambridge University Press page 122, QUOTE: “After the French Revolution the constitution for France’s First Republic was passed by referendum, as was Eire’s republican constitution in 1937 after that country finally won independence from Britain” That’s an impartial source clearly describing the Irish constitution of 1937 as a republican one.

3. Am I the only one who says that Irish law and United Kingdom law do not agree on when Ireland became a republic? No, of course I am not. There are secondary sources explaining that Irish and United Kingdom law do not agree on the point. Here is a secondary source in that vein: “In the ast thirty years, there have been three distinct experiments in the ordering of Anglo-Irish relations. Two of them have failed. The first was the experiment of Commonwealth membership embodied in the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 in which the status of the Irish Free State was specifically associated with that of the senior dominion, Canada, and generally with that of oversea dominions. That experiment MAY BE SAID TO HAVE COME TO AN END IN 1936-37 when the External Relations Act was passed and the new Irish constitution enacted with the sanction of popular approval in a plebiscite....THEN FROM 1936-49...EIRE OWED NO ALLIEGANCE TO THE CROWN AND WAS NOT, IN THE IRISH VIEW, A MEMBER OF THE BRITISH COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS, BUT A STATE WHOSE ASSOCIATION WITH IT FROM WITHOUT was symbolized by the King’s signature to the letters of appointment of Irish representatives to foreign countries.” Ireland: The Republic Outside the Commonwealth by Nicholas Mansergh, International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 28, No. 3 (Jul., 1952), pp. 277-291, Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the Royal Institute of International Affairs. [My EMPHASIS is added in parts of the above quote].

CONCLUSIONS: Secondary sources support the view that Irish law regarded Ireland as already having left the Commonwealth well before 1949. The British law view conflicts with that. There is a conflict of laws. One can properly say that as a matter of United Kingdom law Ireland left the Commonwealth in 1949. One cannot say the same thing as a matter of Irish law which holds that Ireland left the Commonwealth in 1936-1937. This is nothing new that’s being raised by me here. I have never suggested that either view must be accepted as correct. We on Wiki, simply have to report these historical matters, damn complicated though they may be. I’m sure we can all agree that law is often not simple. And simply saying that Ireland left the Commonwealth in 1949 doesn’t actually address that the position is more complicated than that. Frenchmalawi (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The 1937 Constitution's measures were suitable for a republic, but it was very careful not to describe the State as a republic. Therefore it cannot be 1937. These matters of international law would have to be by the agreement of both parties, making it 1949.78.16.104.162 (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
There’s no merit to the suggestion that a state has to use the word ‘republic’ to describe itself in order to be one. E.g. the Commonwealth of Dominica being another republic whose constitution doesn’t use the word. And no, there was no requirement for Ireland to have the agreement of any other party concerning the matter. Not even United Kingdom law would claim that. Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
This is a question of law so we must look at the law. - directly quoting from the law it is all you can do otherwise you are performing original research and synthesis.
United Kingdom law is very clear. United Kingdom law says that it happened in 1949. This is expressly set out in the Ireland Act 1949... So there is no doubt whatsoever that insofar as United Kingdom law is concerned, Ireland became a republic in 1949. - Then it is settled. 1949 is the year. Thank you for providing that.
Should we stop there? Should we accept that as the final answer and not consider anything else? Well, I don’t think so. To be blunt it doesn't matter what you think, all that matters is what the law and what academia says on the matter. Otherwise it is original research and synthesis.
1. Irish law removed the British king from its constitution in 1936. - Does that make it a republic? Do you have a source that states that this constition made the Irish Free State a republic? If not then you are performing original research and synthesis.
2. Internationally, the constitution of the Ireland is often described as a republican one. - You've provided only this one single source and it is not an international one. Describing something as being republican does not make it republican. All that source is stating is that the constitution had republican overtones. In a real world example I prefer the name Londonderry over Derry, I prefer the name Northern Ireland over the Six Counties or the North. Those can be easily called sentiments of loyalism however does that make me a loyalist? No and nor would I be. Thus simply having a constitution being "republican" in tone does not make it a republic. It still needs to declare it.
3. Focusing so much on the Commonwealth aspect is a faux argument. Leaving the Commonwealth does not automatically make a country a republic, indeed today there are republics within the Commonwealth.
Any actual sources that state 1936/7 as the year Ireland became a republic? Do you have a single one? If not then you are performing original research and synthesis and thus have no basis for your contested and disputed edits and they upon the discussions conclusion will be removed/reverted.
As you yourself said, 1949 is the year it happened in UK law, which is the law at the end of the day that would have precedence as it was the state Ireland was removing itself from. Anyone can declare a republic or pass a "republican" constitution... I just did there now whilst I typed this, but without the UK passing it in law and the international community recognising my declaration, I'm afraid I'll still probably be paying HMRC my taxes when the financial year ends. Either that or end up in jail.
If you have no evidence then the matter is finished as far as I am concenred. Rather than provide rehashes of the same OR and SYN, provide an actual reliable verifiable third-party source that states it. Mabuska (talk) 10:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
“Then it is settled. 1949 is the year.” - Mabuska, are you seriously suggesting Irish law has no relevance here? If so, why? This is fundamental.
”all that matters is what the law and what academia says on the matter. Otherwise it is original research and synthesis...sources” That’s absolutely fair enough. I’ve provided you with an academic’s explanation that, as a matter of Irish law, Ireland ceased to be a Commonwealth member in 1936-37. That’s in the quote from Prof. N. Mansergh I’ve provided you with.
“Focusing so much on the Commonwealth aspect is a faux argument. Leaving the Commonwealth does not automatically make a country a republic, indeed today there are republics within the Commonwealth.” Mabuska, you are absolutely correct that there are republics in the Commonwealth today. But the Commonwealth today is a very different beast from what it was in the 1930s. Everything concerning Ireland and its relationship with the Commonwealth happened before the London Declaration. Until the London Declaration a state was not permitted to be in the Commonwealth unless it owed allegiance to the King (i.e. being a republic was incompatible with Commonwealth membership). So when we speak about when Ireland ceased to be in the Commonwealth, we are also speaking about when did Ireland cease to owe allegiance to the King, or in the legalistic terms of the UK’s Ireland Act, 1949, we are discussing when Ireland ceased to be part of His Majesty’s dominions.
Ok, you want more sources with regard to the Irish constitution being a republican one. Fair enough. Below I set out a few more. I have to admit to having been a little reluctant to do this because its republican nature is so obvious. Why obvious? Because it is the constitution of a country officially described as the REPUBLIC of Ireland today! It’s the very same constitution. If it provided for a King, it could hardly be a constitution of a country described as a REPUBLIC, could it? Well any way, that’s a digression. More sources is what you rquested, so fair enough:
”The 1937 constitution was thus a republican constitution, even though de Valera was reluctant to describe it as such while partition endured.” ‘A New History of Ireland’, edited by Art Cosgrove, Oxford University Press.
”The [1937 Constitution of Ireland] was self-consciously nationalist, strongly Catholic in tone and republican in aspiration.” The Catholic Church and the writing of the 1937 constitution Published in 20th-century / Contemporary History, Features, Issue 3 (May/Jun 2005), Volume 13 - by Prof. Dermot Keogh, Professor of History at University College Cork and Andrew McCarthy, Lecturer in History at University College Cork
”The avowed aim” [of the Irish government under Eamon de Valera...]”was to eliminate the Treaty and monarchical symbols from the Constitution...[One commentator might describe the 1922 Constitution]...as “monarchical in external form, republican in substance and, withal, essentially democratic” this inner conflict remained for both the executive and legislative authority which flowed nominally from the Governor-General as the representative of the Crown was specifically declared to be vested in the people. THE CONFLICT WAS FINALLY RESOLVED IN 1937 ON THE SIDE OF POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY, and Ireland’s formal relationship with the traditional type of dominion constitution was terminated.” - The Constitution of Ireland
Its Origins and Development, V. T. H. Delany, The University of Toronto Law Journal
”Beginning with its formation in 1926, up through the passage of a republican constitution in 1937 that was recognized by Great Britain the following year, Fianna Fáil had successfully rescued the seemingly moribund republican movement from complete marginalization.”["Irish Blood, English Heart": Gender, Modernity, and " Third Way" Republicanism in the Formation of the Irish Republic”, Kenneth Lee Shonk, Jr., Marque e University
”The enactment of a republican constution in 1937 to replace that of 1922, produced a further breach of Anglo-Irish relations...”Establishing Democracy:A Comparative Analysis of the Genesis and Stabilisation of Democracy in Indepedent 1918-1937, William Vincent Kissane.
”More recently the Republic of Ireland itself has become a popular source of inspiration for Australian republicans. The Constitution of Ireland is touted as a good example of a modern democratic republican constitution.” [A non-academic source...website of the Australian republican movement]Irish republicanism in Australia, By David McKenna, 20 September 2010, www.independentaustralia.net
No doubt there are plenty of other references out there describing the constitution of the Republic of Ireland as a republican one, whichever words are used to describe that. Having painstakingly provided responses here, I think it is only fair that you share with us whether I’ve persuaded you or if not, explain your arguments if you have arguments.
  • Why did you say that the Ireland Act, 1949 of the United Kingdom “settled” it; “1949 is the year”. Are you seriously arguing that we should ignore the laws of Ireland? If yes, please explain. Please explain how UK law had “precedence”? Please explain how Ireland was “removing itself from the UK [didn’t that happen in 1922]”?
  • Why did you say “leaving the Commonwealth does not automatically make a country a republic”? Please tell us what country in history has left the Commonwealth but still kept the Britannic King as sovereign? It’s a new theory for me.
  • Do you accept that Irish law is relevant to the question of Ireland’s status in the relevant period? If you do not accept that, please provide argument/sources in that vein.
  • Assuming you accept Irish law has relevance, do you understand what the effect of the 1936 Irish laws were?
  • Assuming you accept Irish law has relevance, do you understand the nature of the Irish Constitution? Do you accept that the Republic of Ireland’s constitution is republican in nature insofar as it is not monarchical? There is no place in it for a King. The principle of “popular sovereignty”, not sovereignty of the king is in there.
  • Are you claiming Ireland is still under the king? It seems a logical conclusion from what you are saying...albeit not a claim I’ve heard before.
  • Quoting you, “indeed today there are republics within the Commonwealth”. Do you understand what the London Declaration was? Do you accept that the London Declaration was made after the period in question? Do you accept that under Commonwealth rules of the relevant period, a country could not be a republic and a member of the Commonwealth and therefore tracing when Ireland ceased to be a member and when Ireland became a republic are one and the same?
If I’ve persuade you in whole or in part, great. Feel free to let me know. Wikipedia is supposed to be about sharing knowledge. There’s nothing wrong in admitting you learn here. I’ve certainly learned things through others here over the years. Preparing these responses did take me ages. So I would appreciate the sort of care and attention in your responses too. Thinking, thoughtful responses. Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

A few comments: First, there are two different questions being asked. The discussion at Talk:Republic of Ireland is headed "It was officially declared a republic in 1949, following the Republic of Ireland Act 1948", while this discussion is headed "When did Ireland become a republic?" To address the second question first, the straight answer is "nobody knows when it became a republic". There is, in fact, a whole Wikipedia article devoted to the question: Head of state of Ireland (1936 to 1949). The consensus, as far as I can see, is that it was problematic to say it was a republic when a small number of functions were still retained by the monarch (and, as Frenchmalawi has pointed out, in British law it was "part of His Majesty’s dominions" until 1949), but in every other respect it functioned as a republic: bills were signed into law by the president, etc. This is well summed up in the Basil Chubb quote: "...a new constitution was adopted, in which the state was named "Ireland" and in all essentials became a republic, declared ″sovereign″ and ″democratic″, and with constitutional authority derived from the people." That, in turn, was well summed up in the old version of the lead, which said that under the 1937 Ireland "effectively became a republic", but that was removed in Frenchmalawi's edit.
As to the question of when it was declared: it was certainly not declared in the 1936 Act or the 1937 Constitution. Basil Chubb's quote continues, "The actual word ″republic″...had been deliberately omitted from the Constitution by its framer...". You do not declare something by deliberately omitting it. De Valera frequently told Dáil deputies that Ireland was a republic, but it was never declared in any statute, statutory instrument, or even public announcement between 1936 and 1949. Therefore, there remain two possibilities: either it was declared in 1949 or it has never been declared to this day. In my opinion, it was declared in 1949. The word "description", as used in section 2 of the Republic of Ireland Act, is a precise legal one. It is not the same as saying, for instance, "the description of the State shall be the Emerald Isle." What is its effect? In the debate on the bill, John A. Costello said, "This Bill will end...this country's...association with...the British Crown and will make it manifest beyond equivocation or subtlety that the national and international status of this country is that of an independent republic." Make it manifest beyond equivocation or subtlety – what is that if not a declaration? And again, "[The Republic of Ireland] is the description of its constitutional and international status...It declares to the world that when this Bill is passed this State is unequivocally a republic." There is the word "declares" in black and white.
Another couple of points: I have two specific problems with Frenchmalawi's edit. First, as I have said, it removes the "effectively became a republic" wording; second, it removes "Republic of Ireland Act" from the text and hides it in a pipelink. Also, as I have said many times before on this page and elsewhere, any change in the focus of an article should be made in the article body first; the lead is only meant to reflect what is in the article body. I think we should concentrate on whether and how to modify the History section, and only then talk about editing the lead. Scolaire (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks User:Scolaire. Glad to hear from another editor who at least appreciates that it’s not as simple as User: Mabuska and others seemed to think. I did know about the existing Wiki article. But I didn’t want to cross-refer to it as it contains a lot of unsourced material.
“As Frenchmalawi has pointed out, in British law it was "part of His Majesty’s dominions" until 1949)”. Yes, it’s very clear cut in British law. That’s why the discussion is centering on Irish law. Did Irish law agree with British law on this point? It’s rather fundamental.
Re ”effectively became a Republic” and Basil Chubb’s quotation etc. That’s all fine but it’s not getting to the meat of the question. Did Irish law accept that Ireland was part of His Majesty’s dominions until 1949? Skirting around the point doesn’t address it. The problem too with the content on the article is that other places one finds straight un-nuanced statements that Ireland ‘left the Commonwealth and declared a republic in 1949’. Chubb’s quotation could be part of telling the story but we haven’t told the story if we continue to include unqualified content like that in.
”As to the question of when it was declared...”. Here, I felt it necessary to google the definition of “red herring”. This is what I found: “A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences toward a false conclusion.” With nothing but respect for my fellow editor, I suggest to you that your search for a ‘declaration’ is a red herring. Why do I say that? Because there is no requirement for a state to ‘declare that it is a republic’ in order for it to be a republic. All a state needs to do is declare / promulgate what its laws are. If those laws correspond with what a republic is (in short, a state that does not owe alleigance to a monarch), then it is a republic. That’s precisely what Ireland did. And the results are what Professor Mansergh described as applying “from 1936-49...Eire owed no alleigance to the Crown and was not, in the Irish view, a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, but a State whose association with it from without was symbolized by the King’s signature to the letters of appointment of Irish representatives to foreign countries.” Yes, Basil Chubb is quite correct that the word ‘republic’ was deliberately left out. So what inference can we draw from that? Can we conclude that that meant Ireland wasn’t a republic because its constitution didn’t use that word? Is that your view. Are you seriously saying that in order to be a republic, a state has to pass laws that include the word “republic”? Surely not. Assuming it is not your view, then why did Ireland leave out the word ‘republic’ from its constitution? Because the government was quite happy to achieve republic status without using the word ‘republic’ and by that means continue to be “treated” [quoting the UK government there] as though it were still in the Commonwealth even if it was, in Irish law, no longer a member; no longer part of His Majesty’s dominions.
”De Valera frequently told Dáil deputies that Ireland was a republic, but it was never declared in any statute, statutory instrument, or even public announcement between 1936 and 1949.” This is more of the same search for a ‘red herring’ I’m afraid. Above refers. Moreover, I will go further that if we were seeking a ‘declaration’ and wanted to ignore the laws, we’d still be waiting for a ‘declaration’ because there was no ‘declaration’ that Ireland was a republic in 1949 either! There was merely a declaration of what the description of the state was.
”Therefore, there remain two possibilities: either it was declared in 1949 or it has never been declared to this day.” No, it was never ‘declared’ even to this day in the sense that you seem to think of. It was simply declared/promulgated by laws. And Mansergh, at least, is authority for the point that the Irish view is that it had been ‘declared/promulgated’ in law by 1937.
I suppose to keep discussion ‘on track’, I set out a few questions taking account of the above:
1. Do you accept that a legal status can be achieved by passing laws?
2. Do you accept that it is not a pre-requiste that the word ‘republic’ be used in a constitution in order for a constitution to be a constitution of a republic?
3. Do you agree with me that Irish law is relevant to this discussion? (By the way, nothing in your response Scolaire suggested otherwise but I’d appreciate a response on this for the benefit of Mabuska and others).
Before concluding, I reiterate that I am not seeking a ‘black and white’ outcome to any of this discussion. I would simply like Wikipedia to take Irish law into proper account when describing the events of 1936-49; not just UK law, which is still absolutely worthy of being noted.
Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
1. I don't know. I'm not a legal expert.
2. I don't know. I'm not a legal expert.
3. Yes, but...
Of course I think Irish law is relevant, but what does Irish law say? As I understand it, your argument is that reliable sources say that the 1937 constitution was a republican constitution, and therefore Ireland became a republic in Irish law. I would agree (and have agreed) that it means Ireland was a republic in effect, but at the end of the day it is only our opinion, and contrary opinions exist. For instance, Philip Pettit, one of the foremost authorities on republicanism, has argued that the English constitution after the Glorious Revolution was republican in character even though England remained a monarchy, and he quotes Montesquieu as saying that England was "a nation where the republic hides under the form of a monarchy." (Philip Pettit, "The Tree of Liberty", Field Day Review, Volume 1 (2005), JSTOR 30078602, p. 32). But to say Ireland became a republic in Irish law is a different matter. All law must be written down, whether as a court judgement, as an act of the Oireachtas, or in a textbook of law. You cannot say this or that is Irish law unless you can point to the place where the fact is stated unequivocally by somebody who has the authority to state such a fact. The same goes for your questions 1 and 2. If you can point to a law text or a judgement that says what you say, I can accept it; otherwise I cannot accept or reject it.
I cannot, however, accept that the date of declaration is a red herring. When you opened the discussion at Talk:Republic of Ireland you headed it "It was officially declared a republic in 1949, following the Republic of Ireland Act 1948." You said on that occasion (and reiterated later), "Doubtless, it echoes tonnes of sources. All, unfortunately, incorrect." Of course, if you read Verifiability, not truth you will see that Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, reliable sources and due weight only require that reliable sources exist for the fact being stated, regardless of whether an individual editor thinks they are correct or incorrect. If reliable sources state that Ireland was declared a republic in 1949, then the article may say so. Note, I do not say it must say so. What it says is determined by consensus. But consensus since July 2003 has been to include that fact. As to whether it is correct, I am inclined to trust the Taoiseach of the day when he says in the debate on the bill that it "declares to the world that when this Bill is passed this State is unequivocally a republic."
I feel I must revert your edit to the Republic of Ireland article, since it is still disputed. May I suggest, again, that we work on finding a compromise wording for the History section, and leave the lead as it was until that is resolved? Scolaire (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
“Of course I think Irish law is relevant, but what does Irish law say?” I have provided you with Professor Nixholas Mansergh’s interpretation of what Irish law said. Do you accept that that is a reliable secondary source? Do you accept that Mansergh holds that the Irish view was that the state was outside the Commonwealth from 1937? If no to either point, please explain why.
“All law must be written down...You cannot say this or that is Irish law unless you can point to the place where the fact is stated unequivocally by somebody who has the authority to state such a fact.” That is absolutely consistent with the need to rely on sources on Wikipedia. My questions concerning the Nicholas Mansergh source above refers.
“If you can point to a law text or a judgement that says what you say, I can accept it; otherwise I cannot accept or reject it.” I have pointed to a secondary source who expresses his interpretation of the Irish legal position by reference to the External Relations Act and the Constitution of 1937.
“I cannot, however, accept that the date of declaration is a red herring...I am inclined to trust the Taoiseach of the day when he says in the debate on the bill that it "declares to the world that when this Bill is passed this State is unequivocally a republic." Here’s another quote from the very same Taoiseach, John A. Costello:“We were not since 1936 a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. We are not leaving it [the Commonealth] because we left it a long time ago. In my view we left it in 1936.” Anyway, you seem to have tacitly accepted my point in your latest response. You no longer seek to identify when Irish law declared a republic. You instead suggest that sources that say Ireland declared a republic in 1949 continue to be relevant. No doubt they do. That was never in dispute. The UK position is that Ireland declared a republic in 1949. Unfortunately, our task here is confined to discussing what the Irish position was and Irish sources.
”May I suggest, again, that we work on finding a compromise wording for the History section, and leave the lead as it was until that is resolved?” I suggest that, although it is hard work, we stick for now to reaching a consensus. I suppose a start in that vein would be hearing your opinions on the questions I’ve put to you above. Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 11:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Scolaire basically reaffirms my earlier statement... you need verifiable reliable third-source's that explicitly state that which you are seeking to have stated in an article. As you haven't provided any then your opinion is just that and Wikipedia does not work with opinion. Nor does it work with synthesis or original research, which your entire argument hinges on.
I already asked Frenchmalawi to stop re-adding his contentious edit elsewhere and still continues. Further re-additions altered or not without consensus here first of all can be seen as edit-warring and disruptive editing. Mabuska (talk) 11:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I will however thank you Frenchmalawi for using the term "removed" this time rather than the politically loaded POV term "eliminated". But regardless, consensus first before adding. Mabuska (talk) 11:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Mabuska, thanks. Your contributions here speak for themselves. Frenchmalawi (talk) 11:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Nicholas Mansergh was a professor of history. He was not a jurist or a legislator or an expert on law. His opinion on the constitutional situation in 1936–49 is useful as regards what the practical realities were, but not as regards what Irish law is or was. Furthermore, in your quote he says "in the Irish view", not "in Irish law", therefore he cannot be cited for what Irish law was. Since you don't appear to have properly read what I said, I will repeat it: you cannot say this or that is Irish law unless you can point to the place where the fact is stated unequivocally by somebody who has the authority to state such a fact – all law must be written down, whether as a court judgement, as an act of the Oireachtas, or in a textbook of law; you cannot establish what the law is except by showing where the law is written down.
Your second quote from John A. Costello simply says that he holds a certain view; my quote says that Ireland, through the bill, is declaring it to the world. But since we seem to be in agreement that reliable sources (including Irish sources) say Ireland declared a republic in 1949 and continue to be relevant, no more need be said about that. I don't see how agreeing a wording is inconsistent with reaching a consensus. Indeed, I would say it is essential for doing so. But you will not reach consensus by repeatedly demanding that people answer questions they have already answered. Please try to be a bit more collaborative, and suggest changes to the article rather than just rebutting other people. Scolaire (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Quoting our own Wikipedia article on the gentleman in question: “Philip Nicholas Seton Mansergh, OBE (27 June 1910 – 16 January 1991) was a historian of Ireland and the British Commonwealth. As the Smuts Professor of Commonwealth History at Cambridge University after 1953, he trained many of the specialists in the field of Irish, Indian, and Commonwealth studies.” This is the gentleman - a Smuts Professor of Commonwealth History at Cambridge - whose qualifications you appear to feel fall short of being able to express a reliable view on what the constitutional status of Ireland was during the period 1936/7-49. Apparently, you feel he could express himself on “practical realities” but his view carries not on constitutional matters. Seriously? Ahh, “in the Irish view” versus “in Irish law”. I see. Indeed. Yes, that would make sense if Prof. Mansergh had not referenced the External Relations Act and the 1937 Constitution in the very same sentence. Both are laws. But ultimately, it’s another red herring. The late Cambridge Professor of Commonwealth History is a perfectly good source for a statement that “Ireland had, in its view, left the Commonwealth” years before 1949. Do you disagree? If so, why? I don’t think I attacked you; rebutting arguments is not personal attack. It is collaborative. Let’s be collaborative and respectful but by all means challenge each other if we do not agree and feel we have good reason. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say that you had attacked me. I simply feel that your attitude is unnecessarily combative, and the "answer all my questions" formula is very irritating, and not particularly respectful.
Mansergh is a perfectly good source for a statement that "Ireland had, in its view, left the Commonwealth", but let's look at the entire quote that you gave: "from 1936-49...Éire owed no allegiance to the Crown and was not, in the Irish view, a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, but a State whose association with it from without was symbolized by the King’s signature to the letters of appointment of Irish representatives to foreign countries." Not only did he not say that Ireland was a republic in Irish law, not only did he not say that Ireland was a republic at all, he went to some length to avoid using the word "republic". Just as de Valera had avoided it in the constitution. And no, "in its view" does not mean "in law". "In law" means that it is written down in a law in black and white. You have not been able to point to any law that said in black and white that Ireland was a republic, and for good reason: there was none. On the question of whether Ireland was a republic, Irish law was mute. The 1936 Act was mute. The Constitution was mute. Nicholas Mansergh in his interpretation of them was mute. The courts were mute. There was a good reason for this, of course. For de Valera, the only valid Irish Republic was that proclaimed in 1916 and established by the First Dáil in 1919, i.e. a 32-county republic. He believed that Irish reunification was possible during his political career – however unrealistic that may appear today – and feared that formally becoming a republic would jeopardise that (he was right; following the 1948 Act the British responded with the Ireland Act, which copper-fastened partition). It was not until de Valera lost power that a law was made providing that Ireland was a republic: the Republic of Ireland Act. That act repealed the External Relations Act, thus definitively removing the monarch from Irish law and also removing the (deliberately built-in) ambiguity in Ireland's constitutional status. Ireland went from being "effectively" a republic to being a republic in law and in fact.
Now, I have stated my views as clearly as I can. I am happy to collaborate, but I decline to play Ring-a-ring-a-rosies. You may rebut my arguments if you want, but don't expect a response unless you bring a substantive proposal to the table. Scolaire (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I think we have a BREAKTHROUH and have reached agreement on the most important point. We are discussing when Ireland left the Commonwealth. You have now agreed with me that “Mansergh is a perfectly good source for a statement that "Ireland had, in its view, left the Commonwealth in 1936/37.” So let’s look at the Republic of Ireland article and the wording I had suggested changes to. It reads:

[Ireland] was officially declared a republic in 1949, following the Republic of Ireland Act 1948.

Would you agree with me that that needs to change as in the Irish view Ireland had not owed alleigance to the Crown since 1936/37 so it cannot have been, in the Irish view, a monarchy until 1949 and in any event not even you have identified any law declaring Ireland a republic in 1949? I would suggest wording but any wording I suggest would be tainted by my having suggested it. I suggested very simple wording previously. I’m keen to get your suggestion / those of others.
Frenchmalawi (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

"It was officially declared a republic in 1949, following the Republic of Ireland Act 1948." is perfectly accurate and there is no need to change that. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I can't agree with you on that, Frenchmalawi. I will agree that it cannot have been, in the Irish view, a monarchy, but the Irish view is not what we have been discussing. We have already established that Ireland was, "in all essentials", a republic (in the words of Basil Chubb), but it was not a declared republic, and Irish law was mute on the question before 1948. I have identified a law declaring Ireland a republic in 1949: the Republic of Ireland Act 1948. The effect of section 2 of that act is to declare that Ireland is a republic, as stated unambiguously by the Taoiseach, John A. Costello, when moving the second reading of the bill. We have, in your own words, "tonnes of sources" that this is the case. I have added one such source, John Whyte in A New History of Ireland – just about as Irish as you can get – to the Republic of Ireland article to cite that fact. For all the reasons I have given, my view is exactly the view stated so succinctly by Bastun above. I might change "officially" to "formally", but in either case the sentence reflects what is in the article body, and what is in the article body is accurate, neutral and adequately sourced. Scolaire (talk) 12:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
And please stop removing the sub-section heading. It is standard practice on Wikipedia talk pages when discussions get too long to scroll up to the top to edit them. If you want the whole discussion on a single page, you can just click "edit" against the main heading instead of the sub-heading. This discussion is already long enough to merit a second sub-section. Scolaire (talk) 12:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

Could this be solved with the application of "de facto" and "de jure" for the different dates? The Banner talk 14:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

At the moment, the lead says it "effectively became a republic" in 1937 and "was officially declared a republic" in 1949. I think "de facto" and "de jure" are more fraught with potential for disagreement. In addition, the current more informal terms better reflect what is in the literature. Scolaire (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Mabuska (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Certainly agree that adding “de facto” wouldn’t bring the article any closer to being accurate. Although I appreciate the suggestion User:The Banner is well intended, “de facto” inherently implies that Ireland was a state that still had a monarchy. What’s needed, in my view The Banner, is wording that take accounts of the actual position and isn’t one sided (a purely British view on what happened, or a purely Irish view on what happend, as the two views do not agree). I’d suggested that the sentence be replaced with wording that reads along the following lines (this suggestion will now, no doubt be tainted because I have suggested it):

[Ireland] cut its last links with the Commonwealth in 1949, following the Republic of Ireland Act 1948.

Like your suggestion around ‘de facto’ The Banner, the above formula is intended to be succinct while still being accurate from both a UK and an Irish perspective. After all, I’m sure even User:Scolaire would agree that Ireland did cut its last links with the Commonwealth in 1949.
Thanks User:Bastun for joining in and expressing your view. But as you haven’t offered any reasons for your view as to why the current sentence is accurate, I can’t really explore the matter with you.
Re Scolaire’s “I will agree that it cannot have been, in the Irish view, a monarchy, but the Irish view is not what we have been discussing.“ No, we are discussing the Irish view. Absolutely we are. We are exploring whether or not the Irish view of Ireland’s position between 1936/37 and 1949 is the same. We seem to agree that it is not the same because you’ve accepted that during that period it was not a monarchical state. Not being a monarchical state was incompatible with being in the Commonwealth. Are you saying that during that period a state without a monarchy and be in the Commonwealth? What is a state called that doesn’t have a monarchy anyway? Can we still call it a monarchical state...?
What’s your objection to my simple suggested updated sentence Scolaire, assuming you object to it? I didn’t want to offer wording as that will have tainted it...but as no one else has other than The Banner, I thought it would again be helpful if I did.
Scolaire, you’ve again quoted what John Costello said etc., I quoted him saying something quite the contrary in an earlier sentence. We’ve both agreed that there is a very good and reliable academic source describing what Ireland’s position was during the relevant period, in the Irish view (not the UK one). Let’s simply take account of it! Why are you so reluctant to reflect in the article the Mansergh remarks?
Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Seriously? I didn't think a "sky is blue" statement needed explanation, but there you go. The statement is accurate because it is 100% factual. There is no room for (mis)interpretation. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm annoying myself now, because I said I wasn't going to continue the merry-go-round, and I still am. Why am I so reluctant to reflect the Mansergh remarks in the article? I'm not reluctant at all. I have been thinking of what would be the best way of reflecting them in the article. You are also welcome to suggest how they can be reflected in the article – it's ridiculous to say that any wording will be "tainted" just because you suggest it – but regardless of what might be added to the article, the remarks are already reflected in the lead, where it says Ireland "effectively became a republic" in 1937.
And no, we were not discussing the Irish view. You maintained at the start of this that the only thing that mattered was "Irish law". It's only since we've established that Irish law was mute on the question that you've decided to shift the goalposts and say it's about the Irish "view". And the Irish view – at least the view expressed in the 1948 Dáil debate – was that Ireland was a republic "in all essentials" but was not (in the Fine Gael view) and ought not be (in the Fiannna Fáil view) declared a republic. John A. Costello saying that "We are not leaving it because we left it a long time ago. In my view we left it in 1936" in no way contradicts his statement that the bill "declares to the world that when this Bill is passed this State is unequivocally a republic." Rather, the two when taken together nicely illustrate the Fine Gael view in 1948. Again, this is adequately summed up in the phrases "effectively became a republic" and "was officially (or formally) declared a republic".
And speaking of the Irish view, let's have another look at your edit of 27 July. It says, "In 1936 the British king was removed from its constitution", and cites John Coakley in the Irish Jurist (JSTOR 44027497). Well, I finally read that article, and what he said was very, very different:

The President's functions, as defined in the Constitution, then, are purely domestic ones; the King continued as Head of State after the Constitution came into force, and was formally responsible for all aspects of the State's external affairs.

— Coakley, p. 59
It gets worse: it quotes de Valera as saying that, "with its purely domestic functions, [the office of president] would not conflict with the role of George VI as King of Ireland" (p. 60); that the title "King of Ireland" would not be anachronistic, like the medieval kings of England styling themselves kings of France, but a "correct description" (p. 62); and that "it would need time for his people to become accustomed to a completely voluntary acceptance of the King." (p.61). And this is from an Irish academic writing in Ireland's oldest academic law journal. Can we still call it a monarchical state...? Good question.
So, in summary, I have no objection in principle to adding "cut its last links with the Commonwealth in 1949" to the lead, but I oppose deleting "was officially declared a republic", because that is the consensus of the published sources and the consensus of editors here and at the Republic of Ireland article. Scolaire (talk) 10:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
This debate reminds me of nothing so much as the Dead Parrot Sketch. Dmcq (talk) 12:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
One would think there was a ‘gotcha’ moment in all that User:Scolaire!
Quoting myself back here:
”Irish law removed the British king from its constitution in 1936. A secondary source that backs that up is “AN AMBIGUOUS OFFICE? THE POSITION OF HEAD OF STATE IN THE IRISH CONSTITUTION; JOHN COAKLEY; Irish Jurist; Irish Jurist; New Series, Vol. 48, 2012 pp 43-70. It includes QUOTE: “Two important Acts redefined the relationship between the State and the King. The first, the [Irish] Constitution (Amendment No. 27) Act, which went through all stages in the Dail on 11 December 1936, terminated any role for the Crown in the domestic affairs of the Free State and removed all references to the functions of the Governor-General (whose last official act was, indeed, to sign this bill into law the same day) but left space for the Government, for purposes of international affairs to avail of any “organ” used by the other dominions. The second, the [Irish] Executive Authority (External Relations) Act, enacted the following day and signed by the Ceann Comhairle made provision for the King to “act on behalf of the Irish Free State”, on the advice of the government “for the purposes of the appointment of diplomatic and consular representatives and the conclusion of international agreements.” In line with de Valera’s earlier thinking on the place of the King in the Constitution, then, this matter was now resolved: provision for the King would be made only in legislation, not in the State’s basic law.” This is very clearly explaining that under Irish law teh (sic) King was taken out of the Constitution in 1936; long, long before 1949.”
End quote
So I cited Coakley as another source for the fact that the King was taken out of the constitution. Nothing more...
”Irish view” versus “Irish legal view”. You’ve said that you’re not a legal expert. So much so that you felt you could not express a view on a question so basic as whether a state could be a republic without using the word ‘republic’ by simply passing laws. So trying to frame a discussion with you around law is obviously fraught with limitations. I also provided you with the Mansergh quotation. You don’t dispute how it describes the state during the period in question - a state outside the Commonwealth owing no alleigance to a monarch. You insist that can’t be a source concerning law because instead of using the words “Irish legal view”, Mansergh uses the words “Irish view”. Yet you choose to ignore that Mansergh has expressly referred to two laws - the ERA and the Constitution - before coming to express a view on what the ‘Irish view’ was!
As I said, like your search for the word ‘republic’ in a law and your search for the word ‘legal’ before ‘view’, this is a red herring. Mansergh, Smuts Professor of Commonwealth History at Cambridge University who trained many of the specialists in the field of Irish, Indian, and Commonwealth studies, took full account of what the law was in Ireland. He expressly referred to them in the quotation I provided you with! Whether he uses the word ‘law’ before Irish view or not, he is a highly regarded expert expressing a view on the points in discussion. Quoting Coakley, on points I haven’t cited him in respect of in any event, doesn’t detract a bit from any of Mansergh’s analysis. We already know perfectly well that sources disagree. Coakley v Mansergh is another case in point.
You again quote what politicians speaking in debating chambers’ views were...that’s what I was lambasted for doing at the very beginning of this discussion (see our friend Mabuska’s early exchanges with me!).
There’s no concession or acceptance/reflection of Mansergh views in adding “cut last links” but also saying that the country was “declared” a republic at the same time. You’re insisting that the Irish view was that Ireland became (that’s what the word ‘declare’ means in a context like this) a republic / non-monarchical state (a nonsense term that I use because you won’t address what a state that does not have a monarchy is; I accept you are not a legal expert). You are insisting that Ireland’s was establishing itself as a republic in 1949.
As has been my view all along, I think both the United Kingdom view and the Irish view should be properly reflected in the article. Stating in the article - without any qualifications - that the state was not a non-monarchical state/republic until 1949 doesn’t reflect the Irish view as set out by Mansesrgh. Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
This really is now flogging a dead horse with added vast blocks of text. No sources have been provided that explicitly state what you want Frenchmalawi just synthesis and original research. There seems to be unanimous disagreement with you with everyone else seemingly happy with the way the article is at present. Your point about Scolaire You again quote what politicians speaking in debating chambers’ views were...that’s what I was lambasted for doing at the very beginning of this discussion (see our friend Mabuska’s early exchanges with me!)., whilst being valid in one way, is not in another. Scolaire isn't trying to use those views to put something contentious and disputed into an article. They are simply using them to disprove your points based on similar sources. So not the same.
I think it is time to call it a day with this and agree that Frenchmalawi's desired changes are not implemented on Wikipedia. Shall I call for a proposal on it? Mabuska (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh please, yes! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Mabuska, it’s not at all correct that I haven’t provided a secondary source that backs up the view that Ireland was a ‘non-monarchical state’ (no one here apparently wants to discuss what that’s usually called - have you got a view Mabuska on what a state that doesn’t have a monarchy is?). If your suggesting that I need to find a source saying that Ireland didn’t ‘declare a republic’ in 1949 then I think that’s illogical. That’s akin to the idea that some one needs to find a source saying the USA didn’t declare its independence in 1993 in order to make a point about when it did declare its independence. Frenchmalawi (talk) 10:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Here’s another secondary source in a comparable vein to Mansergh:

By virtue of its 1937 Constitution, the Irish Free State changed its name to Eire and considered itself a republic.

’From Empire through Commonwealth to...’, Professor L.C. Green, University of Alberta, Alberta Law Review, Vol. XVI.
Although I don’t like to quote politicians so much, as others have continued in that vein, de Valera speaking in 1945:

WE ARE an independent republic since December 29, 1937, the day on which our new Constitution came into operation...'The State whose institutions correspond to these articles [of the 1937 Constitution of Ireland] is, it seems to me, demonstrably a republic. Look up any standard text on political theories; look up any standard book of reference and get from any of them any definition of a republic or any description of what a republic is and judge whether our State does not possess every characteristic mark by which a republic can be distinguished or recognised...The position as I conceive it to be is this: We are an independent republic associated as a matter of our external policy with the States of the British Commonwealth.

Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2019 (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.

Continuity of government departments

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to allow the merger. See User talk:Iveagh Gardens/Archive 1#Minister for the Public Service

I proposed to merge Minister for the Public Service into Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, in the form previously done boldly but reverted (there was an error in one of the headings in my edit). While the responsibilities have little in common, it is our practice here to list ministers according to the formal legal successors, even when this results in odd outcomes, such as the Minister for Economic Planning becoming the Minister for Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, while the Minister for the Gaeltacht becomes the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. The legislation and statutory instruments whereby the old Department of Transport established in 1959 was abolished, and the Department of the Public Service became the Department of Tourism and Transport are linked at Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. This is also explained in part by Charles Haughey in the debate on the nomination of members of the government on 10 March 1987. It is also within the Appendices of Politics in the Republic of Ireland, ed. by Coakley and Gallagher. I have the fifth edition, published in 2010, at p. 455 it shows the transformation of the Department of the Public Service up to the Department of Transport, as it was at the time, now the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport.

I agree that the history of government departments are a bit of a mess, but save for separating articles when we decide the shift is substantial enough, I think following the current system is the best option, to follow SIs titled Alteration of Name of Department and Title of Minister. The Minister for the Public Service was left out when these were consolidated before, but given we have the Minister for Labour becoming the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, or the examples listed above, I don't think there's any reason to leave it as a special case. –Iveagh Gardens (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2019 (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.

Field hockey at the 1908 Summer Olympics

A dispute has emerged at Field hockey at the 1908 Summer Olympics over what is the correct flag or flags to use. Great Britain did not compete in this tournament so I don't believe the Union Jack should be included. England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales competed independently. Also at issue is which Ireland flag to use. verses . The former has never been used by Hockey Ireland or it's predecessors. Any thoughts ? I think it is important that Irish editors have say. Djln Djln (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Can you please keep the discussion on one page instead of five? Btw, they did not compete independently, they represented Great Britain. DenSportgladeSkåningen (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll discuss issue where I like thanks. I don't need advice from editors who were previously blocked for four years. Djln Djln (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Obviously you need advice, it becomes more difficult to follow the discussion as you spread it. And my blocking was still wrong and you are aware of that since I already wrote it. Stick to the topic or be quiet. DenSportgladeSkåningen (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Eliminate WP:FLAGCRUFT? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Lady Echlin's grotto?

Also posted at Talk:Rush, Dublin

I'm working on Lady Elizabeth Echlin as part of WP:Women in Red's "writers" theme for September. She lived at Rush House, Rush, which burned down in 1827 and was replaced by Kenure House, itself now demolished except for the portico. Her entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, written 2004, includes the intriguing: "A coastal grotto or ‘shell house’ built by Lady Echlin in 1755–6, and engraved with verses composed for the occasion by the novelist Samuel Richardson, is marked on Rocque's 1759 map of co. Dublin, and has recently been discovered in use as a cattle pen." I can't find anything by googling various likely terms, but am curious. Does anyone out there know any more about this grotto / shell house / pig-pen? PamD 20:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I certainly can't place a shell house anywhere in Rush nowadays (there were a few in northern Dublin beyond the city limits, starting with St Anne's), but something about this rings a vague bell - somewhere near the end of town, down by the quay, I think there was something monumental, lost during the 19th C.? There were all those letters exchanged with Richardson... I have a few local history books, will check when back from the business trip. Best of luck with the article.SeoR (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I had a quick look at a couple of articles on Kenure House and its estate, with some mention of the previous format, and it seems to me that there were three other good possible locations - on the long drive north from the centre of Rush, by the pond, or on the most northerly of the three streams which crossed the estate lands, near the old church, but I find nothing at any of these locations in the OS mapping. I will revert further if I find something when I get home, later in the week.SeoR (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I contacted someone in Local Studies, and the answer is a) there was a shell house or grotto, yes, ordered by Robert Echlin c. 1756, b) it was by the coast, probably either at the outfall of one of the streams (Brook's End) or at the eastern end of town, and c) there is probably information in a paper presented by the Loughshinny and Rush Historical Society back in the mid-2000s, paper number 218, it seems, something like "The Echlin's of Rush House / Kenure House" - so the best bet, if you do not have access (or even if you do) to Swords Library, might be to reach out to the Society (I think they're on Facebook). Maybe if luck holds, it still exists in the backyard of some house, or on some farm if it was on the coastal land east of the Kenure estate.SeoR (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I got hold of the Rocque mapping (1759-1760). This is a lovely map but dimensionsal precision is not its best feature. However, comparing marked features and proportions, it seems that the Shell House was situated south of the line of avenue from Rush House to the coast, and just south of the outfall of Kenure Stream, the middle of the Rush / Kenure estate streams, which nowadays falls to the northern end of Rush's North Beach. The question then would be whether it was on the edge of the bluff above the beach, or down on the strand. Either way, I'm pretty sure no trace remains. Stream data is referenced at List of rivers of County Dublin. That's probably all I can find out remotely; I hope the historical society and / or Fingal Libraries can fill in more on the house / shell house.SeoR (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @SeoR: Thank you so much for your detailed reply. I was just intrigued by something getting into the ODNB entry and then appearing to vanish ... from the sound of it, vanish on the ground as well as leaving no Googleable published record. If there had been any physical remains it would have been nice to give a mention. I don't think I'll pursue it further, but thanks. The stubby little article about Lady Echlin should appear on 1 September: I've got ahead of myself while procrastinating on Real Life responsibilities. PamD 13:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Great - please, when sorted, add 2-way links to Shell grotto (not Shell room!). Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
And it was a pleasure to research a point like this. Real Life limits Wikitime but this and another bit of article content work - on another notable woman’s article released recently - are fun.SeoR (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Provisional Government of Ireland - need for new source

The Department of the Taoiseach has recently revised its website, or merged it into gov.ie, and rather unhelpfully, has removed the pages on historical background. So the pages there which had given lists of previous governments are now gone, or at least I can't find a new link for them. We've been using them for our Government of the nth Dáil pages. I've solved that in most instances by using references to Dáil debates, which are probably a more stable and direct source in any case. But it does leave us without a source for the 1922 Provisional Government for both Government of the 2nd Dáil and Government of the 3rd Dáil, which was not approved by the Dáil. Currently, the link at [1] is being used, which is now effectively a dead link. We could use the archived link at [2]. But do we have any more permanent source for this? An academic source, perhaps? —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merger of President of the Irish Republic --> President of Dáil Éireann

Just to make sure the merger notice is seen before I move ahead next week, I've proposed merging President of the Irish Republic into President of Dáil Éireann. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Merging lists of Ministers of State into Government pages

A few weeks ago, I proposed moving the lists of ministers into the pages of their respective government pages, so Parliamentary Secretaries of the 3rd Dáil into Government of the 3rd Dáil up to merging Ministers of State of the 32nd Dáil into Government of the 32nd Dáil, making the distinction clear of course, between those requiring appointment by the president after approval by the Dáil, and those requiring only appointment by the government itself. There was a mixed response at the discussion, and no clear consensus. After finishing a project of adding references to Dáil debates for the approval of all government ministers where possible, I'm more convinced that this would be a good idea.

In summary:

  • It shows a full scheme of those with government positions, helpfully showing coalition breakdowns. This makes sure we see things like the arrangement with the Farmers Party that is only apparent in the Parliamentary Secretaries of the 6th Dáil, or the breakdown in 1948, where CnP got two cabinet ministers, but no Parl Secretaries, where CnaT got a cabinet minister and two Parl Secs.
  • It shows a more complete story if we are to add narrative sections, for example in reshuffles or resignations that affect the junior ranks.
  • It allows a notation of super juniors that reflects both their formal position as Minister of State, so keeping them in a distinct list, but also noting that they are at cabinet.
  • Also consider the foreign reader, who might see a reference to, say, Helen McEntee. That Minister for European Affairs is in a second separate list makes it clear that this is a junior, not a cabinet position.

Most reference books like Nealon list them on a single page, as do the equivalent pages for other jurisdictions, and the government's website. None of these bind us, but they at least suggest it's a reasonable way to organise the information.

I'm rehearsing some arguments, if any of you have thoughts beyond this, the conversation is at Talk:Government of the 32nd Dáil#Proposed merger of Ministers of States into this page. –Iveagh Gardens (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Casement's "Black Diaries"

I've massively added to the sources for and against in the past month. I might sign up for an account while it's still free.78.16.41.64 (talk) 12:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Ireland

Proposal to delete all portals

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to delete Portal space. Voceditenore (talk) 07:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Getting Irish Charities on Wikipedia

Hello everyone,

I was wondering would anyone else like to help me, I want to work on getting together more Irish Charities on wikipedia? Some have pages but they are very short.

I was also going to try add mre info to The Wheel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wheel_%E2%80%93_Supporting_Voluntary_Activity_in_Ireland

Declanedits (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Move request at Harry Boland (politician)

The Harry Boland article was moved to Harry Boland (politician) on 11 November, with Harry Boland becoming a disambiguation page. There is a discussion about moving it back at Talk:Harry Boland (politician)#Requested move 12 November 2019. --Scolaire (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion is now closed. The article was moved back. Scolaire (talk) 12:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Centenary/Genealogy

Perhaps it is the upcoming centenaries of the Tan War and Civil War, but there has been a marked increase in what (with every respect) I can only describe as "well-meaning amateur genealogists" using Wikipedia as a place to publish articles on family members. Some of whom may have had notable roles in either conflict. But many of whom were, along with 25,000 other Irish men and women, peripherally involved in the war. While more <ahem> "seasoned" editors are more familiar with the WP:NBIO and WP:MILPEOPLE guidelines (which confirm, for example, that just being a member of the Volunteers, RIC, IRB, old-IRA or C na mB doesn't automatically confer notability), there are others who seem less familiar. And there are an increasing number of "my great granny met Dev once" and "my great uncle hid a pike for some lads" style articles cropping-up of late. Do we need to consider specific WikiProject Ireland guidelines on how to identify or deal with these outliers? Or, do we just leave it to the broader PROD and AfD processes to address any creations which stretch the bounds of WP:NOTGENEALOGY or WP:NOTMEMORIAL? (I ask mainly as, unfortunately, it seems like the members of this project are going to be a little busy in the next while dealing with some stuff retrospectively....) Guliolopez (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to just stick with PROD and AfD. There are not enough active Irish Wikipedians at the moment to form a sizable working group to discuss proposed guidelines, and certainly not enough with the expertise to establish guidelines that are both reasonable and workable. In any case, the newbie that wants to write an article about his granny giving tea to De Valera is not going to search for guidelines first. It'll always be a question of finding the newly-created article and PRODing or AfDing it, and the guidelines you've linked to in your post are adequate for deletion discussions. Scolaire (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with Scolaire on this, I'd rather see a few editors flagging got PRD or AfD as articles come up, rather than trying to implement a strategy without the editor capacity. I'd be interested in seeing any examples you've across recently - just out of morbid curiosity! Smirkybec (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks guys. I don't disagree in honesty. AfD and PROD are likely the best tools available. And we probably don't have capacity to do anything preemptive or process heavy. I just thought it worthwhile to raise the "patterns" that I was starting to see. For myself, I have long had Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Article alerts and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ireland on my watchlist. Which are often useful as an indicator of "noise" in these types of areas.
In terms of examples Smirkybec, I would note that the most recent have included the following. Described (with apologies) with deliberately OTT and tongue-in-cheek summaries (but which, in honesty, probably aren't far off the mark):
Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Oh dear, point taken! Guliolopez Will keep an eye out. Was your removal of some red links on Cumann na mBan a pre-emptive strike? Smirkybec (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Great examples; and sadly nothing new in general life - anyone over a certain age, at least, has been there for the often tissue-thin "tale" links to the period, over the kitchen table, or along the bar. But I agree that there are not enough of us active to be spawning a new subset of guidelines, we struggle to manage and enforce current guidelines. I will also keep an eye. Ciao.SeoR (talk) 13:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Settlements - etymology or toponymy or name

Issues have occurred due to replacement of etymology/name with toponymy on a couple of Irish settlement articles recently. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure#Etymology or toponymy or name. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

For background see Talk:Leader of Sinn Féin#Leader in Northern Ireland Assembly. At present various articles contain often contradictory information regarding the purported position of "Leader in Northern Ireland Assembly" (or similar title). While it is true that Michelle O'Neill became "leader in the North" in January 2017 and said she was following in the footsteps of Martin McGuinness, there is no evidence of him holding that position other than him being a de facto leader as a result of being deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. O'Neill's position has been variously described in media sources as "leader in the North", "leader in the Assembly", "leader in Northern Ireland", "leader at Stormont" or close variations of those. Due to Sinn Féin's ambiguous job title, it is unclear whether she is leader in the Assembly or the whole of Northern Ireland.

As a result of this I propose the following:

  1. Leader of Sinn Féin is changed to remove the table at Leader of Sinn Féin#Leader in Northern Ireland Assembly
  2. Also at that article, the sentence "O'Neill also succeeded Martin McGuinness in his role as Sinn Fein's Assembly leader" is removed from the lead
  3. Sinn Féin is changed to remove the "Leader of Sinn Féin in the Northern Ireland Assembly" entry at Sinn Féin#Ministers and spokespeople
  4. Gerry Adams is changed to remove the "Leader of Sinn Féin in the Northern Ireland Assembly" section in the infobox and the succession box at the bottom of the article
  5. Martin McGuinness is changed to remove the "Leader of Sinn Féin in the Northern Ireland Assembly" section in the infobox and the succession box at the bottom of the article
  6. Also at that article, the phrase "as Sinn Féin's political leader in the Northern Ireland Assembly" is removed from the sentence in the lead
  7. Michelle O'Neill is changed to remove the "Leader of Sinn Féin in the Northern Ireland Assembly" section in the infobox and the succession box at the bottom of the article
  8. Also at that article, the phrase "and Leader of Sinn Féin in the Northern Ireland Assembly since January 2017" is removed from the lead

Certain things will need to be changed in addition to the proposals above. For example there's a photo captioned "Michelle O'Neill replaced McGuinness as Sinn Féin's leader in the Northern Ireland Assembly in January 2017" in the Martin McGuinness article, and the section at Michelle O'Neill#Leader of Sinn Féin in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I figured it would be simpler to break down the problems into manageable chunks, so further discussion will take place here, or at the relevant articles, to decide on how to amend those articles. If I have missed any articles that need changing please say so.

  • Support all 8 proposals. FDW777 (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose pending further discussion. I believe that we are being drawn into SF doublethink here and relying on SF primary sources. If we look at how MMcG and MO'N were reported in the mainstream media, they were known as the leader in the NI Assembly, because that it is exactly what they were. It is instructive to compare with the Scottish National Party. Nicola Sturgeon is the (national) leader, Ian Blackford is "the House of Commons group leader". It seems to me, therefore, that the confusion is over "Leader" versus "leader": capital L v little l. To completely remove these lines is Orwellian but it would certainly be reasonable to rename them - I suggest following the example of the SNP infobox. --Red King (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • By comparing the NI Assembly with Westminster, you are comparing apples and oranges. Each party at Westminster has a leader, there is no evidence the same applies to the Assembly. The position "leader in the North" is an internal Sinn Féin position, it is not an Assembly position. Also as the linked discussion points out, there have been at least two Sinn Féin "assembly group leaders" during the time you say Martin McGuinness was leader in the Assembly, and neither of them was McGuinness .FDW777 (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • No,not really. First, "leader in the North" is a red-herring, of interest to no-one outside SF and we can ignore for this discussion: I have no objection to that being deleted: wp:primary source syndrome again. Coming back to the real world, look again at the SNP infobox: their perspective on Westminster is very like SF's perspective on Stormont – they are "in it but not of it". Blackford is not a Leader of the SNP, he is its leader at Westminster for the purposes of playing that game. MMcG's status was similar: whatever the game of musical chairs SF played when power-sharing was in abeyance, by becoming DFM as leader (sic) of the second largest party then by definition he was its 'leader in the Assembly'. If the Assembly reconvenes before another election, MO'N will be in exactly the same position and all the media will refer to her as "Sinn Féin's leader in the Assembly". It is not up to Wikipedia to underpin SF's doublethink. --Red King (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Compare also with the DUP: AF is its Leader, ND is leader of the Westminster party.
I don't understand what you mean by "Each party at Westminster has a leader, there is no evidence the same applies to the Assembly." Would you care to tell the journalists at the IT, BelTel etc that they've been imagining things when they used those words? --Red King (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
You say Blackford is the SNP "leader at Westminster" and "the House of Commons group leader". So who was the Sinn Féin Assembly group leader from 8 May 2007 – 9 January 2017? The exact dates are unknown as to when they became Assembly group leader, but Raymond McCartney was on 15 November 2011 and John O'Dowd was on 3 December 2007. So following your argument through to its logical conclusion, Martin McGuinness wasn't the Sinn Féin leader in the Assembly was he?
You say "leader in the North" is "of interest to no-one outside SF", the BBC, Guardian, Irish News, Belfast Telegraph, Irish Times, (UK) Times, all disagree. and I'm sure plenty of others if I bothered to look after the first page of results on Google.
This is a simple case of de facto versus de jure, and there is zero evidence a de jure position has ever existed, except for apparently Michelle O'Neill. I agree it's a perfectly reasonable suggestion that Martin McGuinness was the de facto leader of Sinn Féin in the Assembly during the time he was deputy First Minister, although as pointed out in the linked discussion you could easily make the argument that Gerry Adams was leader in the Assembly (as indeed our own article Leader of Sinn Féin says, without a reference of course) until he left in 2010. But why, assuming he did to begin with, did Martin McGuinness hold the de facto position of leader in the Assembly? If it was because he was deputy First Minister, then why does the infobox and succession box need to duplicate the information? Both the infobox and succession box have two separate entries for what is apparently the same position. Why? FDW777 (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I have no idea why the information is duplicated, presumably it to reflect different perspectives. But minimally it ought to be consistent (at least as far as it is possible given the context). --Red King (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Let me ask you a simple question. In December 2007 Gerry Adams was the leader of Sinn Féin, Martin McGuinness was deputy First Minister, John O'Dowd was Assembly group leader. So which one of them held the purported title "leader in the Assembly"? And more importantly, which reliable reference confirms that to be the case? FDW777 (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
If you have a reliable source that O'Dowd was Assembly group leader, then that is your answer – even it it contradicts the obvious. (I forgot that this is SF we are discussing, so nothing is as it seems). --Red King (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
According to the BBC, in October 2002 it was Conor Murphy, December 2007 it was John O'Dowd and November 2011 it was Raymond McCartney. Whether those are the only three I don't know, as after a quick look it seems impossible to find start/end dates for any of them.
I didn't start the discussion at Talk:Leader of Sinn Féin#Leader in Northern Ireland Assembly with a view to all this happening. I hoped to fix some contradicting articles, under the assumption there was actually a formal "leader in the Assembly" (or variant on that name). It was only as the discussion progressed and we discovered the only formal position was apparently "Assembly group leader" we realised lots of articles contained incorrect information. FDW777 (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
And I wouldn't have got into this discussion had I realised what a morass it is. I will do what I can to help conclude the discussion. Maybe it is just too unrealistic to expect that there is simple straightforward answer and that your proposals are as close as we can hope to get. I don't want to prolong the agony if that is the case. --Red King (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. If there was a position of "Sinn Féin Assembly Group Leader", then that person, and that person only, can be called "leader [small "L"] of Sinn Féin in the Northern Ireland Assembly". If Conor Murphy held the position in 2004, then we can say definitively that Gerry Adams did not hold the position of "Leader in the Northern Ireland Assembly" by virtue of being president of Sinn Féin. And if John O'Dowd held that position in late 2007, and Raymond McCartney in 2011, then we can say definitively that Martin McGuinness did not hold the position of "Leader in the Northern Ireland Assembly" by virtue of being deputy First Minister. To say that Michelle O'Neill was elected leader (of whatever) in 2017, and that she was said in the media to have succeeded Martin McGuinness, therefore McGuinness was "Leader in the Northern Ireland Assembly", is a classic example of synthesis, which is not allowed per WP:OR. It follows that that title should be taken out of the Adams and McGuinness articles. Because of the ambiguity of the title, and the seeming impossibility of getting concrete information, especially dates, about the Assembly Group Leader position, I agree with FDW777's other proposed edits. Scolaire (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I concede the (unintentional) WP:SYN, I should not have underestimated SF's logical gymnastics. In any normal world, it would have been MMcG. I wonder if we are getting bogged down because of relying on (SF) wp:Primary sources. To take an alternative approach then, is there any formal requirement in the Assembly for parties to declare a group leader? --Red King (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
There does not appear to be, I can't find any for the DUP, SDLP, or Alliance. Although I can find that Danny Kennedy of the UUP was described by the Newsletter as their deputy Assembly group leader, I cannot find who he was supposed to be deputy to (presumably the UUP leader at the time, but this experience has taught me that might not be the case at all). Assembly Group Leader does appear to be an actual de jure position within Sinn Féin however. They use it on their Assembly Members page and repeatedly in press releases, and it has been used by media sources also.
This situation would be much simpler had the Assembly not collapsed. Martin McGuinness would have retired due to ill-health, Michelle O'Neill would have succeeded him as dFM, and we wouldn't be messing about with "leader in the Assembly" or "leader in the North" or similar. FDW777 (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
While looking into another matter I did find the SDLP's Assembly group leader in 2009 was Alban Maginness according to the Belfast Telegraph. Similiar to Sinn Féin however, I fear reliable sources for his start/end date will be thin on the ground. FDW777 (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I just wanted to add that I did specifically number my proposals so that people could object to any specific ones, rather than object to the whole lot. I realise the Gerry Adams ones should be relatively uncontroversial, whereas the McGuinness/O'Neill succession is a slightly more tricky situation. FDW777 (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Further comment. I decided to look into the history of our articles, I chose the first version from December 2016 as I wanted to be sure they were free from any sources regarding speculation about Martin McGuinness stepping down which began in early January 2017. Gerry Adams has no mention of him being leader in the Assembly or Northern Ireland. Martin McGuinness has no mention of him being leader in the Assembly or Northern Ireland. Sinn Féin has the Assembly Group Leader listed as Carál Ní Chuilín (without a reference), the same claim also appears in the infobox. Leader of Sinn Féin has Gerry Adams listed as Leader in Northern Ireland Assembly from 1 July 1998 to 7 December 2010 followed by Raymond McCartney from 7 December 2010 to the present day, without a reference. We have long since established that at least two different named people held the position of Assembly Group Leader (the position verifiably held by Raymond McCartney) during the period 1998-2010, and neither of them was Gerry Adams. Obviously there's no point looking at the history of Michelle O'Neill as she wasn't leader of anything relevant to this discussion prior to January 2017. Other than the Leader of Sinn Féin article (which contains an unreferenced claim that has been proved to be incorrect) or Sinn Féin article (which details the Assembly Group Leader position, with an unreferenced claim to be a person not previously known to have held it), none of the articles contained any mention of leaders in Northern Ireland or in the Assembly. This demonstrates rather clearly that this is a position that has been retroactively added to various articles based on confusion caused by Sinn Féin's "leader in the North" position and its holder succeeding Martin McGuinness. FDW777 (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I have no objection to you removing any uncited or inferred material. Indeed standing rules of engagement (sorry!) allows you to chop such stuff without mercy, you didn't even need to ask. All my comments arise from being sucked into that false narrative. --Red King (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
We seem to have reached consensus, then. FDW777, I suggest you perform all your suggested edits without delay (you can link back to this discussion in your edit summaries). Scolaire (talk) 13:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Done. I believe a lot of people were sucked into that false narrative, which is why it has remained unchallenged for so long. Had the articles been consistent with each other, it is highly likely the problem would never have been detected. Thank you @Red King: and @Scolaire: for your participation. FDW777 (talk) 09:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposal regarding Michelle O'Neill

See Talk:Michelle O'Neill#"Leader of Sinn Féin in the Northern Ireland Assembly" section. It probably makes sense for that discussion to take place there, since it's specific to her article. FDW777 (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Imbalance in biography coverage (notably academic)

I know we have limited bandwidth, but one thing that strikes me, as I review thousands of articles, is that our generous coverage of GAA and other sports figures (with which I have no quarrel, we can accommodate) is so unmatched in the area of academics and researchers (and also business people and entrepreneurs) that it produces a bizarre result - the Notable Persons sections in many of our third-level institution articles are overwhelmed with people notable for sports careers (often of limited, or no, relevance to the institutions) but very (embarrassingly) short on people actually notable as academics (it is so severe that even heads of institutions can be missed). Some of this is due to an overly high bar for academic inclusion (even long-term professors don't always qualify) but if anyone has some spare time (a big ask, I know), I think there must be some ready gap-filling to be done. The Women in Red initiative is closing some gaps, and editors like Antiqueight are doing great article creation work.SeoR (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

"Women in Red" is wonderful...and many of the articles are born almost fully formed. It is somewhat ironic that the more cerebral types appear to have much less energy in an encyclopedia than amateur sportspeople. But my own preference is places rather than people. We can only rate what is set before us! Sarah777 (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
This I agree, thanks Sarah777, and I remember you doing great work with places, and photography, way back when WP Ireland was in it's first coverage drive. Great to see you also ploughing through the rating pile these months - only those last few thousand Stubs to go soon. I fear already for my GAA brain corner, which was well-exercised already over the past 15 months. But you're right, it's a real irony that the advanced academic world does not do more article creation of its own - but no more so than the appalling state of many school articles, even though there are teachers, admin. staff, pupils, past pupils, parents... (and yes, there's CoI, but someone could do something). Anyway, onwards... SeoR (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:United Irishmen

The entries in Category:United Irishmen which are disambiguated have either (United Irishmen) or (United Irishman) appended with no consistency. Which should it be? Cabayi (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

As "United Irishmen" was an organisation and has a category named after it, and "United Irishman" wasn't and doesn't, I would go with (United Irishmen) as the disambiguator. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Both are technically correct. "Irishmen" is used for nine articles in the category, as against five for "Irishman". On the other hand, a Google search turns up "Irishman" far more often as a description of a person: Irish Historical Studies, A Compendium of Irish Biography (1878), History Ireland, National Gallery of Ireland, Cork Mother Jones Festival, lookleft. I'd be inclined to go with "Irishman". Scolaire (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

New bot to remove completed infobox requests

Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed infobox requests and am sending this message to WikiProject Ireland since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with {{ping|Trialpears}} and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as {{infobox journal}} for WikiProject Academic Journals; or if an irregularly named infobox such as {{starbox begin}} should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!

Sent on behalf of Trialpears (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Mass changes of Irish sport categories?

Anyone see a discussion before a keen editor from Greece starting recategorising sport? Not sure they are fully familiar with all-Ireland vs separate territory governing bodies. Thanks,SeoR (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

No idea what this refers to. Any link?? Sarah777 (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Sarah777, I should have included a link and / or sample diff, but I was also dropping a note on the editor's Talk page, and that did the trick, they self-reverted. They were mixing the all-island, Ireland-only and NI-only sports bodies, but all OK now.SeoR (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

St. John's GAA (Cork)

@DuhallowContributor: just rewrote this page which was previously declined at New Page Review. The comment by (pinging @Chris troutman:) was that it did not satisfy WP:ORG. At first glance, most non-Irish Wikipedia editors would agree I suspect. In contrast, most people in Ireland would presume that the local GAA club is a suitable topic for a Wikipedia article in terms of WP:GNG. However, I've reviewed some of the other articles for GAA clubs and I think there may be a geographic bias regarding sources. Can anyone offer guidance on how we could make a wp:blueink case for general notability of local GAA clubs beyond the sporting element based on cultural and historical significance in addition to community role? AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

If this article isnt allowed, should we just delete every local G.A.A teams articles, this is a legit team, i dont understand why it was refused in the first place, millstreet.ie is a credible source and i also provided a online newspaper article echolive — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuhallowContributor (talk • contribs) 07:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Having spent some time at Articles for Deletion recently I can assure you there are plenty of editors who would happily delete them all (Chris, I don't mean you--I'm referring to dedicated deletionists). However, I think your new sources do satisfy notability but it's courtesy to get input from an editor who reviewed a previous version. GAA clubs could be construed as a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pocket_consensus which would probably be ok. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand notability. WP:NGAELIC covers athletes, not teams, which means you have to satisfy WP:NORG. Milstreet.ie fails WP:SPS so it's not allowable as a source. The Corkman might be reliable but I don't see enough to claim general notability. If this WikiProject wants to create a notability guide for GAA as WP:MILHIST created WP:MILPEOPLE, then you're welcome to gather a consensus and see if the wider community defers to you. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Ireland

Ireland, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 08:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

This is concerning, but I cannot see an active discussion, just one statement mentioning citation concerns, and a couple of lesser points. Am I missing something; is there an active review in progress? I can give some time, but there are a number of editors who were key to that particular article, so I hope some of them are also aware and available - one of the top two historic editors of that article has already flagged that they are not.SeoR (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
@SeoR: Sorry missed this. The above is a standard notification template. The reassessment, started by another editor is at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ireland/2. It is still open if you want to comment. AIRcorn (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

It appears Scaramanga731 whilst doing some excellent grammar and spelling correction they have also been adding external links to the Eiretains website to Irish station articles. My understanding is this is not acceptable per WP:ELNO. While I reverted one at Sligo Mac Diarmada railway station and Scaramanga731 thanked me for the same Scaramanga731 has continued to add this link to other articles. Can people confirm that this is not acceptable, or if it is OK then I will be happy to go with consensus. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Just to confirm I have had a message on my talk page which indicates Scaramanga731 has been doing this in good faith. I would perhaps like confirmation here this is not generally accepted practice. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I feel WP:ELMAYBE #4 and WP:ELNO #11 have significant contradiction and I feel that policy needs to be revised to minimize contradiction. I've removed fancruft sites, blogs, personal sites only to have others reinsert them saying they're useful. Here's an issue I have raised Wikipedia_talk:External_links#EL_NO_vs_MAYBEGraywalls (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Scaramanga731 seems to have reverted all of his/her additions. Personally, I think it's a shame. Eiretrains has a lot of good quality pictures of the stations, is purely factual and does not have any ads. It's an excellent example of the kind of EL WhatamIdoing recommended keeping in the discussion Graywalls linked to. I think they should all be restored per WP:ELMAYBE #4: "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Scolaire (talk) 12:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to encourage you all to remember that WP:Ignore all rules is a policy. Please make great articles. If necessary, consult the rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Question to be asked is, do the external links add any encyclopaedic content that isn't already in the article and help the reader to expand and understand the topic more? Looking at a few of them I say not, it's mostly pictures of trains at platforms, we don't need more than one photo of a station. Extra photos don't really help and shots of different trains are not relevant to the stations in all honesty. Canterbury Tail talk 17:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't agree that that is the question to be asked. Any encyclopaedic content that isn't already in the article should be added to the article, not to EL. External links should be to content that the reader will find interesting and informative, and that doesn't contain ads or other undesirable content. A link to photos of the stations (not just "different trains") is useful. Scolaire (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

List of townlands of County Limerick

I just came across List of townlands of County Limerick and its baby lists, all found at Category:Townlands of County Limerick. It looks like the sub-lists were split from the main list long ago with the intent that the main list would be "simpler" or less detail-heavy (see the talk page of the main list). However, it appears that the lists are identical and have identical levels of detail.

Does anyone have any opinion as to what should be done with them? I feel like we can either a) redirect the sub-lists back to the main list and leave the main list intact, b) strip the main list entirely and make it into a navigation list to the sub-lists, or c) partially strip the main list down to basics and leave the details to the sub-lists. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Premeditated Chaos, Sarah777 and Djm-leighpark and SeoR: this discussion touches on the topic of townland lists. ww2censor (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Loss of the main combined list immediately loses the ability to sort by Acres, Barony, Civil Parish and Poor Law Union; which I actually found useful. This is a static list so shouldn't need much dynamic updating. And not to cod by Database normalization leads to information being in two places which means additional checking and inconsistencies and problems setting in. That's my thoughts anyway. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
That's kind of what I was thinking - we're well past the days where rendering the full list would be taxing for most devices, so having them all be separate feels unnecessarily duplicative. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I had forgot about the dogs. I just tried it on by mobile and I picked up a 4G on a good signal and the getting down to Woodstown was a tad trying on the finger (took we tree goes after swiping of elsewhere. But tables on my mobile are not so great anyway and I'm losing stuff to the right. On a weaker connection in bits of the Nephin Beg Range (Or Dublin 4?) it might be a problem at a guess. The mobile experience can be partially experienced on a desktop by [3] (://en.m.) vs (://en.) and narrowing the browser screen but it isn't a perfect emulation and loses the intermittent feel of a bad connection and the finger swiping experience.Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 Comment:: Viewing tables on a phone can be an issue that using the mobile view on a computer cannot reproduce. On my iPhone, using the Wikipedia app in landscape position, I see 4 or the 5 columns but can scroll across to view the right 4 columns. However, when viewing the same page in my Safari on the iPhone, all 5 columns are viewable. I've found this often when using the Wikipedia app. So it is worth checking out what table look like in different viewing situations.
Here is a challenging table (the 2nd table of "Since 1901" section) List of mayors of Toulouse I made recently that is reasonably readable on a phone browser but is pretty crap in the Wikipedia app. ww2censor (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing the point - but List of townlands of County Limerick looks OK to me Sarah777 (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
OK. Now I get it. I see the category page; seems odd. It puts different bits of a the single article/list into a host of different categories. Not a good idea. Indeed a recipe for chaos! Sarah777 (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, in the absence of objections, I'm going to redirect the split lists to the master. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Dictionary of Irish Biography

Resolved

Hi all. If anyone has access—perhaps via a library, or an academic institution—and can send a couple of articles over for WP stuff, I'd greatly appreciate it! Thanks in (hopeful!) advance. ——SN54129 07:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Serial Number 54129. I have access to it. What do you need? AugusteBlanqui (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@AugusteBlanqui: Many thanks! Any chance you can get Dominic McGlinchey and Michael Davitt, for those articles? ——SN54129 08:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: have the articles saved as .pdf. What's the best way of sharing them? It's strange, it looks like there is an option to share via some social media platforms like reddit. Does these links work for you?

http://dib.cambridge.org/viewReadPage.do?articleId=a2437&searchClicked=clicked&quickadvsearch=yes http://dib.cambridge.org/viewReadPage.do?articleId=a5955&searchClicked=clicked&quickadvsearch=yes Unfortunately I don't have much time this week to edit content or else I would start integrating content. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@AugusteBlanqui: Many thanks! I'm afraid those links don't work for me, as I'm not logged in. If I email you, could you attach the pdfs by return? ——SN54129 09:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: Absolutely. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Go raibh maith míle agat! ——SN54129 16:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Unidentified new Dublin images

I just uploaded 174 new images, mostly unidentified Dublin city, from Flickr that have very generic file names, such as "Dublin (the Flickr number)" and "Dublin" or even nothing as the description. You can find them all here. If you can identify them, please add the description and if you are a file move please move them to a better name and categorise them if possible, better then just this commons category: c:Category:Unidentified locations in Dublin though a few are identified. Thanks in advance. ww2censor (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Cathal Ó Searcaigh

2A02:8084:51BC:9A00:55D4:EB05:BAB3:FB04 has made edits to the above article that not only put comments into the body of the article but they are personal attacks (e.g. referring to "luvvie"). The anonymous editor also:

  • Accuses editors of censoring the controversy over Ó Searcaighs behaviour in Nepal - the controversy seems well covered in Fairytale of Kathmandu, which is linked to from the above article.
  • Made personal attacks in the above diff against edits who reverted previous edits ("Here's a question for the person(s) responsible for repeatedly removing the details of these facts from O'Searcaigh's biography here: You do realise you're covering up ascertained facts, not conjecture, don't you ? Does sex between middle-aged adults and 15/16 yr-old teenagers not seem a matter of some importance to you ?","What you'e doung is the same thing as was done by all the politicians, police, and BBC officials who for years covered up Jimmy aville's actions, you have earned yourself a place alongside them, mate.")
  • Does not seem aware of WP:BLP (i.e. comment in above diff comparing Cathal Ó Searcaigh to Jimmy Savillje and Cyril Smith, who are both dead.)
  • Threatens to keep said edits up ("or these additions will have to keep coming"). (Note, there are edits from 2A02:8084:51BC:9A00:8D53:57DF:1B1F:2B79 that have been reverted as well as various edits from anon IP4 addresses that have been reverted over the past few months.)

What do people suggest? This seems like a case where the above diff should be reverted, but given the personal attacks and determination this could result in more personal attacks on edits who revert the edits. Autarch (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I posted to the administrator notice board. Someone can protec the article from anonymous editing. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Bell X1 (band) nominated for delisting as a GA

Bell X1 (band), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. MER-C 04:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:Timeline of the Northern Ireland Troubles and peace process#Requested move 21 January 2020. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Spliting discussion for 2020 Irish general election

An article that you have been involved with (2020 Irish general election) has content that is proposed to be removed and move to another article (Opinion polling prior to 2020 Irish general election). If you are interested, please visit the discussion at Talk:2020 Irish general election#Splitting proposal. Thank you. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Dáil constituency maps

Hi there, is anyone handy at creating/modifying maps? A lot of the Dáil constituency maps for the 2020 general election are out of date (or missing). Is there a dedicated wikigroup I could ask to help? Tx, Spleodrach (talk) 11:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon

Hi. The Wikipedia:The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon is planned for March 2020, a contest/editathon to eliminate as many stubs as possible from all 134 counties. Amazon vouchers/book prizes are planned for most articles destubbed from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland and Northern Ireland and whoever destubs articles from the most counties out of the 134. Sign up on page if interested in participating, hope this will prove to be good fun and productive, we have over 44,000 stubs! Even if "contests" aren't your thing, think of it as motivation to improve our content! Hope to see a lot of articles improved as part of this, there is a £50 prize for most Ireland and Northern Ireland articles destubbed!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Shaw Academy

Would someone from WP:IE mind taking a look at this article? There have been some posts about the company added to the article's talk page and also made at the Teahouse which may or may not be true, but it might be a good idea to check as to whehter there is anything about this type of thing being covered in reliable sources and whether it's something worth mentioning if it has. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Church of the Annunciation, Finglas

Church of the Annunciation, West Finglas - geograph.org.uk - 491625

I don't know if it worthy of an article in of itself, but I noticed that there is just one photo of the church from 2007. Given that its demolition has now been approved, should we look more photos and if not its own article but include it in the Finglas article? Smirkybec (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:Sinn Féin TDs who attended fee paying schools has been nominated for discussion

Category:Sinn Féin TDs who attended fee paying schools, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 18#IRA Directorate of Intelligence related categories. FDW777 (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Use of Taoiseach

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles#Use of Taoiseach regarding to the use of Taoiseach in articles. FDW777 (talk) 10:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

First preference votes

There is a discussion at Talk:Sinn Féin#First preference votes which has the potential to affect some other articles about Irish political parties, advertising it here for maximum visibility. FDW777 (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Unionism in Ireland article

There is a discussion at Talk:Unionism in Ireland#Recent changes which may benefit from more participants. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Editathon at Maynooth University on 9/3/20

If any WikiProject Ireland participants are interested there is an editathon at Maynooth University on Monday, March 9: Wikipedia:Meetup/Ireland Maynooth University International Women’s Day Editathon 2020 AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The Great Britain / Ireland Destubathon (with prizes)

Anyone else got time to pitch in at this edit-a-thon (Wikipedia:The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon)? - after reviewing thousands of articles, it's great to have something which helps reduce the stub pile. Good fun, and almost 120 articles have already been upgraded for Ireland + Northern Ireland, not to mention the hundreds more for England (incl. Isle of Man, Channel Islands), Scotland and Wales. There are clear guidelines and tallies, and yes, prizes too, for the ambitious and energetic. Especially in a time when face-to-face edit-a-thons are off. SeoR (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saoirse McHugh

This AfD discussion may be of interest to members of WikiProject Ireland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Saoirse_McHugh AugusteBlanqui (talk) 12:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:British and Irish political parties

Category:British and Irish political parties has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Place Clichy (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

RFC at Oscar Wilde

There's an RFC underway at Talk:Oscar Wilde:

Your participation would be welcome! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Cabinteely FC Linkspam

It's been years since I've actively edited wikipedia, but I noticed a link on Cabinteely F.C. where the article directly links to a Football Manager Let's Play by a YouTuber in the opening section. and removed it as possible WP:LINKSPAM, possibly by the youtuber themselves. It looks like another anonymous IP user has undone my edit and reinstated this, but I still feel it shouldn't be in the article, but rather than get into an edit war, I thought I'd just raise it to the attention of more active editors. 89.100.234.197 (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I think the issue is now addressed. Generally speaking it is best to raise any concerns either directly with the editor. Or on the relevant article talkpage. Rather than "escalating" immediately to project pages. An "outside opinion" is really only needed if two editors cannot address a concern directly. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic in the VERY biased UK=England

Dia dhaoibh! I've been trying to show the editors of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom article how biased UK=England it is. COVID-19 is a health issue, which comes under the devolved governments and NOT under Boris Johnson. The article, in my view, contains disproportional coverage of England, is unbalanced and is an insult to the three smaller nations. If you have two minutes please read the Talk page and leave any comments at the bottom. You may disagree with me of course! Saol fada chuga! John Jones (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Well England as a whole has suffered far worse from it than any other part of the UK, heck even some cities in England have had it far worse than the three devolved regions put together. Unless you can prove there is WP:UNDUE weight being given to the part of the UK that has suffered the worse? Mabuska (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Sabina Higgins' date of birth

The date of birth for Sabina Higgins appears to be wrong, see Talk:Sabina Higgins#Date of birth. Can we find a reliable source? Verbcatcher (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The Troubles and WikiProject Organized crime

The is a discussion at Talk:The Troubles/Archive 3#WikiProject Organized crime on whether that article belongs in that category. Wider input would be appreciated. Scolaire (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Was it Disorganized Crime?78.17.33.95 (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

New list pages on Irish politics

I've added two new list articles on Irish politics ahead of the government formation, whenever that eventually occurs:

  • Dáil vote for Taoiseach lists all those who were proposed for Taoiseach in Dáil votes, and the breakdown where it came to a vote. The main work I have yet to do it to add speech level references for those who were proposed but not voted on, and also where candidates who were not appointed as Taoiseach received the support of other parties (where they were appointed as Taoiseach, this is in a table on the relevant government page).
  • Disused titles of Departments of State (Ireland) compiles the old titles of government departments, as a comprehensive reference point to the incongruence on the lists of ministers of the Minister for Economic Planning and Development becoming the Minister for Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, etc.

Both of these bring together work I'd previously done on the respective government and department pages. Now that I've moved them into the mainspace, I'd certainly welcome any additions or developments from other editors. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

John Anderson (Scottish businessman)

Does anyone live near Fermoy or can get there now that lockdown allows travel within the county? If you are living in Cork you will not be breaking the new rules to go to Fremoy. There is a bust of him there (per [4]) and as no images have been found perhaps someone can take a decent photo of it for his article. It's on the northern side of the bridge that goes over the River Blackwater. ww2censor (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Image at Fir Bolg and Cath Maige Tuired

Hello, I'm hoping someone expertise in medieval Ireland and Irish mythology can review the situation at Fir Bolg and Cath Maige Tuired, which use the same image but different captions. The former dates it to 1911, the latter to 1910. I think the latter is correct, but that's a minor, easy fix. The bigger problem is that Fir Bolg describes the image as depicting "Ambassadors of the Fir Bolg and Tuath Dé meeting before the Battle of Moytura", while Cath Maige Tuired describes it as "The expulsion of King Bres". Viewing the book image in context, which clearly labels it "The Two Ambassadors", I conclude the caption at Fir Bolg is correct, despite having the wrong date.

Do I have that right? If so, what's the remedy? I think probably update the caption at Cath Maige Tuired, replace the image, or just remove the image outright. Thoughts? --BDD (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, this book has been published in 1911, see catalogue entry at the National Library of Ireland. Secondly, this picture illustrates the meeting between Sreng and Bres according to the text on the preceding page:
The Firbolgs now sent out one of their warriors, named Sreng, to interview the mysterious new-comers; and the People of Dana, on their side, sent a warrior named Bres to represent them. The two ambassadors examined each other's weapons with great interest. The spears of the Danaans, we are told, were light and sharp-pointed; those of the Firbolgs were heavy and blunt. To contrast the power of science with that of brute force is here the evident intention of the legend, and we are reminded of the Greek myth of the struggle of the Olympian deities with the Titans. Bres proposed to the Firbolg that the two races should divide Ireland equally between them, and join to defend it against all comers for the future. They then exchanged weapons and returned each to his own camp.
So we have Sreng in front (to be recognized for holding his heavy and blunt spear with his left hand) and Bres in the rear who presents his light and sharp-pointed spear to Bres for examination. All this material is related to the Lebor Gabála Érenn, a collection of fictional but very influential medieval works that tried to provide a narrative of Irish prehistory. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, that's about what I got from the image source. I'll go ahead and change the caption at Cath Maige Tuired to match the one at Fir Bolg. --BDD (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Burning of the Burning Embers pub

I have nominated this article for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burning of the Burning Embers pub. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Roger Casement

Given the recent moves to remove a number of statues and memorials to Leopold II of Belgium, would anyone else be interested on working on Casement's article with me? It has had a lot of those maintenance tags for a long time, and would be great to tackle them. I have access to the DIB and ONDB as well as some journals, so could make a start? Smirkybec (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Scope of list discussion

There is a discussion about the scope of the List of disasters in Great Britain and Ireland by death toll taking place at Talk:List of disasters in Great Britain and Ireland by death toll#Scope of the list. Please feel free to join in. Mjroots (talk) 11:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Cricket grounds in and around Dublin

Hi all, just over from WikiProject Cricket! We're in need of photos of cricket grounds that have hosted one of the three major formats of cricket at either international or domestic level. This is the list of grounds we need photos for, most of which are in and around Dublin. If anyone has some spare time and lives close to these, any photos would be much appreciated. Cheers! StickyWicket (talk) 10:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Anglesea Road Cricket Ground

File:Anglesea-cricket-ground.jpg

  • Carlisle Cricket Club Ground

File:The-dig.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniton999 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

These photos aren't Anglesea Road or Carlisle Cricket Club. The first appears to be a cricket ground in Australia judging by the trees and the the other was taken during an archeological dig at Carlisle Cricket Club in the North of England. StickyWicket (talk) 11:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
LTA, I wouldn't stress about it. Primefac (talk) 12:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

There were images of Castle Avenue and Sydney Parade on Commons and Geograph respectively. I have added them to the relevant articles. I personally cannot assist with the others. Guliolopez (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm close to Clontarf, so should be able to get a photo of that cricket grounds, if the weather dries up over the weekend! Smirkybec (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
@Smirkybec: that would be amazing if you could, weather permitting! StickyWicket (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

USI Presidents - notable?

Hi all, can't seem to find it in the notability guides, but would being elected the president of the Union of Students of Ireland confer notability? I'm thinking of the incumbent or more recent presidents rather than those how have a career since. Thanks! Smirkybec (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Possibly - rather to my surprise it seems that Presidents of the UK NUS are regarded as notable. Mind you, that is I think a full time salaried post. Johnbod (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
No. Not automatically. Being a representative of a student body, even a national one, does not meet the expectation of WP:NPOL. (A students' union is not a "national or international legislative body". It's just not. It's not a legislative body at all. While some students union presidents might be notable for other reasons, just being one doesn't confer notability.)
(As a side note, and while this is really only relevant in the context that (to my mind) the reps from student unions (and indeed the unions themselves) are afforded disproportionate "column inches" here, I'm personally fed up with members of students' unions using Wikipedia as a free webhost. For their ramblings. Or vanity listings. Or "how to access union services" guides. Or excessive detail about their governance or election regimes (not published anywhere but here). Or vanity lists of current officers or past reps. Or useless padding about what a secondhand bookshop is "for". Or axe grinding. Or other editorial. In all honesty, if this fluff was added to an article about any other type of (commercial) org or its management, it would be shot down immediately. As promotion. Or similar misuse of editing privilege.)
Anyway, this off-topic rant should just be ignored as the rantings of an old man shaking a stick at the kids on his lawn... Otherwise, no, members/reps/leaders of student representative organisations are not automatically notable. Not by a long chalk. Guliolopez (talk) 23:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
What about Katie Ascough? Spleodrach (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
As per my note above, while some officers of student representative bodies might (on a case-by-case basis) meet other notability criteria (and there are perhaps countering WP:SIGCOV and WP:BLP1E arguments to be made in the relevant AfD discussion), that existing article/content should be deleted for WP:G12 issues. Alone. As the creator has simply wholescale copy/pasted the content from the sources on which it is based. A clear and unambiguous copyright infringement. Guliolopez (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks very much! Very interesting stuff, and thanks very much for the examples of those edits, that is really instructive (especially the lists/tables). Just went to take a look at the The University Observer as I remembered it having a similar table to find you tidied that up too! I was looking at some of the more recent female officers/presidents trying to assess if they are notable, so this is really helpful - thanks again! Smirkybec (talk) 10:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Complete rewrite of Irish nationalism article

There is a discussion at Talk:Irish nationalism#Recent edits about a complete rewrite currently being done by ‎ManfredHugh. Some more input would be appreciated. Scolaire (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Ballinard, County Cork

Please help or delete the page.Xx236 (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it just needs a reference, other than that it's a stub and seems fine given the subject matter. Canterbury Tail talk 11:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Found a reference, added it ... which led me to realise that the title was ambiguous... moved this one to Ballinard, Desertserges and created Ballinard, Tullagh modelled on it, using similar source. Created a dab page at Ballinard. Someone might like to create an article for the civil parish of Tullagh. Not an Ireland specialist, just a dab page/redirect geek and a helpful wikignome. (Can't remember quite why this page is on my enormous watchlist...!) PamD 12:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Leinster Senior College

This article doesn't seem to serve any purpose other than as an advert, complete with how good the classes are and how much it costs. Is this notable? Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you, Usedtobecool, and have made a start on rectifying it... ——Serial # 09:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! Looks like it will be deleted after all. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, it's still little more than an unpaid-for advert. ——Serial # 13:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Titles of articles on 17th and 18th century Irish language poets

Along with a number of other articles which use the subject's Irish-language name, the articles on a number of "historic" Irish-language poets were recently moved. For example:

In each case, the rationale given for the move was a reference to WP:UE. Without discussion or otherwise. And in a manner which totally ignored WP:COMMONNAME and WP:IMOS.

I have NEVER ONCE heard any of these subjects referred to by anything other than their (common) Irish name. And will admit to being taken aback by the notion that some these were/are known by anything other than their Irish names. However, if (as dispassionately as possible) I take just Peadar Ó Doirnín, I would note that this is the subject's COMMONNAME in English-language sources. Peter O'Dornan is entirely a neologism. Having just 9 Google search results (and only ONE OF THOSE seems to relate to the subject in question). On the other hand, the original title, Peadar Ó Doirnín, has upwards of 8,000 results. Confirming that it is by ANY MEASURE the COMMONNAME of the subject. Including in English-language sources.

I am absolutely going to be advocating that Peadar Ó Doirnín be moved "back" to the more appropriate and common-name (over the proposed neolgism). Immediately. And will likely undertake a review of the others on a case-by-case basis.

That being said, I am opening this thread here to confirm whether there is any consensus (or what that consensus might be) for confirming that WP:UE does not "trump" WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OR. Guliolopez (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree entirely with your assessment, but more importantly, so does WP:IMOS! Move away! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
WP:UE doesn't say to use English in all cases, it says The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage, e.g. the non-anglicized titles Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard, and Göttingen are used because they predominate in English-language reliable sources. So in the case of Peadar Ó Doirnín, it's obvious this was an erroneous move carried out without any due diligence as there's no way Peter O'Dornan is the predominant use in English. I'd say that makes all the other moves equally as questionable, so would suggest a mass move back without discussion, and anyone objecting to the existing names should start move requests. FDW777 (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I would agree with this. Peadar Ó Doirnín does appear to be the more common usage and there are several pages already with Irish names where an English one is available. Obviously, as I am a new user, I would take everything I say with a pinch of salt as I am still finding my feet. DarkerDai (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree these should be dealt with case by case via a WP:RM. Ceoil (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I have moved these three articles back, plus Tadhg Gaelach Ó Súilleabháin. Pinging Mabuska, since nobody else did. Scolaire (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment I have to laugh when I hear people assert things like "I have NEVER ONCE heard any of these subjects referred to by anything other than their (common) Irish name. And will admit to being taken aback by the notion that some these were/are known by anything other than their Irish names" in order to get their point of view across. Sadly, Guliolopez undermines the force of their own argument by such a ridiculous POV statement. Just look at the blue plaque photo for Art McCooey on the page about Art McCooey by the Ulster Historical Society (here) to appreciate the 'unhelpfulness' of such a wild assertion. If one has 'NEVER ONCE' heard anything said, it's quite possibly because one has chosen to close ones mind and ears. Feel free to carry on with the debate - I have no interest in it - but do try to act rationally and even-handedly in all discussions folks, please, and for the betterment of this encyclopaedia and not of your own personal agenda(s). Nick Moyes (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Way to go with the ABF. Ceoil (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Nick Moyes. As an Irish speaker (and an administrator on the Irish language Wikipedia), I do have a bias. I acknowledge as much. And made the statement to acknowledge and clarify as much. In the same way that the English language Wikipedia community (of which I am also a member) also declares and acknowledges its/our own inherent biases. The expectation on editors is that they acknowledge their biases. And then (as much as is possible) to set them aside. As I stated that I was attempting to do. And did not set out my argument based on a subjective point of opinion. But on an objective point of policy. If it is your belief that editors should not acknowledge their own potential or possible biases (or that is somehow laughable to do so), then that's your prerogative. But, frankly, I don't agree that initially acknowledging my own subjective perspective, then undermines a subsequent objective and policy-based argument. I still stand behind the assertion that moving Peadar Ó Doirnín (and other related articles) was not in keeping with policy. And that the editor who undertook the move might (frankly) want to take a look at what is behind a preference for English language names. Over all else. Including policy. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

This ties in with a discussion going on at Talk:Grace O'Malley about a move proposal to Gráinne Ní Mháille ☕ Antiqueight chatter 22:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping Scolaire.
So someone tell me how a non-native or International English speaker is meant to read/pronounce names such as Tadhg Gaelach Ó Súilleabháin or Art Mac Cumhaigh? I can but I'm sure someone from Texas or South Africa mightn't be able to. The point in the policies I listed as justification is to help article readability. Sure adding the English in in brackets afterwards helps for the person the article is about but not when other Irish names are listed within. This is the English language Wikipedia, are we not meant to help access and readability?
The IMOS in regards to this is not fit for purpose and WP:Commonname is nearly pointless as the articles are seriously lacking in sourcing and for all we know mostly OR. Other than Art McCooey who has a blue plaque with his name in English the rest are virtually sourceless to which we can't ascertain a proper common name. Many of the articles have few edits and the naming of the articles could be down to editor bias such as often done by Fergainanim and Claoimh Solais.
The IMOS guideline which I had forgotten about in itself is a biased concept. However it's not like their Irish name was censored as I provided it time and again right after the English as per the Wikipedia guideline.
If it is consensus to keep these articles at what are hard to read Irish names to the majority of English readers on the English language Wikipedia then by all means keep them at them. Though Art McCooey is mentioned quite a few times as that or the archaic MacCooey.
At Guliolopez. The biggest defenders of such naming conventiins, exemplified by the above are Gaelic speakers showing the large bias there is on the issue. The issue maybe should be brought to a larger arena where there is not such a bias. Also Google is itself a pointless tool considering how many Wikipedia clones there are out there.
Mabuska (talk) 09:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
At Guiliolopez, as an admin you know full well you should have notified me of this at the start.
At Scolaire. Had I been notified and asked I would have reverted the articles myself. Also I would argue you reverted too quick and without the diligence some feel I also lacked. Art McCooey does appear as a common name for Mac Cumhaigh, though when reverting try to fix the article to the IMOS policy in question. I see no mention of Art's possibly more common English name after the Irish. Mabuska (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
And on neologisms Guliolopez take a look at [this]. Footnote on preview page cites an 1833 instance of Peadar's name as Peter O'Dornin. Maybe not Dornan but it shows the flaws in your argument of "NEVER ONCE" as already highlighted above. Mabuska (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Indeed Google has quite a few results for Peter O'Dornin and almost all to do with the poet. Mabuska (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Mabuska.
  • RE: "Should have been notified". Agreed. You are dead right. In honesty I thought I had. A stupid oversight on my part. Sincerest apologies.
  • RE: "Texans can't pronounce Peadar". Agreed. They probably can't. But I don't think that WP:UE should be read as overriding WP:COMMONNAME. To the extent that we dumb it down. To "Peter" or whatever.
  • RE: "Search tests are useless in COMMONNAME discussions". Not fully agreed. We can fairly readily discount the mirrors and "self fulfilling prophesies" from such a benchmark test. WP:GOOGLETEST accounts for this. And, in honesty, its not just the breadth (the quantity) of results that are typically considered. But the depth (the quality). A search, for example, of "Peadar Ó Doirnín" highlights that everything from Spotify to Discogs to Dictionary of Irish Biography uses the subject's Irish name. And there's only scant use of the transliterated/translated variant in other outlets.
  • RE: "IMOS guideline is a biased concept". Cannot agree. At all. The IMOS guideline is, effectively, an extension of COMMONNAME. I'm not sure what is behind the suggestion of "bias", but if you want to expand, and move for a discussion on WT:IMOS I'm happy to contribute.
  • RE: "Article creators, OR and lack of sources". Largely agreed. In all honesty, some of the creators/editors involved have perhaps been a bit too zealous. And, in some cases, I wonder if there are even sufficient references to establish notability. To the extent that its clear that we should have an article at all. Not to mind establishing what it should be titled. Hence, per my original suggestion, however poorly framed, that these should be looked at on a case-by-case basis. And not bulk moved (or bulk "moved back") without that kind of case-by-case review. The tone of several of the articles is also "off". And could/should likely be reviewed as part of the same exercise.
Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 11:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Well four of the five poet articles in question have already been moved back by @Scolaire: regardless.
As you will no doubt see anyways I added the English form of Peadar's name to his article [5] considering one does exist and has been used since at least 1833. Though as it doesn't have the number of "hits" on Google as the Irish form, not enough to argue for its use as the article name. However:
  • Whilst Art Mac Cumhaigh produces over double the hits Art Mac/McCooey gets, Mac/McCooey is an established name for him in English and McCooey is used by the Ulster History Circle article and blue plaque for him (with the Irish after it in brackets). Having noted that webpage, whilst it lists Art as McCooey, it also makes reference to "Peader O Doirnin", so they obviously feel that those are the common names for those two individuals. Indeed Art McCooey is remembered in Crossmaglen in "Art McCooey Park", so I think there is enough grounds to move it from Art Mac Cumhaigh to Art McCooey.
  • Tadhg Gaelach Ó Súilleabháin garners 3,300 results on Google. His attested English name Timothy O'Sullivan, which I've only just noticed, on Google when one searches for ["Timothy O'Sullivan" poet] garners 319,000 results, though quite a few are titles of books for sale about him, but still shows usage of his English name.
Also requests for page moves are for possibly controversial moves. These as far as I was concerned were not controversial, obviously wrong however so my apologies. And yet in regards to at least 2 of the 5 the moves may have actually have been correct. And also as the neutral poster above pointed out, just because you don't know or ever heard of it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist and so far 3 of the 5 have English forms of their names.
Diarmuid only garners 230 results on Google when one searches his full name and many of those aren't even in English to be able to argue use for common name.
Mabuska (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for that. And, ya, I shouldn't have said "never heard of it". It was just a statement. An acknowledgement of my own (subjective) bias. It wasn't intended to form part of the subsequent (objective) argument. In any event:
  • RE: "Blue plaque". Can't fully agree. In all honesty I'm not sure we should be hanging our hats on the blue plaque. Or the name of a park. I don't have to tell you how politically charged it would be (rightly or wrongly) for any authority to have used the Irish language name of any subject on the side of a house or similar signage of any kind. Its a political/cultural hot potato that I have no interest in tossing around. But I think, if we're acknowledging biases (our own or those of others), we should recognise why "Art McCooey" might be favoured in some circumstances. Which might have little to do with academic convention, common name or other (less charged) considerations.
  • RE: "Several of the moves probably valid". Agree. I'm probably just harping on Peadar Ó Doirnín and Art Mac Cumhaigh because they just seemed so at odds with my own understanding of the common convention. If I'd had a chance to help with the "case by case" review (before "my own thread" got ahead of me), I'd absolutely have agreed that the moves of Rory Dall O'Cahan and Owen Roe O'Neill (and perhaps a few others) were absolutely the right call. I just don't think that all of them could be justified on the same basis. Or could have been expected to be uncontroversial.
Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

In regards to the medieval-early modern period articles such as Owen Roe etc, most are actually restorations to their original namespace after having being moved without discussion by Fergainanim and Claiomh Solais who are big proponents of Irish name everything regardless. Indeed it is fixing their moves that brought me into this current issue. Mabuska (talk) 12:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Mabuska. That's acknowledged. Although, in all honesty, I'm not sure that reasonably covers the move of/to Teague O'Sullivan or other examples. In any event, if you want to ping me on any related discussions, I'm happy to help. Personally, looking at it as dispassionately as possible (and as above), I'm not even sure we should have articles on a few of those subjects. Including Diarmuid Mac Muireadhaigh. Who doesn't seem to have any notability independent of the single poem attributed to him. Otherwise, as noted, I think "case by case" is the way to go. Guliolopez (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@Guliolopez: Diarmuid Mac Muireadhaigh is a case in point. It was started by Fergananim, along with many similar articles; Fergananim also moved a lot of pages to awful titles. Here is a list of his page moves (AN/I discussion) that still hadn't been rectified as of June 2019, and as far as I know still haven't. Scolaire (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I simply started to get carried away with the UE policy whilst forgetting a part IMOS I never used or needed before, which seeing as I was a largely part time editor for about 2 years, is easily done. So my fault and apologies on that. Mabuska (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
To FDW777 and Scolaire, I am more than able and willing to undo my own edits without the need to tally up reverts on me. Mabuska (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@Mabuska: If somebody (anybody!) moves an article without prior discussion and I disagree with the move, I move it back, and there can then be a discussion. That's my way. It's the way Wikipedia works: BRD applies to page moves as to anything else. I regret that you feel hard done by, but there was no element of "tallying up reverts" in it. It was a good faith edit. Scolaire (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Okay. Accepted. Mabuska (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
@Guliolopez: The only one of those five poets Scolaire didn't move back was Seamus_McMurphy. Looking at the external links on that article, ignoring the dead link and the two that don't seem to show relevance to the article, only one an Irish one provides an Irish name and the other two provide it in English as Seamus MacMurphy or Seamus Mor MacMurphy. Indeed Seamus MacMurphy does get results on Google so he too also had an English form of his name. Whether that merits keeping the article at the current name or not I don't know? If not I can revert the move and the subsequent edits myself. Mabuska (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Mabuska. In honesty I think we're read to move this to the "case by case" approach. I've already started looking at some others on that basis. If you wanna ping me over on the relevant article, I'm happy to contribute there, but I think we'll get limited value from discussing individual "cases" here. If we identify a broader concern, then we can "come back here" again (for that broader input).... Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Post-Troubles related incidents

Recently @FDW777: removed post-Troubles incidents from the The Troubles in Ardoyne article on the point that they did not happen during the Troubles and demanded citations to support their inclusion.

Now these incidents have been in this article and other such Troubles lists for years with no problems. Even the article Timeline of the Troubles goes up to 2007.

There is an argument to be made that post-Troubles incidents deserve mention as many are Troubles related or spin-offs from it. Indeed as it was the Troubles that started the proliferation of paramilitary groups and their membership, all of which still exist in some form or another today and still carrying out incidents, they are Troubles related. Splinter-groups likewise are continuations of the same.

If FDW777 is adamant that they can't be included as the articles are formatted at the moment there is no reason why such "The Troubles in ..." articles can't have a "Post-Troubles" section listing such incidents afterwards.

Either that of we start a needless proliferation of new articles titled "Terrorist incidents in ..." etc.

Mabuska (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The Troubles in Ardoyne is linked to by only one article, not surprisingly it is Ardoyne. So just because its contents have slipped under the radar for so long doesn't mean "these incidents have been in this article and other such Troubles lists for years with no problems", it just means the article hasn't been noticed by anyone. There is no free pass for policy violations to remain just because they've slipped under the radar.
Timeline of the Troubles does indeed go up to 2007, since 2007 is considered by some to be the definitive end date for the Troubles, following the St Andrews Agreement, formation of government by the DUP and Sinn Féin, and the end of Operation Banner. There are other end dates suggested, chiefly 1998, but 2007 is one as well. But it doesn't go up to 2009 or 2010 does it? And two of the incidents you want to include are from then.
Where do you draw the line? Was the Brexit Day bomb plot part of the Troubles? FDW777 (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
See also Talk:Timeline of the Troubles#Requested move 21 January 2020 where that was explicit consensus for the scope of that article to be focused on the Troubles and not "and peace process" (which is the same as "post-Troubles"). FDW777 (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I have done some basic research, to see which "The Troubles in x" articles contain links to dissident republican groups (which is how I originally found this problem).
Unless there are no links to the organisations in the articles (and you're welcome to perform your own research to demonstrate if that's true) there don't appear to any mentions of the dissident groups in the articles. For transparency when I removed incidents from the Ardoyne article I also removed this incident from The Troubles in Derry. So it seems to me, unless there is evidence to the contrary, that Ardoyne is actually the exception to the rule, not the benchmark as to what these articles should include. FDW777 (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
The Troubles ended in 1998 per bulk of reliable sources, so any isolated incident happening after that and mentioned by any random newspaper or webpage mentioned is off-topic and should be suppressed or merged into WP articles dealing with dissident activity. A sub-section on "Post-Troubles incidents" would be like comparing apples with oranges.--Darius (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Obviously there is some overlap, for example there are many references that state the Omagh bombing was the single deadliest incident during the Troubles. But you can't say The Omagh bombing was part of the Troubles. The Real IRA were responsible for the bombing. Therefore this Real IRA bombing from 20xx was part of the Troubles. As already said Timeline of the Troubles goes up to 2007, with good reason. Or at least a good reason to extend after 1998. If 1998 was the cut-off date, the timeline wouldn't include IRA decommissioning, the formal end of their armed campaign in 2005, the UVF's formal end to their armed campaign in 2007 etc etc etc. It would be a very strange timeline indeed for those things not to be included. FDW777 (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I had hoped by leaving it a few days we'd have a few more contributors to this discussion.
Please FDW777 stop intentionally confusing my phrasing of Troubles-related incidents as meaning Troubles incidents. Your example of RIRA 20XX etc. is a red herring as I am not claiming should a thing was part of the Troubles.
On Wikipedia we can come to our own arrangement on how to deal with issues regardless of real world. Take for example were the Irish state's article is at or the city of Londonderry's. Neither are at their official name and flaunt the requirements of WP:Verify and WP:The sky is blue because of Wikipedia editor agreement. We can if we so wanted have a sub-section dealing with Post-Troubles incidents in these articles. The point in these articles was that places with a sufficiently large number of incidents had their on incident article to save taking up too much space on the places's article. As such if the post-Troubles incidents are few in number then they can go into the actual article, i.e. Ardoyne, or if they are sufficient into a new article.
I do note however FDW777 that you removed notable sourced information from an article per your reasoning but didn't transfer it somewhere more appropriate for it? In effect simply censoring it from Wikipedia. Surely per WP:Burden you should have put it into a sub-section of its own (i.e. Post-Troubles) within the Ardoyne article? Mabuska (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
It's already documented in the more appropriate places, so nothing is "censored".
Timeline of Continuity IRA actions#2005 12 July: The CIRA was blamed for attacking PSNI officers with blast bombs during rioting in the Ardoyne area of north Belfast, following an Orange Order parade. Eighty officers were injured, one seriously, and several people were arrested
Timeline of Real Irish Republican Army actions#2009 13 July: The RIRA was blamed for shooting at the PSNI in the Ardoyne area of North Belfast during heavy rioting after an Orange Order parade
Timeline of Continuity IRA actions#2010 11 September: The CIRA claimed responsibility for the punishment shootings of two men in the Ardoyne area of north Belfast.
We don't need a sentence or two adding to every suburb, or even, village, town or city, article every time there's a shooting, a bombing, or anything else unless it's significant to the location. FDW777 (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I see there has been an attempt to claim consensus to add to the geographical location articles, while failing to refute, or even acknowledge the last sentence of my previous post. Two men being shot in punishment shootings are or shots being fired at the police are, quite simply, not significant to the history of Ardoyne. Their addition is pure recentism, considering that far more significant events occurred during the Troubles. As already stated, the events are correctly documented at the relevant dissident republican articles. That Wikipedia's geographical articles generally don't contain tedious lists of dissident republican activity over the last twenty years is testament to the editors who are capable of understanding what is and what isn't historically significant enough to be added to an encyclopedia article about a suburb, village, town or city. FDW777 (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't realise you had responded yesterday so my apologies for that. I disagree with you however on your recent argument. Lists of Troubles incidents are mentioned in geographical place articles were they don't merit their own "The Troubles in" pages. Yet most places have a link to a specific list of incidents. If it wasn't relevant to geographical places then why does Derry and Ardoyne or anywhere else with them even have Troubles sub-sections in the first place? Because it is relevant to them. struck as I realise you are on about dissident.

On testamount, it may be more to do with certain editor bias' (not saying you) or lack of interest in editors, or lack of editors, adding the information that is playing a part. Mabuska (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing that prevents the writing up of a brief prose in articles such as Ardoyne, with no need to list every sundry incident. Mabuska (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
On Timeline of Real Irish Republican Army actions alone I count 36 apparent incidents in Derry (a 37th use of Derry referred to the The Derry 32CSM website talking about an incident in Dublin). Add on the other dissident groups, and I'd suggest 50 incidents would be a conservative estimate. Are we really going to document them all in the main Derry article? FDW777 (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Well if you read any of my previous comments I have said substantial lists would merit their own article so that is a red herring. Mabuska (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
These incidents are documented at the Dissident Irish republican campaign, Timeline of Continuity IRA actions, Timeline of Real Irish Republican Army actions, Republican Action Against Drugs, Óglaigh na hÉireann (Real IRA splinter group) and probably a few incidents at some even smaller splinter groups. Quite often they are listed at both the main article and an organisation specific one. Unlike The Troubles, I don't think Dissident Irish republican campaign is such a size it needs splitting down via geographical location. In an ideal world The Troubles wouldn't be split the way it is, with constant non-articles containing raw data about a few people being killed. The Troubles in Derry is an encyclopedia article, picking one at random...The Troubles in Templepatrick is nothing but raw data. Dissident activity is included in the relevant places in the encyclopedia, and should an event occur that's genuinely significant to its location I would support an appropriately long inclusion at a geographical article. But there's really no need for another set of articles documenting dissident republican activity by location. FDW777 (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Who said anything about lists of only dissident attacks? I am talking about Post Troubles incidents regardless of whoever carried them out. So yes such an article does have a need as those you provide above only deal with specific groups province wide and not incidents in any one area by more than one group. Mabuska (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

That's an even worse suggestion. I can think of nothing less relevant to geographical articles than a few drug dealers shooting each other occasionally. FDW777 (talk) 07:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
That is your opinion, you are entitled to it, and I disagree. It is notable information about an area. It can either be in the geographical article or put in a new article linked to in the geographical article just like the "Troubles in" pages. Removing it simply because you do not like it is not a valid reason. Mabuska (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
There's no "removing" involved, since the post Troubles activity of the Ulster Drugs Association isn't mentioned in geographical articles to the best of my knowledge. What will be removed is non-Troubles incidents from The Troubles in Ardoyne, since their inclusion is in violation of WP:SYN (as mentioned above), WP:V (since you've no references saying they are part of the Troubles) and WP:NPOV (since it's completely POV to include them in a "The Troubles in..." article. That's the three core content policies. FDW777 (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
You mean WP:NOR instead of WP:SYN. Mabuska (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
No, I didn't. I linked to the specific part of the policy the content is in violation of. FDW777 (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Page Move Review: Gráinne Ní Mháille

Please see Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2020_July#Gráinne_Ní_Mháille, a discussion on whether the move of the article Grace O'Malley to Gráinne Ní Mháille should be retained or overturned and relisted. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Text-editable Ireland map

I recently overhauled File:Ireland location map.svg so it is easily text-editable, with a hierarchy of provinces, counties, and local government areas. This map also groups offshore islands with their relevant administrative division. I noticed many maps highlighting single provinces often missed these islands, so this new format should make it far simpler to create specific maps. Please let me know if you notice any islands that are incorrectly assigned, or if there are other issues.

I'm trying to extend this system to Northern Ireland, based on maps such as File:Island of Ireland location map Offaly.svg, as existing maps such as File:Island of Ireland location map.svg are missing the differences between the traditional country borders and the current district borders. On that Offaly map, the pre-2015 borders have two different dot sizes. I can't find a reason for that differentiation, so I'm wondering if anyone here might know, or if those borders should be the same. Thanks, CMD (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Unusual move

Does anyone think this Undiscussed move is a good idea? Fob.schools (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I think the article should be deleted; it fails just about every notability guideline I can think of. If you want to reverse the move, however, go to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Requests to revert undiscussed moves and add it there, then ask the editor responsible to discuss the move. Scolaire (talk) 11:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed mass reversion of two articles

Society of United Irishmen and Unionism in Ireland have both undergone drastic changes recently. Here is the version of the United Irishmen article I propose to revert to, and here is the version of the Unionism article I propose to revert to. While neither version is perfect, the discussion at Talk:Irish nationalism#Recent edits came to the consensus that similar drastic edits by the same editor on that article had substantially degraded the quality of the article. There may well be content in the current versions that can be salvaged, and the reverts would not prevent a discussion taking place as to the merits of any content. But I don't believe the "personal essay"s are an improvement to either article, and they should be mass reverted. @Scolaire: and @Canterbury Tail:, since you were involved in the prior discussion. FDW777 (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay so in what way does these articles which, at this point have been viewed other Watchers and by hundreds of readers, and amended by some, ON BALANCE offers the Wiki reader less, and serves them less well, than the earlier version? A comparative case or an argument for the earlier version would surely be appreciated by everyone concerned. RegardsManfredHugh (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Like the Irish nationalism article, both of these articles have been considerably enlarged (I won't say "expanded", because none of the previous text remains), and had many additional refs added, but unfortunately the writing style is completely wrong for Wikipedia, and both articles now consist of one person's individualistic view of the subjects, rather than the factual style that is standard in an encyclopaedia (a tertiary source). I agree with reversion. I'm also pinging Mabuska, who was the biggest contributor to the United Irishmen article before ManfredHugh's edits, and who I believe has an interest in unionism. Scolaire (talk) 12:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry my comment above should have read "In what way does this article, which at this point has been viewed by other Watchers and by hundreds of readers, and amended by some, on balance offer the Wiki reader less than the earlier version?. . . " I might also ask why is present article to be considered "personal"? I feel rather that these charges against my contributions--they are not yet critiques since they don't explain themselves--are becoming personalManfredHugh (talk) 12:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Despite your claims here and at Talk:Irish nationalism the criticism has generally not been levelled at you personally, but your style of writing. No matter how often, and forcefully, the point has been made you continue to ignore it as demonstrated by your comment here of they are not yet critiques since they don't explain themselves. This has been explained repeatedly, by multiple editors. I will say it once more. Your. Writing. Style. Is. Not. Suitable. For. An. Encyclopedia. There is no need to even point out specific examples, although they have been pointed out already, since the critique applies to every single sentence you have written. FDW777 (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll need to take a look at the articles to see for myself before making a judgment. @Scolaire: really? I thought that was Irish Volunteers (18th century). Must give that a look to see what's happened it over the past few years. I also like how you worded that. Mabuska (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

69 edits it would appear Scolaire, nice catch forgot all about them. Mabuska (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I do see aspects of weasel wording and peacockery and the wording does need to be improved. However maybe rather than threaten to wholesale revert someone's hard work, reliably sourced work too it would seem, even if the writing style is not quite encyclopedic, maybe offering to help show them how to word it properly would be a better course of action.
I would suggest tag the article appropriately for whatever issues it has and FDW777 work on helping ManfredHugh address them and improve his editing style. Mabuska (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
We've tried that. That's how we got into this mess to start with. On 4 March the issues was raised, and since then the articles have been made even worse. The best way to fix it is by removing the offending text, which in this case involves wholesale reversion since ManfredHugh remains in denial. FDW777 (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
And as stated in the first post there may well be content in the current versions that can be salvaged. Since ManfredHugh has the references, he can re-write the offending text. FDW777 (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose
  1. No prior discussion at the United Irishmen article has taken place to highlight what exactly is the "offending text". Similarly at the Unionism in Ireland one, there is a couple a instances but generally a sweeping statement of little specifics. Before such a proposal be accepted I would expect to see proper engagement with the editor to highlight what "offends".
  2. Related to above, no engagement at the UI article to help the ManfredHugh to back up statements such as "we've tried that".
  3. No discussion with ManfredHugh on their talk page about anything.
  4. The above would be deemed prerequisites before any remedial actions or proposals such as a mass carte blanche revert would be accepted at any reasonable discussion or RfC.
  5. FDW777 has also invalidated their own proposal. "may well be content in the current versions that can be salvaged". If the problem with ManfredHugh's edits is as FDW777 states: "Your. Writing. Style. Is. Not. Suitable. For. An. Encyclopedia", then surely the whole thing is salvageable as the issue is not the information but the writing style. Mabuska (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Since ManfredHugh has the references, he can re-write the offending text. - it's a bit hard too when the editor doesn't know what exactly is "offending". And as you are the one highlighting the issue and proposal such a harsh draconian measure when the only issue is writing style, the burden and onus is one you to help as much as possible. Mabuska (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Every single sentence is offending. Taking just the second paragraph.

Presbyterians were privileged to sit in Parliament in Dublin. In 1790, the future nemesis of the Society, the son of a gentrified Presbyterian family, Robert Stewart (Viscount Castlereagh), had won a county seat south of Belfast as a "friend of the people". But with its enfranchised forty-shilling freeholders, his had been a rare contest. Two thirds of the Irish House of Commons represented boroughs in the "pockets" of the Kingdom's largest proprietors. Belfast's two MPs were elected by the thirteen members of the corporation, all nominees of the Chichesters, Marquesses of Donegall. Against the Ascendancy's tithes, rack rents and sacramental tests, and against English restriction of Irish manufacture, Presbyterians voted with their feet: from 1710 to 1775, over 200,000 sailed for the North American colonies. When the American Revolutionary War commenced, the Reverend William Steel Dickson, who was to both campaign for Stewart and join the Society, remarked "there is scarcely a Protestant family of the middle classes amongst us who does not reckon kindred with the inhabitants of the extensive continent".

This is simply not encyclopedic content, and should anyone want to rewrite it they are welcome to do so. I'm not wasting my valuable time doing it, so the proposal is to revert to the last acceptable version of the article. That does not prevent properly written changes being made to the article.
The discussion took place at Talk:Irish nationalism. ManfredHugh remains in denial. Their editing since the first discussion on 4 March has made several articles worse. WP:BURDEN does not place any encumbrance on editors wishing to revert a badly written article back to a better version to do anything at all, so please keep your comments in relation to what policy says not the realms of make-believe. FDW777 (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I think the difficulty here is two fold. The topic is one which tends to raise emotions in the first place and mishandling the changes, moving without consensus, on this particular topic has a compounding effect. I have discussed the stylistic concerns on the Talk:Irish nationalism page with ManfredHugh. There is no need to go into that again here. I don't think we are going to manage to agree on 3 page changes at once until we understand the new editor's expectations and aspirations. We all agree that changes were needed. But we are not sure what the changes being proposed are or whether we agree with them and the language and tone that has been used is not appropriate for this Project. This is a topic where bias unconscious or otherwise is of the utmost importance to us all. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 19:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Also there is no contradiction due to my use of the word "salvage", it was used with deliberate purpose. Had I meant that the content was acceptable in its current form, I would simply have said it could remain in its current form. The issue is that some of the new (and I use the word "new" to specifically mean material that was added to the article, not rewritten pre-existing material) content may be suitable for inclusion once completely rewritten in an appropriate tone for the encyclopedia, or "salvaged" for short. Adding a cleanup template will achieve nothing since I there are many, if any, people with access to all the, often obscure, references and who also have the time and energy to rewrite the articles. So those of us who believe the articles aren't currently acceptable believe the most sensible option is to return to the stable foundations of the pre-ManfredHugh excesses and build better articles from there. There is no barrier to any changes taking place, we just believe it is better to return to a stable foundation than having to rewrite entire articles. FDW777 (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

All: I have no opinion on reversion, or not. But, either way, some wordings confuse a foreigner. I request that, after the decided action, or not, has happened, that some knowledgable editor(s) revise these and related articles to include precise meanings of the word "Protestant" within the contexts of these articles, and also within the contexts of the "Isles". These articles use the word "Protestant" with a different meaning(s) than is(are) usually understood in my native USA. It took me years to understand Isles' terminology(ies) of Christian religions, despite listening to my late English father. See my longer discussion about this confusion with @ManfredHugh: Talk:Unionism in Ireland#Confusing: what kind(s) of Protestants were/are unionists? . Tx. Acwilson9 (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

If you think "Protestant" means something different in Ireland or the UK to America, your developing understanding has some way to go. In both the Anglicans/Episcopalians can be uneasy about self-describing with the P-word, otherwise everything is pretty straightforward and the same. Johnbod (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

List of organisations based in the Republic of Ireland with royal patronage

I am trying to improve the article List of organisations based in the Republic of Ireland with royal patronage that explains why certain organisations in the Republic of Ireland have Royal Patronage/Prefix such as the Royal Irish Academy despite Ireland no longer being a monarchy. I would appreciate any help in writing up the header, adding organisations to the list and cleaning up the list. C. 22468 Talk to me 20:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move for Operation Demetrius

Please see Talk:Operation Demetrius#Requested move 9 August 2020. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Ó Siochfhradha brothers

I was making my way through the Irish writer stubs (trying to find some articles for UCD students to work on in the new semester) and I came across this cluster of articles:

Should the first article become a redirect to one or other of the brothers' articles. Given they are all stubs (or near to), having the three articles seems overkill? Smirkybec (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Smirkybec. I agree that we don't need three articles. Personally I think that the Ó Siochfhradha brothers article should be deleted. With the Ó Siochfhradha redirect being converted to a DAB page. And the residual redirects retargeted to that DAB page.
Notability is not inherited or shared. There isn't a Frank and Jesse James article (there are articles on each of the brothers). Ditto we don't have an Affleck brothers article (but one each). Etc. And, while we have a Brothers Grimm article, that's because the two brothers collected and published folklore together. Unless Mícheál and Pádraig were prolific collaborators (like the Brothers Grimm), to the extent that they have as much notability as a pairing as they do individually, then I don't see why we need that "DAB article that isn't a DAB article but only exists because of an incomplete split" title.... Guliolopez (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Will I tag the brother article for deletion in preparation for those DAB pages etc? Smirkybec (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I've gone ahead and created the DAB page. And PROD'ed the other page. If it needs to move to AfD, I'm happy to support that. Otherwise, as noted, I don't think we need a one-line article that (effectively) replicates the purpose of a DAB page and replicates the content of the pages to which the DAB links.... Guliolopez (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks again for guiding this through, I didn't want to mess up the process of streamlining these! Smirkybec (talk) 09:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

RE: Debate on creating a Chris Mullin disambiguation page (now it automatically leads to the basketball player)

Right now, the Chris Mullin page automatically leads to the basketball player - at the same time, there is a Chris Mullin (politician) - the one who led the fight to release the Birmingham Six and vote A Very British Coup (which was adapted to a TV series).

I've started a discussion on the talk page there, requesting to rename the basketball player page to Chris Mullin (basketball), and make the Chris Mullin page a disambiguation page with equal representation to both of them.

Arguments raised against my proposal:

  • The basketball player has more views.

My main argument for the move:

  • The basketball player gets most of his views from the US, while outside the US he's hardly known, and in Britain itself the politician-author Chris Mullin is much better known.

I invite you guys to take part in the discussion.

The link: Talk:Chris Mullin#Requested move 22 August_2020.

Thank you! Maxim.il89 (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Treland infobox location map

The map used in the Irish towns infoboxes seems to have been messed up. Discussion here. Fob.schools (talk) 08:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

List of Special Areas of Conservation in the Republic of Ireland

You're going to get tired of hearing from me! (I have also posted a similar message on the list's talk page) I was involved in running Wiki Loves Earth for the first time in Ireland this year, so I had taken a look at the List of Special Areas of Conservation in the Republic of Ireland. I was wondering if it would be worth converting the lists into tables? We have some more images of some of the sites that we could use to illustrate it from the competition, and given that data on these sites is available for download under a CC-BY-SA licence so we could have dates of establishment, size etc. This means the tables could be organised and sortable with more information, like I did on the List of nature reserves in the Republic of Ireland. What do people think? Smirkybec (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I've finished converting the current list into a table here - see what you think. I used the NPWS dataset, which is openly licenced, as a source rather than adding inline citations to the table. But if we want to add those citations in, we can. I'll wait to see what you and others think before I replace the current lists. Smirkybec (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Move request for Neville Chamberlain (Indian Army officer)

There is currently a move request under way for Neville Chamberlain (Indian Army officer), which until recently was at Neville Francis Fitzgerald Chamberlain. The discussion is at Talk:Neville Chamberlain (Indian Army officer)#Requested move 29 August 2020. The request is not to move it back to the original title, but to agree a suitable title. For context, Chamberlain was a colonel in the British Indian Army in the late 19th century, and subsequently Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary, a post he held until his resignation in the immediate aftermath of the 1916 Easter Rising. --Scolaire (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Máire Rua O'Brien

When I wrote this article earlier in the year, I would not have believed how badly mangled it would become. As there is more myth than fact about Máire Rua out there, it gets lots of very dubious edits from IPs and new users. I'd really appreciate a bit of help keeping an eye on it if anyone is inclined. Smirkybec (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I can see how that would be frustrating (fiction and myth taking precedence over fact and history). I'm not sure what help you might need. But am happy to assist if needed. Guliolopez (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! I really appreciate it. I'm going to try and rescue the citations, and keep a closer eye on it. A lot of the more dubious claims about her and her ghost are taking prominence these days. Smirkybec (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Happy to watchlist and otherwise help if I can, also. SeoR (talk) 12:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks so much SeoR - I find that I don't notice the accumulative damage, and then find it hard to unpick from some of the more constructive edits. I should have known that such a notorious figure would attract this sort of thing! Maybe that's why nobody wanted to start the article and open up the can of worms ;) Smirkybec (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Yikes, as they say. The poor article has been well-mangled, and partly by hands which just can't construct sentences with proper grammar. I've done a quick clean of copyedit-level issues, but the core 2-3 paragraphs may be best just removed and replaced. Good luck, and happy to help further; will keep a watch on this one for sure. SeoR (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
The article I started with was all based, primarily, on the DIB entry and one or two more reputable sources. I'll put aside a few hours to try and reinstate those as best I can, as it looks like the DIB citations have been removed/misplaced in what has happened since. Most of the women I write about using the DIB don't even get a fraction of this sort of attention, so it caught me off guard! Thanks so much for taking time to look at it. I know if doesn't rise to the level of protecting it, but it might do eventually! Smirkybec (talk) 13:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I’ve placed a first warning on that active careless editor’s page, as a close watcher but not so directly involved. Actions today alone would easily justify already a second warning, if felt appropriate. Such a pity, all that energy but seemingly no heed paid to good advice and example. Great work done on article improvement! SeoR (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Leinster Schools Junior Cup

Leinster Schools Junior Cup, heads up on this cluster muck, don't know where to start. Not tonight anyway. Wept. Arnkellow (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Next Irish General Election

Should Irish Mail on Sunday/Ireland Thinks polls be included in the Next Irish general election article? Discussion here. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Edward McParland

Hello! I am helping a new to wikipedia editor with an article Draft:Edward McParland (and I'm quite new myself!). I don't know if this is the right place to ask for help with this article? Does it need extra information or is it reading okay? Thanks very much! KerstingFan (talk) 10:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@KerstingFan: It seems Okay as far as I can tell at the briefest scan (but I'm useless at reviewing this sort of thing). in all events well done. As far as I can tell meets WP:NACADEMIC so should be ok for a BLP. It sometimes takes ages to get through AfC (and it might then get rejected on a trivial point). However for me I focused on Sir Thomas Robinson ... is this Thomas Romney Robinson and if it is we don't have him as a Sir in his article (my interest only arises through his friendship with Thomas Flaming Bergin).Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
As far I can tell, it's Sir Thomas Robinson, 1st Baronet. FDW777 (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
"He undertook research about Archbishop Robinson’s brother, Sir Thomas" from the reference would support this. Arnkellow (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I've made a couple of small changes - unnecessary piping and the like. Just wondering why you are using DRAFTspace and not just creating the article in Article space? There is a huge backlog in drafts. The subject seems notable and if they aren't, well, it will end up at WP:AfD. No big deal. Fob.schools (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Having actually looked at the source I'd agree, Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I also reviewed. A nice piece, ready for posting. Absolutely notable, for IAA and IGS, and TCD ceremonial helps too. I suggest to add categories and post now. Fills a gap. SeoR (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
The other appearances section, should that be added as a sub heading to career, just added to career, or just left as is? Arnkellow (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I've moved it to mainspace, the article is well fit enough for it and it can be improved here. There's enough of a queue at AfC and this doesn't need to be in it. It can be improved in mainspace. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your comments, and thank you for adding categories and links and suchlike! Fob.schools aha, I don't think I know how to make an article without going through the sandbox then submit for review path. Are you suggesting next time we simply make a redlink (on a project page, for instance) and then go into creating from there? Thanks for any and all tips! KerstingFan (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Asking at the project page is generally discouraged as far as I am aware or everyone would be doing it and in some ways what I did was a was a bad precedent but as several established editors had implied the article was suitable for mainspace I rightly or wrongly went a little WP:BOLD and took it to mainspace and a couple of templates I added can also be observed on the history The short description can be improved, as can the contents of the infobox. I also noted a Wikipedia alternate site had copied the draft and made it mainspace on their site already! In general I would advise new editors to go via AfC especially for BLPs. Its actually sufficient to add the correct projects on the talk page as that way projects do get visibility of those waiting for AfC, Best to ask these questions at the Teahouse, or others here may care to add something. Redlinking from another Wikipedia article page just before going live is also useful to avoid an orphan tag. (NB: I did [6] to avoid an possible orphan tag) thankyou. 20:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Bord na gCon or Irish Greyhound Board

The article is at Bord na gCon, thier website is at www.igb.ie. Quick search shows IGB is more common than BngC, which taken in to account includes wikipedia results, is quite a difference. Should it be moved?

Quick stats giveen. TIAArnkellow (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

According, to the GREYHOUND RACING ACT 2019 [7], - 8. (1) The name of the board (established by section 6 of the Principal Act) the present name of which is Bord na gCon, shall be Rásaíocht Con Éireann. As Born na gCon is no longer the official name, I would favour moving it to Irish Greyhound Board per WP:COMMONNAME. Spleodrach (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I second that. BngC was quite well known, but IGB was better known anyway - and that stats above show that IGB was *much* better used - and even more so now, I suspect. I have never heard this new legal name used, and wonder what on earth the change was for - but IGB meets COMMONNAME anyway. SeoR (talk) 11:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Spleodrach we will have to put that update into the article aswell, thank you for finding it. Arnkellow (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I have made the move and rewrote to reflect common name, if I have made any mistakes please feel free to change. TIAArnkellow (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Monopoly project

Hi all, I have been chatting with Ritchie333 about a project he did a few years ago focusing on all the London locations featured on the Monopoly board. As a lifelong fan of the game, and the proud owner of my family's 1972 Irish edition, I thought this would be a really fun way on targeting Irish content for improvement. It might also dovetail in nicely with some of the long-standing goals of this project to get Dublin to featured status. There are a few red links, but Ritchie333 has suggested getting O'Connell Street to GA would be a good first goal, and should definitely be an attainable one. You can see our chat on my talk page here, and the Monopoly board in Ritchie333's userspace here. I'd love to hear your thoughts! Smirkybec (talk) 13:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Irish stereotypes

Currently Irish stereotypes and Stereotypes of Irish people redirect to Stage Irish. This strikes me as far from ideal – the redirect goes from a broad concept to a much narrower and more historically circumscribed one. The theatre certainly played a role in the formation of stereotypes of Irish people, but it hasn't been the primary source of those stereotypes for a century or so, and other stereotypes have developed that differ from those described in that article. Anti-Irish sentiment doesn't have much to say about stereotypes, and Irish Americans#Stereotypes is quite detailed but only deals with the U.S. context. Can the target, or Anti-Irish sentiment, or Irish people, or some other article, be expanded so that these redirects point the reader somewhere useful? If there's no enthusiasm for doing that I'll take them to RfD, but I thought it might be worth asking here first. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Best practice on moving government department names

Should be agree best practice for when government departments and ministers are renamed. Nearly every time a new government is formed, there'll be some rejigging of government departments (the rainbow coalition was the most recent that didn't do this). There's a reasonable instinct to keep Wikipedia up to date and rename the departments after the Taoiseach's announcement (indeed, I have myself prematurely moved pages, as I acknowledged here). However, I would proposed that pages are moved only after we see the government order with the new name, e.g. Children and Youth Affairs (Alteration of Name of Department and Title of Minister) Order 2020. There are three reasons for this:

I'm not sure it's worthwhile reversing any changes that have been made prematurely so far, but we could benefit from establishing this before the next Taoiseach moves these around again. –Iveagh Gardens (talk) 07:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Dictionary of Irish Biography open access

The RIA announced this month that the Dictionary of Irish Biography would be open access from next spring. The website dib.cambridge.org seems to have already been made free; dunno if this is a temporary trial run or a soft launch. In any case, time for a Template:Cite DIrB along the lines of Template:Cite ODNB. There's already a wikidata property, although it's not in Template:Authority control, I guess biographical dictionaries are not authority catalogs. jnestorius(talk) 02:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jnestorius: This is excellent news! Thank you for sharing! UaMaol (talk) 08:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Hiberno-English#Requested_move_6_December_2020

to "Irish English. So far mainly American support. Johnbod (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

John Millington Synge

There are a very few exceedingly minor instances of uncited text at Featured article John Millington Synge; is anyone able to fill those in? I have not tagged those instances as I do not want to deface the article. See WP:URFA/2020. @Ceoil: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for not tagging. Would you consider opening a discussion on the talk page and listing the instances of unsourced content? It's unlikely to be me that takes on the job BTW. Scolaire (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Now cited, in case anyone wants to have a look. @Ceoil: again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Synge looks reasonable now for marking as "Satisfactory" at WP:URFA/2020. Could Irish knowledgeable editors please have a look and comment on the article talk page if there are any outstanding deficiencies? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Family Court (Ireland)

Please help to save this stub. Bearian (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Mother & Baby Homes

The Mother and Baby Homes Commission of Investigation article is getting a lot of attention this week with the publication of its final report. Unfortunately this includes some editors wanting to change the likes of 'Taoiseach' to 'prime minister', so more eyes welcome. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 01:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Gript as a source

Hi all, I just noticed an edit to the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, for which one of the citations used is Gript. Given its stance and politics, I would suggest that it is not a relaible source in the same way that Russia Today and the Daily Mail is not. I've never ventured down the path of flagging a source before, is there anyone that might give me a hand in this? As it is quite specifically an Irish source, I wanted to see what other editors thought about it. Pinging @Spleodrach: @Guliolopez: as you might have feelings on this? Smirkybec (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not a reliable source. How do we go about copperfastening that? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 01:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Actually, having come across several recent additions of gript, I decided to ask the question, here. Pinging @Spleodrach: @Guliolopez: @Smirkybec: @SeoR:. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Some news, but also opinion - with a definite slant (right of centre soapbox stuff) - so I'd not consider it reliable in general, though perhaps of occasional use. SeoR (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for that Bastun! Personally, I'd like to see it blacklisted. It may be opinion, but a lot of people tend to be using it as a news outlet. None of the edits I've seen using it has persisted, but it's something to keep an eye out for. Smirkybec (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Folks, you'll need to comment at the noticeboard (linked above) rather than here, if you haven't already. Cheers, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Grunt work

Hey everyone, I'm new to Wikipedia and have interests in Irish culture and the arts/music.

My first article Ballet Ireland was approved today and given a C rating.
In order to gain experience I would be willing to take on some grunt work(adding citations, fixing grammar etc) under the scope of the Ireland project.

Can somebody flag articles with this need or point me to a resource where I could find such articles?

Many thanks! Midnight713 (talk) 08:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Midnight713 and very welcome! That is a nice entry article, and fills a real gap. Perhaps the Irish National Youth Ballet could be a logical follow-up? There is a place for what you ask, and I hope you don't regret the request when you see it, as there is a *lot* to do - but every little step helps: https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/bycat/Ireland.html (quoting "Of the 64262 articles in this project 23770 or 37% are marked for cleanup, with 36758 issues in total." - and that's not even everything). We also really, really need to do more to bring Stub articles to fuller quality. There is constant great activity in GAA space, but both the arts and business areas could use work. Looking forward to seeing you around, and you can always ping project members individually or here to reach all. SeoR (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey Midnight713! Thanks so much for writing that article, it had been on my to list for an embarrassingly long amount of time! I wasn't sure what the difference between Ballet Ireland and the Irish National Ballet (if there is one?) Other related articles I noticed are missing is the Cork Orchestral Society and the Cork Ballet Company, which I think should be notable enough for their own articles? Otherwise, what I would do is take a look at the Irish stub article categories, particularly maybe for topics you are interested in, like dancers, musicians, etc. Smirkybec (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Excellent thanks very much! Wow, a lot of work to be done but I don’t mind tackling bits when time allows. Little by little I suppose. Yes the youth ballet could be a nice 2nd article for sure! I will look into them this week. I have a number of Irish musicians in mind. The country is full of notable musicians but the list on Wikipedia seems to mostly cover pop etc. I think there is scope to expand out into classical, contemporary etc (bearing in mind notability and other guidelines of course) Anyway before I go near any of that I want to get more familiar with practices on norms on here and will occupy myself with that short list you provided ;)


Might add some extra info to Ballet Ireland as well when I research them in further detail. Many thanks! Midnight713 (talk) 11:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Smirkybec You’re very welcome! I’m not a regular Ballet-goer but I attended a concert of theirs in 2014 or 15(can’t remember which) in the Gaiety and have been to a few other since. I think the Cork one has a page? Maybe under a different name. Will check out the Cork Orchestral Society. I find the coverage of non-popular music (classical,contemporary) to be a bit lacking so I will do a bit of searching over the next while for this type of thing. Like I said to SeoR, I have other things I can do to help before that though, like chipping away at this quite considerable backlog of items. Many thanks Midnight713 (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Smirkybec and Midnight713, just to clarify, Cork City Ballet, the more recent outfit, has an article, but Joan Moriarty's Cork Ballet Company and all the other companies forced into the 1980s merger as Irish National Ballet, and then out of existence, do not. There are certainly some stories to be told there, as with the various opera ventures, classical ensembles, and so on. Few are well-documented in easily accessible form, but CBC was well-enough covered. There was a book, "History of Irish Ballet from 1927 to 1963" by a Victoria O’Brien but for some reason it omitted the major work in Cork entirely. The National Youth Ballet has some modern coverage but nothing analytical or academic that I've met yet. Just one example, but honestly, we really do need plenty of basic lifting help too, and this can be done "in between" real life moments in a way that is harder to do with quality article creation. SeoR (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
SeoR Very interesting, thank you for the clarification. Basic lifting is what I think will be my work for the next while. I can slowly start gathering info and references for various articles. Am interested in also in maybe trying to expand the stub articles you mentioned as well as just gaining more experience in simpler tasks Midnight713 (talk) 12:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Smirkybec SeoR I started out looking at some musicians on that list you gave me. Dear oh dear....Some stuff is just a single line of text and in this case I found a article of a 'living person' who is actually dead so I changed it. I felt a bit unsure about making such a drastic change to a page(even though it is a stub) so when ye have time, would ye mind taking a look? Page is Antoinette McKenna Many thanks and sorry for the many messages here. Once I get my footing, I'll feel more confident about these edits without having to ask all the time Midnight713 (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

You're absolutely on the mark. There are only so many of us working regularly on Ireland-related items, and >70k articles in fact (and many of us work other areas too), so even a death can be missed. It is vital that someone acts, and as you see, anyone can rapidly make a real difference. You will find that many articles started long ago are very basic, often completely (even for a biography) completely uncited - we've raised the entry bar since - so quick reference-hunting can also help. Once you get comfortable with basic policy application, I also recommend the adoption of at least one editing tool, such as Twinkle, which will help speed up more routine work. There's a reason that the symbol of our elected Administrator function involves cleaning tools ;-) And please don't hesitate to ask. Sometimes we're quick to come back, sometimes, due to Real Life or other issues, an individual may not be, but someone will often fill any gap. By the by, Smirkybec is also the coordinator of the Ireland Wikimedia community, while I am one of the more active reviewers of Irish articles - and you'll discover over time team members' areas of special knowledge over time (I do local history and certain authors, for example). SeoR (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks a million. I will trawl the list of musicians/music organisations/dancers etc to see what can be improved. Starting with Zoë Conway who is an incredibly notable Irish musician but whose entry is pitiful. Will look into Twinkle too, thank you!

Midnight713 (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Midnight713, whenever I'm unsure about how an article should be expanded, I try to find a better example on a similar topic by looking at other articles in the same category (in Conway's case maybe something like Daniel Hope (violinist)). That way I get some pointers on headings and other content to include. :) Smirkybec (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Excellent. I’ll compile some info this week when time allows so. Thanks for the great advice! Midnight713 (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Smirkybec I made a start on the Zoë Conway article. Added Bio & infobox but left the 1st sentence untouched(the only info in the article was the 1st sentence originally). What do you think? Midnight713 (talk) 12:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Smirkybec {{u|SeoR} How does one go about removing the template message about BLP from the Antoinette McKenna page? I doubt I have the credentials so if one of you wouldn't mind, whenever time permits of course. Many thanks. Midnight713 (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

SeoR Just to let you know, I've been adding the odd citation to some of the articles on the list you posted. Learning very arbitrary information about disparate topics as I go.... Anyway, just wondering are these articles monitored automatically or do I need to inform someone or some database of my changes so that the article's problems can be either marked as persistent or resolved? Many thanks Midnight713 (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Midnight713 Great. And yes, you learn some fascinating little nuggets along the way. No one to inform, no, and the lists auto-update - but some of that auto-updating is based on tags, which will need to be updated. I'd 1just do the work for a start, but as a next stage, soon, one of us could help you feel comfortable updating the tags / removing resolved tagged issues. For now, I'll cast an eye over some that you've visited. SeoR (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Some articles for creation

Hey everyone Is there a list here of articles for creation to be requested that I can add to? I might start working on them over the coming weeks but in case another member has more time, the ones I'm thinking of are:
Improvised Music Company
Contemporary Music Centre
Cork Orchestral Society & Cork Ballet Company(as suggested by smirkybec

Many thanks Midnight713 (talk) 08:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi. There are a couple of locations on the Project Page (of which this is the Talk page, so just click on the Project Page tab to the left of this one) where planned works can be listed (that main page can also help further with planning work, as, for example, it automatically lists articles under deletion threat, which sometimes just need modest work to be retained. Alternatively you could list plans on your personal User page or its Talk page. A few small tips for these pages: templates require matched brackets {{ }}, which is why the ping to myself above did not work, we indent the conversation with successively more colons, and for lists, a convenient method is to put * at the start of each line item, instead of forced linebreak (
). Ciao, SeoR (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Great, thanks for the info and for your patience! Many thanks! Midnight713 (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
'Welcome. It's great to be able to share, and to help someone get to the meat of things faster. There are lots more tools and tips, but best to take it a bit at a time. SeoR (talk) 09:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
SeoR. Thank you! Ok I've another one for you regarding sources. On a quest to expand the Ballet Ireland page a little with a section on notable productions, I came across a very nice feature on Lyric FM's 'Culture File' which one can listen back to. It is a 7 minute feature about one of their productions. Though the topic is covered in newspaper articles I found, it is covered in greater detail on the radio segment. Is this something that can be used? Up to now all citations I have added (in my article and many others) have been either Book or Newspaper sources. Your opinion on this would be appreciated. I have looked around for a while on WP itself to find an answer but to no avail yet. Many thanks Midnight713 (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Midnight713, the short answer is "yes" - it can be used in general, or by reference to a particular time range, and a transcript is not required. SeoR (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
SeoR Very good. Thank you Midnight713 (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome, and here are the citation templates for such references:

SeoR (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Religion in Ireland § Purpose of this page

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Religion in Ireland § Purpose of this page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Wood Quay

Having noticed that this article was a stub, and been trying to work on Dublin articles more generally as part of my Irish Monopoly Board project, I've tried to expand it as best I can with the books I have access to. I'm not always the best copy editor, so if anyone would be interested in casting an eye over it, or even lending a hand, I'd very very grateful! Even suggestions on what infobox to use would be appreciated. Smirkybec (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Smirkybec Looks fantastic to me(for what it's worth). Is there any significant info out there about the Viking settlement part? That sounds very interesting indeed. Midnight713 (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Midnight713 Thanks! That is a really good question, and I'm not sure. One of the few physical markers around the area hinting at what was there are bronze plaques set into the footpaths depicting some of the finds. It is within my 5km radius, so if the weather warms up a bit, I could take some photos of those. I know that famously the publications on the finds etc were massively delayed in being published. I have a few archaeological former colleagues how might be able to give me a few pointers. Smirkybec (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I will comment further later, and have a look at the article. There were publications, including some good work by the National Museum's Pat Wallace. There were also modest issues with disappearing artifacts, and the haste to move on to building the City Bunkers, and so on. It was all rather messy and sad. SeoR (talk) 10:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
@Midnight713 and SeoR:: If you have jstor access, these https://www.jstor.org/stable/23631088 , https://www.jstor.org/stable/30104151 and https://www.jstor.org/stable/27725336 may be useful but they also have several other journals and a few books that mention the topic. I have access if you need it. Archiseek also has some webpages. Pat Wallace could also do with an article of his own. ww2censor (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Is [8] any good? Sometimes googling like site:archive.org "wood quay" "dublin" yields some stuff in olde books. But jstor is probably good or better.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
@Midnight713, SeoR, and Ww2censor: I used to work in the NMI (Natural History, not Antiquities) while Wallace was director, so that's why I have shied away from getting too deeply involved in his work on Wood Quay or starting his page. I didn't work directly with Wallace and I don't personally know him, so its not a COI, but just didn't feel quite right either. Smirkybec (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Smirkybec: I met Pat several times and with his permission got access to the store at the reformatory in Roscrae(?) to review the condition of the post boxes and see the milestones stored there. We especially wanted to see the condition of the Ashworth pillar box, now in Collins Barracks museum after major refurbishment with a prospect of making a proposal of what to do with. A major refurbishment followed. It had been deteriorating there for years though both An Post and the museum fail to make any promotion of it. I doubt you could have serious COI but right now I have too many unfinished projects in progress to attend to that. ww2censor (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
@Smirkybec, Djm-leighpark, and Ww2censor: I have no idea about Pat Wallace but I don't mind gathering up some citations and sources in the coming days if that is of any use. I've only created one page so I think I need to get broader experience of WP before doing another Midnight713 (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
ww2censor: That would have St Conleth's in Daingean, some collections are still stored there, but a large amount have been decanted. Most of the postal collections would be housed in Collins Barracks alright. Postboxes is something on my wider radar as well, I'd love to get the listed ones from the NIAH onto Wikidata and into the Irish Wiki Loves Monuments, but as you say, one too many unfinished projects as it is :)
Midnight713: I'm happy to start writing up an article on Wallace, I have other previous directors on my rolling to do list: William Edward Steele, George Tindall Plunkett, Anthony T. Lucas, Breandán Ó Ríordáin. I wrote up Joseph Raftery last month, so shouldn't be too much of a stretch for me. I'll take a look at it during the week. Sure isn't Wallace on Gogglebox as well, surprised no one created the article based on that alone! Smirkybec (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Smirkybec Great - an article is really missed. He had a long career, and I gather did a lot of good work, though there were shadows on NMI in the latter years, due to well-publicised staff cuts, and morale and harassment issues (I think one case, involving a deputy keeper, was only settled two directors later, in 2019), and the part-closure of the Dead Zoo (I think the upper galleries never did reopen) - and I seem to recall Pat Wallace himself describing himself as having been "forced out" by the Civil Service. A pity. I'd be happy to contribute too. JSTOR would be really helpful - they were generous with access last year. Ww2censor Sounds fascinating re. meeting, and visiting the old remote storage; I only saw the outside of the place but apparently it was a treasure trove, but parts were poorly stored / suffering damage. SeoR (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ww2censor and SeoR: if we can ever lure you out to an IRL Wikimedia Community Ireland event (when circumstances allow again!) I could tell you a few tales from my 5 years in the museum! Smirkybec (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Smirkybec Tempting :-)
SeoR: Ah, yes it was Daingean back in 1990 and a lot of things were outdoors. We saw things we did not expect but were rather focused on the one item. I did not see any of the other post boxed at Collin's Barracks during my most recent visit in 2019. They did not even have a postcard of the Ashworth pillar box for sale or a plaque saying what it was or its history. Fails all around in my book. So our report to Wallace at NMI in 1990 probably still sits on a shelf and my copy sees the light of day more often. Smirkybec Luring me out to an IRL event is rather a problem as I now live in France and in 8 years have only been able to attend one editathon 100kms from home though I do try to make some photos for Wiki Loves Monuments. My visits tend to be short and then only for a few days annually or so mainly to see my kids and grandkids, but obviously not last year and likely not this year either. If I see a Draft:Pat Wallace article, I may try to help out. ww2censor (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Ww2censor being in France is a pretty good excuse, so I'll let you away with it! There hasn't been a curator with special focus on philately ever in the museum's history (as far as I'm aware, unlike numismatics) and I remember some murmurs about hiring one at some point in the last decade but I don't think it came to anything. It is a huge pity, especially given that the An Post postal history museum was dismantled to make way for the huge 1916 exhibition in the GPO. I'll give you all a ping when I get a run at the Wallace article so that you can take a look at it. Smirkybec (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Defining a town versus a village

Hi all, this is a bit of random question, but a colleague in OSMap pointed out to me that there is a lack of consistent definition of when an Irish settlement goes from being a village to a town. Has this ever come up in discussions, or a consensus decided upon? As the CSO seem to have gone with defining areas as urban or rural rather than having different settlement delineations. I've taken a look at the article on town, but the Irish section doesn't really make it much clearer. I'd be really interested to hear people's thought's on this. The reason this came up was the article on Adare, which seems to use village and town interchangeably throughout the article (in the way that the centre of Dublin is called "town", but equally it is called Swords "village"!). I presume that in the face of no clear definition, the next best thing is to just chose one and be consistent? Smirkybec (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, serious can of worms time. We've tried population, and "what is used in media to refer to the place" and "what is used in local authority documents" - and then it gets worse with urban towns and villages / suburbs. Population alone is not a complete answer, but what partly works is population in context - it takes less to rise from village to town in more remote locations - but we all know it's more than that, it's about scale / facilities, and structure of settlement too. And yes, the CSO ducks it neatly with a generic "settlement" and uses census "towns" which are just bounded areas and confer no status. South Dublin Co. Co. use a nice tiered definition system (and Fingal too, at times), rising from village (e.g. Newcastle or Garristown) if remote or district centre if an integrated suburb (e.g. Firhouse or Baldoyle), through major centre (e.g. Clondalkin or Malahide), to town (just one in SDCC, Tallaght, and two in Fingal, Blanchardstown and Swords). The latter highlights the issue - Greater Blanch. has more people than Swords, but Blanchardstown's core is a village (and is called so locally), surrounded by the retail park / shopping centre complex and multiple sub-suburbs, some with village-y centres of their own - while Swords is a neat little town, surrounded by residential estates. Tallaght has the population of a big town, but again the centre is a single village street, with a "town centre" around the sq. mall...
I suggest we continue to use common sense, and what is used in texts to refer to areas. But it is indeed hard to judge with centres like Adare or Athy. At least many, like Trim, Sligo, Youghal, Donegal are easy - they have town structure - and likewise, there's no mistaking Carlingford, Kilmessan, Sneem or Union Hall, say. SeoR (talk) 07:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi. This can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. I don't think, for example, we need to have an "exercise" to review (and change) descriptions en mass.
Generally speaking, the only time I've felt the need to change anything is where there has been inconsistency (like where we use "town" in the infobox and "village" in the body). Or where there has been conflict (like where an anon has decided to replace "large village" with "small town", and someone else reverts). In these cases, if it is unclear which is more correct, the relevant "county development plan" can be a useful "source of authority".
For example, in the Wexford County Development Plan 2013-2019 and other such plans, the relevant local authority has defined a "hierarchy" of settlements in the county (larger town, district town, strong village, small village, etc). And assigned these labels to several settlements (see page 45, table 5, "County Wexford Settlement Hierarchy").
While I would absolutely not advocate taking this as gospel, and working "forward" (to take what this document says and reflecting it in umpteen articles as an exercise in itself), it could be useful (working "backwards") if some authoritative source was needed to address an inconsistency or conflict.
In short: personally I'd leave well enough alone. If someone feels they live in a "small town" V "large village", then I wouldn't get het up about it. Except where there is conflict between editors. Or conflict within the text. Guliolopez (talk) 10:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you both, this is really helpful! I wasn't suggesting a review of all existing articles, more for when I happen to be editing such a page and encounter an inconsistency and how it should be approached. I suspected it would be a can of worms, but I wanted to see if it was one we had cracked open before! I just noticed that Wikidata skirts this too with "human settlement", which is really interesting. Ah, how imprecise language can be - thanks again, I really appreciate you both taking the time to answer :) Smirkybec (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Sounds great, and just to add one other point, was talking to someone up North, and they said that the NI Government has a similar concept - no prescriptive rules, but a rough number at which to consider the labels, along with factors such as facilities and role - but they do have population ranges to help guide, if other criteria are not sufficient (up to 1k, dispersed habitation, 1-2.5k village, 5-10k small town, 10-18 or 20k medium town, over 18 or 20k large town, and with Derry and Belfast the only cities... and you note there's a "fudge zone" of 2.5-5k which is labelled "intermediate settlement"!). SeoR (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm just so tickled that something that "feels" like it should have a firm definition is so slippery! And I thought that Kilkenny claiming to be a city was pushing it ;) (being from Carlow, always a source of amusement!) Smirkybec (talk) 11:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I know what you mean. I guess it's history at work - what Ireland would call a town would have been a great city in 3000 BCE, and even 300 years ago, the scales were so different. And today what we call a large town would be technically a village in some big countries, while in the Eastern Bloc (and maybe China), a serious city would probably be a good deal bigger than anything on the island except Dublin. On the other hand there are nominal "cities" in the USA with populations under 5,000... All part of the fun that is human nature. SeoR (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland/Archive_19&oldid=1179714012"