Content deleted Content added
Rockpocket (talk | contribs) →Compromise suggestions section: WP:RS and good source |
opps changed wrong page |
||
(838 intermediate revisions by 80 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland]] |
|||
{{Irishnoticeboard}}{{Shortcut|[[WT:IWNB]]}} |
|||
<div style="float:center; text-align:center">'''This page is a notice board for things particularly relevant to Irish Wikipedians'''<br></div> |
|||
<div style="text-align:center">'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Irish_Wikipedians%27_notice_board&action=edit§ion=new Click here to add a new section]'''</div> |
|||
{| class="infobox" width="315px" |
|||
|- |
|||
! align="center" | [[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]<br />[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]] |
|||
---- |
|||
|- |
|||
| |
|||
# [[Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive01|Archive 1]] (up to mid-Sept 2004) |
|||
# [[Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive02|Archive 2]] (mid-end Sept 2004) |
|||
# [[Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive03|Archive 3]] (1st 3 weeks October) |
|||
# [[Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive04|Archive 4]] (21st Oct - 7th Nov) |
|||
# [[Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive05|Archive 5]] (Nov 04 - Jan 05) |
|||
# [[Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive06|Archive 6]] (Feb 05) |
|||
# [[Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive07|Archive 7]] (Mar 05 - Apr 05) |
|||
# [[Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive08|Archive 8]] (May 05) |
|||
# [[Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive09|Archive 9]] (May 05 - Sep 09) |
|||
# [[Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive10|Archive 10]] (Sep 05 - Nov 05) |
|||
# [[Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive11|Archive 11]] (Nov 05 - Feb 06) |
|||
# [[Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive12|Archive 12]] (Feb 06 - Apr 06) |
|||
# [[Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive13|Archive 13]] (Apr 06 - Aug 06) |
|||
# [[Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive14|Archive 14]] (Aug 06 - Nov 06) |
|||
# [[Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive15|Archive 15]] (Nov 06 - Feb 07) |
|||
# |
|||
|}<!--Template:Archivebox--> |
|||
==Punts== |
|||
Can someone clarify the format for this please? I'm working on the [[Dessie O'Hare]] article, which currently has a figure in dollars. The actual reported figure was 1.5 million Irish pounds (£1.3 million). I'm assuming there must be a prefix to designate Irish currency, but I can't find one in the MOS anywhere, or am I better off with UK or US? <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#009">One Night In Hackney</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|303]]''</sub></font> 00:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*Well, the [[Irish pound]] article goes with ''' IR£''' to avoid confusion, and I would go with that. (But not [[IEP]]) [[User:Flowerpotman|Flowerpotman]] <sup>[[User talk:Flowerpotman|talk]]</sup>-<sub>[[Special:contributions/Flowerpotman|wot I've done]]</sub> 00:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:* IEP '''is''' the [[ISO 4217]] standard denotation for the old Irish currency, though and back in the day, we used to see it a lot. Newspapers and other publications used to use it quite a bit and people who - ahem - had [[Pound_sterling|various issues]] with the symbol used. I wouldn't discount it - [[User:Ali-oops|<font face="comic sans ms" color="green">Alison</font>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Ali-oops|☺]]</sup> 00:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks for the help, I went with IR£ as I thought IEP1.5m wasn't particularly clear. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#009">One Night In Hackney</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|303]]''</sub></font> 00:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I would have thought IR£ was used more, as I recall, but to be honest, my objection is on ''aesthetic'' grounds ;O). IEP looks .... ''wrong'' [[User:Flowerpotman|Flowerpotman]] <sup>[[User talk:Flowerpotman|talk]]</sup>-<sub>[[Special:contributions/Flowerpotman|wot I've done]]</sub> 01:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::: Great! It all looks good, really and IR£ is perfectly clear - [[User:Ali-oops|<font face="comic sans ms" color="green">Alison</font>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Ali-oops|☺]]</sup> 00:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Irish Administration on Sub-County level == |
|||
Hi Irish Wikipedians, I am somewhat lost with the Irish administrative organisation of [[Town|towns]] and [[Village|villages]] (unfortunately neither of these articles provides a section about Ireland!). Take, for example, [[County Clare]]. According to the [http://www.clare.ie/ official web site of the Clare County Council] there exist four towns within that county: [[Ennis]], [[Kilrush]], [[Kilkee]], and [[Shannon, County Clare|Shannon]]. These towns appear to have a [[town council]]. But I am unable to find any information how a community like that of [[Killaloe, County Clare|Killaloe]] in County Clare is governed. There is apparently no official web site for Killaloe (I've found so far [http://www.killaloe.ie "a community site"] only). Likewise, the article about Killaloe in this Wikipedia edition isn't helpful either. In summary, I do not know anything about the formal status of Killaloe and its elementary attributes (population etc). I would appreciate any help in this area (for Killaloe and for Irish locations in general) as I am going to write an German article for Killaloe and possibly more Irish locations (see my [[:de:Tory Island|German language article about Tory Island]] as reference). --[[User:AFBorchert|AFBorchert]] 20:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:For example in [[County Kerry]], there is the county council, http://www.kerrycoco.ie which governs the entire county. The more notable towns have their own elected urban district council (UDC) - [[Tralee]], [[Killarney]] and possibly a few others. The rest of the smaller towns do not have any local government and elect councillors to the County Council. I am not familiar with Clare, but I would be 90% certain that Killaloe does not have its own UDC as it is too small. You can find popluations from the 2006 census on http://www.cso.ie. --[[User:Rye1967|Rye1967]] 11:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi [[User:AFBorchert|AFBorchert]]. [[Local Government Act 2001]] and [[Town Councils in the Republic of Ireland]] should be of some help - but in essence, as Rye1967 said, small towns such as Killaloe don't have their own councils. [[User:Bastun|Bastun]] 23:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::It can seem strange to countries with traditions of communes, with genuine very-local-government, and places with even tiny communities "incorporating" but most people in Ireland have only County level authorities (and even these have limited power, Ireland being rated as one of the most centrally-administered countries in the world). Some have City or Town Councils, but while the former are autonomous, the latter are still subject for many matters to their County Council. Great to hear about the translation to German. [[User:SeoR|SeoR]] 09:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Dublin Stubs and Categories== |
|||
Hello Irish Wikipedians - Advice required. |
|||
*Looking at the [[:Category:Towns and suburbs in Dublin]] I came across some individual housing estates and even a social club. |
|||
:I've missed the social club. Can you give us a link? I think the use of the term suburbs gives use loads of leeway about what to include. [[User:Frelke|Frelke]] 06:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*on the other hand, obvious villages/towns/suburbs were usually not categorised as [[:Category:Geography of Dublin]] |
|||
:But the towns cat '''IS''' categorised as [[:Category:Geography of Dublin]]! [[User:Frelke|Frelke]] 06:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*Geographical features such as [[Three Rock Mountain]] are often not categorised as '''Category:Geography of Dublin''' either. |
|||
:But Three Rock is in [[:Category:Mountains of Dublin]] which is a sub of [[:Category:Geography of Dublin]].[[User:Frelke|Frelke]] 06:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
And so on through a jungle of Dublin categories and sub-categories being assigned almost at random to various articles and stubs. (Yes, I'm guilty too). |
|||
It there an article/stub category minder in the house? Any clear rules? Does anyone else feel discombobulated by the chaos? |
|||
([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 23:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
:I think the main rule is use the lowest possible category in the tree. [[User:Frelke|Frelke]] 06:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
[[Grove Social Club]] is the offending "suburb". I would have thought there is a clear distinction between an urban village/suburb and a housing estate. |
|||
Rathfarnham is a suburb; 15 Parkvale Heath isn't normally regarded as such, or even the whole of Parkvale Heath. ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 19:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
==[[Transport 21]] and pushing of a [[Platform 11]] / over critical agenda== |
|||
Can a someone have a look at [[Transport 21]] , is it just me or is this article very negative and seem to be pushing a [[Platform 11]] agenda? ([[User:Gnevin|Gnevin]] 10:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
It doesn't seem particularly biased but there is definitely way too much discussion with the insertion of all the "criticism" sections. It is as much discussion as fact. Perhaps the "criticism" sections should just be deleted? ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 00:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
:Some of the criticisms are extremely valid while others just seem to crystal ball/speculation. I would be opposed to their mass deletion, but the verifiable ones (e.g., previously announced plans/timetables that never came to fruition) could or should be merged into a single 'Criticism' section? [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|BaStun not BaTsun]]</sup> 10:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Yep, I'd agree with that...any volunteers?? ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 11:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
: What i'd suggest is adding {{tl|fact}} to anything that looks dodgy and giving a notice on the talk page that anything uncited will be removed in 10 days , anyone agree ([[User:Gnevin|Gnevin]] 11:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
::PS then doing what Bastun suggested ([[User:Gnevin|Gnevin]] 11:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
== [[The Golden Horde (band)]] directly copied from website? == |
|||
The text of this wiki appears to be a direct copy of this website [http://goldenhorde.bravehost.com/gh_history.html]. I don't want to delete it as I don't know enough about the band and can't recreate it, but perhaps somebody else should?? --[[User:The.Q|The.Q]] | [[User talk:The.Q|Talk to me]] 13:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Remove what can be removed but if a substantial amount of it is copyvio and their is nothing worth reverting to then tag it to <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[template:copyvio|copyvio]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki>. [[User:Djegan|Djegan]] 14:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Infoboxes== |
|||
Is there a list of ireland related infoboxes ? And should there be? [[User:Frelke|Frelke]] 07:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Still need Irish media contacts! == |
|||
I got a call from RTE wanting someone in Ireland they could speak to. Preferably on camera. I'm in London, so that was a bit tricky ... Is anyone out there willing and able to speak in soundbites to the media? Please email Sandra (sordonez (a) wikimedia.org) if you can help in general! - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 18:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Portal== |
|||
It looks to me like [[Portal:Ireland]] is dying slowly. Should we kill it off if no one is interested in maintaining it? [[User:Frelke|Frelke]] 07:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
* It'd be an awful shame! - [[User:Alison|<font face="comic sans ms" color="green">Alison</font>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Alison|☺]]</sup> 07:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm not sure I'd agree. If it is not going to be moderately up-to-date, then I don't want it. The news is announcing [[Mary Harney]]'s resignation, for pete's sake. I'm very much of the opinion "Do what you do, well". I don't like portals anyway. You are always looking at someone else's view of a subject. Not my cup of tea. [[User:Frelke|Frelke]] 07:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::: Oh dear! I just looked at the edit history. Is anyone here willing to take it on as a project?? I feel [[Ireland]] should have a portal on the English wiki, but three other wikiprojects and admin duties preclude me from taking it on right now. It's either that or [[WP:MFD]] time. Comments? - [[User:Alison|<font face="comic sans ms" color="green">Alison</font>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Alison|☺]]</sup> 22:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Rather than deleting it, we could recategorise it in either the category [[:Category:Portals needing attention|Portals needing attention]] or [[:Category:Portals under construction|Portals under construction]]. I too don't have the time to do it and already try to maintain another Portal. Perhaps someone can take it on as an an ongoing project. Basically it is the news portion that need regular updating while some of the other sections can have the same data rotated. BTW, is there a way of seeing the traffic to this page? [[User:Ww2censor|ww2censor]] 23:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I added the category [[:Category:Portals needing attention|Portals needing attention]] to the portal. Maybe someone will pick up on that and take it on board as their project. [[User:Ww2censor|ww2censor]] 21:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Newstalk == |
|||
Theres some sort of surreal attempt to get the [[Newstalk]] article deleted over at AfD, with a number of votes, all basically identical, using the stations content (as opposed to the article) as justification. Some people here might be interested in joining in with their opinion. --[[User:Kiand|Kiand]] 12:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Article review, please! == |
|||
Hi all. I note that a banned user ([[Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archive7#Proposed_community_ban_of_Rms125a.40hotmail.com|Robert Sieger]]) has been editing the usual target articles [[Daniel O'Connell]] and [[Michael Cusack]]. Can someone look them over and check for NPOV and verifiable statements, just to be on the safe side? One of the articles was fully protected today by an admin as a result of his actions - [[User:Alison|<font face="comic sans ms" color="green">Alison</font>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Alison|☺]]</sup> 22:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==A bit of badness!== |
|||
Just having a look over the etymology of the title Count, Graf, ''Comes'' and its English equivalent Earl of which there are and were so many in the Peerage of Ireland....[[Count#Etymological derivations from the Latin comes|This under Irish]]. Where did that "A" come from? ;) [[User:Brendandh|Brendandh]] 19:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:lol Brendandh. Actually ''Cunta'' is the correct translation, as in [http://ga.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Cunta_Pluinc%C3%A9ad ''An Cunta Pluincéad'']. ''Cuntas'' means count as in head-count. [[User:Scolaire|Scolaire]] 08:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==[[Irish Population Analysis]]== |
|||
This article is unclear can someone with a knowledge of this tell me and add to the article if the figure for ulster are for the entire province or just the 3 ROI counties? ([[User:Gnevin|Gnevin]] 08:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
:Strange article, strange title. This should be 1) renamed [[Demographic history of Ireland]], and material relating to RoI and NI extracted and placed in new articles [[Demographic history of the Republic of Ireland]] and [[Demographic history of Northern Ireland]]. The existing [[Demographic history of Ireland]] could contain info on post-1921 Ireland for comparative purposes.--[[User:Damac|Damac]] 09:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:: The latest data on http://www.cso.ie/census/Census2006_Principal_Demographic_Results.htm always lists Ulster as "Ulster (part of)" which would imply just the 3 counties. As for the article, the numbers would seem to only include 3 counties since the population of Northern Ireland would be much higher, also the counties of Northern Ireland are not listed in the Historical populations per county. I don't see source material on the cso site, but we would expect to see a sharp drop in the population of ulster listed in the article after the 1911 census and there is not. The author seems fairly active perhaps he can clarify. --[[User:Albert.white|Albert.white]] 10:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== CSO Census 2006 == |
|||
I have removed some of the sensational figures for city populations. |
|||
The object of these articles (viz, [[Dublin]], [[Cork]],...,[[Kilkenny]]) is the cities of the State - they are not about the larger urban areas (meaningless undefined terms like "environ" or "suburb") which have come to dominate wikipedia in the search for national and local self-confidence. The figures I have quoted are those in [http://www.cso.ie/census/documents/census2006_tables_1-4.pdf Table 1] of [http://www.cso.ie/census/census2006_volume_1.htm Census 2006 Volume 1 - Population Classified by Area], they corresspond to the object of the article - the city - they corresspond to the area and the boundary enclosed by the companion maps in the infoboxes. The cities as defined by the final power of the Oireachtas, under the Constitution. [[User:Djegan|Djegan]] 14:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I can't comment on these particular examples as I don't know them well enough. However, I'd like to caution against forcing articles about cities to only cover administrative areas, e.g. the city council boundaries. If a majority of people consider an area to be part of a city, despite being outside the administrative boundaries, than such a fact is encyclopaedic and worth mentioning. See, for example, how the article about [[Bristol]], England, deals with suburbs that are outside the city council, but contiguous with the city, and treated in everyday use, both by individuals and by businesses and organisations, as part of it: they are described, but with a note about the administrative situation. [[User:Steinsky|Joe D]] [[User talk:Steinsky|(t)]] 14:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Though it is a valid point I would be cautious on compairing the Republic of Ireland with the United Kingdom. The laws between these two jurisdictions have greatly diverged, particularilty in the United Kingdom in the post-war period, and in particular the local government reforms of the 1970s totally changed the relationships such that new cities where created, or concieved, and those in former existance saw a great expansion in their population as surrounding distinctive areas incorporated into urban areas; but in some cases the city proper remains a small area, for instance the [[city of London]]. In contrast in the Republic of Ireland no cities have been created or indeed has any sustantial plan been provided for their creation. However the Oireachtas has on several occassions made it clear through enactments that the boundaries of cities have been expanded or contracted as seen fit. This has the effect, for instance, that whilst many Irish cities cover many times the area of the [[city of London]], their population is many times smaller than that of [[London]]; that sort of contrast between city area and urban area is not seen in Ireland, they are larely one in the same except when people want to push for the magical one million figure. [[User:Djegan|Djegan]] 15:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::The Local Authority areas are irrelevant; a City does not lose population simply because it is divided into different administrative units. The continuous built-up area, the real extent of a city in common sense terms, would, if applied to Dublin, result in the loss of Balbriggan and other areas of Fingal; but Bray and Leixlip would become part of the city; giving much the same population as County Dublin. So the County figure is an excellent approximation of the population of 'Dublin the city' - rather then the ludicrous 500,000 for the Dublin City Council administrative area. No need for the use of sneering terms like "magical" atall atall. ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 20:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
::::Perhaps what you do not understand is that the city - viz the subject of the articles - is one and the same thing as the local authority area. Consult the local government acts. Its a bit of a contradiction, in the infobox, quoting a figure for population which does not corresspond to the same area; a population figure for some vaguely defined "environ" or "suburb" that does not corresspond to the area or map given is simply a contradiction. I have no problem with a more detailed a analysis of populations in an appropriate section in the article but I am limiting the discussion here to the infobox. Also consulting [[talk:Dublin]] will give some idea of the consensus built up on this matter. Its not without precident. [[User:Djegan|Djegan]] 21:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::And their is no question of places becoming "loss of" and "become part of" in some pov fashion to suite someones agenda. The figures I have quoted are published by the Central Statistics Office and are those for the respective cities. Much of County Dublin is rural and quite distinctive of the city and urban area. [[User:Djegan|Djegan]] 21:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The population of those remaining rural areas in County Dublin is very small and has little bearing on the city population, one way or another; what you are suggesting is that places like Sandyford, Dublin 18 (where I live) or Booterstown or Rathmines or Terenure (contiguous, totally integrated parts of the city, some for over 100 years) are not part of Dublin (the city); but some vaguely defined "environ" or "suburb". That is simply ridiculous - so much so as to render the definition of "Dublin City" meaningless. |
|||
:::::As for this fact being "some pov fashion to suite someones agenda" I suggest your reference to "'''sensational''' figures for city populations" and talk of the "magical figure of a million" reveals you POV in this matter. The infobox is wrong; it needs changing. An average reader would expect the article on Dublin to be about Dublin city; not the part of it in a specific local authority area. ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 22:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
::::::You dont seam to have grasped that the city and the local authority area ''are'' the same thing; they are not different things; re: the local government acts. The city (and by extension the local authority area) and the urban area ''are not'' the same thing. This is often the fundemental misunderstanding. As for what places are and are not in the city, take out an authoritive map that gives a factual account of whats on the ground, or consult the relevant statutory instruments. Lets try to keep it to the encyclopedic facts, the term "city of Dublin" is well recognised in law, its even mentioned in the Constitution twice, it does not mention some half-assed term like "Dublin City" (sic). Too many sensationalist (and poorly interpreted) population figures in Ireland related articles. [[User:Djegan|Djegan]] 23:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::You don't 'seam' to grasp that what you are saying is complete nonsense! Dublin City is a ''very'' common term, 'half-assed' or otherwise! It means what it says on the tin. This is an '''Encyclopedia'''; not some legal document! ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 23:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
::::::::Whatever...you just cannot articulate your point. Theirfore rather than something substantial we get a derivative of my own comments aimed back at me. [[User:Djegan|Djegan]] 23:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::: Well, at least you can spell 'articulate'. But 'therefore' seems a bridge too far! ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 23:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
:::::::::I can be half-assed derivative as well. At least I know the difference between "Dublin City" and "Dublin city", and "an '''Encyclopedia'''" and "an '''encyclopedia'''", and "The Local Authority areas" and "The local authority areas" - get your uppercase and lowercase right, or is that get your Uppercase and lOWERCASE write??? Yes, in summary trading insults like this is pretty derivative and childish. Your spelling and grammer is not perfect. Grow up please. [[User:Djegan|Djegan]] 23:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::: The use of Uppercase for Local Authorities and for Emphasis is a Style Thing with me; I guess that explains your spelling? Say something sensible and I'll respond in kind, as I always do. The Topic here is 'CSO Census 2006' - who'd have guessed? ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 00:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
::::::::::: Whatever. Maybe half-assed spelling is just a style thing for me to! Now you starting to deliberately capitalise is sooo see through. You are just a troll, plain and simple. Lets not try to rationalise it any other way. Lets not fool ourselfs (sic). [[User:Djegan|Djegan]] 00:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::: Well, I'm very well fed then. ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 00:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
Djegan: I'm a little confused. I was prepared to drop the issue with your reply to mine, as I know little about these particular examples. I interpreted your reply as meaning that the local government boundaries were regularly adjusted to matched the contigious built up areas of their cities, meaning that the local government definition and colloquial definition would be the same. However, your discussion regarding Dublin suggests this is not the case, and that it is in fact very much like the situation with Bristol, and similar cities. The local government boundaries of Bristol were defined eleven years ago, but exclude the suburbs of Filton, Bradley Stoke, and Kingswood. However, they are contigious with the city, if driving along an aterial road you wouldn't realise you'd left the "city", and everybody treats them as part of the city. The fact that the government have defined a "city" of Bristol, and an organisation (Bristol City Council) administers that area, is an encyclopaedic fact. However, the fact that everybody else think of those suburbs as being part of Bristol is also an encyclopaedic fact, hence why the Office for National Staistics calculate an "urban area" statistic. The Bristol example is nothing like the example of the [[City of London]] (which is a unique case, nothing like the rest of the UK, and anyway, "London" is also officially defined as an administrative region containing most of the built up area), but seems to be exactly like the situation described by Sarah for Dublin. |
|||
The Irish government may define the boundaries of the ''administrative'' city of Dublin, and they are welcome to define any terms in any way they like, but they can't force anybody except officials to adopt their definitions. If the government defined a spade as a fork, it may be an encyclopaedic fact, but if everybody else ignored the government, that would also be an encyclopaedic fact. Similarly, the Irish government may have their own definition of the word "city", and we should certainly mention that, but doing so does not preclude us from mentioning other definitions. [[User:Steinsky|Joe D]] [[User talk:Steinsky|(t)]] 21:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Joe D - the situations in Bristol and Dublin are almost fully analogous. We used to have three local authorities, Dublin Corporation, Dun Laoghaire and County Dublin (which was the remainder of the ancient county). Even then, many contiguous built-up areas were in the County Council (some, as I said, for over a century). |
|||
:Following continuous outward growth throughout the 20th century by 1996 half the built-up area and all the population growth was in the County Council section; so 4 authorities were set up: [[Dublin City Council]] (replacing Dublin Corporation); [[County Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown]], replacing the Borough of Dun Laoghaire and including a section of the [[County Dublin]]; [[South Dublin County Council]] and [[County Fingal]] (North County Dublin). Perhaps only a third of the continuous built-up area is in the City Council area. ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 17:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
::Some of the above is not what I expected to see in Wikipedia, but I am reassured that all three debaters have some common ground. As an ordinary Jackeen, I agree with Sarah and Joe above that the ''City Council area'' of Dublin is '''not''' = the city of Dublin, not to anyone with an iota of common sense! By all means quote "500k people under City Council administration" but please note that Dublin City has been listed in official and encyclopediac publications as 1M or more for a very long time. The fact is that the city council boundaries have a lot more to do with old history around the old (and sometimes snobbish) townships like Rathgar and Pembroke than any reality. I suspect that to most people Dublin City is everything from around either Booterstown or Blackrock (Dun Laoghaire still has its own identity) out towards Tallaght, around Blanchardstown and up to the northern greenbelt (Ballymun, Darndale, Donaghmede) and either Baldoyle or the Howth Peninsula. Checking a French official site I see 1.1M listed for Dublin, which seems not unreasonable. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/194.165.181.169|194.165.181.169]] ([[User talk:194.165.181.169|talk]]) 01:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> |
|||
:::Agree with the above; I'd quibble with that notion that Dun Laoghaire has a real separate identity other than as a suburb with an administrative centre. I don't know what a person in 'real' Dun Laoghaire (as distinct from DL-Rathdown County Council) would say if asked what city he lived in - but in Dundrum, Sandyford and even Blackrock there'd be few takers for "Dun Laoghaire" over "Dublin! ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 11:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
==Misuse of flag templates== |
|||
:*'''I have put forward a proposal [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Flag_Template#Proposal_for_warning_against_inappropriate_use_of_Northern_Ireland_flag_templates|here]] regarding the inappropriate use of Northern Ireland flag templates in WP.'''--[[User:Padraig3uk|padraig3uk]] 21:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Help!!! Copyright Violator Calling...== |
|||
Folks, I need some of your expert advice. I was putting the finishing touches to my article on [[Kilquade]] when this massive big yoke appeared! What's the storey here? ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 23:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
:You may want to check with the editor who put the template on the page, but the chances are that he/she felt that the inclusion of the content quoted/copied from the "Parish website" might constitute a copy-vio on that content. (IE: Without a notice on the kilquadeparish.com site indicating that the content is free to include elsewhere, it *might* be questionable from a copyright standpoint.) You have three main choices in dealing with the copy-vio template in this case: (1) Just remove the "quoted content", (2) Get into a debate with the other editor about why you think it's not copy-vio, or (3) contact the kp.com site owner and get permission or otherwise clarify the copyr status of their content. [[User:Guliolopez|Guliolopez]] 23:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks Gulio, I've tried to establish contact with the chap who slapped on the template; he seems scarily inexperienced! ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 00:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
:::It appears the person who put the copyright-vio tag on there is from India, so I'm not sure how he might be linked to the Kilquade parish newsletter! My bet is that he's running some kind of bot which scans websites for text and matches it to wiki entries and flags them as copyright violations. And [[Kilquade]] was unlucky enough to be in the line of fire. [[User:Jhonan|Jhonan]] <sup>[[User_talk:Jhonan|talk]]</sup> 01:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Actually the Indian editor is quite correct to put the copyvio tag on this article as the text [[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] added is directly lifted from the website mentioned. However, he does not know how to deal with it properly; he should have removed the offending text as well as reporting the page on the ''Copyright Problems page" mentioned in the tag and the website should also have been referenced which was not done. |
|||
::::You have to remember that even when a web site does not have a copyright notice on it, the text is the copyright of someone and you posted it without specific permission from the owners. It is far better to use that type of page as a reference for a freshly written paragraph or two in order to avoid any problems because many times you will not even receive a reply to a request to use the text verbatim. I would remove the text for now as well as the tag and do a fresh rewrite, otherwise I will just remove the offending text and tag but as you were working on it you can finish it correctly or decide what you wish to do. Cheers. [[User:Ww2censor|ww2censor]] 03:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::[[User:Dinarphatak]] (India) has removed the tag having found my arguments sound! Do you still want me to reorganise the text to give the impression it's mine? ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 11:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
::::::I think you should, per [[User:Ww2censor|ww2censor]]. If I read him correctly he is intending to do it anyway if you don't - it's not dependent on [[User:Dinarphatak|Dinarphatak]]'s response. [[User:Scolaire|Scolaire]] 07:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
My understanding is that one or two sentences of copyrighted material can be quoted under fair use, e.g., in the likes of a review. Quoting a substantial passage of text, however, would be a copyvio breach. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|BaStun not BaTsun]]</sup> 10:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Surprisingly I agree with Batsun - a couple of attributed lines is ok but you cannot pass of whole passages. Its pretty easy to re-edit stuff to avoid copyvio anyway so I would suggest that a copyedit is done to rejig the section.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 11:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Well, nearly sorry I asked! I've removed the offending material - I'll put it back when I get around to re-jigging it. ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 19:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
:::Actually [[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] you are doing the right thing. This can all be part of the learning process, so don't be sorry you asked. It took me a while to figure out what was a copyvio and how to deal with it. Happy [[County Wicklow]] editing! [[User:Ww2censor|ww2censor]] 23:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Irish Rebels Category== |
|||
I was looking at this category earlier, and saw it contained the following sub-categories: |
|||
*[[:Category:People who died on the 1981 Irish hunger strike]] |
|||
*[[:Category:Irish Republican Army members 1917-1922]] |
|||
*[[:Category:Provisional Irish Republican Army members]] |
|||
For the sake of consistency I added these: |
|||
*[[:Category:Irish Republican Army members 1922-1969]] |
|||
*[[:Category:Official IRA members]] |
|||
However, then I saw how many articles I'd need to re-categorise were actually in the main category, and decided that before changing them I'd better get a second (and possibly third and fourth) opinion, and as category talk pages are generally sparsely populated, here would be a better venue. |
|||
Firstly, I know for a fact I'd be better off creating a [[:Category:Irish Republican Army members]] category, and putting all the above categories (except the hunger strike one obviously) into that. So should any/all of the IRA members categories be a sub-category of [[:Category:Irish rebels]], and I'm assuming nobody objects to the existing hunger strike category being there? <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#009">One Night In Hackney</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|303]]''</sub></font> 04:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
How about creating a [[:category:Irish rebels 1791-1916]]? It could then be added to the [[:Category:Irish rebels|Irish rebels]] category along with the five above, and all of the rebels on that page could be moved into one of the six. The idea of a single IRA category looks sound at first, but it might very well fall foul of the "the Provos are not the legitimate heirs of the Old IRA" brigade. [[User:Scolaire|Scolaire]] 07:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:The label "rebels" appears inappropriate [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]][[User talk:Gaillimh|<sup>Conas tá tú?</sup>]] 15:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I would suggest anyone who is a member of the "the Provos are not the legitimate heirs of the Old IRA" brigade first looks at [[:Category:Irish Republican Army]], as all I will be doing is re-organising the existing categories that are already in that category. |
|||
:Bear in mind that should I create [[:Category:Irish Republican Army members]] it doesn't have to be used in the Irish rebels category, I could just use it in [[:Category:Irish Republican Army]] and put the individual organisation categories into the rebels category, in case anyone objects to the presence of any particular organisation in the rebels category. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#009">One Night In Hackney</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|303]]''</sub></font> 07:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Fair enough! It's just that the rebels category is going to look a bit funny if it doesn't contain anyone who died after 12 May 1916! [[User:Scolaire|Scolaire]] 18:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Indeed. I fail to see how IRA members who fought against British tyranny should not be in this category, yet earlier rebels should be. It seems inherently POV not to have them in there. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#009">One Night In Hackney</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|303]]''</sub></font> 19:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Well, I agree with Gaillimh that thanks to the so-called "war on terror" the word "rebel" nowadays has negative connotations that were not associated with the word in the minds of those who proudly described themselves as such in the past. In the legalistic context of the Wikipedia MO 'rebel' implies an illegitimacy and gives undue weight to British legalism (a cancer on Wiki if you ask me). |
|||
::::My preferred term would be Freedom Fighter (as in freedom from Imperialism or foreign occupation - it would include the Jihadists who are fighting for liberation from occupation in that sense, but sometimes not for freedom in the western sense). ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 08:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
:::::I'm afraid that "freedom fighter" has major POV problems, because once person's freedom fighter is another's terrorist (was Franco a "freedom fighter"? From a fascist perspective, he certainly was, but from a socialist perspective, he was the exact opposite). I think that "rebel" is not a perfect term, but also that it isn't too bad: for an Irish Republican guerilla fighter, isn't it it reasonably to both POVs fair to call them a rebel against the de facto authority? A loyalist might argue that they are bad and dangerous rebels, and a republican that they are heroic, patriotic and right; but can't both sides agree that they are referring to people who rebel against a de facto state?<br />Would "insurgent" be an improvement? --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 10:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I'll try and wrap this up. Does anyone have any objections to members of all variants of the IRA going in [[:Category:Irish rebels]]? If there aren't, then [[:Category:Irish Republican Army members]] can be added. If people have a concrete objection to any particular variant, then the individual categories can be added instead. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#009">One Night In Hackney</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|303]]''</sub></font> 12:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: |
|||
::::::I think you should go with adding [[:Category:Irish Republican Army members]]. Also. if you have time, you might think about re-categorising any post-1916 IRA members who are in the broader category at the moment. |
|||
::::::Oh, hang on! That's what you said you were going to do in the first place ;-). [[User:Scolaire|Scolaire]] 14:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Indeed, I didn't want to start re-categorising them all only to have to undo everything should someone object so thought it best to discuss first. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#009">One Night In Hackney</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|303]]''</sub></font> 14:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::No objection. ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 00:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
==Townlands in Ireland== |
|||
Hello again Wiki Experts. [[:Category:Townlands in Ireland]] is a new one I have created - but I'm not good at this sort of thing. It is to cater for articles I come across about areas which contain no town or village but are [[townlands]]. |
|||
There is about 40,000 of these in Ireland so we need some category to place them in. Some I have come across are "orphaned" because they don't link to anywhere else; a few have been (incorrectly) added to the list of "Towns and Villages in Ireland" - when I find these I always remove them, thus creating some orphans. But as many locals from rural parts like to write about their townlands (as they do with their parishes) we need a '''category'''; with sub-categories for the counties I would suggest. All comments welcome. ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 22:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
:I suppose there will gradually be some articles for this category. There probably should also be [[:Category:Parishes of Ireland]], somewhat like [[:Category:Parishes]], there may already be some articles on specific parishes, eg [[Brosna]] - see [[County Kerry]]. Also, what should be the parent cat for the townlands one, possibly [[:Category:Geography of the Republic of Ireland]]? --[[User:Rye1967|Rye1967]] 23:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Ah, there is a [[:Category:Townlands of Ireland]] already in existence, although I only discovered it just now when searching for townland articles. <font face="monospace" color="blue">[[User:Flowerpotman|Flowerpotman]]</font> [[User talk:Flowerpotman|talk]]|[[Special:contributions/Flowerpotman|contribs]] 00:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Excellent! Now I have somewhere to put the orphans I come across! First up is [[Stickens]] - which sounds like my kinda cul-de-sac. ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 01:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
:::LOL! I have to admit that despite Lord-knows-how-much categorizing I have done in the last few months, I didn't know about that category until tonight. I agree with you about the category needing sub-categories for counties. My only concern is whether some townland articles ''might'' have notability issues. <font face="monospace" color="blue">[[User:Flowerpotman|Flowerpotman]]</font> [[User talk:Flowerpotman|talk]]|[[Special:contributions/Flowerpotman|contribs]] 02:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::My feeling is that most townlands will, as [[User:Flowerpotman|Flowerpotman]] suggests, have notability issues unless they are notable for some famous geographical feature or significant historical fact. I am very reluctant to start adding county subcategories when there are only 25 article linked here at the moment, so let's wait and see if we really need county subcategories at some future time when the category is too populated. [[User:Ww2censor|ww2censor]] 02:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Sounds OK, just a caution - there are lots more of them out there than the 25 in the category, such as [[Stickens]] was. Strickens, a few fields outside the village of [[Caragh]] (that's near Naas!!) seems to be somewhat sub-notable, but it ''does'' have 30 scattered dwellings and nearly 100 people. Aren't all populated places notable? (I'm just trying to stop folk categorising their residence plus the cousins up the road as a "village" for inclusion in the "Towns and villages of Ireland" page). But now that we know we have a "townland" category I guess we can just let things develop. Mind you, without ever having heard of it before I imagine Stickens is probably outer suburban Naas, given it is only a couple of kilometers from the town.([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 02:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
::I have added a speedy-rename notice to [[:Category:Townlands in Ireland]] so that the cat will be removed by an admin, and so that others know of the alternative. Someone added a townland to it again in the past few hrs.--[[User:Rye1967|Rye1967]] 09:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Towns and Suburbs and Business Parks of Dublin == |
|||
Hello all, |
|||
As a new editor, I want to ensure I understand things correctly. I had noted that "Towns and Suburbs in Dublin", which I would see as in important gathering, and which I think means something clear to the ordinary gal/guy reading (including me in my previous existence as an ordinary Wikipedia user), while mostly being actual suburbs of Dublin, and nearby villages/towns, also had a number of housing estates and business parks added to it. |
|||
These are commercial developments, and often fine ones, but as a matter of fact, I would have thought it clear that such things are *not* suburbs, except maybe to hungry property agencies. I think that not doing this creates a danger of commercial abuse, and damages credibility. |
|||
I do note from the discussion forums that such issues have arisen before. And I do not seem to be the only one concerned about this now. At the same time, not an issue to put a lot of time into, there is so much else to do. But a fellow editor, Sarah77, has queried re. one case. |
|||
Whether posted as such for promotional reasons or not, I thought the best thing was to simply correct the categorisation, while enhancing the article if possible. As a further step, one could place such items into the locations to which they do belong. And so I see tidying by editors of such places as "Park West", "Point Village", a road behind the Hospital in Dundrum, an estate in Swords etc., as positive. Maybe some day some of these will be new suburbs, but some will not, and those which do will probably not go by marketing names like "Park West" (this would be against City Council policy), and before being recognised encyclopedically, might need more time, and appropriate action by authorities (neither local authority nor An Post has recognised Park West or City West, which is Tallaght/Saggart, for example, as anything like a suburb). |
|||
The question of numbers living in Park West was raised, but thousands can live in one apartment complex too (see any big city in much of the world), but that does not make it a suburb. |
|||
At any rate, I am sure there are straightforward solutions, and I would welcome guidance. If I could suggest one approach, it might be to: |
|||
* Make a clear definition for "Towns and Suburbs in Dublin" |
|||
* Have a separate category for the genuinely significant "Business Parks in Dublin" |
|||
* And, while placing both business parks and new developments in their actual locales - and if I understand, for most suburbs/towns, individual housing estates, residents associations, civic and business groups and so on, do not qualify for separate articles - where a business or housing development does warrant an article, place it in a category with its parent area |
|||
I look forward to feedback, and in the meantime, will go edit something different. I am glad to be participating in this project, and see some work waiting in literary and castle areas... [[User:SeoR|SeoR]] 06:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:If we agree a definition of "suburb" then I'd go with that. But of course I'd argue that Citywest is a suburb. In the past it has taken me time and effort to remove individual housing estates and even some fictional areas ("North Killiney") from the "Towns and Suburbs of Dublin" category. It might be easier to define what should NOT be listed; but of course I'd argue such exclusion could not include Citywest! |
|||
:And a declaration here: I started both articles, Park West and Citywest (amongst numerous other suburbs) and I can assure you it has nothing to do with any commercial interest. (I also started [[Cherrywood]], btw, another commercial development). |
|||
:A look at the [[Dollymount]] and [[North Killiney]] sagas will illustrate the extreme difficulty of getting any agreement in this area, and current practice appears to be that the burden of proof lies '''very heavily''' with the person arguing that some named area is NOT a suburb. ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 09:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
:: To this wanderer o' the Web, this does sound like an important issue. And especially as some of the recent additions to the page in question do look like deliberate marketing campaigns, specificially barred as reminded on every submission page. But interesting is that both parties so far appear to agree on the basics. And so it seems that setting some kind of definition for "town or suburb of Dublin" is a good move. |
|||
:: Dollymont is an interesting case, and seems to have been "left hanging" a bit - but North Killiney looks spurious, IMHO (i.e., was never a real dispute, and Sarah77 did the right thing). |
|||
:: However, on principles, if just one, unchecked, user, in this case >Sarah77<, can "make" a suburb or town, there is no logic in the idea that "current practice appears to be that the burden of proof lies '''very heavily''' with the person arguing that some named area is NOT a suburb". Nor does this match policy, or the nature of an encyclopedia - facts are the key. Citywest, for example, either is or is not a new area, and this should be verifiable. |
|||
:: And is the above "current practice" so? CW [[User:217.118.66.3|217.118.66.3]] 11:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Clarified, [[User:217.118.66.3|217.118.66.3]] 11:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Well, this "unchecked user" is simply refering to that fact that based on '''my experience''' with various places in Dublin it has been up to me to convince the Wiki folk that a place (real or imaginary) doesn't merit categorising as a "town or suburb". |
|||
:::"Citywest, for example, either is or is not a new area, and this should be verifiable." Clearly, Citywest is a new area (in that it was fields 20 years ago) - the question is whether it can be classified as a suburb. And as I say, if we could agree a definition it would make the job of keeping "Oakdale Crescent" from being classed as a suburb much easier. (And, no offence intended, but it is best if policy is being formulated that the contributors are registered - as otherwise the suspicion will persist that various anonymous contributions are not from separate people). ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 19:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
:::: Interesting that there appears to be an assumption towards having new areas. I am surprised but I guess it is fine, as long as streets, estates and marketing pieces are caught. On the question, I note that lack of feedback, at least from regular members, and so, as per my talk page, will not intervene further with Park West, Citywest or Cherrywood. But on a positive note, thanks to whoever is gathering areas with multiple pages into categories, this does help. |
|||
:::: One small point, around the use of An Post and its geodatabase and localities - I asked a local post office person and they advised that this should be done with care, as postal addresses contain sorting area names. What ''is'' definitive are the house identifier (number or name), street name, and Dublin postal district, and An Post has no real interest in the in-between line - they don't need it, as in all of Dublin, apparently, only one street name (either High or Main St.) occurs more than once in a postal district - impressive! |
|||
:::: This explains some of the more persistent "confused area" issues, as sometimes a few streets, for example, will be served from a different sorting area than their base locality. And of course, if this is good for house valuation... Luckily, there are usually markers, such as major roads or rivers, and older, and some foreign, maps often show the areas very clearly. |
|||
[[User:SeoR|SeoR]] 14:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Could do with some more info on [[Dunboyne]] == |
|||
Anyone else out there who knows a good deal of information about [[Dunboyne]]? |
|||
I want it to become quite a decent article, but I seem to be the only one who has anything to contribute towards it.... |
|||
-- [[User:TheChrisD|TheChrisD]][[User_talk:TheChrisD|™]] 12:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:: I added a bit on roads ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 13:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
:::I know nothing about it, but formatted it a bit and added a source for the ship. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">One Night In Hackney</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">303</span>]]''</sub></font> 17:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Oh so there actually is a ship called Dunboyne out there? Wow, never knew that.... *goes back to translating for Irish wiki* -- [[User:TheChrisD|TheChrisD]][[User_talk:TheChrisD|™]] 18:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Indeed, it has its [[Af Chapman|own article]]. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">One Night In Hackney</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">303</span>]]''</sub></font> 18:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Category:Sinn Féin politicians == |
|||
*I've been looking through the above [[:Category:Sinn Féin politicians]] and found a number of people who I don't believe are notable. It seems that one editor has in good faith created a number of articles on SF candidates for 2007. Most if not all if them, I believe are not notable and should be deleted. As soon as I can find the correct procedure for doing so I'm going to nominate the following, unless anyone can think of reasons for keeping them (e.g. Dessie Ellis was originally in there until someone rightly pointed out that his extradition was notable.) |
|||
These were unsuccessful candidates, who don't seem to have held any kind of publically elected office at all |
|||
[[Henry Cremin]], |
|||
[[Lynn Ní Bhaoighealláin]], |
|||
[[Liam Browne]], |
|||
[[Martin Kenny]], |
|||
[[Joanne Finnegan]], |
|||
[[Joanne Spain]], |
|||
[[Sorcha Nic Cormaic]], |
|||
[[Matt McCormack]], |
|||
[[Cristin McCauley]], |
|||
[[Threasa Bennitt]], |
|||
[[Felix Gallagher]], |
|||
[[Peter Lawlor (Sinn Féin)]], |
|||
[[Kathleen Funchion]], |
|||
[[Shaun Tracey]], |
|||
[[Maurice Quinlivan]], |
|||
[[Anna Prior]] |
|||
These are only notable for being current/former local councillors - is that grounds for notability? I'm very dubious that it is? |
|||
[[Joe Reilly]], |
|||
[[Séamus Morris]], |
|||
[[John Dwyer (Politician)]], |
|||
[[Jonathan O'Brien]], |
|||
[[Paul Hogan (Irish political figure)]], |
|||
[[Brian Stanley]], |
|||
[[Cionnaith Ó Súilleabháin]], |
|||
[[Sandra McLellan]], |
|||
[[Jason Devlin]], |
|||
[[Anne Marie Carroll]], |
|||
[[Eoin Ó Broin]], |
|||
[[Daithí Doolan]], |
|||
[[Gerry Murray]], |
|||
[[David Cullinane]], |
|||
[[Larry O'Toole]], |
|||
[[Pádraig Mac Lochlainn]], |
|||
[[Pearse Doherty]] Thanks, [[User:Valenciano|Valenciano]] 22:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:*Local councillors dont satisfy automatic notability. Unless some of these canidates have or are on the Ard Comhairle or satisfy other sections of [[WP:BIO]] then they should be deleted.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 22:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC) P.S. I would say that Pearse Doherty is probably notable also. |
|||
*So would being on the National Executive now or in the past count as notable? I've nominated everyone in the first (non-councillor) category for now. As has been pointed out, the SF category is not the only one likely to feature non notables. The only problem is that the Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and Labour categories are much larger and will take longer to go through. I had a look through the PDs category which seems okay but the Greens category showed the following, which I've also nominated [[Fintan MacCarthy]], [[Seán Ó Maolchallann]] [[User:Valenciano|Valenciano]] 14:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Medieval Ireland wikiproject== |
|||
Hi I was wondering whether any one would be interested in setting up something similar to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Medieval Scotland]], but in relation to Ireland? [[User:Brendandh|Brendandh]] 06:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Durrus== |
|||
I've nominated [[Durrus and District History Modern]] and [[Durrus and District History]] for deletion, the discussion can be found at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durrus and District History Modern]]. Thanks. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">One Night In Hackney</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">303</span>]]''</sub></font> 17:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==A fascinating article== |
|||
Purely by chance, I happened on an article on one of the unsung heroes of Irish Nationalism, [[D. D. Sheehan]]. The article is longer than most articles on major Irish figures of the time, weighing in at 26,983 characters, compared to 20,053 for [[Patrick Pearse]], and contains bibliography, external links and a link to Wikisource. It has had 927 edits between 23 February 2005 and 3 June 2007, the vast majority by [[User:Niall O'Siochain|Niall O'Siochain]] and [[User:osioni|osioni]] (O'Siochain, Niall?), the latter taking over from the former at 20:32 (UTC) on 24 May 2005. The talk page, apart from WPBiography stuff, is entirely written by osioni, except for one anonymous edit that added a lengthy quote from a magazine article, including the telling sentence: "Sheehan’s grandson. Niall O’Siocahain has almost made it his lifetime’s work to establish the case and now uses the Internet to put if (sic) forward." |
|||
<br> |
|||
Hmm! Is this really what Wikipedia is for? |
|||
[[User:Scolaire|Scolaire]] 08:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Add uncited to it and it should be grand ([[User:Gnevin|Gnevin]] 09:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
::It's interesting and reads well though. ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 15:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
==Malone Road== |
|||
Have only just noticed the Malone Road site! What do you think of it? [If you wish please comment on my Talk page][[User:Osborne|Osborne]] 15:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Common Travel Area == |
|||
I've just uploaded a (hopefully) much improved version of the article on the [[Common Travel Area]] and was thinking of getting a themed photograph for the article. At present there's just a map with Britain and Ireland highlighted. I have a vague memory of seeing signage referring to the Common Travel Area in British airports. If anyone's travelling to the UK sometime soon they could take a photograph of one of these signs, so we could put it on the page. |
|||
(You should probably ask before taking a picture, just to make sure you don't get arrested under the UK [[Terrorism Act 2000]], which would, needless to say be rather unfortunate. -:) ) [[User:Caveat lector|Caveat lector]] 00:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==[[Glasnevin_Cemetery#Notable_people_buried_in_Glasnevin_Cemetery]]== |
|||
I suggest removing the following striked people , the last time i did this i was total i vandalised the article |
|||
* [[Thomas Ashe]] - died on [[hunger strike]] in [[1917]] |
|||
* [[Kevin Barry]] - a medical student executed by the British for his role in the Irish [[Anglo-Irish War|War of Independence]]. (His body was moved from [[Mountjoy Prison]] to Glasnevin in [[2001 in Ireland|October 2001]], having been accorded a [[List of Irish state funerals|state funeral]].) |
|||
<s>* [[Piaras Beaslai]] - [[Easter Rising]] survivor turned writer |
|||
* Sir [[Alfred Chester Beatty]] - art collector</s> |
|||
* [[Brendan Behan]] - author and playwright |
|||
* [[Harry Boland]] - friend of Michael Collins and anti-Treaty politician. [[Media:Harrybolglas.jpg|<small>Image of Harry Boland's grave</small>]] |
|||
* [[Christy Brown]] - writer of ''[[My Left Foot (book)|My Left Foot]]'' and subject of the [[My Left Foot (film)|film of the same name]] |
|||
<s>* Father [[Francis Browne]] - Jesuit priest and photographer who took the last known photographs of [[RMS Titanic|RMS ''Titanic'']]</s> |
|||
* [[Cathal Brugha]] - first President of [[Dáil Éireann]] (January - April 1919) ''[[Media:Brughaglas.jpg|<small>Image of Cathal Brugha's grave</small>]]'' |
|||
* Sir [[Roger Casement]] - [[Human rights]] campaigner turned Irish revolutionary, executed by the British in [[1916]].<sup>2</sup> ''[[Media:Casementglas.jpg|<small>Image of Casement grave</small>]]'' |
|||
* [[Robert Erskine Childers]] - Irish republican and Treaty signatory executed by the [[Irish Free State]] government during the [[Irish Civil War]]. ''[[Media:Childersglas.jpg|<small>Erskine Childers' grave, located in the Republican Plot</small>]].'' |
|||
* [[J. J. Clancy (MP)|J. J. Clancy]] - Irish Nationalist MP (1847-1928) |
|||
* [[Michael Collins (Irish leader)|Michael Collins]] - assassinated [[Irish republicanism|republican]] leader, [[Anglo-Irish Treaty]] signatory & first internationally recognised Irish head of government. |
|||
<s>* [[Roddy Connolly]] - socialist politician and son of [[James Connolly]]. |
|||
* [[Andy Cooney]] - Irish republican |
|||
* [[John Philpot Curran]] - patriotic barrister, renowned wit, lawyer on behalf of [[Wolfe Tone]] and other [[United Irishmen]], [[Sarah Curran]]'s father. |
|||
* [[William Dargan]] - Ireland's rail pioneer</s> |
|||
* [[Éamon de Valera]] - 3rd President of Ireland (1959-1973) and dominant leader of 20th century. |
|||
<s>* [[Sinéad de Valera]] - wife of Éamon de Valera, buried in the same plot. |
|||
* [[Anne Devlin]] - famed housekeeper of [[Robert Emmet]]<s> |
|||
* [[John Devoy]] - [[Fenian]] leader. ''[[Media:Devoyglas.jpg|<small>Image of John Devoy's grave.</small>]]'' |
|||
* [[John Blake Dillon]] - Irish writer and politician |
|||
<s>* [[Frank Duff]] - founder of the [[Legion of Mary]] |
|||
* [[James Fitzmaurice]] - aviation pioneer</s> |
|||
* Sir [[John Grey (politician)|John Grey]] - Irish [[19th century]] MP. ''[[Media:Johngreyglas.jpg|<small>Image of Sir John Grey's gravestone</small>]]'' |
|||
* [[Maud Gonne]] - nationalist campaigner, love of [[W.B. Yeats]]'s life, famed beauty and mother of Nobel & Lenin Peace Prize winner [[Sean MacBride]], who is buried in the grave also. ''[[Media:Maudgonneglas.jpg|<small>Image of Maud Gonne & Sean MacBride's grave</small>]]'' |
|||
* [[Arthur Griffith]] - President of [[President of the Republic|Dáil Éireann]] (January - August 1922). |
|||
* [[Timothy Michael Healy|Tim Healy]] - 1st [[Governor-General of the Irish Free State]]. ''[[Media:Healyglas.jpg|<small>image of Tim Healy's grave.</small>]]'' |
|||
* [[Gerard Manley Hopkins]] - poet |
|||
* [[Peadar Kearney]] - composer of the Irish National Anthem, [[Amhrán na bhFiann]] |
|||
* [[Kitty Kiernan]] - fiancée of [[Michael Collins (Irish leader)|Michael Collins]] |
|||
* [[James Larkin]] - Irish trade union leader and founder of the ''Irish Transport & General Workers Union'' (ITGWU). |
|||
* [[Seán MacBride]] - founder of [[Clann na Poblachta]] and a founder-member of [[Amnesty International]]. |
|||
* [[Edward Cardinal McCabe]] - late 19th century Archbishop of Dublin & Primate of Ireland. ''[[Media:Cardmccabeglas.jpg|<small>Image of the elaborate monument to Cardinal McCabe</small>]].'' |
|||
<s>* [[Dick McKee]] - prominent member of the [[Irish Republican Army]] during the [[Irish War of Independence|War of Independence]]. |
|||
* [[Terence MacManus]] - Irish rebel and shipping agent.</s> |
|||
* Countess [[Constance Markiewicz]] - first woman elected to the [[British House of Commons]] and a minister in the first Irish government. |
|||
* <s>[[Manchester Martyrs]] - gravestone honouring three members of the [[Irish Republican Brotherhood]] known in history as the ''Manchester Martyrs'' who were in fact buried in the grounds of a British prison following their execution by the British. </s> |
|||
* [[Dermot Morgan]] - Irish satirist and star of ''[[Father Ted]]''. He was cremated in Glasnevin but is buried in Deansgrange Cemetery. |
|||
<s>* [[Kate Cruise O'Brien]] - writer & publisher. This is not Kate O'Brien who is buried in Faversham Cemetery.</s> |
|||
* [[Daniel O'Connell]] - dominant Irish political leader from 1820s to 1840s. ''[[Media:Oconnellglas.jpg|<small>O'Connell's tomb under the specially built round tower</small>]] [[Media:Oconnellglas1.jpg|<small>O'Connell's tomb interior</small>]]'' |
|||
* [[Patrick Denis O'Donnell]] - well-known Irish military historian, writer, and former UN peace-keeper. |
|||
* [[Jeremiah O'Donovan Rossa]] - Fenian leader. [[Ireland unfree shall never be at peace|Patrick Pearse's oration]] at his funeral in 1915 has gone down in history. |
|||
* [[Eoin O'Duffy]] - [[List of IRA Chiefs of Staff|Chief of Staff]] of the [[Irish Republican Army]] and leader of ''[[The Blueshirts]]''. |
|||
* [[Thomas O'Hagan, 1st Baron O'Hagan]] - [[Lord Chancellor of Ireland]]. |
|||
* [[Kevin O'Higgins]] - assassinated [[Vice-President of the Executive Council of the Irish Free State|Vice-President of the Executive Council]]. |
|||
* [[Sean T. O'Kelly]] - 2nd President of Ireland (1945-1959). |
|||
* [[John O'Mahony]] - a founder of the [[Irish Republican Brotherhood]]. |
|||
<s>* [[James O'Mara]] - nationalist leader and member of the [[First Dáil]]</s> |
|||
* [[Charles Stewart Parnell]] - dominant Irish political leader from 1875 to 1891. |
|||
* [[P. J. Ruttledge|Patrick ( P J ) Ruttledge]] - Minister in Eamon de Valera's early governments. |
|||
* [[D.D. Sheehan|Daniel D. Sheehan]] - first independent [[Irish Labour Party|Irish labour]] MP. |
|||
* [[Hanna Sheehy-Skeffington]] - founder of Irish Women's Franchise League |
|||
<s>* [[David P. Tyndall]] - prominent Irish businessman who transformed the grocery business</s> |
|||
([[User:Gnevin|Gnevin]] 21:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
:Why would you want to remove any of them.--[[User:Padraig3uk|padraig3uk]] 23:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Aye, why? For presentation's sake maybe, but then a sub article should be created [[Burials in Glasnevin Cemetery]] or some such like. If it's about presentation, Looooong lists etc. and a new article is not suitable, put them into columns. [[User:Brendandh|Brendandh]] 23:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::You beat me to it - if they are notable enough to have articles and they are buried in Glasnevin then they should be listed!--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 23:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Yeah its about presentation , i never though on a new article. I'll move them in the above suggested article ([[User:Gnevin|Gnevin]] 16:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
== Dail constituency pages == |
|||
I've begun working on improving the Dail constituency pages. Ultimately what I would like to do would be to have full results online for each election similar to this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Artane_%28D%C3%A1il_%C3%89ireann_constituency%29#1977_full_election_result] rather than just having 1st preference results only. Those from November 1982 onwards are already online so the focus would be on February 1982 and earlier. I have the 1977 ones courtesy of the Irish times but I'm hoping that the rest will be in newspapers from the time. So far I've been creating results tables like Dublin Artane manually but is there an easier and less time consuming way to do this? [[User:Valenciano|Valenciano]] 17:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==The generic "Irish Politician" stub== |
|||
<nowiki>{{Ireland-politician-stub}}</nowiki> |
|||
The definition of this stub seems to have been changed recently from "Irish Politician" to "Politician from the Republic of Ireland". Originally it could be used for stub articles on people involved in politics anywhere on the geographic location (i.e. the whole island of Ireland), not just the current Republic or UK area. This distinction is important for articles on events before the partition e.g. [[Edward Robert King-Harman]] would identify as Irish and a politician involved in Irish politics but would be horrified at being described as a "Politician from the Republic of Ireland". |
|||
Can we change this stub back to meaning Ireland generically and use a different stub to denote a politician involved in the modern political entity of the Republic ? Or have I missed something ? |
|||
[[User:Rcbutcher|Rcbutcher]] 04:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Maybe sub cats need to be made but I am not sure that that is the solution.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 10:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== POW category added to IRA articles == |
|||
Is the [[:Category:Prisoners of war|Prisoners of war]] category appropriate for IRA articles? As the [[Troubles]] article states, it was variously described as "terrorism, an ethnic conflict, a many-sided conflict, a guerrilla war, a low intensity conflict, or even a civil war." But no state of actual war existed so IRA prisoners weren't POWs. They had [[Special Category Status]] for four years, which was '''akin''' to POW status, but not POW status itself. Any thoughts? [[User:Stubacca|<font color = "green">'''Stu'''</font>]] [[User talk:Stubacca|<font color = "green"><sup>''’Bout ye!''</sup></font>]] 10:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Obviously I would say that it is applicable. Firstly its sourced info so ticks that box, secondly the IRA through the Green Book had declared war on Britain so a war footing was established. I also propose to extend this category for those invlove in the 1916 Rising how were imprisioned in Knutsford and Frongoch, finally to all intense and purposes Long Kesh was a prisoner of war camp.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 10:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Well. Let's hold off on the "should people impisoned for actions during the troubles be categorised as POWs?" debate for now. One way or the other all those IRA prisoner articles SHOULD NOT be in the "base" POW category. If those articles need to be categorised, they should be put under a "People imprisoned during the troubles" style category. Beyond that we can have a discussion whether THAT cat should be a sub-cat of POW. But the current set-up is definitely not appropriate. [[User:Guliolopez|Guliolopez]] 10:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::All people in the POW category are also in the People convicted/imprisioned on terrorism charges cats aswell. Are you suggestion a merger of those in the "opposing" cats?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 11:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC) p.s. just saw that you wrote [[Collins Barracks (Dublin)|this article]] - great work, I was considering one for Cathal Brugha.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 11:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::RE: Merge of "imprisoned for terrorism" and "POW" cats. No. That isn't neccesary. It doesn't have to be a unique or merged cat. But the "POW" cat is now heavily populated with IRA prisoners. It imbalances the cat. They just shouldn't be in the base category. The IRA prisoners should be simply moved to a subcat. Not unlike [[:Category:People killed during the Troubles]]. Once that's done we can get into further debate. |
|||
::::RE: Cathal Brugha Barracks. I started capturing raw data for that article myself sometime ago. I was planning on building a stub on my "[[User:Guliolopez/Test|Work In Progress]]" page and then create the article proper. Haven't got around to it yet though. [[User:Guliolopez|Guliolopez]] 11:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Of course they're not prisoners of war. Simply because the IRA say that they at war with Britain doesn't make it so. If I say I'm at war with Britain and go out and murder someone British, will I be a prisoner of war too when I get caught? Of course not. To say otherwise would be incredibly subjective, just the same as in this case. [[User:81.77.42.226|81.77.42.226]] 14:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Third edit from an IP - hhmmmm!! Please explain what a Prisoner of War is then and you'll soon find out. p.s. when the British Government send thousands of troops to wherever you are to try and defeat you then i will take you declaration of war a bit more serious! Slan!--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 14:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Yes, I have an IP. Scandalous. Whatever happened to AGF? I don't see any other talk from anonymous editors in this section anyway, so it seems incredibly over the top to imply anything untoward is going on - hypocritical even, given your history for puppetry. Regardless, my user name is ExNihilo since you're so fascinated. I'm not logged in and I'll be damned if I'm going to just to avert your paranoia. Back to the subject at hand: Find me substantial NPOV references for the Britain-IRA situation being considered a war. Without those references this shouldn't even be a discussion since it can only be considered OR or POV otherwise. [[User:81.77.42.226|81.77.42.226]] 15:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::How cute!--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 15:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
[http://direct.rte.ie/news/2003/0227/north.html], [http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/india/ireland1968.htm], [http://www.flashpoints.info/countries-conflicts/Northern_Ireland-web/n-ireland_briefing_main.html], [http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=6092], [http://www.newint.org/issue255/war.htm], [http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA358989], [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4720863.stm] - more if you want!!--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 15:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Try this one [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6276416.stm Army paper says IRA not defeated] or if want to read the British army report [http://www.patfinucanecentre.org/misc/opbanner.pdf British Army report] It describes the IRA as "a professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient force", while loyalist paramilitaries and other republican groups are described as "little more than a collection of gangsters".--[[User:Padraig3uk|padraig3uk]] 15:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::They shouldn't be in the category as it's POV and no more acceptable than including them in the category "terrorist." Numerous sources also exist for that as well but we rightly avoid that here due to its emotive connotations. The best solution would be to create a category like "prisoners given special category status." [[User:Valenciano|Valenciano]] 17:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Though I clearly believe it was a war (often admitted by British Government members, especially when seeking to justify "extra-legal" activity), I could live with the compromise as outlined by [[User:Valenciano|Valenciano]] above. But vigilance is necessary; I have on several occasions has to revert attempts to categorise IRA-related articles as "terrorism". ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 23:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
So should the category be [[:Prisoners given special category status in Northern Ireland]]? Is the NI necessary, or would the average reader know what it means? I doubt it. What would the parent category(ies) be? [[:Category:Prisoners and detainees]]? This category would apply to people imprisoned between 1972 and 1976 - what about the others? [[User:Stubacca|<font color = "green">'''Stu'''</font>]] [[User talk:Stubacca|<font color = "green"><sup>''’Bout ye!''</sup></font>]] 09:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I would include all those imprisoned for their part in the conflict, maybe we should have a [[:People Imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict]] as a main category with [[:Republicans Imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict]] and [[:Loyalists Imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict]] as sub-categories of that.--[[User:Padraig3uk|padraig3uk]] 09:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::We could also add a third category like [[:Non-aligned Imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict]] for the likes of the Birmingham Six etc, for those wrongly conficted as a result of the conflict.--[[User:Padraig3uk|padraig3uk]] 09:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::I would be very much in favour of Pádraig's categories, although the name of the third one should be slightly different as people in that category, although wrongly imprisoned, would all have been aligned on one side or the other. We might need another (under-populated) category: [[:Members of the security forces imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict]], though admittedly that is a very long title. [[User:Scolaire|Scolaire]] 12:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I would forget the 3rd cat, and just put non-aligned people in the parent [[:Category:People Imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict]] cat, unless a shorter cat name can be thought up. [[User:Stubacca|<font color = "green">'''Stu'''</font>]] [[User talk:Stubacca|<font color = "green"><sup>''’Bout ye!''</sup></font>]] 15:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Yes, POW is correct== |
|||
Following a long debate with [[User:John]] I have become convinced that there is no good reason to refrain from classing IRA prisoners as POWs. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John#POW_category See here.]([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 19:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
:In June 1971 [[Reginald Maudling]], the Conservative [[British Home Secretary]], announced that the British government was now "at war with the IRA." So POWs they must have been. (This info posted on my talk-page by an impeccable source [[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]]) |
|||
::Well, to be pedantic, it was posted by a user who doesn't actually supply a source. My question would be, though, if the IRA themselves didn't wage a conventional war under the Geneva Convention, nor claim or seek PoW status (as defined under the Geneva Convention) for their members (they sought "Special Category" status, '''not''' PoW status), then who are we to argue? [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|BaStun not BaTsun]]</sup> 23:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Well Bastun, your loyalty is admirable - but I for one would argue with the IRA on many counts! ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 11:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
===Copied over=== |
|||
====(from Talk:Mairéad Farrell)==== |
|||
[[:Image:Victory To the Prisoners Poster.JPG]] |
|||
Republican Prisoners through out the conflict considered themselves as prisoners of war (POW). Alternative titles such as Political Prisoners and Special Category prisoners were also used. As this Political Poster from the Hunger Strikes clearly shows. In addition an image I placed on the article illustrates the point also.<small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Domer48|Domer48]] ([[User talk:Domer48|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Domer48|contribs]]){{#if: 12:22, July 12, 2007 (UTC)|  12:22, July 12, 2007 (UTC)}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->--[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] 11:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Well frankly that doesn't convince me. The poster is evidently that of an Irish source, inevitably shifting the Irish POV. Even if sources consider the troubles to be a war but there is no mention of POWs, defining them as such would be [[WP:OR|OR]]. And I would hardly consider the poster to be a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]]. [[User:Chris Buttigieg|Chris Buttigieg]] 10:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::"The poster is evidently that of an ''Irish source'', inevitably shifting :the Irish POV." Right. Irish sources need not apply? That sounds a bit racist to me but I assume good faith and know that you didn't mean it the way it sounds. ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 12:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
:::::What I mean to say is that an Irish source is naturally going to bear an Irish POV and this is no good for Wikipedia. If you break it down; 1) There have been no sources yet claiming POWs apart from two images. Other sources may claim the troubles as a war, but there is no direct mention to POWs from such sources. 2) The images provided are not [[WP:RELY|reliable sources]] and therefore not [[WP:V|verifiable]]. Now if you put two and two together and simply assume that because it was a war and they were imprisoned they are automatically rendered POWs, you get [[original research]] and a inevitable POV. [[User:Chris Buttigieg|Chris Buttigieg]] 13:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::"Irish source is naturally going to bear an Irish POV," for a start is a none runner. The logic employed in the statement "is no good for Wikipedia." The same could be said then of any source. Could I suggest you read the article 1981 Irish Hunger Strike. You have heard of it I assume. That should inform your opinion. If you wish to increase your understanding, most if not all books on the subject mention the subject. Although, as an Irish wikipedian based on the logic above I'm inherently POV motivated and biased at a genetic level and therefore allowances should be made for this defect.--[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] 13:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::For those who understand no explanation is necessary, for those who don’t, none is possible. --[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] 11:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
[[:Image:Remember the POW's CD.JPG]] |
|||
Additional information. --[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] 11:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
From reading [[Prisoner of War]] I don't see how any of Farrell (or indeed any IRA activist) could be classed as a prisoner of war. Posters of IRA propoganda are very NPOV. [[User:194.72.35.70|194.72.35.70]] 12:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:The Wiki compromise seems to be that neither the terms "terrorist" nor "POW" be applied to Liberation Armies or that articles relating to such not be categorised as either. Which is fine. But I see [[Mairéad Farrell]] is in fact categorised under "People convicted of Terrorist offences". Should we not remove the article from that category if we are resisting the POW categorisation? ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 12:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
::Surely it is a matter of fact that she was convicted of a terrorist offence (whether or not she was a terrorist). The PoW article could do with a clean up as there seem to be quite a few members of 'Liberation Armies' listed there. [[User:194.72.35.70|194.72.35.70]] 12:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'd question the existence of the category (ie whether it ''should'' exist). This is akin to having a category [[Members of the British Army accused of murder]] - we could add thousands of names; in fact we could even create new ones by making accusations. The ''Guildford Four'' etcetera were convicted of "terrorist" crimes; are they categorised? ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 12:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
::::I wouldn't have a problem with a category [[Members of the British military convicted of unlawful killing]] being created. The Guildford Four are in the category [[British wrongfully convicted people]], and I would suggest that since they were convicted of a terrorist offence they should be included in [[People convicted of a terrorist offence]], although this may be regarded as potentially misleading and offensive. Perhaps there is an argument for a category [[People wrongly convicted of a terrorist offence]] or similar? [[User:194.72.35.70|194.72.35.70]] 12:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::: Only problem with [[People wrongly convicted of a terrorist offence]] is deciding who they are. Should the arbiters be the systems that wrongly convicted them? I presume such a category would extend to "legal systems" even dodgier than the British one? ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 12:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
:::::: Wrongful conviction also fails to reflect that some people cleared on appeal may in fact have been guilty! [[People convicted of terrorist offences but later cleared]]? [[User:194.72.35.70|194.72.35.70]] 12:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: Don't think that has ever happened....and I '''am not''' charging at that little red flag you are waving! ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 14:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
Is it not important that the prisoners described themselves as prisoners of war? That a whole campaign was launched around this concept. That they were political prisoners and would not be treated as criminals is well documented. That they achieved their demands on special category status though this is less well known would lend support to my contention that the tag is supportable on this article. --[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] 13:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:They were granted special category status but were never granted POW status. --[[User:John|John]] 13:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::The difference being? They regarded themselves as POW’s. They regarded themselves as an army. John you are just as much a protagonist in this discussion as anyone. You have allowed a comment like “What I mean to say is that an Irish source is naturally going to bear an Irish POV and this is no good for Wikipedia,” [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mair%C3%A9ad_Farrell&diff=144177761&oldid=144174129] without comment. You have ignored this comment [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Biofoundationsoflanguage&diff=144158919&oldid=144156711] and this on your own user page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John&diff=144159216&oldid=144080463]. Now I’m requesting that you have a none biased admin review this article, as your contrabuting to it is untenable. --[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] 14:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::You can request any of our 1000 admins for help any time you like, I already showed you the list of their names. Please correct your mistake above; I did respond to your message on my talk page. Your perception of my "bias" means very little to me at this point. Please try to follow our policies towards improving the article. Thanks. --[[User:John|John]] 14:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
At the end of the day, the simple fact is that categorising them as prisoners of war implies a moral judgment; and if one party can effectively attach the label to a group, then it has indirectly influenced others to adopt its moral standpoint. [[User:Chris Buttigieg|Chris Buttigieg]] 14:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I can see why it is so difficult to remove pro-British bias from these sorts of articles. Chris, in response to my objecting to you appearing to dismiss "Irish sources" per se; you replied - "What I mean to say is that an Irish source is naturally going to bear an Irish POV and this is no good for Wikipedia." |
|||
:Does it therefore follow that "a British source is naturally going to bear a British POV and this is no good for Wikipedia." |
|||
:So what sources can we accept: the view from Mars? ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 14:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
::The view from Gibraltar is pretty neutral. --[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 15:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::John I do not misunderstand the role of an administrator. Administrators apart from anything else are also editors. Now an administrator who is editing an article and involved in a discussion could hardly be described as unbiased. What I am saying though, as an administrator, you do not abdicate your responsibilities as such, when you see behaviour which is not appropriate being conducted on an article. In addition, any decisions you make with regard this article, and this discussion will be as an editor, and any views you may have will be seen as such, including the inappropriateness of removing categories which you disagree with. |
|||
I hope that clarifies things for you. Your opinions means very little to me at this point. Please try to follow our policies towards improving the article. Thanks--[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] 16:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
The definition on the [[Prisoner of War]] page is ''"A prisoner of war (POW, PoW, or PW) is a combatant who is imprisoned by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict."'' |
|||
Farrell ''et al'' were imprisoned as combatants during the course of the armed conflict in Ireland. |
|||
Keeping both PoW and People Convicted of Terrorism tags should surely satisfy both sides??[[User:GiollaUidir|GiollaUidir]] 18:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I will also compromise to either the removal or inclusion of both as there should be some sort of parity.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 18:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::As will I. --[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] 20:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::And, that is exactly the point I was making...somewhere else. Both or neither. ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 03:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
That Ms Farrell was convicted of terrorism is a matter of public record, and part of her claim to notability. The claim that she was a PoW is wishful thinking with no official recognition. I suggest we leave it as it was. --[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] 21:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::"no official recognition" - who's recognition is offical and who isnt? They were offical classed as prisoners of war by the republican movement and the republican movement doesnt recognise the officaldom of the foriegn occupiers. So whats your point?--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 23:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:A better solution would be to remove both tags. According to the article Farrell was convicted of explosive offences - that is fact - but whether or not she was a terrorist is subjective. As for the POW tag, the 'Republican view' is clearly that she was a POW, the 'British view' is clearly that she was not a POW but a criminal. To give her the POW tag is to endorse the 'Republican view', and to violate NPOV.--[[User:Hegertor|Hegertor]] 23:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Agree with removing BOTH tags ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 03:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
::See [[Talk:Michael Gaughan (Irish republican)#POW status]] where [[User:Rockpocket]] makes the seemingly reasonable suggestion that we use [[:Category:People convicted on terrorism charges]] instead.--[[User:John|John]] 23:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I dont find a reasonable suggestion or an equitable solution. What remove them as Prisoners of War and categorise them as terrorists? No.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 23:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Just wanted to point out that the category [[:Category:People convicted on terrorism charges]] isn't actually categorising anybody as a terrorist per se, its actually just stating that so-and-so person has been ''convicted'' of charges relating to terrorism in a court of law. This is a clearly verifiable and well defined ''fact''. Claiming however that a member of the IRA in prison is a POW is neither clearly defined or conclusively verifiable. The best compromise would probably be to keep the people in question in the "convicted of terrorism" category (because, like it or not, they were convicted on terrorist charges) and to create a sub-category: [[:Category:Imprisioned IRA members]] (or some such title) which could then be added to [[:Category:Prisoners of war]] and any other pertinent categories. This would certainly reduce (if not fully halt) the furore over this and would clean up the POW category, which has become very overbalanced with the sudden addition of dozens of IRA members (the reason I ended up here in the first place).--[[User:Jackyd101|Jackyd101]] 00:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Excellent suggestion. --[[User:John|John]] 00:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Actually not a very useful suggestion as it merely facilitates British bias. As explained by V-kits and myself. We must keep BOTH tags, or remove both. ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 03:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
(deindent)They were convicted under British law, like it or not. And this category is verifiable and NPOV, unlike the other two. --[[User:John|John]] 05:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::It is perfectly possible for the suggested new category to also be a subcategory of [[:Category:People convicted on terrorism charges]], so that the category is not present on every IRA member's page. I'm also well aware that Ms. Sarah777, Mr. Vintagekits and other members of [[WP:IRA]] do not regard the British government's decisions as legitimate and thus do not recognise their legal system. You are free to believe this, but such beliefs have absolutely no place on Wikipedia, which does recognise the legitimacy of the British government. This does not mean that government sources should be presented unquestioned, but it does mean that decisions made by the government are regarded as legitimate in the eyes of Wikipedia and your personal belief that it is not legitimate is irrelevant. |
|||
::Your demand that both tags are kept or neither are is not a compromise, nor is it an accurate reflection of fact or a legitimate argument position. Wikipedia relies on verifiability, not "truth", particulaly not in the case of The Troubles where many people have different versions of what constitutes truth. It is however an undeniable fact that these people (whether terrorist or not), were convicted under anti-terrorism legislation by a sovereign government. The statement that they were prisoners of war is only an opinion, and a controversial one at that (by the way, the Guildford Four's convictions were quashed so they are no longer convicted). |
|||
::Despite your insistance, this is not an example of pro-British bias because (unless you can provide a source to contradict me) no sovereign government or reliable media outlet '''worldwide''' has given these men the status of POWs. How they regarded themselves is irrelevant, how they were seen by the rest of the world (i.e. not necessarily in Britain) is the most important indicator.--[[User:Jackyd101|Jackyd101]] 09:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::"Republicans, however, as a point of principle, never accepted criminal status and always referred to themselves as political prisoners, or prisoners of war (POWs). In keeping with their demands for POW status, generations of IRA prisoners referred to their jail as a ‘prisoner of war camp’. Thus they had a Camp staff and Gamp council." Brendan Anderson, ''Joe Cahill A Life in the IRA,'' O’Brien Press, Dublin, 2002, ISBN 0-86278-674-6, Pg 73.--[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] 10:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::This doesn't answer my question. It is already established that Republicans prisoners viewed themselves as POWs. My question is: Did/does anybody else? [[Joshua A. Norton]] said he was emperor of the United States but that didn't make it so. Also, what is wrong with [[:Category:Imprisoned IRA members]] as a subcat of both "convicted of terrorism charges" and "prisoners of war"? Does anybody object to that as a compromise?--[[User:Jackyd101|Jackyd101]] 10:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Good idea but there are a couple of problems I can see with that. The main one is that there have been several organisations called the IRA and it might be misleading to lump them together like that. --[[User:John|John]] 14:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::What about Cat: Political Prisoners? They were politically motivated, i.e. in conflict with the British Government. We could call them Prisoners of Westminster, abbreviated PoW. --[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] 15:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::They were prisoners captured in the course of an armed conflict (more commonly called a "war" in the common parlance) and imprisoned for their actions in the war. Why not just stick with both or neither Category rather than fudging it? |
|||
:::::::Also, while it is true that Ms Farrell was captured after the attack on the hotel and was not on armed service at that particular moment, as per [[Protocol I]], [[Protocol_I#Article_44._-Combatants_and_prisoners_of_war|Article 44, 3(b),4 and 5]] she is still entitled to PoW status under the Geneva Conventions.[[User:GiollaUidir|GiollaUidir]] 16:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
(deindent) [[Lynndie England]] was also imprisoned during an armed conflict she was involved in, yet her article does not belong to the category. Do you feel that it should? --[[User:John|John]] 16:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I think you're deliberately misrepresenting my point. Members of the IRA were captured by enemy forces and imprisoned by them; Ms England was a war criminal tried by her own side. It would be reasonable to categorise [[Jessica Lynch]] as one though, as indeed, she is.[[User:GiollaUidir|GiollaUidir]] 16:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::As indeed she should be. My point was that being imprisoned while fighting a war does not automatically entitle you to the status of PoW. More importantly, '''in the real world''' IRA prisoners were not treated as PoWs but held in ordinary jails, albeit under special conditions. However much you or I think they were '''entitled''' to this status, we have to reflect and report the world as it is and not as we think it should be. Frankly, and I hope I won't offend you by saying this, this is the sort of dispute that makes people ridicule Wikipedia. I wish we could move on from it; a perfectly good compromise has been proposed that we should all be able to live with. --[[User:John|John]] 16:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Hello [[User:GiollaUidir|GiollaUidir]], my tongue was planted firmly in my cheek . I thought my edit summary made the same point as you did. --[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] 16:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::"They were granted special category status but were never granted POW status. --John 13:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)" This is just a play on words. Political Status/ special category /POW. --[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] 17:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::It would be wonderful if we could discuss sincerely here how we can improve the article rather than making these kind of barbed wee jokes though. --[[User:John|John]] 17:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::And with that thought in mind, going to other articles [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bobby_Sands&diff=144406330&oldid=144405895] to create the same discussion is considered what? --[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] 17:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::'''In the real world''' what happened was men and women were denied a status that they were entitled to due to the British government riding roughshod over international law. Have a read over the articles about the Geneva Convention and subsequent Protocols, esp the ones linked to above.[[User:GiollaUidir|GiollaUidir]] 17:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::You have just undermined your entire argument. By saying that IRA prisoners were denied their status as Prisoners of War under the Geneva Convention, you have tacitly admitted that they were not Prisoners of War. Nobody as yet has provided a reliable, neutral source which agrees with the Irish Republican POV that IRA prisoners were legally prisoners of war. Until somebody does that, the prisoner of war category is both POV and incorrect. I still fail to see the problem with the compromise I suggested above.--[[User:Jackyd101|Jackyd101]] 17:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Many were also denied their human rights, does that mean they weren't human also?? See below for source: ([[User:GiollaUidir|GiollaUidir]] 17:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
'''"3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly: |
|||
( a ) During each military engagement, and |
|||
( b ) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate. |
|||
Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 ( c ). |
|||
4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed. |
|||
5. Any combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while not engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack shall not forfeit his rights to be a combatant and a prisoner of war by virtue of his prior activities."''' -From [[Protocol I]] of the [[Geneva Convention]] |
|||
*Again, though, you are arguing that according to you they ought to have been accorded this status. In point of fact they were not. --[[User:John|John]] 17:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Infact, just re-read Section four of the above excerpt, "in the case where such a person is '''''tried and punished''' for any offences he has committed". It's pretty unambiguous and allows use of both POW and "Persons convicted of terrorism" cats.[[User:GiollaUidir|GiollaUidir]] 17:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Arguing that they '''should''' have recieved prisoner of war status is irrelevant. The fact is that the imprisoning government (the British) '''did not''' class them as prisoners of war under the Geneva convention and no major news organisation or foreign government (including the Republic of Ireland, the USA or the UN) has made any statment so far uncovered which indicates a belief that they should have been prisoners of war. Quoting the Geneva convention is only relevant if it actually applies, which it does not here because the British government chose not to apply it.--[[User:Jackyd101|Jackyd101]] 17:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::It's a bit rich to expect the occupying forces to suddenly change 350 years of precedent during the latest revolt against their presence. There is nothing in the convention about whether status is dependent on the occupying forces deciding to apply the provisions or not. [[User:GiollaUidir|GiollaUidir]] 18:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::"Occupying forces" has nothing to do with it. The convention is self-enforced. If a government refuses to apply it and instead treats the irregular fighters as criminals or terrorists (as the British so chose during The Troubles) then it does not apply and the people it concerns are not legally prisoners of war under its juristicition. Attempting to retroactively apply it here is at best OR. I say again: Please provide a reliable and neutral secondary source which descibes IRA prisoners as "Prisoners of war" and then there can be a proper debate. Until then, this entire discussion is moot.--[[User:Jackyd101|Jackyd101]] 18:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I agree with Jacky. In the absence of any such source, use of the term POW to describe people who were not treated as such would be OR. See also [[User talk:John#POW category]] where Sarah777 and I have been discussing this matter. --[[User:John|John]] 19:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::3RR specifically says you do not need to make 4 reverts to be blocked for edit-warring. Just a word to the wise. --[[User:John|John]] 18:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I removed [[Bobby Sands]] from [[:Category:Prisoners of war]]. This edit was reverted and in the edit summary it said to mention it here. Sands was never a POW; a Prisoner of war is a soldier who is captured in enemy territory during a war, in the uniform of their military and detained without trial in a POW camp under the Geneva convention until the war ends. Bobby Sands was put on trial and convicted of possession of firearms and sentenced to 14 years in jail. Under every convention and international standard, he was a convicted criminal and not a POW. Only a small number of Republicans in Northern Ireland consider those imprisoned during the troubles to be POWs and it is Wikipedia policy to have a neutral view. Therefore, under [[WP:POV]], no member of the Provisional IRA who was imprisoned during that time should be in [[:Category:Prisoners of war]]. --[[User:Philip Stevens|Philip Stevens]] 20:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::During Bobby Sands Election as an MP, he recived over 30,000 votes. This was as a Political Prisoner. --[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] 20:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::A [[Political prisoner]] is someone who is imprisoned because of their beliefs and/or political views. As I've already said, Sands was imprisoned for possession of firearms, no other reason. And even if he was a Political Prisoner, why would that make him a POW? --[[User:Philip Stevens|Philip Stevens]] 20:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I am going to revert the removal of the category until it is sorted out fully. [[User:Philip Stevens|Philip Stevens]], should not have taken it upon himself to remove the category at this stage.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 20:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::And nor should you take it upon yourself to replace them. This is edit-warring. --[[User:John|John]] 20:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Its hardly edit warring when I have informed everyone here, we all know you support his move, however, this is still being discussed and he had no business removing it. I agreed with Stu not to add the POW cat to anymore articles until the issue is sorted, that was on the proviso that they remained there until this was sorted.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 20:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Can you explain what you mean and how this is relevant? --[[User:John|John]] 20:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::His candidature was as a POW. His aims to have political status returned to the prisoners. They got their five demands! He was a POW. --[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] 20:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::That's an opinion that few outside the Republican movement share and so it is against [[WP:POV]]. I know feelings run high on this topic but you must follow Wikipedia policy. --[[User:Philip Stevens|Philip Stevens]] 20:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Show me a non-partisan reliable source which states they were POWs and I will believe you. Until then, your repeated assertions will add little value to the debate. --[[User:John|John]] 20:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Show me a non-partisan reliable source which states they were not POWs.Until then, your repeated assertions will add little value to the debate. --[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] 20:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
(deindent) Unfortunately for your POV-pushing endeavours, that is not how we work here. The onus is on the editor wishing to include something to show that it is justified. Good luck. --[[User:John|John]] 20:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:He has proven it and provided references. The IRA declared war on Britain - its members where imprisoned by British forces for car operations for and on behalf of the IRA - they are therefore both political prisons and prisons or war. "Unpalatable as it may seem, we are prisoners of war. We act as an army, as a disciplined group of men, in a very disciplined and determined manner," Jim McVeigh - if you cants swallow it I suggest salt or sauce.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 21:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:*They were imprisoned for their actions, not for their view or affiliations. That makes them criminals not political prisoners or prisoners of war. Jim McVeigh is hardly neutral. --[[User:Philip Stevens|Philip Stevens]] 21:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::"They would give no more than their names; and they would refuse to be interrogated; they would not give evidence at trial. They would accept their punishment, go to prison and set up blocks within the Maze Prison with a chain of command as though they were prisoners of war." Lord Thomas of Gresford--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 21:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Great quote! "...as though they were" is of course an acknowledgement that in fact they were not. --[[User:John|John]] 21:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Baroness Amos - "Whether or not an individual is classed as a prisoner of war depends on the facts of each case. It is for the detaining power"--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 21:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::"The detaining power" was the British Govenment, who saw them as criminals. I think you've just disproved your point. --[[User:Philip Stevens|Philip Stevens]] 21:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Clutching at straws playing at semantics [[User:John|John]], I will let the uncivil jib slide. Show me a non-partisan reliable source which states they were not POWs.Until then, your repeated assertions will add little value to the debate.--[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] 21:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Right were those captured after the Easter Rising and sent to [[Frongoch internment camp]] and Knutsford POW'S??--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 21:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Yes, you are rather, but don't worry about it. I've been on the wrong side of consensus before too. Better luck next time, eh? --[[User:John|John]] 21:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::"Every one of these prisoners, whether captured soldiers of the I.R.A. or innocent victims of a revenge hungry state, is in gaol as a result of the war which exists between Britain and Ireland and there isn’t one of them who would have seen the inside of a prison cell but for this war. They are in reality, despite what the pro-British propagandists claim, political prisoners of war." --[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 21:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
(deindent)Who said that though? I'm betting it wasn't Mrs T... --[[User:John|John]] 21:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Come come [[User:John|John]] is that your non-partisan reliable source? Show me a non-partisan reliable source which states they were not POWs.--[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] 21:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Once again - were those captured after the Easter Rising and sent to [[Frongoch internment camp]] and Knutsford POW'S - p.s. you aint got no consensus mate so dont claim you have.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 21:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:John|John]] Show us a non-partisan reliable source which states they were not POWs. Answer the questions. --[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] 21:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Since you have told me the core principle for adding and restoring material[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Domer48#Core_policy], what about removing material where is the onus? Would that be the same onus on the editor wishing to remove something to show that it is justified. For example removing POW cat's am I right in asking show us a non-partisan reliable source which states they were not POWs.--[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] 21:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Come on guys, this is disingenuous. Vintagekits added the categories and they have been challenged. The onus is absolutely 100% on Vintagekits (and users who wish to help him) to prove that these cats belong here. John has nothing to prove, but Vintagekits et al MUST provide reliable, neutral sources which indicate that either 1) The British government treated IRA prisoners as legal Prisoners of War (which everyone here knows is not the case) OR 2) IRA prisoners were viewed as prisoners of war by influential external sources like foreign governments or major media outlets. The onus is on you to prove this is the case or this lengthy and frustrating debate will continue for weeks until a mediation cabal reviews it and says exactly what I just have.--[[User:Jackyd101|Jackyd101]] 22:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Sources which comply to [[WP:RS]] have been provided. --[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 22:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Where? I don't believe they have. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Irish_Wikipedians%27_notice_board#POW_category_added_to_IRA_articles the ones you left here] do not mention the term Prisoner of War (although quite a few describe the IRA as terrorists, which seems to imply selective reading on your part) and the ones on this page, as John has noted, are either not reliable or actually serve to indicate that they were not POWs. Did you leave them somewhere else? It does not follow that The Troubles = War ergo IRA prisoners = Prisoners of War. Prisoners of War is a legal term which has not been shown to apply here. I suggested a compromise above of a [[:Category:Imprisoned IRA members]] which would be a sub-category of [[:Category:Prisoners of war]] and [[:Category:People convicted on terrorism charges]]. What do people think to this? --[[User:Jackyd101|Jackyd101]] 22:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Seems a reasonable suggestion. --[[User:John|John]] 00:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] question is still outstanding, there is plenty of mileage left in this discussion. So no one has to show us a non-partisan reliable source which states they were not POWs. Is the the gist of the discussion at the moment? --[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] 01:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't agree there is plenty of mileage left in the discussion, and I don't know which question you mean. In the absence of [[WP:RS]] stating that they were POWs, we cannot say that they were. Simple. Jacky and Rockpocket have proposed an easy compromise solution which conforms to policy. What more is there to discuss? --[[User:John|John]] 01:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::J Bowyer Bell - ''The Secret Army'' (ISBN 1-56000-901-2) page 379. (Following the death of Gunner Robert Curtis on February 6) 'The following morning Chichester-Clark [then Prime minister] announced on television that "Northern Ireland is at war with the Irish Republican Army Provisionals"'. Thoughts? [[User:Scalpfarmer|Scalpfarmer]] 06:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::"Mr. Sands was a convicted criminal. He chose to take his own life. It was a choice that his organisation did not allow to many of its victims" [[Margaret Thatcher]]. James Chichester-Clark may have thought it was a war but Mrs. T didn't. --[[User:Philip Stevens|Philip Stevens]] 08:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Sorry, but you're missing the point. The Prime Minister of Northern Ireland declared war on the IRA, 10 years before that quote from Thatcher. [[User:Scalpfarmer|Scalpfarmer]] 09:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::*Yes, I'm saying it's irrelevant because Thatcher (someone around at the time not 10 years earlier) didn't see them as POWs but as common criminals. --[[User:Philip Stevens|Philip Stevens]] 09:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Pardon? Gunner Robert Curtis died in February 1971, Thatcher made that statement following the death of Bobby Sands in May 1981. Looks like 10 years to me? [[User:Scalpfarmer|Scalpfarmer]] 09:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::*This discussion is about whether [[Mairéad Farrell]] and [[Bobby Sands]] should be in [[:Category:Prisoners of war]]. --[[User:Philip Stevens|Philip Stevens]] 09:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::It looks like a discussion affecting more articles than those two, or that's how it looks to me. [[User:Scalpfarmer|Scalpfarmer]] 10:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
J Bowyer Bell - ''The Secret Army'' (ISBN 1-56000-901-2) page 379. (Following the death of Gunner Robert Curtis on February 6) 'The following morning Chichester-Clark [then Prime minister] announced on television that "Northern Ireland is at war with the Irish Republican Army Provisionals"'. Thoughts? [[User:Scalpfarmer|Scalpfarmer]] 06:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] question is still outstanding, Once again - were those captured after the Easter Rising and sent to [[Frongoch internment camp]] and Knutsford POW'S --[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] 08:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:The Chichester-Clark quote does not mention POWs. It is not enough to prove that The Troubles = War; as I said above, that does not automatically mean that IRA prisoners were legally POWs. Look at it from the other direction: were [[Corporals killings|Derek Howes and Derek Wood]] treated as POWs? were [http://www.palacebarracksmemorialgarden.org/Royal%20Highland%20Fusiliers.htm McCaughey and the McCaig brothers]? Just because a conflict is a war, doesn't mean that those captured on either side are legally POWs. Once again: You must provide quotes from reliable, neutral sources proving that IRA prisoners were either given POW status legally, or were condsidered as such by a portion of foreign governments and news sources. For example, what did the Irish governement call them? As to the Easter Uprising prisoners, I do not know much about their status but as we are discussing events 55-80 years after the EU I fail to see how citing it is relevant here.--[[User:Jackyd101|Jackyd101]] 09:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Despite this ongoing discussion this editor [[User:Biofoundationsoflanguage]] has decided to predetermine the outcome and conclusion. Their penetrating insight has defined the parameters of debate and their next logical step would be I suppose to claim it to be an edit war and have the article locked with their changes in place. --[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] 10:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Three British Army infantry battalions were deployed in the north of Ireland in1969. At its height 30,000 British soldiers were deployed around 100 locations. In July 1970 Martial law was imposed on the Lower Falls area of west Belfast. The view is that the Irish Republican Army is professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient, who engaged those forces. Are editors denying that this happened? And that the conflict was just a law and order matter? --[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] 13:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Who has said it wasn't a war? That's not the point, to quote Jackyd101, "The Troubles = War; does not automatically mean that IRA prisoners were legally POWs" --[[User:Philip Stevens|Philip Stevens]] 14:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The legality of it doesn't come into it. What is at stake is whether they can be objectively described as POWs or not. The [[Prisoners of War]] article certainly suggests that they should.[[User:GiollaUidir|GiollaUidir]] 15:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::*"The legality of it doesn't come into it"! WHAT?! Of course the legality comes into it, if they're not legally POWs they shouldn't be in the category. --[[User:Philip Stevens|Philip Stevens]] 15:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::In the early 1970s thousands of Irish Catholic men and boys were ''legally'' taken from their homes in the middle of the night and held for years without charge or trial. You'll have to excuse me if I don't pay to much heed to the "legality" of British actions in Ireland.[[User:GiollaUidir|GiollaUidir]] 15:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I'm not talking about legally in terms of what the British government thought or for that matter what the PIRA thought. It's about the Geneva Convention's idea of a POW; now tell me, did Swiss inspectors go round the Maze Prison? The way you've put your question shows you're far too emotional with respect to this subject. You should let the unbias editors make a judgment and leave it at that. --[[User:Philip Stevens|Philip Stevens]] 16:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
(deindent) Even if our article does say that, that doesn't count as a source as we can't self-reference like that. Unless someone from the "side" wishing to categorise IRA members as POWs is able to find a neutral reliable source descrbing them as such, there is no debate to be had here. --[[User:John|John]] 15:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:GiollaUdir says above that "What is at stake is whether they can be objectively described as POWs or not". This is incorrect. What is at stake is whether they '''were''' objectively described as POWs by somebody other than themselves. His failure to "pay to much heed to the "legality" of British actions in Ireland" is utterly irrelevant because Wikipedia does pay heed to the legality of British actions in Northern Ireland. Descibing IRA prisoners as POWs based on what the Wikipedia article [[Prisoners of war]] is OR and doing so without sources is as severe a breach of NPOV as describing them as terrorists. Sources '''must''' be provided backing up this viewpoint.--[[User:Jackyd101|Jackyd101]] 16:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
====(from User talk:John)==== |
|||
John, I have been looking at this dispute and remain somewhat unclear about the POW category. Certainly from looking at the contents, it seems a bit of a dolly mixture of cases. Is there any Wiki policy you can refer me to on this? The more I look into this the more unclear I am as to why MF is not allowed be included.(Regards ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 20:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
:Not a policy, no. But see [[Talk:Michael Gaughan (Irish republican)#POW status]] where [[User:Rockpocket]] makes the seemingly reasonable suggestion that we use [[:Category:People convicted on terrorism charges]] instead.--[[User:John|John]] 23:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Rather a dramatic difference between being described as a POW or as being "convicted of terrorism" I would have thought! Anyway; surely being "convicted of terrorism" has no bearing on becoming subsequently a POW? So BOTH categories fit the MF case. There is no need for an either/or here. ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 03:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
:::However, being convicted on terrorism charges is [[WP:V|verifiable]] and [[WP:NPOV|neutral]], unlike the contentious criminals and POW categories, which is why I prefer it. --[[User:John|John]] 05:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::I can't see how buying into a Government construct (they abolished a pre-existing political prisoner category) in a time of rebellion can be characterised as [[WP:NPOV|neutral]]. There is enough evidence that the British establishment regarded it as a "war" (especially when seeking to justify extra-legal killings); so clearly, enemy operatives captured and imprisoned by them were "POW" by their own logic? ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 18:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
:::::That's an arguable point of view, but it is not a '''neutral''' point of view. If we could find reliable sources indicating that anyone outside the republican movement regrded them as POWs, I think this argument would have more of a leg to stand on. --[[User:John|John]] 18:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I think you are taking this "no synthesis" notion beyond common sense or it's original intention. If the Govt regards itself as "at war"; takes prisoners from the enemy and incarcerates them - they are POWs; no synthesis or references required (and I'm not saying there aren't any). To exclusively us British Government terminology, even when it contradicts the logic of their own position, is simply pushing British State POV, and is not [[WP:NPOV|neutral]]. Also, is there anyone outside the British Establishment on record as saying they were ''not'' POWs? Their release after the GFA en-mass coperfastens the case that they were POWs. ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 18:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
(deindent)But the British state never did acknowledge it was at war with the IRA, instead treating them as terrorists. To make an analogy, [[Andreas Baader]] would doubtless have regarded himself and the other RAF personnel as prisoners of war. The group had after all declared war on the German state. Nevertheless in the absence of reliable sources recognising the existence of such a state of war, and in the interests of the NPOV policy, we do not call him a POW. --[[User:John|John]] 18:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::The British state has frequently acknowledged that there was a war on! They can't have it both ways like Bush and Guantanamo; the fighting in Afghanistan was a "War on Terror" but the enemy captives are not prisoners of war!! This isn't [[WP:NPOV]], it is an absurdity! |
|||
::Would we deny that Vietnam, Gulf One, Yugoslavia, Iraq were wars, just because the Western Governments involved never declared? ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 18:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
:::Believe me, I thoroughly sympathise with this point of view and I agree with you about Guantanamo. Unfortunately perhaps, governments do have a tendency to "have it both ways". I repeat, in the real world, the IRA prisoners were not given POW status, and so we cannot call them POWs. Whether they ''ought'' to have been granted it is another and quite interesting discussion, but not one which I feel will advance the discussion about the use of the category. Best wishes, --[[User:John|John]] 18:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::To reply to the second comment, the Falklands War is an interesting case in point. War was never declared by either side. I would say that ''as both sides treated the captured enemy as POWs'' we would be correct in calling them POWs. Pragmatic, real-world considerations have to drive our usage here, not our wishes for a better and fairer world, however commendable these wishes may be. --[[User:John|John]] 19:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Sorry John. Black is not white until some Western Government decides to concede the point. They are to be categorised as POW's based on the facts of their imprisonment; not on the grounds of what the British Government "granted". It is irrelevant what one of the warring parties called their prisoners if the facts all clearly support the definition "prisoner of war". So, to use your terminology; in the real world, the IRA prisoners were POWs, and so we must call them POWs. Whether the British Government ''ought'' to have granted such status officially is another and quite interesting discussion. Slán agus beannacht. ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 19:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
:::::Then should the category also be placed on Baader's page (my example above) because some regarded him as a POW? Best wishes to you too. --[[User:John|John]] 19:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::In June 1971 Reginald Maudling, the Conservative British Home Secretary, announced that the British government was now "at war with the IRA". Any similar announcements by the German Govt. re Baader Meinhof? ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 20:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
Not that I know of. I wonder if people ([[Tommy Chong]] for example) imprisoned in the [[War on Drugs]] would be entitled to call themselves POWs too then? --[[User:John|John]] 20:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:John - you gonna keep firing these balls at me till you find one I can't hit out of the park!! If Bush says he is "at war" with Mr Chung then I certainly think the situation needs further exploration. For example; against FARC in Columbia it definitely is a war (or the Narco-Warlords in Afghanistan). But would Mr Chung reckon he was engaged in a "war"; or just in the drug business? ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 21:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
::It's a knotty issue, you're right. All the more reason that the language we use remains scrupulously NPOV and conforms with neutral reliable sources. Chong, incidentally wasn't in the drugs business; he was convicted of selling drugs paraphernalia, not drugs. --[[User:John|John]] 21:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::John, I guess we both believe in the same rules of the game - "you can't enter a camel in a horse race". It's just that so many camels look like horses to you -:)([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 21:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
::::Well, indeed. I don't think the talk discussion is going anywhere; it's just about time we called in outside help. Let's see what some others think. --[[User:John|John]] 21:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
===Compromise suggestions section=== |
|||
(I hope nobody minds my bringing the debate over here; it seems like a more generalised one that was better discussed centrally. --[[User:John|John]] 16:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
:[http://books.google.com/books?id=61XZdjCj9PMC&pg=RA2-PA154&lpg=RA2-PA154&dq=%22bobby+sands%22+%22prisoner+of+war%22&source=web&ots=kBlpgP4awv&sig=VALs0HWRo0NDLQVR-7bGh2VYEAk Reliable neutral source] describing certain prisoners as POWs. [[User:Scalpfarmer|Scalpfarmer]] 16:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I'd like to again insert here my suggestion of a compromise in which IRA prisoners are gathered in a category named [[:Category:Imprisoned IRA members]] (or something similar) which is then a sub-category of both [[:Category:Prisoners of war]] and [[:Category:People convicted on terrorism charges]]. The most basic reason for this is that as the situation currently lies, the Prisoners of war category is now very overbalanced with IRA members. Irregardless of whether they deserve to be in the POW category or not, they should certainly be moved to a new sub-category for ease of navigation within the POW category. Questions of which categories this new sub-cat should then be in can be discussed there without having to substantially alter (or witness edit wars on) dozens or hundreds of articles. --[[User:Jackyd101|Jackyd101]] 16:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
It always surprises me how eager many Republicans try to justify the terrorism of the Provisional IRA by saying they were soldiers in a war. Look at Northern Ireland today, its still part of the United Kingdom, the Provisional IRA has disbanded, Ian Paisley is the First Minister, the Irish Republic has given up its claim to the North and has named the Provisional IRA as an illegal organisation. If the troubles was a war, then the Republicans definitely lost. These people, who so many of you want to give the honour of POW, were murderers, criminals and thugs. These are the people who in 1983 killed six people shopping in Harrods, how were shoppers preventing a united Ireland? I can not imagine the thought process that goes through even the most ardent Republican’s mind to make these terrorists soldiers and prisoners of war. Open your eyes and see what they did, do you really want to give them such respect? {{unsigned|86.155.76.139}} |
|||
:It has nothing to do with honour, respect, or who "won" the "war"; it has everything to do with observing the core policies of our project such as [[WP:NPOV]], and the pragmatic question of having a category that is useful to users. --[[User:John|John]] 17:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree its nothing to do with ''"with honour, respect, or who "won" the "war""'' just like its nothing to do with who Maggie decided to categorise republican POW's. Just beause her government refused to recognise there status as POW's doesnt not negate the fact that they were POW's just like the fact that those from the Easter rising who were transported to [[Frongoch]] and [[Knutsford]] were also POW's despite what the British government said.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 17:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::''These people, who so many of you want to give the honour of soldier, were murderers, criminals and thugs. These are the people who in 1972 killed fourteen people marching in Derry....'' [[User:Scalpfarmer|Scalpfarmer]] 17:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Perhaps this is insensitive but, speaking as someone who couldn't care less about the sovereignty of Northern Ireland, I find all this ranting about 'Catholics taken away in the middle of the night' and 'Brits being blown up as the shopped' all very boring. Can we please stick to the question, should PIRA prisoner be classed as POWs? In case anyone's missed it, I think people who were put in jail for a specific crime, like murder or possession of firearms, should be classed as criminals. --[[User:Philip Stevens|Philip Stevens]] 17:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::You asked for a source they were prisoners of war, one has been provided. Why are you backtracking now? [[;User:Scalpfarmer|Scalpfarmer]] 17:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::*Are you addressing me? I never asked for a source, that was John. I've always maintained that they were not POW by the any definition of a POW. --[[User:Philip Stevens|Philip Stevens]] 17:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Sorry, I thought sources were needed not personal POV? [[User:Scalpfarmer|Scalpfarmer]] 17:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::*The people who you want to put in the POW category, by the definition of a POW both on Wikipedia and the Geneva Conventions, were not POWs, that's not my personal POV, it is a fact. The assertion that they were POWs is propaganda created by the Republicans during internment. I don't think Wikipedia should promote propaganda. --[[User:Philip Stevens|Philip Stevens]] 17:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Sources were needed and yes you have provided one, so lets see what the next hoop we have to jump through is? The other question was not answered though, Re the 1916 rising?[[User:Philip Stevens|Philip Stevens]], can you support your opinion with referenced sources?--[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] 17:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::If you look at the discussion above, it was made quite clear that people could not interpret either the Wikipedia article or the Geneva Convention to claim they were POWs, a source was needed. A source has been provided, and now people are interpreting the Wikipedia article and the Geneva Convention to claim they weren't POWs. This doesn't seem right to me. [[User:Scalpfarmer|Scalpfarmer]] 17:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:[http://books.google.com/books?id=61XZdjCj9PMC&pg=RA2-PA154&lpg=RA2-PA154&dq=%22bobby+sands%22+%22prisoner+of+war%22&source=web&ots=kBlpgP4awv&sig=VALs0HWRo0NDLQVR-7bGh2VYEAk Reliable neutral source] Like I said, just another hoop!--[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] 18:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I think there is merit in [[User:Jackyd101|Jackyd101]]'s suggestion - it needs tweaking but its the bones of a compromise. Republicans dont recognised Britain categorising them terrorists and the British government dosnt recognised Republicans being categorised as POW's - thats the crux of the issue and there must be a factual, neutral and correct middle ground that we have all suffer.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 18:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Suggestions pleasae??--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 18:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::: I also support Jackyd101's suggestion as a compromise. The problem I have with a POW cat is that a POV is inherent. The [[:Category:People convicted on terrorism charges]] does not because it relates to fact. IF the person was convicted of a charge of terrorism then they can be added to the cat. It says nothing about whether the person is/was a terrorist, simply that a court convicted them of it. Now, if they cat was [[:Category:People who claimed Prisoner of War status]] then we could add all the IRA people without concern, since again, the cat does not say anything about whether they are POWs or not. As it happens, there is a very interesting academic review of the status or IRA convicts by Walker, C.P. ''Irish republican prisoners—political detainees, prisoners of war or common criminals?'' '''Irish Jurist''', 1984, 19, 189-225. His conclusion is: {{quote|The disparate claims for some sort of special treatment for convicted Republican prisoners can be rejected with confidence as almost totally without foundation in domestic or international law.}} Its a very good read, and seems to be the best source I have seen to provide a basis for why calling IRA prisoners POWs would be inherently POV. [[User:Rockpocket|<font color="green">Rockpock</font>]]<font color="black">e</font>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<font color="green">t</font>]] 18:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Not sure that what we are looking for here is a '''LEGAL''' endorsement because as has been very well explained above the nature of liberation movements is that they are attacking existing legal systems. If there is a war, which both parties acknowledge, and both parties claim they are fighting in, then any prisoners taken are "prisoners of war". Simple. Anything else is POV. Otherwise the ONLY view that Wiki will ever represent will be Establishment propaganda. (And not just the British Establishment). ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 19:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
:::::::::: Our use of the term POW must have a clear definition, otherwise ''any'' editor could claim ''any'' prisoner under that status in their own personal wars against consumerism (thieves), gender equality (rape), personal freedoms (drugs charges). Cats cannot be used as proxies for something that would not get by our policies in the text. Therefore, if we are to categorise individuals as POWs we need an independent, reliable source calling that person a POW ''explicitly''. If that is not provided on request, then the cat can be removed, as any other bit of unsourced text can be. Analyses suggesting that because there was an admission of war on both sides anyone imprisoned is a POW does not cut it per [[WP:OR]], especially when there is independent academic sources that provides no support for that definition. Similarly for [[:Category:People convicted on terrorism charges]] we need a reliable source that reports that the person was explicitly convicted of a terrorism charge. If none is provided on the talk page, it can go. Wikipedia is not about negotiating a fair compromise about two disparate POVs, it is about providing verifiable material in a neutral manner. Those two things are very different. [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] are non-negotiable and if sources cannot be found to either support cats, they will continue to be removed. [[User:Rockpocket|<font color="green">Rockpock</font>]]<font color="black">e</font>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<font color="green">t</font>]] 19:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Under British law [http://books.google.com/books?id=61XZdjCj9PMC&pg=RA2-PA154&lpg=RA2-PA154&dq=%22bobby+sands%22+%22prisoner+of+war%22&source=web&ots=kBlpgP4awv&sig=VALs0HWRo0NDLQVR-7bGh2VYEAk Reliable neutral source]they were considered POW’s that is until they changed the law. --[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] 19:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: Well, there you go. This would appear to suggest that those prisoners that were awarded special category status because they were considered POWs (although the scare quotes in that source suggest to me that that there is an acknowledgment that they are not true POWs in the traditional sense of the word, but that is neither her nor there). This source would be sufficient justification to add the cat to SCS prisoners, in my opinion. However, this would explicitly '''not''' apply to someone like [[Michael Gaughan (Irish republican)]] who was clearly not given SCS status and thus was not considered a POW. Do you have a source that calls non SCS prisoners POWs? [[User:Rockpocket|<font color="green">Rockpock</font>]]<font color="black">e</font>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<font color="green">t</font>]] 19:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:We've now seen that source three times and whilst it is a good start I have a couple of issues with it. 1) I said above that you needed sources (plural) 2) Its reliability and neutrality must be investigated before it can be accepted as evidence as its provenence is not clear at first glance (I'm not suggesting it is ineligible, only that it needs further investigation) 3) It does not represent the viewpoint of "a foreign government or major news organisation" i.e. it presents no indication of widespread acceptance of its viewpoint 4) The term 'Prisoner of war' is only mentioned once in the selection avaliable and then it is in inverted commas, which is hardly a ringing endorsement. 5) The term only applies in the source until 1976, which leaves 22 years of The Troubles uncovered. The source is fine as a start, but much more is needed before your case is proven. |
|||
:In the meantime, I'm glad to see growing acceptance of the compromise suggestion. Comment from more users would be good to see what issues need to be thrashed out before it is a fully viable solution. I echo Vintagekit's call for suggestions.--[[User:Jackyd101|Jackyd101]] 19:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Misleading category changes == |
|||
[[User:Padraig3uk]], [[User:Domer48]] and [[User:Brixton Busters]] have been changing categories like [[:Category:Northern Irish solicitors]] to [[:Category:Irish solicitors]], and [[:Category:Northern Irish Roman Catholics]] to [[:Category:Irish Roman Catholics]]. This is misleading and in violation of the biography categorisation structure. Their reasoning is that "Northern Irish" isn't a nationality. This is irrelevant. English, Welsh and Scottish are not nationalities either. All bio cats are named like this, see [[:Category:English solicitors]] or [[:Category:Scottish Roman Catholics]] or [[:Category:Welsh Roman Catholics]]. Basically they changing the cat from a NI one to ROI one. Yes people from NI can determine whether they are British or Irish, but we're not talking about nationality here, we're talking about location. I have pointed out to them that if they have a problem with the categorisation structure they should take it to [[WP:CFD]] to request a change from, for example, [[:Category:Northern Irish Roman Catholics]] to [[:Category:Roman Catholics from Northern Ireland]]. Can I get some agreement to revert all their changes, if they want to go to CFD after then fair enough. [[User:Stubacca|<font color = "green">'''Stu'''</font>]] [[User talk:Stubacca|<font color = "green"><sup>''’Bout ye!''</sup></font>]] 12:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I would say that it is POV to label many of those people as Northern Irish - sure they are born in NI but I are they NIrish?? However, I would consider a change to [[:Category:Roman Catholics from Northern Ireland]] could be considered.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 12:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Its not POV, they're from Northern Ireland. Is it POV to say someone from England is English? A change to ''from Northern Ireland'' is an option yes, but it would changing all the English, Scottish and Welsh cats as well. [[User:Stubacca|<font color = "green">'''Stu'''</font>]] [[User talk:Stubacca|<font color = "green"><sup>''’Bout ye!''</sup></font>]] 16:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I totally disagree with the use of sectarian categories that identify people by religion, I also reject the term northern Irish, this is a Unionist invention to try and create the notion that people in Northern Ireland are a seperate ethic group or nationality from Irish.--[[User:Padraig3uk|padraig3uk]] 16:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I would agree with you about categorising people by religion, unless it's relevant to their notability the cat shouldn't be used. ONiH had a lot of trouble trying to remove these cats if I remember right. On your second point, it is not talking about nationality, but location. English isn't nationality is it? Yet all English bio articles are ''English solicitor'', ''English doctors'' etc. The same with Welsh and Scottish cats, and and every other country cat. [[User:Stubacca|<font color = "green">'''Stu'''</font>]] [[User talk:Stubacca|<font color = "green"><sup>''’Bout ye!''</sup></font>]] 16:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish are Nationalities, just because some refer to themselves as British dosen't take away from their nationality, all people in Northern Ireland are Irish or Irish/Brits but they are not and never where northern Irish.--[[User:Padraig3uk|padraig3uk]] 16:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::[[User:Stubacca|Stubacca]] for the record I changed one, that one being on the article I was editing. I like [[User:Padraig3uk|padraig3uk]] consider them to be nothing other than a sectarian categories. Was Tom Williams a rabid Catholic, why is it there, what purpose dose it serve, who cares what religion he was? Why have such a categorie? --[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] 18:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Well we are all agreed that the religion cats should not be used unless there is a clear reason for doing so, like the person's religion being important to their noability. But the other issue still stands. And the main point with that is by changing categories from ''Northern Irish .....'' to ''Irish .....'' you're stating that they are from ROI and not NI, which is misleading. I state again that your problem is with the categorisation structure. If you want to change all the bio cats to ''xxxxx from Northern Ireland'' or ''xxxxx from England'' or ''xxxxx from Spain'' etc list it at CFD.[[User:Stubacca|<font color = "green">'''Stu'''</font>]] [[User talk:Stubacca|<font color = "green"><sup>''’Bout ye!''</sup></font>]] 18:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Measuring importance== |
|||
'''NEED GUIDANCE PLEASE''' |
|||
Not sure if this is the place to raise the issue; but I took to categorising/rating the importance of articles I was involved in. (Class=stub; importance=low) etc. |
|||
Most is straightforward; all Regional roads I classed (with two exceptions) as '''low'''; ditto all national secondary roads (N51 - N99). But are the [[Roads in Ireland|PRIMARY roads]] important enough to be given a higher importance? |
|||
Also, villages and small towns; as a rule of thumb I've classed all settlements with a population less than 2,000 as '''low''' (ditto most Dublin suburbs in the continuous built-up area bar the majors; DL, Tallaght, Blanch, Swords, Malahide, Bray - possibly a few more). In time as the articles mature they can obviously be re-rated - but is this rule-of-thumb acceptable for a first shot? ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 14:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
:[[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]], you are talking about articles [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment|assessments]]. This is not a [[Wikipedia:Irish Wikipedians' notice board|Irish Wikipedians' notice board]] issue or responsibility per se. What you are doing for these Irish related articles is the job of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland|WikiProject Ireland]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Members|assessment members]] and should be carried out by them. BTW, you have yet to join. While the Irish Wikipedians and the WikiProject Ireland are related they are not identical but do have many similar interests. I note that you have been adding assessments to a large number of Irish articles recently. While these may be totally valid ratings, I suggest you bring up the topic of assessments on the [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland|WikiProject Ireland talk page]] to remind members that little assessment has been done recently by the project members. It would be a good idea to get assessments going again on a regular basis, but I suspect we need some basic Irish-based criteria for this particular WikiProject as we don't seem to have any, especially before we move ahead throwing assessment ratings on articles all over the place without any discussion having taken place. [[User:Ww2censor|ww2censor]] 15:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks for that. I reckon there shouldn't be too much worries about the few hundred assessments I did! They were all basically '''stubs''' with importance '''low'''. It was when I got to articles that might require a higher importance that I started to wonder if there was any standard - (though I was following the charts in [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Assessment]] religiously. I guess nature abhors a vacuum and nobody else seemed to be doing any tagging etc. What have I "not joined" btw? [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland|WikiProject Ireland]] or [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Members|assessment members]]? How do you join? ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 18:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|||
::: I think I just joined...([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 18:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)) |
Latest revision as of 12:55, 7 April 2008
Redirect to: