![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
I recall once that the WP:IMOS used to say something like the following:
I'd like that it be reinserted (I think it is common practice anyway). Additional, I'm proposing that the following be added.
--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid ( coṁrá) 20:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Well I ripped out Clem McGanns edit here [1]. Why should I have to hover over every mention of Ireland with my mouse to see if the the republic is there or not? Just because the north is in the political care of the UK does not make that place less Ireland or the south more so. I thought we were getting that somewheres the last few years? Yes Mooretwin has a point. The existence of the republic is more than acceptable, it is nessecary in many cases to show its existence and not to do so is an expression in almost every case of a point of view that the north would not be Ireland or that there would be no recognisable republic. I can't see what you mean by "WTR". The line was not "in doubt" it was just disagreed upon point of view. It is such common knowledge that a reference would not be required. Why would we delete lines like that? Because the north is in Ireland too and to show that we'd have to show "republic"? ~ R. T. G 05:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Home of the Irish Grand National steeplechase. It's practically dead in the water so I added some and put it into DYK but it might be a bit short. Must be a 5 day old article or increase 5 fold in characters of "prose" to go into DYK. It's definitely 4.5 x the size but regardless of that it was only about 4 or 5 sentences previously. ~ R. T. G 01:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Move? See Talk:November 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods#Requested move. Simply south ( talk) 18:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
At present, all entries for politics in Ireland or Irish politics redirect towards Politics of the Republic of Ireland. Is that biased or just the reflections of opinions on what fits the definition "Irish" the best? Well I am going to start writing a short article called Politics in Ireland. The first sentence will be, "In Ireland there are two states, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. " There are of course two main articles for this (NI ones a bit of whopper) so the basic element will be the Ireland where only one state existed and its relation to today and the multitude of branch articles we have from that topic. There is ample online material to put the basics in. Perhaps someone would like to collaborate as neutrality and validity issues may be raised. ~ R. T. G 22:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, of course people have tried to undermine the integrity of Wikipedia and often they do that in groups. If Mr. Blue, Mr. Pink and Mr. Green did it we could say "The group of Mr. Blue, Mr. Pink and Mr. Green seem to be undermining the integrity of Wikipedia." and that could be a very constructive thing to say. In topics relating to this island it is often common to think of Blue, Pink and Green and say "The anarchists are trying to depose you all!" or some other undefined and undeclared group. I deleted an edit [3] which gave no conversation and bascally said, "No! That's a mafia! The mafia is everywhere!" and similar rubbish has ensued recently on the Dunmanway killings aerticle. These allusions do not bear on the content of an article in any way or are they worth considering in accusing editors of conduct, i.e. you accuse Blue, Pink and Green Mrs specifically of something or you accuse noone, certainly not some group you may have imagined. I do not care what ethnicity the "mafia" belonged with, the comment was not smart enough and gave equal credit to claiming, "Those inherently evil will be your downfall!" as it did to what facts are notable and correct for the encyclopaedia. I often say "Some people" when argueing a bit but I do not say "The negroes!" or "The anarchists!" and I should not be allowed to, end, stop. I have read plenty of comments like that in the last month. In future, when I am weighing a comment like, that I want to just delete it and if that person wants to re-weigh in respectably of Wikipedia let them do so. That is what a judge would do and most arguements involving these undeclared groups revolve around the adjudcation of content. In some slot machines coins are seperated by weight. Suggestion of persons unknown in any form whatsoever should weigh delete immediately. Persons which you are seeing but not naming should equally weigh in at = bin whole comment. I see this rarely on talkpages outside of the Ireland scope so it is relevant here. ~ R. T. G 16:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Is it fair for us to suggest that Northern Ireland could not be involved in something to which it has been invited for a hundred years? I mean, do we assume that Northern Ireland no longer has a standing invitation to the republic. I think that this question has implication in piping and naming debates. Is the North invited to be part of Ireland or to be part ofthe republic? ~ R. T. G 17:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Is the North invited to be part of Ireland or part of the republic? ~ R. T. G 20:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The trend is to suggest that the British imposed the term Republic. That has already been disputed but I want to point out something that has not for anyone who wants to comment on it. Those of British inclination would historically impose that Ireland be south of the border providing that there be an Ireland which six-county Ulster would not be in, republic or not. That is surely a continuing view of many. Is this not true? ~ R. T. G 17:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The goals of the this project are being totally ignored . Should this project be renamed?
As I look at the discussion here. I don't see any bipartisan effort to improve collaboration on and coverage of Irish related matters both North and South I don't use any users coming together as per The aim of this project initially will be to bring editors from Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland , Wikipedia:WikiProject Northern Ireland, Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Republicanism and Wikipedia:WikiProject Unionism together but I do see Currently editors with various viewpoints will often only interact in controversial discussions such as Requested moves and Article for discussion. This project will attempt to bring editors together at first on common uncontroversial matters.
nor do I see any of the following.
- To provide guidelines and recommendations toward a more hospitable editing environment for Ireland topics;
- To monitor and evaluate the tensions, battling and disruption over editing Ireland topics;
- Actively to seek the cooperation of people who are uninvolved or hold different POVs as specified under membership;
- To mobilize members (and like-minded users) to help this WikiProject, collaborate on low-tension articles, and intervene constructively on high-tension articles
- To prevent and resolve POV disputes, while ensuring that articles to convey a neutral and verifiable perspective.
User's here where meant to discuss and improve Sport in Ireland and Irish music like articles as a means to bridging the them V us sort of debates that occur over all wiki in relation to Irish articles. The project was intended to help editors view the people who disagree with them as fellow editors who are most likely attempting to improve and build this encyclopaedia.
Is anyone interested in this or should this project have it's goals removed and it title changed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Naming debate ? Gnevin ( talk) 18:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
So the page is moved. That's good. Now, what about Template:IECOLL, Template:IECOLL-talk, Template:User WPIECOLL and Category:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration members? Is there any point in keeping those now that the debate seems to be over (or at least stopped)? Scolaire ( talk) 15:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Please provide an area with definitive and solid Ireland naming material, purpose built, complete and understandable that may be used reliably time and again in reference when such questions may come up (when you are old and gone for instance...). Please do not pretend that such material has been created, (or even believed in) here already. All we need to do is move it, the pile of sith, to some other page... balls. There are principles behind this project which take precedence over the naming debates even if nobody contributes to them while a lot of people want to debate naming. They are not the same thing, naming and collaboration, therefore their popularity and reasoning do not dictate each other i.e. move you self to name talk and leave other bit where finded? Is make taht sense you... .
There is clear calling here to move the naming debate to a perfectly suitable place. That is intelligent and wise probably. Deleting this project in the process would be an effective example of poor guidance.
I vote, in the spirit of this thread, that naming as a lesser topic of collaboration be banned from this project as a particularly virulent choking disease, even if that be at the expense of this project withering and not seeing an edit for the next ten years with exception only for announcements about votes or invitations to concensus building threads etc. This sort of measure is essential to any topic on any project where overshadowing occurs. Blocked arteries. I am not confused at all. Move the naming debate. Let alone the project it has been destroying. Good projects find interest eventually so long as nobody obscures and deletes them.
Bastun, all you are interested in on this page was getting a way on the naming issue, not with choosing a way. Debate black with white and dont grit your teeth. Now blow it out your hole. Did that work? There is only one month of edits on the page. ~ R. T. G 17:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
So what was the outcome of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names? Is it published somewhere and why has the section Talk:Ireland#Poll on Ireland article names not been updated to reflect the outcome of the poll? Why is there not a similar section on the ROI talk page? -- PBS ( talk) 10:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The poll was conducted under a mysterious system (to those used to first past the post contests), so is there agreement of what was the numerical outcome of that poll. I am not asking if it was legitimate just did option "F" come first, or did some other option come first? Second what is IMOS and is there a link to that page? -- PBS ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:47, 18 February 2010
<--No one is declaring victory. What is suggested is that a moratorium on moving the pages is agreed for two years based on the poll outcome. AFAICT the notification for the poll was placed on the talk page of the Ireland article on 2 August 2009 by Evertype and had not been substantially altered since. of The notification said:
![]() | A poll has been set up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names. This is a formal vote regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The result of this poll will be binding on the affected article names for a period of two years. This poll arose from the Ireland article names case at the Arbitration Committee and the Ireland Collaboration Project. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 13 September 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). |
HighKing did you during the month of August 2009 complain about the wording? Specifically the part that said "The result of this poll will be binding on the affected article names for a period of two years"? -- PBS ( talk) 13:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Also at the start of the Poll there was the sentence "As there is a stalemate in achieving consensus on the issue, it has been decided to use the results of a poll of all Wikipedia editors to resolve the matter." Did you, HighKing, object to that sentence before you cast a vote in the Poll? -- PBS ( talk) 13:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
It seemhs to me that the template in the section Talk:Ireland#Poll on Ireland article names should be updated to reflect the decision by the ArbCom ( Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Ireland article names) and that once updated it should be copied onto talk:Republic of Ireland -- PBS ( talk) 01:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I have opened a request for clarification regarding the Ireland naming process at ArbCom. If affirmed it will mean that this process will be complete. Please comment:
-- RA ( talk) 19:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Wow this all appears to have been cleared up. See you all in 2011 for future debates on this issue of the Ireland article names! Considering its March 2010 already it does not seem that long.
BritishWatcher (
talk)
02:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Ucucha 01:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration →
Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Naming debate — Can you please indicate your support or not for this move . This is not a Collaboration , it's a naming debate.There has been 0 collaboration done here. It doesn't do what other collaborations such as
Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration and
Wikipedia:WikiProject British-Irish Collaboration do or intend to do and
WP:DUCK . —
Gnevin (
talk)
20:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment Can you feel the collaboration , this project can't work here while it's also the venue of the name nonsense Gnevin ( talk) 12:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment if this project is moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Naming Debate, what happens to the project which is already on that page? ~ R. T. G 22:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Why don't you move this project or scrap it in favour of a title which may be more encouraging to loyalist and unionist northerners such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish North-South Collaboration Project. It would probably be left cold most of the time but at least there would be an opportunity for a fresh page. There is the value of hindsight on runaway train debates such as Naming, and the merits of applying such debate to a sub-project as soon as choking becomes apparent. I am confidently sure that this was the main intention of the collaboration project in the beginning. It is obvious that such collaoration, although suggested in this projects title, has rarely been in consideration of the committed "members" i.e. southern naming disputees and their inparticipant foreign mediation. This specific venue doesn't exist right now, in my opinion. I wont bother creating the page because someone with little interest in such collaboration will probably enter it for deletion without discussion.
I have added another request for clarification concerning the intentions of the project and the procedure of the Naming Debate. I think it is prerequisite to display a notice about that in the area concerned. ~ R. T. G 17:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Was there a consensus on how to deal with articles like Politics in the Republic of Ireland, etc.? I've just noticed Template:Television in Ireland, which is actually only about the Republic. Should it not be renamed? Mooretwin ( talk) 00:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
In the spirit of moving onto things other than the naming issue, I would like to put this out into the air to get a feel for what others think about the issues involved.
Template:Infobox UK place info box replaced Template:Infobox Place Ireland for places in Northern Ireland in mid 2007. There was at the time some discussion among the editors behind the creation of the UK infobox as to whether they should replace the Ireland info box on NI articles. (It remains in place for the provinces and counties.) The deciding factor for them was the usual state-trump-all-else manner of thinking.
I think that was a sore loss to Wikiproject Ireland. Among the reasons why I think this is because replacing the Ireland infobox in NI articles:
A few weeks ago as a part of a dispute regarding the content of the UK template, it was suggested that the Ireland template and that template be merged to form a new UK-Ireland template. By doing so, the infobox for NI settlements would be consistent across the island of Ireland across the UK. There are of course practical and emotional issues involved. BrownHairedGirl has given a good overview of these on Template talk:Infobox Place Ireland. Among the reasons she gives are the practical matters of handling disputes over a combined template and the danger that GB editors may be unaccomodating to Irish perspectives. A suggestion she makes is to create a NI-specific infobox. I don't think that that would fly with GB editors, many of whom, from what I can tell, are very quite anti among inconsistency the UKs constituent parts. Another way, of course, is that NI places have the Ireland infobox ... or that we leave things as they are.
Any ideas? Comments? Do other share my concerns?
-- RA ( talk) 19:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Per motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification:
1) The Arbitration Committee notes that the conditions put forward by remedies during the Ireland article names arbitration case were fulfilled to the Committee's satisfaction and that, as a consequence, remedy 4 ("[...] no further page moves discussions related to these articles shall be initiated for a period of 2 years.") is in force until September 18, 2011.
2) While the related matter of how to refer to Ireland/Republic of Ireland in other places (such as articles) is not directly covered by the aforementioned remedies, the Committee takes notes of the existence of a de facto consensus on the matter owing to the stability of the Ireland manual of style and enjoins the community to avoid needlessly rehashing the disputes.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c)
16:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
This is the Irish name for Strabane. It says on the article that it means The White Strand. On the talk page someone said they thought it meant Grassy Meadow by a [sic] River. I cannot speak Irish myself but isn't bán the word for river and trá the word for strand? The question was brought up last summer but not really answered. ~ R. T. G 04:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am trying to start a debate about defining what news organisations, as a reliable source, are good for and/or not good for. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#News_Organisations_section ~ R. T. G 18:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Whilst i have several issues to raise, all related, i'm going to approach them one at a time to prevent a wide-ranging debate. First of all i want to bring this one to attention as an editor Dmcq made a few comments to me about the conventions for maps as he initially saw a problem with the all-Ireland county maps i uploaded (colour-wise).
Below is an example of the style of county map i wish to use for Northern Ireland counties. It is based on Wikipedia area map conventions which don't show the entirety of other countries, or their administrative boundaries. However as a concession i have maintained the county borders of the counties in the Republic of Ireland and on Dmcq's advice, expanded it to include the entirety of Donegal to make it easier to locate. As well i was told it would be better to make it not look like an island, which i've also done.
Why am i asking can i use this style when it wouldn't be a problem anywhere else?
Well i know that i will be told that an all-Ireland map must be used to show its relation to the rest of the island - it doesn't. Just because the counties were formerly part of the same country and are still used in an all-Ireland sense by irredentists and the GAA, it doesn't mean that they should be. All-Ireland county maps can be put in the places where they are relevant - in the GAA, Great Famine (Ireland), and the Counties of Ireland articles etc., even the history sections of the county articles if detailing the pre-1921 history of the county in relation to the whole island if really needs be.
When the counties as administrative units where abolished in 1972, they were administrative units of Northern Ireland not Ireland. Today despite having no adminstrative purpose the counties are still counties of Northern Ireland not Ireland (other than GAA county teams). We don't show the administrative counties of Scotland with those of England or Wales. We don't show Alsace and Lorraine in France in relation to the federal states of Germany despite them formerly being part Germany.
So is there any proper objections to why this style can't be used? If not i'll upload the new images and replace the current ones. I will also do the same for Republic of Ireland counties, but they aren't a problem as the whole island will be shown anyways. Mabuska (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
"The island of Ireland is divided into two major political units - Northern Ireland, which along with England, Scotland, and Wales forms the United Kingdom, and the Republic of Ireland. Of the 32 counties of Ireland, 26 are in the Republic. Of the four historic provinces, three and part of the fourth are in the Republic." Frommer's Ireland, 2006
"The term 'All-Irish' is in common use for many cultural, sports, and other purposes, and many events, competitions, and organizations are 'All-Irish', that is, they cover the entire area of the 32 traditional counties of the island and not just the Republic of Ireland." World and Its Peoples, 2010
"The twenty-six traditional counties of Eire and the six traditional counties of Northern Ireland are used as the standard Irish geographical designations." - Robert A. Faleer, Church Woodwork in the British Isles, 1100-1535, 2009
"Ireland is divided in to 32 counties: 26 in the Republic of Ireland and six in Northern Ireland" - Ryan Ver Berkmoes, Western Europe (Lonely Planet)
"Northern Ireland is comprised of six of Ireland's 32 counties." - Michael McKernan, Owen McQuade, Northern Ireland Yearbook 2005
"Ireland is divided into 32 counties comprising the four traditional provinces of Ulster, Leinster, Munster, and Connaught. Between 1920 and 1922, it split into to political entities, the Irish Free State, established in 1922, and Northern Ireland, consisting of six Ulster counties." - Margaret Scanlan, Culture and Customs of Ireland
How can it be selective geography when depicting the counties of Northern Ireland? (the direct last entity of the now defunct administrative six counties of Antrim, Armagh, Down, Fermanagh, Londonderry, and Tyrone) Its selective geography argueing against that and using geography and pre-modern history to advance such ends.
As Laurel Lodged (a proud Republic of Ireland citizen person going by their profile) said RA, its time to change tactics. The 32 marathon hardly falls into a cultural context. Its only stating 32 counties in the sense of running through the 32 counties that are in total on the island going through both countries. It doesn't say that they are connected culturally or historically. And the garden awards is hardly cultural either. I have never heard/read of both in any newspaper or media up here, unionist leaning or nationalist leaning and i watch/read media from a mixed variety of agendas or as someone said to me once "checking out what the 'enemy' are saying", though i don't see any as an "enemy" as i think the Newsletter (staunch unionist) is a pile of worthless dogs ballocks and the Irish News (staunch nationalist) as better articled/storied but too many one-sided viewpoints. Unless there is a source that explicity states that the "32 counties" is a common widespread cultural (and i highlight that) thing (outside of a republican irredentism) then there is no right to enforce such a minority view on Wikipedia. I'm sure arbitration would see it in the same manner. Its as stupid and inane as trying to deny Arthur Guinness was a unionist or a member of the Church of Ireland from birth to death by using sources that dont state it - and many don't.
Laurel Lodged and Canterbury Tail have already, and no doubt others would, argued against this minority view. Am i a bigot for wanting to see the state of Northern Ireland and its counties shown seperate? Its the manual of style for other Wiki articles and i am often quoted specific articles when they are alleged to back up not allowing this or that that disagrees with certain all-Ireland POVs. I have showing several contradictions to this in regards to declaring the country in county navboxes (several Republic of Ireland ones clearly state Ireland in their title) but i'm told as other UK counties don't do so then Northern Ireland ones can't. This is blantant wiki-gaming and wiki-lawyering. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is there to prevent such dispicable tactics but oh no i'm not allowed to.
Just to repeat i am not against the idea of showing the all-Ireland context so i'm hardly an anti-irredentist bigot. I however believe they have their proper place in the historical and sporting sections, not in the introduction infobox or ledes of currently existing political entities that have nothing to do with a fantasy state that hasn't existed since 1921. I don't see such compromising views coming from the those against the idea. The failure to compromise says it all.
The fact such issues have been before and no doubt will be continually ignored and some made-up or minor facet picked up upon to argue against shows there is no real proper reasoning against its usage. Mabuska (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
"England's King John created the first 12 counties of Ireland, with Mary I and Elizabeth I adding others. There are today 32 counties in Ireland, of which six are in Northern Ireland, and thus part of te United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with the remaining with the Republic of Ireland." — R. Thomas Collins, Joseph S. Wood, One Life at a Time: A New World Family Narrative, 1630-1960
"The thirty-two counties of Ireland were created between the late twelfth and early seventeenth centuries. County boundaries typically follow lines drawn anciently between powerful Gaelic families. The county has become one of the most basic land divisions in Ireland and is similar in many ways to a state in the United States (see figure 4-1). Each county is comprised of a number of civil parishes. County Leitrim has the fewest civil parishes, with only seventeen. One-fourth of the counties in Ireland contain over one hundred civil parishes each." - David Ouimette, Finding Your Irish Ancestors: A Beginner's Guide
RA the proposed map i put up above is more than adequate without adding in other colours. The counties of Northern Ireland are part of the United Kingdom so having a colour to highlight the Republic of Ireland counties and their relation is flawed as Scotland thus should be as well to show its relation (seeing as they are part of the same country; the UK). Having Scotland and the Republic of Ireland grey keeps the relation the same, shows that the article is about Northern Irelands counties and follows the conventional styles, and quite frankly looks better.
You have failed to respond to most (maybe all) of my points, especially on the fact the counties last served an administrative purpose as part of Northern Ireland not Ireland (a dead state since 1921). Thus technically in an immediate historical context they must be described in relation to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is a currently existing state to which they belong so its context takes priority. Any further historical context to extinct political entities can be expanded upon in the history section - which alot of these county articles needs beefing up. The fact the six counties constitute six GAA county teams can be clearly stated in the sporting section just like all other sporting statements are and map provided if needs be. The See Also section can also be used to list links where the counties have an "all-Ireland 32 county " style, i.e. the GAA where you can use 32-county maps all you want as they have proper context there.
And don't forget there aren't 32 counties in Ireland anymore - doesn't the Republic of Ireland now have 29 counties since 1994? Thus the 32-county map is also out of reality (other than for the GAA and traditionalists) and would add to even more confusion for the reader.
RA you've done it again - quoting manual of styles which contradict other arguements. Your link to County Armagh back in 2004 using the 32-county map as your reason for why it must be continued in use? Well on our previous discussion on "32 counties" in the ledes of Northern Ireland articles - the term wasn't used until this year as a temporary measure until we can get it sorted. If we follow the longest manual of style in the history of an article then we must remove that from the ledes of all the Northern Ireland county articles but you've already made it clear you won't budge on that issue.
A very long concensus? When Morwen added their maps, there was no concensus on what manual of style to use. Longevity doesn't equal credability. Any attempts such as this [8], to change the style have been reverted by those who are adament in maintaining the irredenist style and maintaining all-Ireland only. However that map, if converted to a more detailed one, i think looks quite good and shows its relation to the island and its country (the UK) quite clearly. However as its part of the UK, the Republic will have to remain greyed out, otherwise we'd only end up having Northern Ireland look like an independant state.
If you have no more to contribute and i assume you don't accept my proposed maps meaning i don't have concensus to add them (was there even a concensus for the current style? i don't think there is, and after all concensus can change), shall we take this to a more formal process? Mediation? I don't think it'll work as we'll just go round and round. Arbitration? Its messy and they are no doubt sick of Irish issues appearing all the time. But a definite policy is required on this - and the wider issue. Mabuska (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
That means nothing bjmullan to the discussion as you aren't up to date on the whole 32 county issue. That is only a temporary stop-gap measure (due to a break taken in discussion on the matter) which i also made clear above. You will find this discussion at section 2 of WikiProject Ireland discussion and a further discussion on it here NPOV notice board. So it is irrelevant. Even the articles edit history shows that i clearly state its only an agreed temporary measure. Bjmullan You have failed to address any of my points and fall into labelling people as "pov pushers". There is really no need for me to repeat anymore of what i've said above here at present or over at the two discussions i pointed you to. Oddly enough you and RA have both failed to mention or comment upon the compromise/solution i clearly set out and keep setting out - why can't the all-Ireland maps be put where they are relevant and can be put into a proper context - in history/sport sections/articles? The Counties of Ireland already does it and the article can be linked to quite easily. Mabuska (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
If i remember RA you are the one who told me to take any issues and raise them here. I have done so at your request. The NPOV notice board is there to get the points of view of those uninvolved and neutral to the issue. It ended with Red King calling for the admins to be brought in as it was clear there was no concensus in the possibility of forming.
Secondly those sources you provided above i showed why they are irrelevant to the issue and how you have taken them out of context. You cited them to back up the "cultural" link however they don't make a mention of the word or imply a cultural link. I have reliable sources (Readers Digest etc.) that explicitly don't state Northern Irelands counties in an all-Ireland context (or UK for that matter), just simply Northern Ireland. There are many equal counter-arguements to their exclusion.
If i remember correctly on the issue of content disputes the process goes along the lines of at its simplest; NPOV board, mediation, and if all else falls arbitration or whatever its called.
And on 6 years of concensus i don't see any concensus on the issue here at the minute so there is no concensus. Mabuska (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Several proposals have been made to the maps to be used to represent the counties of Ireland, particularly the counties of Northern Ireland. Below are what have been referred to during the course of the discussion above.
The salient points raised are (please add):
--RA ( talk) 22:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
How many of them are book sources RA? Do they have page numbers and ISBNs? I have already described how several of them are taken out of context and whilst i don't seem to have such a big book collection as you, there are many sites, most of which i would say are reliable with several taken from (direct quotes from) reliable sources, i.e. Lewis Topographical 1837, Atlas and Cyclopedia of Ireland (1900), and the BBC, that all clearly omit the 32 county or even the entire all-Ireland context and phrasing in their description of counties.
Your sources look at the all-Ireland context, not the individual county context. These articles in question are about individual counties. Your sources are perfect for the Counties of Ireland, Ireland, Northern Ireland, and Counties of Northern Ireland articles or history sections. However on the individual county level do you have sources that explicity state the 32 county relation? We are after all on about the individual six counties of Northern Ireland not counties in general. The sources i've listed below describe counties in their individual context without making references to an all-Ireland county context. Do you have reliable sources that explicitly state something along the lines of: County Antrim... is one of the 32 counties of Ireland? It seems to be practice to leave the 32 county context to the higher-levels such as the island of Ireland not the lower-levels such as individual counties. Why can we not follow this style?
On maps which this is directly about Search Google for County Antrim or County Londonderry etc. - the vast majority (and thats before you exclude the Wikipedia copies) don't show the county in an all-Ireland context - most are of the county alone or within Northern Ireland or UK excluding Ireland (or including with Republic of Ireland county-less).
Mabuska (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I see your point about the horse trading and other editors. I'm still sure we can work something out. I still think the BBC's Derry/Londonderry approach is best all around. We do have to think of the guy who knows very little and doesn't have a dog in the fight. He just wants information. And I know everybody's got a POV, but that's the point of the BBC's settling on their approach. All right, maybe we should just put it to a vote. There's no voting, so maybe everybody pick a map and lets see where we're at. Malke 2010 23:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
So are we any closer to getting an agreement that the images should be changed to either RA1/2 or Mabuska's one? I think the case for a change has been very strongly put and would bring things into line with how other maps of national counties are shown. BritishWatcher ( talk) 20:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
So RA i once again ask you what about my compromise? Are you continually going to avoid answering it directly? Or are you continually going to try to demean me? I noticed you also failed to answer a question of mine above as well as good points made by other editors:
“ | The argument here isn't that the sources aren't WP:reliable sources, they are obviously reliable sources about Ireland and counties of Ireland. The problem is that arguing from these sources in this case is WP:SYNTHESIS as they are not reliable sources for the notable facts about the counties. They only say in that part that Ireland has 32 counties. They might list county Antrim later and one can then infer it is one of the 32 counties but that certainly doesn't give it lead importance. A reliable source for the main notable facts about County Antrim would start off saying something like 'County Antrim is... | ” |
I would also advise you to stop twisting and lying please as well RA as its really testing my patience as you continually try to demean me. To set your statements straight:
“ | (b) Without relationship between the counties of Northern Ireland and the counties of the Republic of Ireland. Just show the Republic of Ireland (and blank out Northern Ireland) or just show Northern Ireland (and blank out the Republic of Ireland). Mabuskas position in (b). My position is that we need to find a balance between the two. | ” |
So stop lying and twisting please and answer the question... what is wrong with the compromise? I'll restate it here, reword it to make it clearer and more specific, and put it in a nice clear cquote box so everyone can clearly see it:
“ | The map proposed by me, Mabuska, should be used for the infobox of the individual counties of Northern Ireland as they are still counties of Northern Ireland despite not being admnistrative units anymore. A map depicting the entirety of Ireland and its counties can be used in the History section of the individual county articles to clearly show its relation to the rest of the islands counties when they were part of the same country. A statement along with a wiki-link can be added after the description of its former status to clearly state that the individual county is still used in an all-Ireland sense by the GAA etc. | ” |
What is wrong with this? It satisifies both our ends as both maps get included and out into clear contexts and will i believe avoid future problems. What does everyone else think about this? Mabuska (talk) 00:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
"Next there are the counties. This is the most important because it is how the Irish think and talk. These are the "states" of Ireland, from which individuals and family hail, with which citizens identify (as in "He's a Corkman married to a Donegal girl"). Each county is the butt of the next's jokes ("A Dublinman, a Meath man, and a Kildare man walking a pub…", and they all tangle in fierce athletic contests in pursuit of national titles in Gaelic football and hurling. The island's 32 counties, grouped under the four traditional provinces of Ireland cited above, are listed here: [the author then lists the 32 counties, including County Antrim, and notes that it is a part of Northern Ireland]." – Suzanne Rowan Kelleher, Frommer's Ireland 2005, John Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, 2005
RA i already told you about lying and twisting. Your quote on my comment you gave above left out the end of it which shows your twisting what i am saying to suit your own ends. Heres the full quote without your selective editing (i've highlighted the bit you left out):
“ | That compromise was that the map i propose be used for the infobox, whilst one depicting the county in relation to the whole island can be found in relevant articles; i.e. Counties of Ireland etc. or in the history section of the individual county articles depicting their former status as one of the adminstrative counties of the extinct political state of Ireland - a line can be given in the section (or sport section or both) as to how its still used in an all-Ireland context by the GAA or whatever. That way we get both maps in, in contexts that i don't think are controversial or contentious, which i think is more than fair. Mabuska (talk) 10:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC) | ” |
Personally i shouldn't really argue with RAs proposed maps however i oppose giving one external entity more prominence than another. Northern Ireland is part of the UK so why should Scotland in the map not get more prominence? That is why my map has both the Republic of Ireland and Scotland greyed out as it avoids giving bias to one connection over the other. That is NPOV RA. Adding different colours to Scotland and the Republic of Ireland is visually distracting from the topic - it doesn't favour one context over the other by having the UK bits and Republic of Ireland bits showing both greyed out the same colour. This issue will be resolved by sources and RA your sources still on context:
Your new Frommer's quote is also a level-up context, i.e. all-Ireland context. It doesn't deal with individual counties on their own. Another source for the Counties of Ireland article which already includes a list. As Dmcq said on lists:
“ | They might list county Antrim later and one can then infer it is one of the 32 counties but that certainly doesn't give it lead importance. A reliable source for the main notable facts about County Antrim would start off saying something like "County Antrim is... | ” |
Such lists are easy to find, just as it is to find lists on UK counties. Does Frommers go on about the individual county describing it in its own entry as one of the 32 counties of Ireland? These articles are on about individual counties not Counties of Ireland as a whole. I already provided an encyclopedia reference that clearly omits this as well as omitting it as part of the UK - instead it mentions only Northern Ireland. Heres more encyclopedic references omitting this context on indiviual counties: [12] [13] [14] [15] All of these leave out references to the rest of Ireland (except Encartas reference to Ulster) or the rest of the UK - so why should we use lists about all-Ireland not individual counties as a reliable source when specifically on individual counties other reliable encyclopedic sources don't?
Whilst everyone agrees with both our maps RA, i have reliable encyclopedic sources that deal specifically with individual counties that exclude the all-Ireland context and even the UK context. Your sources deal with describing the counties of Ireland in general not individually or specifically in their own entries.
So once more RA do you have any sources that contradict the ones i've provided on the individual counties? We are dealing after all with individual county articles here not Irish counties in general. My compromise allows for an all-Ireland map showing all the counties in relation in the history section where your source fit in perfectly as they deal with the all-Ireland context? It also keeps neutrality on NI's relation to the Republic and the UK by them being shaed out the same colour. If we based this on sources on individual counties and maintaining NPOV in relation to external entities then there would be no disagreement. Mabuska (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Before the editor altered the maps, was there a disagreement between any of you at that time? Is it possible to just go back to what was there before? Malke 2010 13:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Questions removed by me as there isn't any point - BLAH!!!! Mabuska (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
I recall once that the WP:IMOS used to say something like the following:
I'd like that it be reinserted (I think it is common practice anyway). Additional, I'm proposing that the following be added.
--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid ( coṁrá) 20:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Well I ripped out Clem McGanns edit here [1]. Why should I have to hover over every mention of Ireland with my mouse to see if the the republic is there or not? Just because the north is in the political care of the UK does not make that place less Ireland or the south more so. I thought we were getting that somewheres the last few years? Yes Mooretwin has a point. The existence of the republic is more than acceptable, it is nessecary in many cases to show its existence and not to do so is an expression in almost every case of a point of view that the north would not be Ireland or that there would be no recognisable republic. I can't see what you mean by "WTR". The line was not "in doubt" it was just disagreed upon point of view. It is such common knowledge that a reference would not be required. Why would we delete lines like that? Because the north is in Ireland too and to show that we'd have to show "republic"? ~ R. T. G 05:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Home of the Irish Grand National steeplechase. It's practically dead in the water so I added some and put it into DYK but it might be a bit short. Must be a 5 day old article or increase 5 fold in characters of "prose" to go into DYK. It's definitely 4.5 x the size but regardless of that it was only about 4 or 5 sentences previously. ~ R. T. G 01:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Move? See Talk:November 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods#Requested move. Simply south ( talk) 18:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
At present, all entries for politics in Ireland or Irish politics redirect towards Politics of the Republic of Ireland. Is that biased or just the reflections of opinions on what fits the definition "Irish" the best? Well I am going to start writing a short article called Politics in Ireland. The first sentence will be, "In Ireland there are two states, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. " There are of course two main articles for this (NI ones a bit of whopper) so the basic element will be the Ireland where only one state existed and its relation to today and the multitude of branch articles we have from that topic. There is ample online material to put the basics in. Perhaps someone would like to collaborate as neutrality and validity issues may be raised. ~ R. T. G 22:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, of course people have tried to undermine the integrity of Wikipedia and often they do that in groups. If Mr. Blue, Mr. Pink and Mr. Green did it we could say "The group of Mr. Blue, Mr. Pink and Mr. Green seem to be undermining the integrity of Wikipedia." and that could be a very constructive thing to say. In topics relating to this island it is often common to think of Blue, Pink and Green and say "The anarchists are trying to depose you all!" or some other undefined and undeclared group. I deleted an edit [3] which gave no conversation and bascally said, "No! That's a mafia! The mafia is everywhere!" and similar rubbish has ensued recently on the Dunmanway killings aerticle. These allusions do not bear on the content of an article in any way or are they worth considering in accusing editors of conduct, i.e. you accuse Blue, Pink and Green Mrs specifically of something or you accuse noone, certainly not some group you may have imagined. I do not care what ethnicity the "mafia" belonged with, the comment was not smart enough and gave equal credit to claiming, "Those inherently evil will be your downfall!" as it did to what facts are notable and correct for the encyclopaedia. I often say "Some people" when argueing a bit but I do not say "The negroes!" or "The anarchists!" and I should not be allowed to, end, stop. I have read plenty of comments like that in the last month. In future, when I am weighing a comment like, that I want to just delete it and if that person wants to re-weigh in respectably of Wikipedia let them do so. That is what a judge would do and most arguements involving these undeclared groups revolve around the adjudcation of content. In some slot machines coins are seperated by weight. Suggestion of persons unknown in any form whatsoever should weigh delete immediately. Persons which you are seeing but not naming should equally weigh in at = bin whole comment. I see this rarely on talkpages outside of the Ireland scope so it is relevant here. ~ R. T. G 16:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Is it fair for us to suggest that Northern Ireland could not be involved in something to which it has been invited for a hundred years? I mean, do we assume that Northern Ireland no longer has a standing invitation to the republic. I think that this question has implication in piping and naming debates. Is the North invited to be part of Ireland or to be part ofthe republic? ~ R. T. G 17:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Is the North invited to be part of Ireland or part of the republic? ~ R. T. G 20:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The trend is to suggest that the British imposed the term Republic. That has already been disputed but I want to point out something that has not for anyone who wants to comment on it. Those of British inclination would historically impose that Ireland be south of the border providing that there be an Ireland which six-county Ulster would not be in, republic or not. That is surely a continuing view of many. Is this not true? ~ R. T. G 17:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The goals of the this project are being totally ignored . Should this project be renamed?
As I look at the discussion here. I don't see any bipartisan effort to improve collaboration on and coverage of Irish related matters both North and South I don't use any users coming together as per The aim of this project initially will be to bring editors from Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland , Wikipedia:WikiProject Northern Ireland, Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Republicanism and Wikipedia:WikiProject Unionism together but I do see Currently editors with various viewpoints will often only interact in controversial discussions such as Requested moves and Article for discussion. This project will attempt to bring editors together at first on common uncontroversial matters.
nor do I see any of the following.
- To provide guidelines and recommendations toward a more hospitable editing environment for Ireland topics;
- To monitor and evaluate the tensions, battling and disruption over editing Ireland topics;
- Actively to seek the cooperation of people who are uninvolved or hold different POVs as specified under membership;
- To mobilize members (and like-minded users) to help this WikiProject, collaborate on low-tension articles, and intervene constructively on high-tension articles
- To prevent and resolve POV disputes, while ensuring that articles to convey a neutral and verifiable perspective.
User's here where meant to discuss and improve Sport in Ireland and Irish music like articles as a means to bridging the them V us sort of debates that occur over all wiki in relation to Irish articles. The project was intended to help editors view the people who disagree with them as fellow editors who are most likely attempting to improve and build this encyclopaedia.
Is anyone interested in this or should this project have it's goals removed and it title changed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Naming debate ? Gnevin ( talk) 18:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
So the page is moved. That's good. Now, what about Template:IECOLL, Template:IECOLL-talk, Template:User WPIECOLL and Category:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration members? Is there any point in keeping those now that the debate seems to be over (or at least stopped)? Scolaire ( talk) 15:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Please provide an area with definitive and solid Ireland naming material, purpose built, complete and understandable that may be used reliably time and again in reference when such questions may come up (when you are old and gone for instance...). Please do not pretend that such material has been created, (or even believed in) here already. All we need to do is move it, the pile of sith, to some other page... balls. There are principles behind this project which take precedence over the naming debates even if nobody contributes to them while a lot of people want to debate naming. They are not the same thing, naming and collaboration, therefore their popularity and reasoning do not dictate each other i.e. move you self to name talk and leave other bit where finded? Is make taht sense you... .
There is clear calling here to move the naming debate to a perfectly suitable place. That is intelligent and wise probably. Deleting this project in the process would be an effective example of poor guidance.
I vote, in the spirit of this thread, that naming as a lesser topic of collaboration be banned from this project as a particularly virulent choking disease, even if that be at the expense of this project withering and not seeing an edit for the next ten years with exception only for announcements about votes or invitations to concensus building threads etc. This sort of measure is essential to any topic on any project where overshadowing occurs. Blocked arteries. I am not confused at all. Move the naming debate. Let alone the project it has been destroying. Good projects find interest eventually so long as nobody obscures and deletes them.
Bastun, all you are interested in on this page was getting a way on the naming issue, not with choosing a way. Debate black with white and dont grit your teeth. Now blow it out your hole. Did that work? There is only one month of edits on the page. ~ R. T. G 17:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
So what was the outcome of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names? Is it published somewhere and why has the section Talk:Ireland#Poll on Ireland article names not been updated to reflect the outcome of the poll? Why is there not a similar section on the ROI talk page? -- PBS ( talk) 10:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The poll was conducted under a mysterious system (to those used to first past the post contests), so is there agreement of what was the numerical outcome of that poll. I am not asking if it was legitimate just did option "F" come first, or did some other option come first? Second what is IMOS and is there a link to that page? -- PBS ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:47, 18 February 2010
<--No one is declaring victory. What is suggested is that a moratorium on moving the pages is agreed for two years based on the poll outcome. AFAICT the notification for the poll was placed on the talk page of the Ireland article on 2 August 2009 by Evertype and had not been substantially altered since. of The notification said:
![]() | A poll has been set up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names. This is a formal vote regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The result of this poll will be binding on the affected article names for a period of two years. This poll arose from the Ireland article names case at the Arbitration Committee and the Ireland Collaboration Project. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 13 September 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). |
HighKing did you during the month of August 2009 complain about the wording? Specifically the part that said "The result of this poll will be binding on the affected article names for a period of two years"? -- PBS ( talk) 13:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Also at the start of the Poll there was the sentence "As there is a stalemate in achieving consensus on the issue, it has been decided to use the results of a poll of all Wikipedia editors to resolve the matter." Did you, HighKing, object to that sentence before you cast a vote in the Poll? -- PBS ( talk) 13:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
It seemhs to me that the template in the section Talk:Ireland#Poll on Ireland article names should be updated to reflect the decision by the ArbCom ( Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Ireland article names) and that once updated it should be copied onto talk:Republic of Ireland -- PBS ( talk) 01:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I have opened a request for clarification regarding the Ireland naming process at ArbCom. If affirmed it will mean that this process will be complete. Please comment:
-- RA ( talk) 19:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Wow this all appears to have been cleared up. See you all in 2011 for future debates on this issue of the Ireland article names! Considering its March 2010 already it does not seem that long.
BritishWatcher (
talk)
02:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Ucucha 01:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration →
Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Naming debate — Can you please indicate your support or not for this move . This is not a Collaboration , it's a naming debate.There has been 0 collaboration done here. It doesn't do what other collaborations such as
Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration and
Wikipedia:WikiProject British-Irish Collaboration do or intend to do and
WP:DUCK . —
Gnevin (
talk)
20:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment Can you feel the collaboration , this project can't work here while it's also the venue of the name nonsense Gnevin ( talk) 12:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment if this project is moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Naming Debate, what happens to the project which is already on that page? ~ R. T. G 22:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Why don't you move this project or scrap it in favour of a title which may be more encouraging to loyalist and unionist northerners such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish North-South Collaboration Project. It would probably be left cold most of the time but at least there would be an opportunity for a fresh page. There is the value of hindsight on runaway train debates such as Naming, and the merits of applying such debate to a sub-project as soon as choking becomes apparent. I am confidently sure that this was the main intention of the collaboration project in the beginning. It is obvious that such collaoration, although suggested in this projects title, has rarely been in consideration of the committed "members" i.e. southern naming disputees and their inparticipant foreign mediation. This specific venue doesn't exist right now, in my opinion. I wont bother creating the page because someone with little interest in such collaboration will probably enter it for deletion without discussion.
I have added another request for clarification concerning the intentions of the project and the procedure of the Naming Debate. I think it is prerequisite to display a notice about that in the area concerned. ~ R. T. G 17:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Was there a consensus on how to deal with articles like Politics in the Republic of Ireland, etc.? I've just noticed Template:Television in Ireland, which is actually only about the Republic. Should it not be renamed? Mooretwin ( talk) 00:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
In the spirit of moving onto things other than the naming issue, I would like to put this out into the air to get a feel for what others think about the issues involved.
Template:Infobox UK place info box replaced Template:Infobox Place Ireland for places in Northern Ireland in mid 2007. There was at the time some discussion among the editors behind the creation of the UK infobox as to whether they should replace the Ireland info box on NI articles. (It remains in place for the provinces and counties.) The deciding factor for them was the usual state-trump-all-else manner of thinking.
I think that was a sore loss to Wikiproject Ireland. Among the reasons why I think this is because replacing the Ireland infobox in NI articles:
A few weeks ago as a part of a dispute regarding the content of the UK template, it was suggested that the Ireland template and that template be merged to form a new UK-Ireland template. By doing so, the infobox for NI settlements would be consistent across the island of Ireland across the UK. There are of course practical and emotional issues involved. BrownHairedGirl has given a good overview of these on Template talk:Infobox Place Ireland. Among the reasons she gives are the practical matters of handling disputes over a combined template and the danger that GB editors may be unaccomodating to Irish perspectives. A suggestion she makes is to create a NI-specific infobox. I don't think that that would fly with GB editors, many of whom, from what I can tell, are very quite anti among inconsistency the UKs constituent parts. Another way, of course, is that NI places have the Ireland infobox ... or that we leave things as they are.
Any ideas? Comments? Do other share my concerns?
-- RA ( talk) 19:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Per motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification:
1) The Arbitration Committee notes that the conditions put forward by remedies during the Ireland article names arbitration case were fulfilled to the Committee's satisfaction and that, as a consequence, remedy 4 ("[...] no further page moves discussions related to these articles shall be initiated for a period of 2 years.") is in force until September 18, 2011.
2) While the related matter of how to refer to Ireland/Republic of Ireland in other places (such as articles) is not directly covered by the aforementioned remedies, the Committee takes notes of the existence of a de facto consensus on the matter owing to the stability of the Ireland manual of style and enjoins the community to avoid needlessly rehashing the disputes.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c)
16:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
This is the Irish name for Strabane. It says on the article that it means The White Strand. On the talk page someone said they thought it meant Grassy Meadow by a [sic] River. I cannot speak Irish myself but isn't bán the word for river and trá the word for strand? The question was brought up last summer but not really answered. ~ R. T. G 04:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am trying to start a debate about defining what news organisations, as a reliable source, are good for and/or not good for. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#News_Organisations_section ~ R. T. G 18:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Whilst i have several issues to raise, all related, i'm going to approach them one at a time to prevent a wide-ranging debate. First of all i want to bring this one to attention as an editor Dmcq made a few comments to me about the conventions for maps as he initially saw a problem with the all-Ireland county maps i uploaded (colour-wise).
Below is an example of the style of county map i wish to use for Northern Ireland counties. It is based on Wikipedia area map conventions which don't show the entirety of other countries, or their administrative boundaries. However as a concession i have maintained the county borders of the counties in the Republic of Ireland and on Dmcq's advice, expanded it to include the entirety of Donegal to make it easier to locate. As well i was told it would be better to make it not look like an island, which i've also done.
Why am i asking can i use this style when it wouldn't be a problem anywhere else?
Well i know that i will be told that an all-Ireland map must be used to show its relation to the rest of the island - it doesn't. Just because the counties were formerly part of the same country and are still used in an all-Ireland sense by irredentists and the GAA, it doesn't mean that they should be. All-Ireland county maps can be put in the places where they are relevant - in the GAA, Great Famine (Ireland), and the Counties of Ireland articles etc., even the history sections of the county articles if detailing the pre-1921 history of the county in relation to the whole island if really needs be.
When the counties as administrative units where abolished in 1972, they were administrative units of Northern Ireland not Ireland. Today despite having no adminstrative purpose the counties are still counties of Northern Ireland not Ireland (other than GAA county teams). We don't show the administrative counties of Scotland with those of England or Wales. We don't show Alsace and Lorraine in France in relation to the federal states of Germany despite them formerly being part Germany.
So is there any proper objections to why this style can't be used? If not i'll upload the new images and replace the current ones. I will also do the same for Republic of Ireland counties, but they aren't a problem as the whole island will be shown anyways. Mabuska (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
"The island of Ireland is divided into two major political units - Northern Ireland, which along with England, Scotland, and Wales forms the United Kingdom, and the Republic of Ireland. Of the 32 counties of Ireland, 26 are in the Republic. Of the four historic provinces, three and part of the fourth are in the Republic." Frommer's Ireland, 2006
"The term 'All-Irish' is in common use for many cultural, sports, and other purposes, and many events, competitions, and organizations are 'All-Irish', that is, they cover the entire area of the 32 traditional counties of the island and not just the Republic of Ireland." World and Its Peoples, 2010
"The twenty-six traditional counties of Eire and the six traditional counties of Northern Ireland are used as the standard Irish geographical designations." - Robert A. Faleer, Church Woodwork in the British Isles, 1100-1535, 2009
"Ireland is divided in to 32 counties: 26 in the Republic of Ireland and six in Northern Ireland" - Ryan Ver Berkmoes, Western Europe (Lonely Planet)
"Northern Ireland is comprised of six of Ireland's 32 counties." - Michael McKernan, Owen McQuade, Northern Ireland Yearbook 2005
"Ireland is divided into 32 counties comprising the four traditional provinces of Ulster, Leinster, Munster, and Connaught. Between 1920 and 1922, it split into to political entities, the Irish Free State, established in 1922, and Northern Ireland, consisting of six Ulster counties." - Margaret Scanlan, Culture and Customs of Ireland
How can it be selective geography when depicting the counties of Northern Ireland? (the direct last entity of the now defunct administrative six counties of Antrim, Armagh, Down, Fermanagh, Londonderry, and Tyrone) Its selective geography argueing against that and using geography and pre-modern history to advance such ends.
As Laurel Lodged (a proud Republic of Ireland citizen person going by their profile) said RA, its time to change tactics. The 32 marathon hardly falls into a cultural context. Its only stating 32 counties in the sense of running through the 32 counties that are in total on the island going through both countries. It doesn't say that they are connected culturally or historically. And the garden awards is hardly cultural either. I have never heard/read of both in any newspaper or media up here, unionist leaning or nationalist leaning and i watch/read media from a mixed variety of agendas or as someone said to me once "checking out what the 'enemy' are saying", though i don't see any as an "enemy" as i think the Newsletter (staunch unionist) is a pile of worthless dogs ballocks and the Irish News (staunch nationalist) as better articled/storied but too many one-sided viewpoints. Unless there is a source that explicity states that the "32 counties" is a common widespread cultural (and i highlight that) thing (outside of a republican irredentism) then there is no right to enforce such a minority view on Wikipedia. I'm sure arbitration would see it in the same manner. Its as stupid and inane as trying to deny Arthur Guinness was a unionist or a member of the Church of Ireland from birth to death by using sources that dont state it - and many don't.
Laurel Lodged and Canterbury Tail have already, and no doubt others would, argued against this minority view. Am i a bigot for wanting to see the state of Northern Ireland and its counties shown seperate? Its the manual of style for other Wiki articles and i am often quoted specific articles when they are alleged to back up not allowing this or that that disagrees with certain all-Ireland POVs. I have showing several contradictions to this in regards to declaring the country in county navboxes (several Republic of Ireland ones clearly state Ireland in their title) but i'm told as other UK counties don't do so then Northern Ireland ones can't. This is blantant wiki-gaming and wiki-lawyering. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is there to prevent such dispicable tactics but oh no i'm not allowed to.
Just to repeat i am not against the idea of showing the all-Ireland context so i'm hardly an anti-irredentist bigot. I however believe they have their proper place in the historical and sporting sections, not in the introduction infobox or ledes of currently existing political entities that have nothing to do with a fantasy state that hasn't existed since 1921. I don't see such compromising views coming from the those against the idea. The failure to compromise says it all.
The fact such issues have been before and no doubt will be continually ignored and some made-up or minor facet picked up upon to argue against shows there is no real proper reasoning against its usage. Mabuska (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
"England's King John created the first 12 counties of Ireland, with Mary I and Elizabeth I adding others. There are today 32 counties in Ireland, of which six are in Northern Ireland, and thus part of te United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with the remaining with the Republic of Ireland." — R. Thomas Collins, Joseph S. Wood, One Life at a Time: A New World Family Narrative, 1630-1960
"The thirty-two counties of Ireland were created between the late twelfth and early seventeenth centuries. County boundaries typically follow lines drawn anciently between powerful Gaelic families. The county has become one of the most basic land divisions in Ireland and is similar in many ways to a state in the United States (see figure 4-1). Each county is comprised of a number of civil parishes. County Leitrim has the fewest civil parishes, with only seventeen. One-fourth of the counties in Ireland contain over one hundred civil parishes each." - David Ouimette, Finding Your Irish Ancestors: A Beginner's Guide
RA the proposed map i put up above is more than adequate without adding in other colours. The counties of Northern Ireland are part of the United Kingdom so having a colour to highlight the Republic of Ireland counties and their relation is flawed as Scotland thus should be as well to show its relation (seeing as they are part of the same country; the UK). Having Scotland and the Republic of Ireland grey keeps the relation the same, shows that the article is about Northern Irelands counties and follows the conventional styles, and quite frankly looks better.
You have failed to respond to most (maybe all) of my points, especially on the fact the counties last served an administrative purpose as part of Northern Ireland not Ireland (a dead state since 1921). Thus technically in an immediate historical context they must be described in relation to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is a currently existing state to which they belong so its context takes priority. Any further historical context to extinct political entities can be expanded upon in the history section - which alot of these county articles needs beefing up. The fact the six counties constitute six GAA county teams can be clearly stated in the sporting section just like all other sporting statements are and map provided if needs be. The See Also section can also be used to list links where the counties have an "all-Ireland 32 county " style, i.e. the GAA where you can use 32-county maps all you want as they have proper context there.
And don't forget there aren't 32 counties in Ireland anymore - doesn't the Republic of Ireland now have 29 counties since 1994? Thus the 32-county map is also out of reality (other than for the GAA and traditionalists) and would add to even more confusion for the reader.
RA you've done it again - quoting manual of styles which contradict other arguements. Your link to County Armagh back in 2004 using the 32-county map as your reason for why it must be continued in use? Well on our previous discussion on "32 counties" in the ledes of Northern Ireland articles - the term wasn't used until this year as a temporary measure until we can get it sorted. If we follow the longest manual of style in the history of an article then we must remove that from the ledes of all the Northern Ireland county articles but you've already made it clear you won't budge on that issue.
A very long concensus? When Morwen added their maps, there was no concensus on what manual of style to use. Longevity doesn't equal credability. Any attempts such as this [8], to change the style have been reverted by those who are adament in maintaining the irredenist style and maintaining all-Ireland only. However that map, if converted to a more detailed one, i think looks quite good and shows its relation to the island and its country (the UK) quite clearly. However as its part of the UK, the Republic will have to remain greyed out, otherwise we'd only end up having Northern Ireland look like an independant state.
If you have no more to contribute and i assume you don't accept my proposed maps meaning i don't have concensus to add them (was there even a concensus for the current style? i don't think there is, and after all concensus can change), shall we take this to a more formal process? Mediation? I don't think it'll work as we'll just go round and round. Arbitration? Its messy and they are no doubt sick of Irish issues appearing all the time. But a definite policy is required on this - and the wider issue. Mabuska (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
That means nothing bjmullan to the discussion as you aren't up to date on the whole 32 county issue. That is only a temporary stop-gap measure (due to a break taken in discussion on the matter) which i also made clear above. You will find this discussion at section 2 of WikiProject Ireland discussion and a further discussion on it here NPOV notice board. So it is irrelevant. Even the articles edit history shows that i clearly state its only an agreed temporary measure. Bjmullan You have failed to address any of my points and fall into labelling people as "pov pushers". There is really no need for me to repeat anymore of what i've said above here at present or over at the two discussions i pointed you to. Oddly enough you and RA have both failed to mention or comment upon the compromise/solution i clearly set out and keep setting out - why can't the all-Ireland maps be put where they are relevant and can be put into a proper context - in history/sport sections/articles? The Counties of Ireland already does it and the article can be linked to quite easily. Mabuska (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
If i remember RA you are the one who told me to take any issues and raise them here. I have done so at your request. The NPOV notice board is there to get the points of view of those uninvolved and neutral to the issue. It ended with Red King calling for the admins to be brought in as it was clear there was no concensus in the possibility of forming.
Secondly those sources you provided above i showed why they are irrelevant to the issue and how you have taken them out of context. You cited them to back up the "cultural" link however they don't make a mention of the word or imply a cultural link. I have reliable sources (Readers Digest etc.) that explicitly don't state Northern Irelands counties in an all-Ireland context (or UK for that matter), just simply Northern Ireland. There are many equal counter-arguements to their exclusion.
If i remember correctly on the issue of content disputes the process goes along the lines of at its simplest; NPOV board, mediation, and if all else falls arbitration or whatever its called.
And on 6 years of concensus i don't see any concensus on the issue here at the minute so there is no concensus. Mabuska (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Several proposals have been made to the maps to be used to represent the counties of Ireland, particularly the counties of Northern Ireland. Below are what have been referred to during the course of the discussion above.
The salient points raised are (please add):
--RA ( talk) 22:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
How many of them are book sources RA? Do they have page numbers and ISBNs? I have already described how several of them are taken out of context and whilst i don't seem to have such a big book collection as you, there are many sites, most of which i would say are reliable with several taken from (direct quotes from) reliable sources, i.e. Lewis Topographical 1837, Atlas and Cyclopedia of Ireland (1900), and the BBC, that all clearly omit the 32 county or even the entire all-Ireland context and phrasing in their description of counties.
Your sources look at the all-Ireland context, not the individual county context. These articles in question are about individual counties. Your sources are perfect for the Counties of Ireland, Ireland, Northern Ireland, and Counties of Northern Ireland articles or history sections. However on the individual county level do you have sources that explicity state the 32 county relation? We are after all on about the individual six counties of Northern Ireland not counties in general. The sources i've listed below describe counties in their individual context without making references to an all-Ireland county context. Do you have reliable sources that explicitly state something along the lines of: County Antrim... is one of the 32 counties of Ireland? It seems to be practice to leave the 32 county context to the higher-levels such as the island of Ireland not the lower-levels such as individual counties. Why can we not follow this style?
On maps which this is directly about Search Google for County Antrim or County Londonderry etc. - the vast majority (and thats before you exclude the Wikipedia copies) don't show the county in an all-Ireland context - most are of the county alone or within Northern Ireland or UK excluding Ireland (or including with Republic of Ireland county-less).
Mabuska (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I see your point about the horse trading and other editors. I'm still sure we can work something out. I still think the BBC's Derry/Londonderry approach is best all around. We do have to think of the guy who knows very little and doesn't have a dog in the fight. He just wants information. And I know everybody's got a POV, but that's the point of the BBC's settling on their approach. All right, maybe we should just put it to a vote. There's no voting, so maybe everybody pick a map and lets see where we're at. Malke 2010 23:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
So are we any closer to getting an agreement that the images should be changed to either RA1/2 or Mabuska's one? I think the case for a change has been very strongly put and would bring things into line with how other maps of national counties are shown. BritishWatcher ( talk) 20:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
So RA i once again ask you what about my compromise? Are you continually going to avoid answering it directly? Or are you continually going to try to demean me? I noticed you also failed to answer a question of mine above as well as good points made by other editors:
“ | The argument here isn't that the sources aren't WP:reliable sources, they are obviously reliable sources about Ireland and counties of Ireland. The problem is that arguing from these sources in this case is WP:SYNTHESIS as they are not reliable sources for the notable facts about the counties. They only say in that part that Ireland has 32 counties. They might list county Antrim later and one can then infer it is one of the 32 counties but that certainly doesn't give it lead importance. A reliable source for the main notable facts about County Antrim would start off saying something like 'County Antrim is... | ” |
I would also advise you to stop twisting and lying please as well RA as its really testing my patience as you continually try to demean me. To set your statements straight:
“ | (b) Without relationship between the counties of Northern Ireland and the counties of the Republic of Ireland. Just show the Republic of Ireland (and blank out Northern Ireland) or just show Northern Ireland (and blank out the Republic of Ireland). Mabuskas position in (b). My position is that we need to find a balance between the two. | ” |
So stop lying and twisting please and answer the question... what is wrong with the compromise? I'll restate it here, reword it to make it clearer and more specific, and put it in a nice clear cquote box so everyone can clearly see it:
“ | The map proposed by me, Mabuska, should be used for the infobox of the individual counties of Northern Ireland as they are still counties of Northern Ireland despite not being admnistrative units anymore. A map depicting the entirety of Ireland and its counties can be used in the History section of the individual county articles to clearly show its relation to the rest of the islands counties when they were part of the same country. A statement along with a wiki-link can be added after the description of its former status to clearly state that the individual county is still used in an all-Ireland sense by the GAA etc. | ” |
What is wrong with this? It satisifies both our ends as both maps get included and out into clear contexts and will i believe avoid future problems. What does everyone else think about this? Mabuska (talk) 00:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
"Next there are the counties. This is the most important because it is how the Irish think and talk. These are the "states" of Ireland, from which individuals and family hail, with which citizens identify (as in "He's a Corkman married to a Donegal girl"). Each county is the butt of the next's jokes ("A Dublinman, a Meath man, and a Kildare man walking a pub…", and they all tangle in fierce athletic contests in pursuit of national titles in Gaelic football and hurling. The island's 32 counties, grouped under the four traditional provinces of Ireland cited above, are listed here: [the author then lists the 32 counties, including County Antrim, and notes that it is a part of Northern Ireland]." – Suzanne Rowan Kelleher, Frommer's Ireland 2005, John Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, 2005
RA i already told you about lying and twisting. Your quote on my comment you gave above left out the end of it which shows your twisting what i am saying to suit your own ends. Heres the full quote without your selective editing (i've highlighted the bit you left out):
“ | That compromise was that the map i propose be used for the infobox, whilst one depicting the county in relation to the whole island can be found in relevant articles; i.e. Counties of Ireland etc. or in the history section of the individual county articles depicting their former status as one of the adminstrative counties of the extinct political state of Ireland - a line can be given in the section (or sport section or both) as to how its still used in an all-Ireland context by the GAA or whatever. That way we get both maps in, in contexts that i don't think are controversial or contentious, which i think is more than fair. Mabuska (talk) 10:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC) | ” |
Personally i shouldn't really argue with RAs proposed maps however i oppose giving one external entity more prominence than another. Northern Ireland is part of the UK so why should Scotland in the map not get more prominence? That is why my map has both the Republic of Ireland and Scotland greyed out as it avoids giving bias to one connection over the other. That is NPOV RA. Adding different colours to Scotland and the Republic of Ireland is visually distracting from the topic - it doesn't favour one context over the other by having the UK bits and Republic of Ireland bits showing both greyed out the same colour. This issue will be resolved by sources and RA your sources still on context:
Your new Frommer's quote is also a level-up context, i.e. all-Ireland context. It doesn't deal with individual counties on their own. Another source for the Counties of Ireland article which already includes a list. As Dmcq said on lists:
“ | They might list county Antrim later and one can then infer it is one of the 32 counties but that certainly doesn't give it lead importance. A reliable source for the main notable facts about County Antrim would start off saying something like "County Antrim is... | ” |
Such lists are easy to find, just as it is to find lists on UK counties. Does Frommers go on about the individual county describing it in its own entry as one of the 32 counties of Ireland? These articles are on about individual counties not Counties of Ireland as a whole. I already provided an encyclopedia reference that clearly omits this as well as omitting it as part of the UK - instead it mentions only Northern Ireland. Heres more encyclopedic references omitting this context on indiviual counties: [12] [13] [14] [15] All of these leave out references to the rest of Ireland (except Encartas reference to Ulster) or the rest of the UK - so why should we use lists about all-Ireland not individual counties as a reliable source when specifically on individual counties other reliable encyclopedic sources don't?
Whilst everyone agrees with both our maps RA, i have reliable encyclopedic sources that deal specifically with individual counties that exclude the all-Ireland context and even the UK context. Your sources deal with describing the counties of Ireland in general not individually or specifically in their own entries.
So once more RA do you have any sources that contradict the ones i've provided on the individual counties? We are dealing after all with individual county articles here not Irish counties in general. My compromise allows for an all-Ireland map showing all the counties in relation in the history section where your source fit in perfectly as they deal with the all-Ireland context? It also keeps neutrality on NI's relation to the Republic and the UK by them being shaed out the same colour. If we based this on sources on individual counties and maintaining NPOV in relation to external entities then there would be no disagreement. Mabuska (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Before the editor altered the maps, was there a disagreement between any of you at that time? Is it possible to just go back to what was there before? Malke 2010 13:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Questions removed by me as there isn't any point - BLAH!!!! Mabuska (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)