Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

---

Please support this Northern Irish editors plea to be unblocked: [1]...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 22:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not Northern Irish!--Vintagekits 20:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Golly gosh! I had assumed you were too! Must be your rabid extremism or somethin' (Sarah777 21:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

I thought everybody knew Vk is a Sligoman. Scolaire 21:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone suggest where to find, or have, further info on the possibility that the people listed on Talk:List of Irish state funerals might have received state funerals--Rye1967 10:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Mike, your user page says you are living in Dublin. If you go to Pearse Street library research room and get a readers ticket, you can access newspapers for the dates of death of those people and following days. There will be a full account of their funerals in them. Scolaire 17:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Scolaire is right, above Pearse Street library, is the Gilbert research library. If you go down to it, you can see Nelson's head. Regards --Domer48 19:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This link should also help. ant_ie 20:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I used the new Irish Times online archive to get more info. It's expensive but it goes back to 1859 and is excellent. See if your library has a subscription. Ian Cheese 19:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I am taking the following out of the Racist remarks section and moving it down here. That discussion is closed and I don't think it's fair to continue to edit it. Scolaire 08:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"The main bones of contention, as I understand them, are:

• Ulster banner. Main protagonists: Padraig and Astrotrain (I've offered to try to broke a compromise here, so setting myself up as an Aunt Sally for both sides);
• Potato Famine genocide/ conspiracy. Main protagonists: Domer48, Sarah777 and MarkThomas (currently at ArbCom, with lengthy blocks looking likely for the main protagonists);"

I would suggest that this is not an accurate reflection of issues involved, Thanks --Domer48 12:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• IRA articles. Main protagonists: One Night in Hackney and Vintagekits versus myself and the 'Scottish editors'. (The bone of contention put well here. By and large, currently dormant. Also includes PoW templates, v/V-olunteer, etc.)--Major Bonkers (talk) 11:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)"

Also under IRA articles - 'killing'/ 'murder'

• Oliver Cromwell genocide claim. Main protagonists: Hughsheehy and MarkThomas.--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Whoever put together Henry Street, Dublin seems be oblivious to the existance of Mary Street, counting it (as many of us do) as simply more of Henry Street. Maybe some other Dubs could help get the article into better shape, I've corrected a few of the more blatant mistakes but there's still a lot of mistakes and POV that need to be gotten rid of. It might also do with a move to Henry Street and Mary Street, Dublin... --Rdd 20:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Further to the numerous discussions on this page, a proposal has been made attempt to neutrally categorise individuals imprisoned during The Troubles. Your comments are welcomed at:

• Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Proposed solution to categorising those imprisoned during The Troubles
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 14#Category:People imprisoned for terrorism

Lets try and go beyond partisanship here, and keep the discussion couched strictly in terms of policy, specifically WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Thanks. Rockpocket 00:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Folks! Achtung!! Nothing seems to be working here; look here:

Ireland articles		Importance
		Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Quality
	FA					4	4
	A
	GA					5	5
	B	5	2	7	3	39	56
	Start	2	3	25	122	237	389
	Stub			8	160	317	485
	Assessed	7	5	40	285	602	939
	Unassessed	0	0	0	1	286	287
	Total	7	5	40	286	888	1226

Category:Ireland articles by quality

There are many more articles and I'm working through "registering" them, but is is a bit of a grind and 99% are starts and stubs as well. Look at the tiny number of articles with more than "b" class; at least we could gather in all the articles and get them into this box even if only with the base template with no class no quality tags. I suggested Taney Parish for "article of the week"; to get some peer review going - zero response. Could we not have an "article of the month" and at least take that seriously? Where (who) is the Assessment Committee? Is there a WikiprojIreland Head Person? We need one. To arms!! (Sarah777 11:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC))

My recent revision of the Irish FAs shows 17 yet you only list 4. Where did you generate this data from and do you know where to correct it? ww2censor 21:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I got it here. And I haven't a clue how to correct it; I merely lifted it from the page. It appears that about every 3 days some sort of bot updates this table; but I'd be surprised if we'd gone from 4 FAs to 17 in a couple of days. (Sarah777 22:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC))

I've looked at your "extra" FAs and I think I see what is happening. This table only reads specific "Irelandproj" tags - the other 13 articles have various project tags but not "Irelandproj" ones. To get all the Irish articles included we need to add an Irelandproj tag to the articles - example Talk:James Joyce - I just added one.

Of course before adding those sort tags (rating both importance and quality) the Assessment Committee would need to agree with the rating bestowed by the members of other project Assessment Committees. (Sarah777 22:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC))

In terms of quality, the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment criteria would seem a good place to work from. But on terms of importance they wouldn't necessarily have to agree with the importance given by other projects, as what is important in one context might not be the same as what is important in an Irish context. Actually I have to say that it might be time to set up an assessment group for WP:IRELAND, on a voluntary basis like (for example) the Australian one. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Just now User:Folks at 137 is adding a "nest of tags" but is DELETING the Ireland Project tags! Which may explain where our FAs are going!(Sarah777 00:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC))

And on the Australia group; note they have over 34,000 articles to our 1,200! Which means they are generating about 6 times as many articles per capita as we are or they are much better organised. (Sarah777 00:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC))

Well, some of the articles could be tagged and rated automagically. Any article in Category:Ireland stubs, or one of its subcategories, could be targeted by a bot. We know that stub-class is for stubs, so rating those is easy. As for the rest, just collect the categories that need to be checked, and have a bot run through them adding {{WikiProject Ireland}} to the page if there isn't already a tag. That's how the Australian project did it I expect. If no bots are available, AWB would do at a pinch, but it'd be a bit slow. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually Sarah777 you have got it a bit wrong I think. The Folks at 137 are reinstating what was there, but you deleted the already existing project class rating that is nested inside the banner shell though the class rating is missing the importance rating. Look more carefully at Arklow and I think you will see what is happening. Regarding the FAs, I see that those that are not listed have not got the project class ratings. I also see what you did with James Joyce - I had added the class rating earlier inside the "WikiProjectBannerShell" and then you added it again outside the banner shell. Need to be sure there are no other class rating already on the talk pages. I will do the rest of the FAs, so if you are going to work on them too, watch out and see if they are not already there. ww2censor 00:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) OK, so all 17 FA class articles appear here now. We should now give them all an importance rating. ww2censor 01:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm just a bit behind you Ww - going to study the Arklow situation to better ubderstand what is happening! (Sarah777 01:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC))

I've just come across this page and I think that the image of an IRA poster with the words "IRA -Undefeated Army" prominently displayed at the head of the article seriously compromises the NPOV nature of the article. I believe that its usage can be justified within the body of the article but to lead the whole article with it gives the impression that the article is supportive of the message that the poster contains, before even reading a single word of the article itself. Jooler 00:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The only message the poster contains is that the IRA was undefeated; I notice in most Wiki-articles about wars (including battles in such as the 1798 rebellion) there are infoboxes which give the "result". And as the IRA were clearly not defeated I can't see why you should have a problem with the poster, which is tagged, unnessesarily in my view, as an IRA propaganda poster. That seems over-egging it a bit. But you did prompt me to look at range of wars the British Army were involved in and I was somewhat shocked to see that in the cases of Dunkirk, Normandy, El Al (1 & 2) etc - the image right at the top of the infobox (same location as the IRA poster actually) there is invariably am image of British/Allied soldiers in shots which I feel are glorifying or glamourising them and thus clear breaches of POV. That is an issue I certainly think needs to be addressed urgently. (Sarah777 00:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC))

Straw man argument. FYI the picture in the top right of the Battle of Normandy article shows American troops; the article on the Evacuation of Dunkirk show French troops (inglorious in defeat); and Second Battle of El Alamein shows Australian troops. I think replacing the image with a picture of an IRA "volunteer" would be acceptable. Jooler 01:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Jools, I said "there is invariably am image of British/Allied soldiers". You then set about "refuting" this by saying the images are of American, Australian and French troops. I thought that was what the "allies" were composed of? And the argument isn't a 'straw man'; I was pointing out that you have alerted us to a serious source of bias in Wiki; and making articles WP:NPOV is, as you say, so important. (Sarah777 20:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC))

It is/was a straw man because I wasn't defending, and have no interest in defending the usage of images in the articles you cited. The content of your message specifically referred to "the British" twice and implied an hypocrisy. I perceived from your tone and the fact that you have not already pursued this "serious source of bias in Wiki" that you were perhaps just attempting to make a point, but then maybe I was doing you an injustice. I did not aim to refute your claim, (and you may note that I did not even mention the First Battle of El Alamein which you cited and which does show British soldiers), but to highlight that the 'bête noire' of the story here, 'the British', are not portrayed in glory on those pages and so if you truly are worried about the NPOV on those pages and try to do something about it you may find yourself offending the Americans, the French and the Australians rather more than the British, and I thought it only worth pointing that out to you. Jooler 22:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

IRA not defeated? Republic of Ireland still in existence... Northern Ireland still part of the UK... No United Ireland... Vast majority of the island supporting the Good Friday Agreement... No increase in SF electoral support south of the border... Maybe not a defeat, but hardly a win either. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 01:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Bastun, I don't read anywhere that it was a "win". Can you show me where I said that? (Sarah777 20:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC))

IRA not defeated? Well according to the British Army, in the Opperation Banner report, the answer is no they were not defeated. Mayby someone should produce a report from the British Gov to say they did defeat the IRA. --Domer48 08:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Defeated or not. It's an inappropriate image to lead the article.Jooler 11:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Defeated or not, it's inappropriate for Bastun to post a provocative comment like that. I suggest you have a read of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Workshop. Things that were accepted in the past are not acceptable any more. Scolaire 13:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

My comment illustrates that though they weren't defeated (which I accept), they still didn't achieve their aims. So not a victory either. Fact. I don't see how its provocative. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It's provocative because (a) it's irrelevant to the point that Jooler made, and (b) it's clearly intended to provoke. Scolaire 13:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Then I await your similar warning to others who have responded to the "defeat" question without also addressing Jooler's point. And provoke who? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Provoke the "others" you refer to, obviously. I don't see the same clear intention to provoke in their response. Sarah did directly address Jooler's point. If you feel that her response was OTT you are at liberty to say so. Scolaire 15:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Joolers has a point, actually. I would argue that the Image:Mural - Battle of the bogside 2004 SMC.jpg or Image:Manchesterbomb-devestation.jpg would be a better lead representation, in that they actually represent incidents of the campaign (which is what the article is about), rather than a obviously triumphalist poster about the IRA itself. Rockpocket 16:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It says quite clearly under the poster "Propaganda poster of the Provisional IRA." The article is about the IRA, let the readers make up their own mind. --Domer48 17:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I hate to point out the obvious, Domer, but the article is about the Provisional IRA campaign 1969–1997 not the IRA. Our MoS says "find an appropriate place to position images, where they relate closely to text they illustrate." I think this is the basis of using an image in the WP:LEAD that better reflects the actual subject of the article. I think Image:Mural - Battle of the bogside 2004 SMC.jpg is a really nice picture that better hints about the geopolitical subtleties behind the campaign, and is less politically bombastic than the current lead, which would be better served in the ceasefire section. We have to be careful to establish a neutral tone, even with images. Rockpocket 17:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The poster was produced during the period covered. The IRA were not defeated? That is, according to the British Army, in the Opperation Banner report. It says quite clearly under the poster "Propaganda poster of the Provisional IRA," a poster used during their campaign. All I'm suggesting is let the readers make up their own mind. --Domer48 17:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No-one is suggesting readers can't make up their own mind (as the image will remain in the article). However, it is our imperative to use the more appropriate image for a lead. In general, when there is a suitable alternative, propaganda posters are not the best choice for a lead as, by their very nature, they are not neutral in their content. Especially so when there is a POV textual message on the image. Incidently, there is precendent for this. The Katelyn Faber article used to have a newspaper image/story with a headline as a lead. However, the text in the headline provided an opinion and, as such, the image was removed by consensus because it was deemed not appropriate to have a message in a lead image. Rockpocket 18:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What image would you suggest, that would cover this whole period? --Domer48 18:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, obviously a single image that could encapsultate the entire campaign is asking a bit much. I think a mural would be appropriate, which is why I suggested Image:Mural - Battle of the bogside 2004 SMC.jpg. However, I also think Image:NIrelandDerryFreeJM.jpg would be better. While it also contains text, the text very much encapsulates the whole point of the IRA campaign - no peace until Ireland is united. The fact that it is vandalised (with orange paint, no less) also adds an extra layer of significance. What do you think? Rockpocket 18:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The Image:Mural - Battle of the bogside 2004 SMC.jpg, represents an event,Image:NIrelandDerryFreeJM.jpg a place. I have an Image of two Volunteers. Hooded and armed. Would that image be representative of the campaign, i.e. weapons-Volunteers. --Domer48 18:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds like a good idea to me. Is it free and of a decent quality? Rockpocket 18:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be fair-use. And the rational would have to cover this discussion, i.e. image used to depict a period/representative off. --Domer48 18:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think fair-use would be ok, afterall its not as if we could easily get hold of a free image these days. Why don't you upload it? Rockpocket 18:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Have a look, and see what you think. Image:IRA Volunteers 1979.JPG. --Domer48 18:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the image, though there could be a copyright problem with it being claimed fair use as a book cover. Book cover images usually get deleted if they are used outside articles about the book itself, even if the article is about the same subject as the book. Presumably the image wasn't taken specifically for the book though, so it might be better writing a different fair use rationale: the image can be sourced from the book, but the fair use claimed used along the lines that it is for educational purposes, documents a historical event, that a free replacement will be impossible to capture and that it will not interefere with the copyright holder's ability to create profit. Then I think we would be good to go. Rockpocket 19:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The image isn't from the book cover.--padraig 19:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Then it probably shouldn't be tagged with {{Non-free book cover}}. Thats fine with me then, are you happy putting that in the lead and moving the current image down to the ceasefire section? Rockpocket 19:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

padraig its just below the book title on the front cover, and the full size image is inside. --Domer48 19:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I know that but it isn't an image of the actual Book cover, all the images on the cover are included within the book itself.--padraig 19:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What tag do I use, it was taken from in the book? --Domer48 19:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a good case for {{Non-free historic image}}. One would think the public parading of IRA paramilitary personnel is probably something we may not see again. Rockpocket 19:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds ok? What do others think? --Domer48 19:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine to me, the image is most likely held by An Phoblacht or Sinn Féin as part of their in-house collection.--padraig 19:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. And, as Jooler says, the poster can still be used in the body of the article. Scolaire 20:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so I have gone ahead and done this, since the general tone appears to be in agreement that it is a better option. I have moved the "undefeated army" image to the "ceasefire" section (since it makes sense that would would claim to be "undefeated" at the end of hostilities). Thanks to everyone for the civil and focused discussion leading to resolution. Rockpocket 20:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ye, looks good. Could someone check the rational on the image, I think I've have it covered, but just in case. --Domer48 21:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the change in the article has sufficiently addressed my concerns. Thank you. Jooler 22:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This image seems to solves the problem very well and looks good, as does the rationale for use. Well done. ww2censor 23:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've rejigged the Ireland portal and if no one objects am volunteering to manage it for the time being. I would appreciate help though for people to add things to the "Irish Wikipedia address book" at the bottom of the page. Thanks all. --sony-youth^pléigh 00:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Please comment on the proposed deletion. [2] Valenciano 13:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed today that there was a lot of inconsistencies in the naming of categories by county. Some were of the form "Stuff in County Sligo", and some were of the form "Stuff in Sligo".

So I have set about nominating lots of those categories which omitted the word "County" for renaming to the form "Stuff in County Sligo". There are several nominations at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 6, where more contributions would be welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a case of WP:Be Bold, Categories take for ever to move to get discussed . I'd suggest moving them, after support has been built here Gnevin 22:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The rationale here is manifest; let's just do it!(Sarah777 00:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC))

I wouldn't mind being bold, but the problem is that there would be tens of thousands of edits involved. By using CfD, the bots get to the hard work :) They'll only be listed on CfD for five days, so it should all be done by next weekend ... and maybe a kind admin will close the noms early per WP:SNOW. The more people who lend their support at CfD, the better the chances of an early closure.

BTW, I have proposed a slightly more radical change to the towns and villages categories: see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 7#Category:Towns_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland. And a few more noms on the same page.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The last batch

The final batch of by-county categories have now been nominated for renaming: see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 14#Even_more_Irish_by-county_categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

A peer review has been opened on the Ireland portal. Please comment. --sony-youth^pléigh 01:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Please comment on a proposed merge of several shopping centre pages here. Pathless 20:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

See my proposal to rename the category [here]. There was a process ongoing to have a neutral, non-offensive, non-pov name - "History of Great Britain and Ireland" - which was gaining broad support. This proposal was barely 24 hours open when an Admin closed off the process and imposed the "British Isles" tag. (Sarah777 23:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC))