Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive16

< Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board

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


Punts

Can someone clarify the format for this please? I'm working on the Dessie O'Hare article, which currently has a figure in dollars. The actual reported figure was 1.5 million Irish pounds (£1.3 million). I'm assuming there must be a prefix to designate Irish currency, but I can't find one in the MOS anywhere, or am I better off with UK or US? One Night In Hackney303 00:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  • IEP is the ISO 4217 standard denotation for the old Irish currency, though and back in the day, we used to see it a lot. Newspapers and other publications used to use it quite a bit and people who - ahem - had various issues with the symbol used. I wouldn't discount it - Alison☺ 00:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, I went with IR£ as I thought IEP1.5m wasn't particularly clear. One Night In Hackney303 00:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I would have thought IR£ was used more, as I recall, but to be honest, my objection is on aesthetic grounds ;O). IEP looks .... wrong Flowerpotman talk-wot I've done 01:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Great! It all looks good, really and IR£ is perfectly clear - Alison☺ 00:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Irish Administration on Sub-County level

Hi Irish Wikipedians, I am somewhat lost with the Irish administrative organisation of towns and villages (unfortunately neither of these articles provides a section about Ireland!). Take, for example, County Clare. According to the official web site of the Clare County Council there exist four towns within that county: Ennis, Kilrush, Kilkee, and Shannon. These towns appear to have a town council. But I am unable to find any information how a community like that of Killaloe in County Clare is governed. There is apparently no official web site for Killaloe (I've found so far "a community site" only). Likewise, the article about Killaloe in this Wikipedia edition isn't helpful either. In summary, I do not know anything about the formal status of Killaloe and its elementary attributes (population etc). I would appreciate any help in this area (for Killaloe and for Irish locations in general) as I am going to write an German article for Killaloe and possibly more Irish locations (see my German language article about Tory Island as reference). --AFBorchert 20:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

For example in County Kerry, there is the county council, http://www.kerrycoco.ie which governs the entire county. The more notable towns have their own elected urban district council (UDC) - Tralee, Killarney and possibly a few others. The rest of the smaller towns do not have any local government and elect councillors to the County Council. I am not familiar with Clare, but I would be 90% certain that Killaloe does not have its own UDC as it is too small. You can find popluations from the 2006 census on http://www.cso.ie. --Rye1967 11:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi AFBorchert. Local Government Act 2001 and Town Councils in the Republic of Ireland should be of some help - but in essence, as Rye1967 said, small towns such as Killaloe don't have their own councils. Bastun 23:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
It can seem strange to countries with traditions of communes, with genuine very-local-government, and places with even tiny communities "incorporating" but most people in Ireland have only County level authorities (and even these have limited power, Ireland being rated as one of the most centrally-administered countries in the world). Some have City or Town Councils, but while the former are autonomous, the latter are still subject for many matters to their County Council. Great to hear about the translation to German. SeoR 09:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dublin Stubs and Categories

Hello Irish Wikipedians - Advice required.

I've missed the social club. Can you give us a link? I think the use of the term suburbs gives use loads of leeway about what to include. Frelke 06:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
But the towns cat IS categorised as Category:Geography of Dublin! Frelke 06:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Geographical features such as Three Rock Mountain are often not categorised as Category:Geography of Dublin either.
But Three Rock is in Category:Mountains of Dublin which is a sub of Category:Geography of Dublin.Frelke 06:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

And so on through a jungle of Dublin categories and sub-categories being assigned almost at random to various articles and stubs. (Yes, I'm guilty too). It there an article/stub category minder in the house? Any clear rules? Does anyone else feel discombobulated by the chaos? (Sarah777 23:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC))

I think the main rule is use the lowest possible category in the tree. Frelke 06:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


Grove Social Club is the offending "suburb". I would have thought there is a clear distinction between an urban village/suburb and a housing estate. Rathfarnham is a suburb; 15 Parkvale Heath isn't normally regarded as such, or even the whole of Parkvale Heath. (Sarah777 19:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC))

Transport 21 and pushing of a Platform 11 / over critical agenda

Can a someone have a look at Transport 21 , is it just me or is this article very negative and seem to be pushing a Platform 11 agenda? (Gnevin 10:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC))

It doesn't seem particularly biased but there is definitely way too much discussion with the insertion of all the "criticism" sections. It is as much discussion as fact. Perhaps the "criticism" sections should just be deleted? (Sarah777 00:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC))

Some of the criticisms are extremely valid while others just seem to crystal ball/speculation. I would be opposed to their mass deletion, but the verifiable ones (e.g., previously announced plans/timetables that never came to fruition) could or should be merged into a single 'Criticism' section? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I'd agree with that...any volunteers?? (Sarah777 11:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC))

What i'd suggest is adding {{fact}} to anything that looks dodgy and giving a notice on the talk page that anything uncited will be removed in 10 days , anyone agree (Gnevin 11:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC))
PS then doing what Bastun suggested (Gnevin 11:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC))

The Golden Horde (band) directly copied from website?

The text of this wiki appears to be a direct copy of this website [1]. I don't want to delete it as I don't know enough about the band and can't recreate it, but perhaps somebody else should?? --The.Q | Talk to me 13:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Remove what can be removed but if a substantial amount of it is copyvio and their is nothing worth reverting to then tag it to {{copyvio}}. Djegan 14:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Is there a list of ireland related infoboxes ? And should there be? Frelke 07:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Still need Irish media contacts!

I got a call from RTE wanting someone in Ireland they could speak to. Preferably on camera. I'm in London, so that was a bit tricky ... Is anyone out there willing and able to speak in soundbites to the media? Please email Sandra (sordonez (a) wikimedia.org) if you can help in general! - David Gerard 18:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Portal

It looks to me like Portal:Ireland is dying slowly. Should we kill it off if no one is interested in maintaining it? Frelke 07:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  • It'd be an awful shame! - Alison☺ 07:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'd agree. If it is not going to be moderately up-to-date, then I don't want it. The news is announcing Mary Harney's resignation, for pete's sake. I'm very much of the opinion "Do what you do, well". I don't like portals anyway. You are always looking at someone else's view of a subject. Not my cup of tea. Frelke 07:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear! I just looked at the edit history. Is anyone here willing to take it on as a project?? I feel Ireland should have a portal on the English wiki, but three other wikiprojects and admin duties preclude me from taking it on right now. It's either that or WP:MFD time. Comments? - Alison☺ 22:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Rather than deleting it, we could recategorise it in either the category Portals needing attention or Portals under construction. I too don't have the time to do it and already try to maintain another Portal. Perhaps someone can take it on as an an ongoing project. Basically it is the news portion that need regular updating while some of the other sections can have the same data rotated. BTW, is there a way of seeing the traffic to this page? ww2censor 23:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I added the category Portals needing attention to the portal. Maybe someone will pick up on that and take it on board as their project. ww2censor 21:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Newstalk

Theres some sort of surreal attempt to get the Newstalk article deleted over at AfD, with a number of votes, all basically identical, using the stations content (as opposed to the article) as justification. Some people here might be interested in joining in with their opinion. --Kiand 12:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Article review, please!

Hi all. I note that a banned user (Robert Sieger) has been editing the usual target articles Daniel O'Connell and Michael Cusack. Can someone look them over and check for NPOV and verifiable statements, just to be on the safe side? One of the articles was fully protected today by an admin as a result of his actions - Alison☺ 22:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A bit of badness!

Just having a look over the etymology of the title Count, Graf, Comes and its English equivalent Earl of which there are and were so many in the Peerage of Ireland....This under Irish. Where did that "A" come from? ;) Brendandh 19:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

lol Brendandh. Actually Cunta is the correct translation, as in An Cunta Pluincéad. Cuntas means count as in head-count. Scolaire 08:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Irish Population Analysis

This article is unclear can someone with a knowledge of this tell me and add to the article if the figure for ulster are for the entire province or just the 3 ROI counties? (Gnevin 08:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC))

Strange article, strange title. This should be 1) renamed Demographic history of Ireland, and material relating to RoI and NI extracted and placed in new articles Demographic history of the Republic of Ireland and Demographic history of Northern Ireland. The existing Demographic history of Ireland could contain info on post-1921 Ireland for comparative purposes.--Damac 09:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The latest data on http://www.cso.ie/census/Census2006_Principal_Demographic_Results.htm always lists Ulster as "Ulster (part of)" which would imply just the 3 counties. As for the article, the numbers would seem to only include 3 counties since the population of Northern Ireland would be much higher, also the counties of Northern Ireland are not listed in the Historical populations per county. I don't see source material on the cso site, but we would expect to see a sharp drop in the population of ulster listed in the article after the 1911 census and there is not. The author seems fairly active perhaps he can clarify. --Albert.white 10:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

CSO Census 2006

I have removed some of the sensational figures for city populations.

The object of these articles (viz, Dublin, Cork,...,Kilkenny) is the cities of the State - they are not about the larger urban areas (meaningless undefined terms like "environ" or "suburb") which have come to dominate wikipedia in the search for national and local self-confidence. The figures I have quoted are those in Table 1 of Census 2006 Volume 1 - Population Classified by Area, they corresspond to the object of the article - the city - they corresspond to the area and the boundary enclosed by the companion maps in the infoboxes. The cities as defined by the final power of the Oireachtas, under the Constitution. Djegan 14:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't comment on these particular examples as I don't know them well enough. However, I'd like to caution against forcing articles about cities to only cover administrative areas, e.g. the city council boundaries. If a majority of people consider an area to be part of a city, despite being outside the administrative boundaries, than such a fact is encyclopaedic and worth mentioning. See, for example, how the article about Bristol, England, deals with suburbs that are outside the city council, but contiguous with the city, and treated in everyday use, both by individuals and by businesses and organisations, as part of it: they are described, but with a note about the administrative situation. Joe D (t) 14:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Though it is a valid point I would be cautious on compairing the Republic of Ireland with the United Kingdom. The laws between these two jurisdictions have greatly diverged, particularilty in the United Kingdom in the post-war period, and in particular the local government reforms of the 1970s totally changed the relationships such that new cities where created, or concieved, and those in former existance saw a great expansion in their population as surrounding distinctive areas incorporated into urban areas; but in some cases the city proper remains a small area, for instance the city of London. In contrast in the Republic of Ireland no cities have been created or indeed has any sustantial plan been provided for their creation. However the Oireachtas has on several occassions made it clear through enactments that the boundaries of cities have been expanded or contracted as seen fit. This has the effect, for instance, that whilst many Irish cities cover many times the area of the city of London, their population is many times smaller than that of London; that sort of contrast between city area and urban area is not seen in Ireland, they are larely one in the same except when people want to push for the magical one million figure. Djegan 15:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The Local Authority areas are irrelevant; a City does not lose population simply because it is divided into different administrative units. The continuous built-up area, the real extent of a city in common sense terms, would, if applied to Dublin, result in the loss of Balbriggan and other areas of Fingal; but Bray and Leixlip would become part of the city; giving much the same population as County Dublin. So the County figure is an excellent approximation of the population of 'Dublin the city' - rather then the ludicrous 500,000 for the Dublin City Council administrative area. No need for the use of sneering terms like "magical" atall atall. (Sarah777 20:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC))
Perhaps what you do not understand is that the city - viz the subject of the articles - is one and the same thing as the local authority area. Consult the local government acts. Its a bit of a contradiction, in the infobox, quoting a figure for population which does not corresspond to the same area; a population figure for some vaguely defined "environ" or "suburb" that does not corresspond to the area or map given is simply a contradiction. I have no problem with a more detailed a analysis of populations in an appropriate section in the article but I am limiting the discussion here to the infobox. Also consulting talk:Dublin will give some idea of the consensus built up on this matter. Its not without precident. Djegan 21:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
And their is no question of places becoming "loss of" and "become part of" in some pov fashion to suite someones agenda. The figures I have quoted are published by the Central Statistics Office and are those for the respective cities. Much of County Dublin is rural and quite distinctive of the city and urban area. Djegan 21:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The population of those remaining rural areas in County Dublin is very small and has little bearing on the city population, one way or another; what you are suggesting is that places like Sandyford, Dublin 18 (where I live) or Booterstown or Rathmines or Terenure (contiguous, totally integrated parts of the city, some for over 100 years) are not part of Dublin (the city); but some vaguely defined "environ" or "suburb". That is simply ridiculous - so much so as to render the definition of "Dublin City" meaningless.
As for this fact being "some pov fashion to suite someones agenda" I suggest your reference to "sensational figures for city populations" and talk of the "magical figure of a million" reveals you POV in this matter. The infobox is wrong; it needs changing. An average reader would expect the article on Dublin to be about Dublin city; not the part of it in a specific local authority area. (Sarah777 22:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC))
You dont seam to have grasped that the city and the local authority area are the same thing; they are not different things; re: the local government acts. The city (and by extension the local authority area) and the urban area are not the same thing. This is often the fundemental misunderstanding. As for what places are and are not in the city, take out an authoritive map that gives a factual account of whats on the ground, or consult the relevant statutory instruments. Lets try to keep it to the encyclopedic facts, the term "city of Dublin" is well recognised in law, its even mentioned in the Constitution twice, it does not mention some half-assed term like "Dublin City" (sic). Too many sensationalist (and poorly interpreted) population figures in Ireland related articles. Djegan 23:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
You don't 'seam' to grasp that what you are saying is complete nonsense! Dublin City is a very common term, 'half-assed' or otherwise! It means what it says on the tin. This is an Encyclopedia; not some legal document! (Sarah777 23:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC))
Whatever...you just cannot articulate your point. Theirfore rather than something substantial we get a derivative of my own comments aimed back at me. Djegan 23:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, at least you can spell 'articulate'. But 'therefore' seems a bridge too far! (Sarah777 23:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC))
I can be half-assed derivative as well. At least I know the difference between "Dublin City" and "Dublin city", and "an Encyclopedia" and "an encyclopedia", and "The Local Authority areas" and "The local authority areas" - get your uppercase and lowercase right, or is that get your Uppercase and lOWERCASE write??? Yes, in summary trading insults like this is pretty derivative and childish. Your spelling and grammer is not perfect. Grow up please. Djegan 23:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The use of Uppercase for Local Authorities and for Emphasis is a Style Thing with me; I guess that explains your spelling? Say something sensible and I'll respond in kind, as I always do. The Topic here is 'CSO Census 2006' - who'd have guessed? (Sarah777 00:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC))
Whatever. Maybe half-assed spelling is just a style thing for me to! Now you starting to deliberately capitalise is sooo see through. You are just a troll, plain and simple. Lets not try to rationalise it any other way. Lets not fool ourselfs (sic). Djegan 00:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm very well fed then. (Sarah777 00:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC))

Djegan: I'm a little confused. I was prepared to drop the issue with your reply to mine, as I know little about these particular examples. I interpreted your reply as meaning that the local government boundaries were regularly adjusted to matched the contigious built up areas of their cities, meaning that the local government definition and colloquial definition would be the same. However, your discussion regarding Dublin suggests this is not the case, and that it is in fact very much like the situation with Bristol, and similar cities. The local government boundaries of Bristol were defined eleven years ago, but exclude the suburbs of Filton, Bradley Stoke, and Kingswood. However, they are contigious with the city, if driving along an aterial road you wouldn't realise you'd left the "city", and everybody treats them as part of the city. The fact that the government have defined a "city" of Bristol, and an organisation (Bristol City Council) administers that area, is an encyclopaedic fact. However, the fact that everybody else think of those suburbs as being part of Bristol is also an encyclopaedic fact, hence why the Office for National Staistics calculate an "urban area" statistic. The Bristol example is nothing like the example of the City of London (which is a unique case, nothing like the rest of the UK, and anyway, "London" is also officially defined as an administrative region containing most of the built up area), but seems to be exactly like the situation described by Sarah for Dublin.

The Irish government may define the boundaries of the administrative city of Dublin, and they are welcome to define any terms in any way they like, but they can't force anybody except officials to adopt their definitions. If the government defined a spade as a fork, it may be an encyclopaedic fact, but if everybody else ignored the government, that would also be an encyclopaedic fact. Similarly, the Irish government may have their own definition of the word "city", and we should certainly mention that, but doing so does not preclude us from mentioning other definitions. Joe D (t) 21:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Joe D - the situations in Bristol and Dublin are almost fully analogous. We used to have three local authorities, Dublin Corporation, Dun Laoghaire and County Dublin (which was the remainder of the ancient county). Even then, many contiguous built-up areas were in the County Council (some, as I said, for over a century).
Following continuous outward growth throughout the 20th century by 1996 half the built-up area and all the population growth was in the County Council section; so 4 authorities were set up: Dublin City Council (replacing Dublin Corporation); County Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown, replacing the Borough of Dun Laoghaire and including a section of the County Dublin; South Dublin County Council and County Fingal (North County Dublin). Perhaps only a third of the continuous built-up area is in the City Council area. (Sarah777 17:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC))
Some of the above is not what I expected to see in Wikipedia, but I am reassured that all three debaters have some common ground. As an ordinary Jackeen, I agree with Sarah and Joe above that the City Council area of Dublin is not = the city of Dublin, not to anyone with an iota of common sense! By all means quote "500k people under City Council administration" but please note that Dublin City has been listed in official and encyclopediac publications as 1M or more for a very long time. The fact is that the city council boundaries have a lot more to do with old history around the old (and sometimes snobbish) townships like Rathgar and Pembroke than any reality. I suspect that to most people Dublin City is everything from around either Booterstown or Blackrock (Dun Laoghaire still has its own identity) out towards Tallaght, around Blanchardstown and up to the northern greenbelt (Ballymun, Darndale, Donaghmede) and either Baldoyle or the Howth Peninsula. Checking a French official site I see 1.1M listed for Dublin, which seems not unreasonable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.165.181.169 (talk) 01:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC).


Agree with the above; I'd quibble with that notion that Dun Laoghaire has a real separate identity other than as a suburb with an administrative centre. I don't know what a person in 'real' Dun Laoghaire (as distinct from DL-Rathdown County Council) would say if asked what city he lived in - but in Dundrum, Sandyford and even Blackrock there'd be few takers for "Dun Laoghaire" over "Dublin! (Sarah777 11:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC))

Misuse of flag templates

  • I have put forward a proposal here regarding the inappropriate use of Northern Ireland flag templates in WP.--padraig3uk 21:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Help!!! Copyright Violator Calling...

Folks, I need some of your expert advice. I was putting the finishing touches to my article on Kilquade when this massive big yoke appeared! What's the storey here? (Sarah777 23:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC))

You may want to check with the editor who put the template on the page, but the chances are that he/she felt that the inclusion of the content quoted/copied from the "Parish website" might constitute a copy-vio on that content. (IE: Without a notice on the kilquadeparish.com site indicating that the content is free to include elsewhere, it *might* be questionable from a copyright standpoint.) You have three main choices in dealing with the copy-vio template in this case: (1) Just remove the "quoted content", (2) Get into a debate with the other editor about why you think it's not copy-vio, or (3) contact the kp.com site owner and get permission or otherwise clarify the copyr status of their content. Guliolopez 23:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Gulio, I've tried to establish contact with the chap who slapped on the template; he seems scarily inexperienced! (Sarah777 00:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC))
It appears the person who put the copyright-vio tag on there is from India, so I'm not sure how he might be linked to the Kilquade parish newsletter! My bet is that he's running some kind of bot which scans websites for text and matches it to wiki entries and flags them as copyright violations. And Kilquade was unlucky enough to be in the line of fire. Jhonan talk 01:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually the Indian editor is quite correct to put the copyvio tag on this article as the text Sarah777 added is directly lifted from the website mentioned. However, he does not know how to deal with it properly; he should have removed the offending text as well as reporting the page on the Copyright Problems page" mentioned in the tag and the website should also have been referenced which was not done.
You have to remember that even when a web site does not have a copyright notice on it, the text is the copyright of someone and you posted it without specific permission from the owners. It is far better to use that type of page as a reference for a freshly written paragraph or two in order to avoid any problems because many times you will not even receive a reply to a request to use the text verbatim. I would remove the text for now as well as the tag and do a fresh rewrite, otherwise I will just remove the offending text and tag but as you were working on it you can finish it correctly or decide what you wish to do. Cheers. ww2censor 03:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Dinarphatak (India) has removed the tag having found my arguments sound! Do you still want me to reorganise the text to give the impression it's mine? (Sarah777 11:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC))
I think you should, per ww2censor. If I read him correctly he is intending to do it anyway if you don't - it's not dependent on Dinarphatak's response. Scolaire 07:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that one or two sentences of copyrighted material can be quoted under fair use, e.g., in the likes of a review. Quoting a substantial passage of text, however, would be a copyvio breach. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Surprisingly I agree with Batsun - a couple of attributed lines is ok but you cannot pass of whole passages. Its pretty easy to re-edit stuff to avoid copyvio anyway so I would suggest that a copyedit is done to rejig the section.--Vintagekits 11:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, nearly sorry I asked! I've removed the offending material - I'll put it back when I get around to re-jigging it. (Sarah777 19:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC))
Actually Sarah777 you are doing the right thing. This can all be part of the learning process, so don't be sorry you asked. It took me a while to figure out what was a copyvio and how to deal with it. Happy County Wicklow editing! ww2censor 23:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Irish Rebels Category

I was looking at this category earlier, and saw it contained the following sub-categories:

For the sake of consistency I added these:

However, then I saw how many articles I'd need to re-categorise were actually in the main category, and decided that before changing them I'd better get a second (and possibly third and fourth) opinion, and as category talk pages are generally sparsely populated, here would be a better venue.

Firstly, I know for a fact I'd be better off creating a Category:Irish Republican Army members category, and putting all the above categories (except the hunger strike one obviously) into that. So should any/all of the IRA members categories be a sub-category of Category:Irish rebels, and I'm assuming nobody objects to the existing hunger strike category being there? One Night In Hackney303 04:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

How about creating a category:Irish rebels 1791-1916? It could then be added to the Irish rebels category along with the five above, and all of the rebels on that page could be moved into one of the six. The idea of a single IRA category looks sound at first, but it might very well fall foul of the "the Provos are not the legitimate heirs of the Old IRA" brigade. Scolaire 07:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The label "rebels" appears inappropriate gaillimhConas tá tú? 15:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest anyone who is a member of the "the Provos are not the legitimate heirs of the Old IRA" brigade first looks at Category:Irish Republican Army, as all I will be doing is re-organising the existing categories that are already in that category.
Bear in mind that should I create Category:Irish Republican Army members it doesn't have to be used in the Irish rebels category, I could just use it in Category:Irish Republican Army and put the individual organisation categories into the rebels category, in case anyone objects to the presence of any particular organisation in the rebels category. One Night In Hackney303 07:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough! It's just that the rebels category is going to look a bit funny if it doesn't contain anyone who died after 12 May 1916! Scolaire 18:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. I fail to see how IRA members who fought against British tyranny should not be in this category, yet earlier rebels should be. It seems inherently POV not to have them in there. One Night In Hackney303 19:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I agree with Gaillimh that thanks to the so-called "war on terror" the word "rebel" nowadays has negative connotations that were not associated with the word in the minds of those who proudly described themselves as such in the past. In the legalistic context of the Wikipedia MO 'rebel' implies an illegitimacy and gives undue weight to British legalism (a cancer on Wiki if you ask me).
My preferred term would be Freedom Fighter (as in freedom from Imperialism or foreign occupation - it would include the Jihadists who are fighting for liberation from occupation in that sense, but sometimes not for freedom in the western sense). (Sarah777 08:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC))
I'm afraid that "freedom fighter" has major POV problems, because once person's freedom fighter is another's terrorist (was Franco a "freedom fighter"? From a fascist perspective, he certainly was, but from a socialist perspective, he was the exact opposite). I think that "rebel" is not a perfect term, but also that it isn't too bad: for an Irish Republican guerilla fighter, isn't it it reasonably to both POVs fair to call them a rebel against the de facto authority? A loyalist might argue that they are bad and dangerous rebels, and a republican that they are heroic, patriotic and right; but can't both sides agree that they are referring to people who rebel against a de facto state?
Would "insurgent" be an improvement? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll try and wrap this up. Does anyone have any objections to members of all variants of the IRA going in Category:Irish rebels? If there aren't, then Category:Irish Republican Army members can be added. If people have a concrete objection to any particular variant, then the individual categories can be added instead. One Night In Hackney303 12:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you should go with adding Category:Irish Republican Army members. Also. if you have time, you might think about re-categorising any post-1916 IRA members who are in the broader category at the moment.
Oh, hang on! That's what you said you were going to do in the first place ;-). Scolaire 14:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I didn't want to start re-categorising them all only to have to undo everything should someone object so thought it best to discuss first. One Night In Hackney303 14:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
No objection. (Sarah777 00:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

Townlands in Ireland

Hello again Wiki Experts. Category:Townlands in Ireland is a new one I have created - but I'm not good at this sort of thing. It is to cater for articles I come across about areas which contain no town or village but are townlands. There is about 40,000 of these in Ireland so we need some category to place them in. Some I have come across are "orphaned" because they don't link to anywhere else; a few have been (incorrectly) added to the list of "Towns and Villages in Ireland" - when I find these I always remove them, thus creating some orphans. But as many locals from rural parts like to write about their townlands (as they do with their parishes) we need a category; with sub-categories for the counties I would suggest. All comments welcome. (Sarah777 22:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC))

I suppose there will gradually be some articles for this category. There probably should also be Category:Parishes of Ireland, somewhat like Category:Parishes, there may already be some articles on specific parishes, eg Brosna - see County Kerry. Also, what should be the parent cat for the townlands one, possibly Category:Geography of the Republic of Ireland? --Rye1967 23:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, there is a Category:Townlands of Ireland already in existence, although I only discovered it just now when searching for townland articles. Flowerpotman talk|contribs 00:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Excellent! Now I have somewhere to put the orphans I come across! First up is Stickens - which sounds like my kinda cul-de-sac. (Sarah777 01:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC))
LOL! I have to admit that despite Lord-knows-how-much categorizing I have done in the last few months, I didn't know about that category until tonight. I agree with you about the category needing sub-categories for counties. My only concern is whether some townland articles might have notability issues. Flowerpotman talk|contribs 02:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
My feeling is that most townlands will, as Flowerpotman suggests, have notability issues unless they are notable for some famous geographical feature or significant historical fact. I am very reluctant to start adding county subcategories when there are only 25 article linked here at the moment, so let's wait and see if we really need county subcategories at some future time when the category is too populated. ww2censor 02:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Sounds OK, just a caution - there are lots more of them out there than the 25 in the category, such as Stickens was. Strickens, a few fields outside the village of Caragh (that's near Naas!!) seems to be somewhat sub-notable, but it does have 30 scattered dwellings and nearly 100 people. Aren't all populated places notable? (I'm just trying to stop folk categorising their residence plus the cousins up the road as a "village" for inclusion in the "Towns and villages of Ireland" page). But now that we know we have a "townland" category I guess we can just let things develop. Mind you, without ever having heard of it before I imagine Stickens is probably outer suburban Naas, given it is only a couple of kilometers from the town.(Sarah777 02:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC))
I have added a speedy-rename notice to Category:Townlands in Ireland so that the cat will be removed by an admin, and so that others know of the alternative. Someone added a townland to it again in the past few hrs.--Rye1967 09:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Towns and Suburbs and Business Parks of Dublin

Hello all,

As a new editor, I want to ensure I understand things correctly. I had noted that "Towns and Suburbs in Dublin", which I would see as in important gathering, and which I think means something clear to the ordinary gal/guy reading (including me in my previous existence as an ordinary Wikipedia user), while mostly being actual suburbs of Dublin, and nearby villages/towns, also had a number of housing estates and business parks added to it. These are commercial developments, and often fine ones, but as a matter of fact, I would have thought it clear that such things are *not* suburbs, except maybe to hungry property agencies. I think that not doing this creates a danger of commercial abuse, and damages credibility.

I do note from the discussion forums that such issues have arisen before. And I do not seem to be the only one concerned about this now. At the same time, not an issue to put a lot of time into, there is so much else to do. But a fellow editor, Sarah77, has queried re. one case.

Whether posted as such for promotional reasons or not, I thought the best thing was to simply correct the categorisation, while enhancing the article if possible. As a further step, one could place such items into the locations to which they do belong. And so I see tidying by editors of such places as "Park West", "Point Village", a road behind the Hospital in Dundrum, an estate in Swords etc., as positive. Maybe some day some of these will be new suburbs, but some will not, and those which do will probably not go by marketing names like "Park West" (this would be against City Council policy), and before being recognised encyclopedically, might need more time, and appropriate action by authorities (neither local authority nor An Post has recognised Park West or City West, which is Tallaght/Saggart, for example, as anything like a suburb). The question of numbers living in Park West was raised, but thousands can live in one apartment complex too (see any big city in much of the world), but that does not make it a suburb.

At any rate, I am sure there are straightforward solutions, and I would welcome guidance. If I could suggest one approach, it might be to:

  • Make a clear definition for "Towns and Suburbs in Dublin"
  • Have a separate category for the genuinely significant "Business Parks in Dublin"
  • And, while placing both business parks and new developments in their actual locales - and if I understand, for most suburbs/towns, individual housing estates, residents associations, civic and business groups and so on, do not qualify for separate articles - where a business or housing development does warrant an article, place it in a category with its parent area

I look forward to feedback, and in the meantime, will go edit something different. I am glad to be participating in this project, and see some work waiting in literary and castle areas... SeoR 06:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If we agree a definition of "suburb" then I'd go with that. But of course I'd argue that Citywest is a suburb. In the past it has taken me time and effort to remove individual housing estates and even some fictional areas ("North Killiney") from the "Towns and Suburbs of Dublin" category. It might be easier to define what should NOT be listed; but of course I'd argue such exclusion could not include Citywest!
And a declaration here: I started both articles, Park West and Citywest (amongst numerous other suburbs) and I can assure you it has nothing to do with any commercial interest. (I also started Cherrywood, btw, another commercial development).
A look at the Dollymount and North Killiney sagas will illustrate the extreme difficulty of getting any agreement in this area, and current practice appears to be that the burden of proof lies very heavily with the person arguing that some named area is NOT a suburb. (Sarah777 09:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC))
To this wanderer o' the Web, this does sound like an important issue. And especially as some of the recent additions to the page in question do look like deliberate marketing campaigns, specificially barred as reminded on every submission page. But interesting is that both parties so far appear to agree on the basics. And so it seems that setting some kind of definition for "town or suburb of Dublin" is a good move.
Dollymont is an interesting case, and seems to have been "left hanging" a bit - but North Killiney looks spurious, IMHO (i.e., was never a real dispute, and Sarah77 did the right thing).
However, on principles, if just one, unchecked, user, in this case >Sarah77<, can "make" a suburb or town, there is no logic in the idea that "current practice appears to be that the burden of proof lies very heavily with the person arguing that some named area is NOT a suburb". Nor does this match policy, or the nature of an encyclopedia - facts are the key. Citywest, for example, either is or is not a new area, and this should be verifiable.
And is the above "current practice" so? CW 217.118.66.3 11:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Clarified, 217.118.66.3 11:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, this "unchecked user" is simply refering to that fact that based on my experience with various places in Dublin it has been up to me to convince the Wiki folk that a place (real or imaginary) doesn't merit categorising as a "town or suburb".
"Citywest, for example, either is or is not a new area, and this should be verifiable." Clearly, Citywest is a new area (in that it was fields 20 years ago) - the question is whether it can be classified as a suburb. And as I say, if we could agree a definition it would make the job of keeping "Oakdale Crescent" from being classed as a suburb much easier. (And, no offence intended, but it is best if policy is being formulated that the contributors are registered - as otherwise the suspicion will persist that various anonymous contributions are not from separate people). (Sarah777 19:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC))
Interesting that there appears to be an assumption towards having new areas. I am surprised but I guess it is fine, as long as streets, estates and marketing pieces are caught. On the question, I note that lack of feedback, at least from regular members, and so, as per my talk page, will not intervene further with Park West, Citywest or Cherrywood. But on a positive note, thanks to whoever is gathering areas with multiple pages into categories, this does help.
One small point, around the use of An Post and its geodatabase and localities - I asked a local post office person and they advised that this should be done with care, as postal addresses contain sorting area names. What is definitive are the house identifier (number or name), street name, and Dublin postal district, and An Post has no real interest in the in-between line - they don't need it, as in all of Dublin, apparently, only one street name (either High or Main St.) occurs more than once in a postal district - impressive!
This explains some of the more persistent "confused area" issues, as sometimes a few streets, for example, will be served from a different sorting area than their base locality. And of course, if this is good for house valuation... Luckily, there are usually markers, such as major roads or rivers, and older, and some foreign, maps often show the areas very clearly.

SeoR 14:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Could do with some more info on Dunboyne

Anyone else out there who knows a good deal of information about Dunboyne?

I want it to become quite a decent article, but I seem to be the only one who has anything to contribute towards it....

-- TheChrisD™ 12:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a bit on roads (Sarah777 13:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC))
I know nothing about it, but formatted it a bit and added a source for the ship. One Night In Hackney303 17:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh so there actually is a ship called Dunboyne out there? Wow, never knew that.... *goes back to translating for Irish wiki* -- TheChrisD™ 18:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, it has its own article. One Night In Hackney303 18:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Sinn Féin politicians

  • I've been looking through the above Category:Sinn Féin politicians and found a number of people who I don't believe are notable. It seems that one editor has in good faith created a number of articles on SF candidates for 2007. Most if not all if them, I believe are not notable and should be deleted. As soon as I can find the correct procedure for doing so I'm going to nominate the following, unless anyone can think of reasons for keeping them (e.g. Dessie Ellis was originally in there until someone rightly pointed out that his extradition was notable.)

These were unsuccessful candidates, who don't seem to have held any kind of publically elected office at all Henry Cremin, Lynn Ní Bhaoighealláin, Liam Browne, Martin Kenny, Joanne Finnegan, Joanne Spain, Sorcha Nic Cormaic, Matt McCormack, Cristin McCauley, Threasa Bennitt, Felix Gallagher, Peter Lawlor (Sinn Féin), Kathleen Funchion, Shaun Tracey, Maurice Quinlivan, Anna Prior

These are only notable for being current/former local councillors - is that grounds for notability? I'm very dubious that it is? Joe Reilly, Séamus Morris, John Dwyer (Politician), Jonathan O'Brien, Paul Hogan (Irish political figure), Brian Stanley, Cionnaith Ó Súilleabháin, Sandra McLellan, Jason Devlin, Anne Marie Carroll, Eoin Ó Broin, Daithí Doolan, Gerry Murray, David Cullinane, Larry O'Toole, Pádraig Mac Lochlainn, Pearse Doherty Thanks, Valenciano 22:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Local councillors dont satisfy automatic notability. Unless some of these canidates have or are on the Ard Comhairle or satisfy other sections of WP:BIO then they should be deleted.--Vintagekits 22:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC) P.S. I would say that Pearse Doherty is probably notable also.
  • So would being on the National Executive now or in the past count as notable? I've nominated everyone in the first (non-councillor) category for now. As has been pointed out, the SF category is not the only one likely to feature non notables. The only problem is that the Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and Labour categories are much larger and will take longer to go through. I had a look through the PDs category which seems okay but the Greens category showed the following, which I've also nominated Fintan MacCarthy, Seán Ó Maolchallann Valenciano 14:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Medieval Ireland wikiproject

Hi I was wondering whether any one would be interested in setting up something similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medieval Scotland, but in relation to Ireland? Brendandh 06:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Durrus

I've nominated Durrus and District History Modern and Durrus and District History for deletion, the discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durrus and District History Modern. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 17:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A fascinating article

Purely by chance, I happened on an article on one of the unsung heroes of Irish Nationalism, D. D. Sheehan. The article is longer than most articles on major Irish figures of the time, weighing in at 26,983 characters, compared to 20,053 for Patrick Pearse, and contains bibliography, external links and a link to Wikisource. It has had 927 edits between 23 February 2005 and 3 June 2007, the vast majority by Niall O'Siochain and osioni (O'Siochain, Niall?), the latter taking over from the former at 20:32 (UTC) on 24 May 2005. The talk page, apart from WPBiography stuff, is entirely written by osioni, except for one anonymous edit that added a lengthy quote from a magazine article, including the telling sentence: "Sheehan’s grandson. Niall O’Siocahain has almost made it his lifetime’s work to establish the case and now uses the Internet to put if (sic) forward."
Hmm! Is this really what Wikipedia is for? Scolaire 08:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Add uncited to it and it should be grand (Gnevin 09:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC))
It's interesting and reads well though. (Sarah777 15:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC))

Malone Road

Have only just noticed the Malone Road site! What do you think of it? [If you wish please comment on my Talk page]Osborne 15:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Common Travel Area

I've just uploaded a (hopefully) much improved version of the article on the Common Travel Area and was thinking of getting a themed photograph for the article. At present there's just a map with Britain and Ireland highlighted. I have a vague memory of seeing signage referring to the Common Travel Area in British airports. If anyone's travelling to the UK sometime soon they could take a photograph of one of these signs, so we could put it on the page.

(You should probably ask before taking a picture, just to make sure you don't get arrested under the UK Terrorism Act 2000, which would, needless to say be rather unfortunate. -:) ) Caveat lector 00:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Glasnevin_Cemetery#Notable_people_buried_in_Glasnevin_Cemetery

I suggest removing the following striked people , the last time i did this i was total i vandalised the article


* Piaras Beaslai - Easter Rising survivor turned writer

* Father Francis Browne - Jesuit priest and photographer who took the last known photographs of RMS Titanic

* Roddy Connolly - socialist politician and son of James Connolly.

* Sinéad de Valera - wife of Éamon de Valera, buried in the same plot.

* Frank Duff - founder of the Legion of Mary

* Dick McKee - prominent member of the Irish Republican Army during the War of Independence.

* Kate Cruise O'Brien - writer & publisher. This is not Kate O'Brien who is buried in Faversham Cemetery.

* James O'Mara - nationalist leader and member of the First Dáil

* David P. Tyndall - prominent Irish businessman who transformed the grocery business

(Gnevin 21:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

Why would you want to remove any of them.--padraig3uk 23:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Aye, why? For presentation's sake maybe, but then a sub article should be created Burials in Glasnevin Cemetery or some such like. If it's about presentation, Looooong lists etc. and a new article is not suitable, put them into columns. Brendandh 23:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
You beat me to it - if they are notable enough to have articles and they are buried in Glasnevin then they should be listed!--Vintagekits 23:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah its about presentation , i never though on a new article. I'll move them in the above suggested article (Gnevin 16:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

Dail constituency pages

I've begun working on improving the Dail constituency pages. Ultimately what I would like to do would be to have full results online for each election similar to this [2] rather than just having 1st preference results only. Those from November 1982 onwards are already online so the focus would be on February 1982 and earlier. I have the 1977 ones courtesy of the Irish times but I'm hoping that the rest will be in newspapers from the time. So far I've been creating results tables like Dublin Artane manually but is there an easier and less time consuming way to do this? Valenciano 17:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The generic "Irish Politician" stub

{{Ireland-politician-stub}} The definition of this stub seems to have been changed recently from "Irish Politician" to "Politician from the Republic of Ireland". Originally it could be used for stub articles on people involved in politics anywhere on the geographic location (i.e. the whole island of Ireland), not just the current Republic or UK area. This distinction is important for articles on events before the partition e.g. Edward Robert King-Harman would identify as Irish and a politician involved in Irish politics but would be horrified at being described as a "Politician from the Republic of Ireland". Can we change this stub back to meaning Ireland generically and use a different stub to denote a politician involved in the modern political entity of the Republic ? Or have I missed something ? Rcbutcher 04:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe sub cats need to be made but I am not sure that that is the solution.--Vintagekits 10:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

POW category added to IRA articles

Is the Prisoners of war category appropriate for IRA articles? As the Troubles article states, it was variously described as "terrorism, an ethnic conflict, a many-sided conflict, a guerrilla war, a low intensity conflict, or even a civil war." But no state of actual war existed so IRA prisoners weren't POWs. They had Special Category Status for four years, which was akin to POW status, but not POW status itself. Any thoughts? Stu ’Bout ye! 10:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I would say that it is applicable. Firstly its sourced info so ticks that box, secondly the IRA through the Green Book had declared war on Britain so a war footing was established. I also propose to extend this category for those invlove in the 1916 Rising how were imprisioned in Knutsford and Frongoch, finally to all intense and purposes Long Kesh was a prisoner of war camp.--Vintagekits 10:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Well. Let's hold off on the "should people impisoned for actions during the troubles be categorised as POWs?" debate for now. One way or the other all those IRA prisoner articles SHOULD NOT be in the "base" POW category. If those articles need to be categorised, they should be put under a "People imprisoned during the troubles" style category. Beyond that we can have a discussion whether THAT cat should be a sub-cat of POW. But the current set-up is definitely not appropriate. Guliolopez 10:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
All people in the POW category are also in the People convicted/imprisioned on terrorism charges cats aswell. Are you suggestion a merger of those in the "opposing" cats?--Vintagekits 11:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC) p.s. just saw that you wrote this article - great work, I was considering one for Cathal Brugha.--Vintagekits 11:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
RE: Merge of "imprisoned for terrorism" and "POW" cats. No. That isn't neccesary. It doesn't have to be a unique or merged cat. But the "POW" cat is now heavily populated with IRA prisoners. It imbalances the cat. They just shouldn't be in the base category. The IRA prisoners should be simply moved to a subcat. Not unlike Category:People killed during the Troubles. Once that's done we can get into further debate.
RE: Cathal Brugha Barracks. I started capturing raw data for that article myself sometime ago. I was planning on building a stub on my "Work In Progress" page and then create the article proper. Haven't got around to it yet though. Guliolopez 11:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course they're not prisoners of war. Simply because the IRA say that they at war with Britain doesn't make it so. If I say I'm at war with Britain and go out and murder someone British, will I be a prisoner of war too when I get caught? Of course not. To say otherwise would be incredibly subjective, just the same as in this case. 81.77.42.226 14:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Third edit from an IP - hhmmmm!! Please explain what a Prisoner of War is then and you'll soon find out. p.s. when the British Government send thousands of troops to wherever you are to try and defeat you then i will take you declaration of war a bit more serious! Slan!--Vintagekits 14:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I have an IP. Scandalous. Whatever happened to AGF? I don't see any other talk from anonymous editors in this section anyway, so it seems incredibly over the top to imply anything untoward is going on - hypocritical even, given your history for puppetry. Regardless, my user name is ExNihilo since you're so fascinated. I'm not logged in and I'll be damned if I'm going to just to avert your paranoia. Back to the subject at hand: Find me substantial NPOV references for the Britain-IRA situation being considered a war. Without those references this shouldn't even be a discussion since it can only be considered OR or POV otherwise. 81.77.42.226 15:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
How cute!--Vintagekits 15:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] - more if you want!!--Vintagekits 15:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Try this one Army paper says IRA not defeated or if want to read the British army report British Army report It describes the IRA as "a professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient force", while loyalist paramilitaries and other republican groups are described as "little more than a collection of gangsters".--padraig3uk 15:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
They shouldn't be in the category as it's POV and no more acceptable than including them in the category "terrorist." Numerous sources also exist for that as well but we rightly avoid that here due to its emotive connotations. The best solution would be to create a category like "prisoners given special category status." Valenciano 17:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Though I clearly believe it was a war (often admitted by British Government members, especially when seeking to justify "extra-legal" activity), I could live with the compromise as outlined by Valenciano above. But vigilance is necessary; I have on several occasions has to revert attempts to categorise IRA-related articles as "terrorism". (Sarah777 23:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

So should the category be Prisoners given special category status in Northern Ireland? Is the NI necessary, or would the average reader know what it means? I doubt it. What would the parent category(ies) be? Category:Prisoners and detainees? This category would apply to people imprisoned between 1972 and 1976 - what about the others? Stu ’Bout ye! 09:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I would include all those imprisoned for their part in the conflict, maybe we should have a People Imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict as a main category with Republicans Imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict and Loyalists Imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict as sub-categories of that.--padraig3uk 09:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
We could also add a third category like Non-aligned Imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict for the likes of the Birmingham Six etc, for those wrongly conficted as a result of the conflict.--padraig3uk 09:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I would be very much in favour of Pádraig's categories, although the name of the third one should be slightly different as people in that category, although wrongly imprisoned, would all have been aligned on one side or the other. We might need another (under-populated) category: Members of the security forces imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict, though admittedly that is a very long title. Scolaire 12:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I would forget the 3rd cat, and just put non-aligned people in the parent Category:People Imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict cat, unless a shorter cat name can be thought up. Stu ’Bout ye! 15:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, POW is correct

Following a long debate with User:John I have become convinced that there is no good reason to refrain from classing IRA prisoners as POWs. See here.(Sarah777 19:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

In June 1971 Reginald Maudling, the Conservative British Home Secretary, announced that the British government was now "at war with the IRA." So POWs they must have been. (This info posted on my talk-page by an impeccable source Sarah777)
Well, to be pedantic, it was posted by a user who doesn't actually supply a source. My question would be, though, if the IRA themselves didn't wage a conventional war under the Geneva Convention, nor claim or seek PoW status (as defined under the Geneva Convention) for their members (they sought "Special Category" status, not PoW status), then who are we to argue? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 23:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Well Bastun, your loyalty is admirable - but I for one would argue with the IRA on many counts! (Sarah777 11:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC))

Copied over

(from Talk:Mairéad Farrell)

Image:Victory To the Prisoners Poster.JPG

Republican Prisoners through out the conflict considered themselves as prisoners of war (POW). Alternative titles such as Political Prisoners and Special Category prisoners were also used. As this Political Poster from the Hunger Strikes clearly shows. In addition an image I placed on the article illustrates the point also.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Domer48 (talk • contribs) 12:22, July 12, 2007 (UTC).--Domer48 11:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well frankly that doesn't convince me. The poster is evidently that of an Irish source, inevitably shifting the Irish POV. Even if sources consider the troubles to be a war but there is no mention of POWs, defining them as such would be OR. And I would hardly consider the poster to be a reliable source. Chris Buttigieg 10:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
"The poster is evidently that of an Irish source, inevitably shifting :the Irish POV." Right. Irish sources need not apply? That sounds a bit racist to me but I assume good faith and know that you didn't mean it the way it sounds. (Sarah777 12:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
What I mean to say is that an Irish source is naturally going to bear an Irish POV and this is no good for Wikipedia. If you break it down; 1) There have been no sources yet claiming POWs apart from two images. Other sources may claim the troubles as a war, but there is no direct mention to POWs from such sources. 2) The images provided are not reliable sources and therefore not verifiable. Now if you put two and two together and simply assume that because it was a war and they were imprisoned they are automatically rendered POWs, you get original research and a inevitable POV. Chris Buttigieg 13:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
"Irish source is naturally going to bear an Irish POV," for a start is a none runner. The logic employed in the statement "is no good for Wikipedia." The same could be said then of any source. Could I suggest you read the article 1981 Irish Hunger Strike. You have heard of it I assume. That should inform your opinion. If you wish to increase your understanding, most if not all books on the subject mention the subject. Although, as an Irish wikipedian based on the logic above I'm inherently POV motivated and biased at a genetic level and therefore allowances should be made for this defect.--Domer48 13:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
For those who understand no explanation is necessary, for those who don’t, none is possible. --Domer48 11:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Remember the POW's CD.JPG

Additional information. --Domer48 11:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

From reading Prisoner of War I don't see how any of Farrell (or indeed any IRA activist) could be classed as a prisoner of war. Posters of IRA propoganda are very NPOV. 194.72.35.70 12:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The Wiki compromise seems to be that neither the terms "terrorist" nor "POW" be applied to Liberation Armies or that articles relating to such not be categorised as either. Which is fine. But I see Mairéad Farrell is in fact categorised under "People convicted of Terrorist offences". Should we not remove the article from that category if we are resisting the POW categorisation? (Sarah777 12:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
Surely it is a matter of fact that she was convicted of a terrorist offence (whether or not she was a terrorist). The PoW article could do with a clean up as there seem to be quite a few members of 'Liberation Armies' listed there. 194.72.35.70 12:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd question the existence of the category (ie whether it should exist). This is akin to having a category Members of the British Army accused of murder - we could add thousands of names; in fact we could even create new ones by making accusations. The Guildford Four etcetera were convicted of "terrorist" crimes; are they categorised? (Sarah777 12:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
I wouldn't have a problem with a category Members of the British military convicted of unlawful killing being created. The Guildford Four are in the category British wrongfully convicted people, and I would suggest that since they were convicted of a terrorist offence they should be included in People convicted of a terrorist offence, although this may be regarded as potentially misleading and offensive. Perhaps there is an argument for a category People wrongly convicted of a terrorist offence or similar? 194.72.35.70 12:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Only problem with People wrongly convicted of a terrorist offence is deciding who they are. Should the arbiters be the systems that wrongly convicted them? I presume such a category would extend to "legal systems" even dodgier than the British one? (Sarah777 12:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
Wrongful conviction also fails to reflect that some people cleared on appeal may in fact have been guilty! People convicted of terrorist offences but later cleared? 194.72.35.70 12:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't think that has ever happened....and I am not charging at that little red flag you are waving! (Sarah777 14:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

Is it not important that the prisoners described themselves as prisoners of war? That a whole campaign was launched around this concept. That they were political prisoners and would not be treated as criminals is well documented. That they achieved their demands on special category status though this is less well known would lend support to my contention that the tag is supportable on this article. --Domer48 13:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

They were granted special category status but were never granted POW status. --John 13:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The difference being? They regarded themselves as POW’s. They regarded themselves as an army. John you are just as much a protagonist in this discussion as anyone. You have allowed a comment like “What I mean to say is that an Irish source is naturally going to bear an Irish POV and this is no good for Wikipedia,” [10] without comment. You have ignored this comment [11] and this on your own user page [12]. Now I’m requesting that you have a none biased admin review this article, as your contrabuting to it is untenable. --Domer48 14:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
You can request any of our 1000 admins for help any time you like, I already showed you the list of their names. Please correct your mistake above; I did respond to your message on my talk page. Your perception of my "bias" means very little to me at this point. Please try to follow our policies towards improving the article. Thanks. --John 14:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

At the end of the day, the simple fact is that categorising them as prisoners of war implies a moral judgment; and if one party can effectively attach the label to a group, then it has indirectly influenced others to adopt its moral standpoint. Chris Buttigieg 14:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see why it is so difficult to remove pro-British bias from these sorts of articles. Chris, in response to my objecting to you appearing to dismiss "Irish sources" per se; you replied - "What I mean to say is that an Irish source is naturally going to bear an Irish POV and this is no good for Wikipedia."
Does it therefore follow that "a British source is naturally going to bear a British POV and this is no good for Wikipedia."
So what sources can we accept: the view from Mars? (Sarah777 14:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
The view from Gibraltar is pretty neutral. --Gibnews 15:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
John I do not misunderstand the role of an administrator. Administrators apart from anything else are also editors. Now an administrator who is editing an article and involved in a discussion could hardly be described as unbiased. What I am saying though, as an administrator, you do not abdicate your responsibilities as such, when you see behaviour which is not appropriate being conducted on an article. In addition, any decisions you make with regard this article, and this discussion will be as an editor, and any views you may have will be seen as such, including the inappropriateness of removing categories which you disagree with.

I hope that clarifies things for you. Your opinions means very little to me at this point. Please try to follow our policies towards improving the article. Thanks--Domer48 16:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The definition on the Prisoner of War page is "A prisoner of war (POW, PoW, or PW) is a combatant who is imprisoned by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict." Farrell et al were imprisoned as combatants during the course of the armed conflict in Ireland.

Keeping both PoW and People Convicted of Terrorism tags should surely satisfy both sides??GiollaUidir 18:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I will also compromise to either the removal or inclusion of both as there should be some sort of parity.--Vintagekits 18:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
As will I. --Domer48 20:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
And, that is exactly the point I was making...somewhere else. Both or neither. (Sarah777 03:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

That Ms Farrell was convicted of terrorism is a matter of public record, and part of her claim to notability. The claim that she was a PoW is wishful thinking with no official recognition. I suggest we leave it as it was. --Gibnews 21:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"no official recognition" - who's recognition is offical and who isnt? They were offical classed as prisoners of war by the republican movement and the republican movement doesnt recognise the officaldom of the foriegn occupiers. So whats your point?--Vintagekits 23:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Official means a Government with a mandate from an electorate. It does not mean a proscribed terrorist organisation. --Gibnews 18:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
A better solution would be to remove both tags. According to the article Farrell was convicted of explosive offences - that is fact - but whether or not she was a terrorist is subjective. As for the POW tag, the 'Republican view' is clearly that she was a POW, the 'British view' is clearly that she was not a POW but a criminal. To give her the POW tag is to endorse the 'Republican view', and to violate NPOV.--Hegertor 23:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The European Court of Human Rights ruled that they were terrorists. The ECHR is not a 'British source' and as the highest authority that is the end of the matter. --Gibnews 18:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't shout — it's rude. Scolaire 07:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Agree with removing BOTH tags (Sarah777 03:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC))
See Talk:Michael Gaughan (Irish republican)#POW status where User:Rockpocket makes the seemingly reasonable suggestion that we use Category:People convicted on terrorism charges instead.--John 23:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I dont find a reasonable suggestion or an equitable solution. What remove them as Prisoners of War and categorise them as terrorists? No.--Vintagekits 23:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that the category Category:People convicted on terrorism charges isn't actually categorising anybody as a terrorist per se, its actually just stating that so-and-so person has been convicted of charges relating to terrorism in a court of law. This is a clearly verifiable and well defined fact. Claiming however that a member of the IRA in prison is a POW is neither clearly defined or conclusively verifiable. The best compromise would probably be to keep the people in question in the "convicted of terrorism" category (because, like it or not, they were convicted on terrorist charges) and to create a sub-category: Category:Imprisioned IRA members (or some such title) which could then be added to Category:Prisoners of war and any other pertinent categories. This would certainly reduce (if not fully halt) the furore over this and would clean up the POW category, which has become very overbalanced with the sudden addition of dozens of IRA members (the reason I ended up here in the first place).--Jackyd101 00:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Excellent suggestion. --John 00:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually not a very useful suggestion as it merely facilitates British bias. As explained by V-kits and myself. We must keep BOTH tags, or remove both. (Sarah777 03:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

(deindent)They were convicted under British law, like it or not. And this category is verifiable and NPOV, unlike the other two. --John 05:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It is perfectly possible for the suggested new category to also be a subcategory of Category:People convicted on terrorism charges, so that the category is not present on every IRA member's page. I'm also well aware that Ms. Sarah777, Mr. Vintagekits and other members of WP:IRA do not regard the British government's decisions as legitimate and thus do not recognise their legal system. You are free to believe this, but such beliefs have absolutely no place on Wikipedia, which does recognise the legitimacy of the British government. This does not mean that government sources should be presented unquestioned, but it does mean that decisions made by the government are regarded as legitimate in the eyes of Wikipedia and your personal belief that it is not legitimate is irrelevant.
Your demand that both tags are kept or neither are is not a compromise, nor is it an accurate reflection of fact or a legitimate argument position. Wikipedia relies on verifiability, not "truth", particulaly not in the case of The Troubles where many people have different versions of what constitutes truth. It is however an undeniable fact that these people (whether terrorist or not), were convicted under anti-terrorism legislation by a sovereign government. The statement that they were prisoners of war is only an opinion, and a controversial one at that (by the way, the Guildford Four's convictions were quashed so they are no longer convicted).
Despite your insistance, this is not an example of pro-British bias because (unless you can provide a source to contradict me) no sovereign government or reliable media outlet worldwide has given these men the status of POWs. How they regarded themselves is irrelevant, how they were seen by the rest of the world (i.e. not necessarily in Britain) is the most important indicator.--Jackyd101 09:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
"Republicans, however, as a point of principle, never accepted criminal status and always referred to themselves as political prisoners, or prisoners of war (POWs). In keeping with their demands for POW status, generations of IRA prisoners referred to their jail as a ‘prisoner of war camp’. Thus they had a Camp staff and Gamp council." Brendan Anderson, Joe Cahill A Life in the IRA, O’Brien Press, Dublin, 2002, ISBN 0-86278-674-6, Pg 73.--Domer48 10:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't answer my question. It is already established that Republicans prisoners viewed themselves as POWs. My question is: Did/does anybody else? Joshua A. Norton said he was emperor of the United States but that didn't make it so. Also, what is wrong with Category:Imprisoned IRA members as a subcat of both "convicted of terrorism charges" and "prisoners of war"? Does anybody object to that as a compromise?--Jackyd101 10:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Good idea but there are a couple of problems I can see with that. The main one is that there have been several organisations called the IRA and it might be misleading to lump them together like that. --John 14:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
What about Cat: Political Prisoners? They were politically motivated, i.e. in conflict with the British Government. We could call them Prisoners of Westminster, abbreviated PoW. --Domer48 15:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
They were prisoners captured in the course of an armed conflict (more commonly called a "war" in the common parlance) and imprisoned for their actions in the war. Why not just stick with both or neither Category rather than fudging it?
Also, while it is true that Ms Farrell was captured after the attack on the hotel and was not on armed service at that particular moment, as per Protocol I, Article 44, 3(b),4 and 5 she is still entitled to PoW status under the Geneva Conventions.GiollaUidir 16:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Lynndie England was also imprisoned during an armed conflict she was involved in, yet her article does not belong to the category. Do you feel that it should? --John 16:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you're deliberately misrepresenting my point. Members of the IRA were captured by enemy forces and imprisoned by them; Ms England was a war criminal tried by her own side. It would be reasonable to categorise Jessica Lynch as one though, as indeed, she is.GiollaUidir 16:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
As indeed she should be. My point was that being imprisoned while fighting a war does not automatically entitle you to the status of PoW. More importantly, in the real world IRA prisoners were not treated as PoWs but held in ordinary jails, albeit under special conditions. However much you or I think they were entitled to this status, we have to reflect and report the world as it is and not as we think it should be. Frankly, and I hope I won't offend you by saying this, this is the sort of dispute that makes people ridicule Wikipedia. I wish we could move on from it; a perfectly good compromise has been proposed that we should all be able to live with. --John 16:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello GiollaUidir, my tongue was planted firmly in my cheek . I thought my edit summary made the same point as you did. --Domer48 16:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
"They were granted special category status but were never granted POW status. --John 13:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)" This is just a play on words. Political Status/ special category /POW. --Domer48 17:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
It would be wonderful if we could discuss sincerely here how we can improve the article rather than making these kind of barbed wee jokes though. --John 17:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
And with that thought in mind, going to other articles [13] to create the same discussion is considered what? --Domer48 17:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
In the real world what happened was men and women were denied a status that they were entitled to due to the British government riding roughshod over international law. Have a read over the articles about the Geneva Convention and subsequent Protocols, esp the ones linked to above.GiollaUidir 17:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
You have just undermined your entire argument. By saying that IRA prisoners were denied their status as Prisoners of War under the Geneva Convention, you have tacitly admitted that they were not Prisoners of War. Nobody as yet has provided a reliable, neutral source which agrees with the Irish Republican POV that IRA prisoners were legally prisoners of war. Until somebody does that, the prisoner of war category is both POV and incorrect. I still fail to see the problem with the compromise I suggested above.--Jackyd101 17:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Many were also denied their human rights, does that mean they weren't human also?? See below for source: (GiollaUidir 17:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

"3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

( a ) During each military engagement, and

( b ) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 ( c ).

4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.

5. Any combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while not engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack shall not forfeit his rights to be a combatant and a prisoner of war by virtue of his prior activities." -From Protocol I of the Geneva Convention

  • Again, though, you are arguing that according to you they ought to have been accorded this status. In point of fact they were not. --John 17:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Infact, just re-read Section four of the above excerpt, "in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed". It's pretty unambiguous and allows use of both POW and "Persons convicted of terrorism" cats.GiollaUidir 17:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Arguing that they should have recieved prisoner of war status is irrelevant. The fact is that the imprisoning government (the British) did not class them as prisoners of war under the Geneva convention and no major news organisation or foreign government (including the Republic of Ireland, the USA or the UN) has made any statment so far uncovered which indicates a belief that they should have been prisoners of war. Quoting the Geneva convention is only relevant if it actually applies, which it does not here because the British government chose not to apply it.--Jackyd101 17:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
It's a bit rich to expect the occupying forces to suddenly change 350 years of precedent during the latest revolt against their presence. There is nothing in the convention about whether status is dependent on the occupying forces deciding to apply the provisions or not. GiollaUidir 18:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
"Occupying forces" has nothing to do with it. The convention is self-enforced. If a government refuses to apply it and instead treats the irregular fighters as criminals or terrorists (as the British so chose during The Troubles) then it does not apply and the people it concerns are not legally prisoners of war under its juristicition. Attempting to retroactively apply it here is at best OR. I say again: Please provide a reliable and neutral secondary source which descibes IRA prisoners as "Prisoners of war" and then there can be a proper debate. Until then, this entire discussion is moot.--Jackyd101 18:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Jacky. In the absence of any such source, use of the term POW to describe people who were not treated as such would be OR. See also User talk:John#POW category where Sarah777 and I have been discussing this matter. --John 19:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
3RR specifically says you do not need to make 4 reverts to be blocked for edit-warring. Just a word to the wise. --John 18:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed Bobby Sands from Category:Prisoners of war. This edit was reverted and in the edit summary it said to mention it here. Sands was never a POW; a Prisoner of war is a soldier who is captured in enemy territory during a war, in the uniform of their military and detained without trial in a POW camp under the Geneva convention until the war ends. Bobby Sands was put on trial and convicted of possession of firearms and sentenced to 14 years in jail. Under every convention and international standard, he was a convicted criminal and not a POW. Only a small number of Republicans in Northern Ireland consider those imprisoned during the troubles to be POWs and it is Wikipedia policy to have a neutral view. Therefore, under WP:POV, no member of the Provisional IRA who was imprisoned during that time should be in Category:Prisoners of war. --Philip Stevens 20:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
During Bobby Sands Election as an MP, he recived over 30,000 votes. This was as a Political Prisoner. --Domer48 20:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
A Political prisoner is someone who is imprisoned because of their beliefs and/or political views. As I've already said, Sands was imprisoned for possession of firearms, no other reason. And even if he was a Political Prisoner, why would that make him a POW? --Philip Stevens 20:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I am going to revert the removal of the category until it is sorted out fully. Philip Stevens, should not have taken it upon himself to remove the category at this stage.--Vintagekits 20:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
And nor should you take it upon yourself to replace them. This is edit-warring. --John 20:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Its hardly edit warring when I have informed everyone here, we all know you support his move, however, this is still being discussed and he had no business removing it. I agreed with Stu not to add the POW cat to anymore articles until the issue is sorted, that was on the proviso that they remained there until this was sorted.--Vintagekits 20:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain what you mean and how this is relevant? --John 20:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
His candidature was as a POW. His aims to have political status returned to the prisoners. They got their five demands! He was a POW. --Domer48 20:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
That's an opinion that few outside the Republican movement share and so it is against WP:POV. I know feelings run high on this topic but you must follow Wikipedia policy. --Philip Stevens 20:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Show me a non-partisan reliable source which states they were POWs and I will believe you. Until then, your repeated assertions will add little value to the debate. --John 20:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Show me a non-partisan reliable source which states they were not POWs.Until then, your repeated assertions will add little value to the debate. --Domer48 20:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Unfortunately for your POV-pushing endeavours, that is not how we work here. The onus is on the editor wishing to include something to show that it is justified. Good luck. --John 20:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

He has proven it and provided references. The IRA declared war on Britain - its members where imprisoned by British forces for car operations for and on behalf of the IRA - they are therefore both political prisons and prisons or war. "Unpalatable as it may seem, we are prisoners of war. We act as an army, as a disciplined group of men, in a very disciplined and determined manner," Jim McVeigh - if you cants swallow it I suggest salt or sauce.--Vintagekits 21:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • They were imprisoned for their actions, not for their view or affiliations. That makes them criminals not political prisoners or prisoners of war. Jim McVeigh is hardly neutral. --Philip Stevens 21:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
"They would give no more than their names; and they would refuse to be interrogated; they would not give evidence at trial. They would accept their punishment, go to prison and set up blocks within the Maze Prison with a chain of command as though they were prisoners of war." Lord Thomas of Gresford--Vintagekits 21:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Great quote! "...as though they were" is of course an acknowledgement that in fact they were not. --John 21:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Baroness Amos - "Whether or not an individual is classed as a prisoner of war depends on the facts of each case. It is for the detaining power"--Vintagekits 21:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
"The detaining power" was the British Govenment, who saw them as criminals. I think you've just disproved your point. --Philip Stevens 21:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Clutching at straws playing at semantics John, I will let the uncivil jib slide. Show me a non-partisan reliable source which states they were not POWs.Until then, your repeated assertions will add little value to the debate.--Domer48 21:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Right were those captured after the Easter Rising and sent to Frongoch internment camp and Knutsford POW'S??--Vintagekits 21:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you are rather, but don't worry about it. I've been on the wrong side of consensus before too. Better luck next time, eh? --John 21:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
"Every one of these prisoners, whether captured soldiers of the I.R.A. or innocent victims of a revenge hungry state, is in gaol as a result of the war which exists between Britain and Ireland and there isn’t one of them who would have seen the inside of a prison cell but for this war. They are in reality, despite what the pro-British propagandists claim, political prisoners of war." --Vintagekits 21:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(deindent)Who said that though? I'm betting it wasn't Mrs T... --John 21:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Come come John is that your non-partisan reliable source? Show me a non-partisan reliable source which states they were not POWs.--Domer48 21:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Once again - were those captured after the Easter Rising and sent to Frongoch internment camp and Knutsford POW'S - p.s. you aint got no consensus mate so dont claim you have.--Vintagekits 21:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

John Show us a non-partisan reliable source which states they were not POWs. Answer the questions. --Domer48 21:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Since you have told me the core principle for adding and restoring material[14], what about removing material where is the onus? Would that be the same onus on the editor wishing to remove something to show that it is justified. For example removing POW cat's am I right in asking show us a non-partisan reliable source which states they were not POWs.--Domer48 21:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Come on guys, this is disingenuous. Vintagekits added the categories and they have been challenged. The onus is absolutely 100% on Vintagekits (and users who wish to help him) to prove that these cats belong here. John has nothing to prove, but Vintagekits et al MUST provide reliable, neutral sources which indicate that either 1) The British government treated IRA prisoners as legal Prisoners of War (which everyone here knows is not the case) OR 2) IRA prisoners were viewed as prisoners of war by influential external sources like foreign governments or major media outlets. The onus is on you to prove this is the case or this lengthy and frustrating debate will continue for weeks until a mediation cabal reviews it and says exactly what I just have.--Jackyd101 22:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Sources which comply to WP:RS have been provided. --Vintagekits 22:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Where? I don't believe they have. the ones you left here do not mention the term Prisoner of War (although quite a few describe the IRA as terrorists, which seems to imply selective reading on your part) and the ones on this page, as John has noted, are either not reliable or actually serve to indicate that they were not POWs. Did you leave them somewhere else? It does not follow that The Troubles = War ergo IRA prisoners = Prisoners of War. Prisoners of War is a legal term which has not been shown to apply here. I suggested a compromise above of a Category:Imprisoned IRA members which would be a sub-category of Category:Prisoners of war and Category:People convicted on terrorism charges. What do people think to this? --Jackyd101 22:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Seems a reasonable suggestion. --John 00:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I concur. The more (vaguely accurate) categories the better since WP is not a paper tome...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 02:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits question is still outstanding, there is plenty of mileage left in this discussion. So no one has to show us a non-partisan reliable source which states they were not POWs. Is the the gist of the discussion at the moment? --Domer48 01:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree there is plenty of mileage left in the discussion, and I don't know which question you mean. In the absence of WP:RS stating that they were POWs, we cannot say that they were. Simple. Jacky and Rockpocket have proposed an easy compromise solution which conforms to policy. What more is there to discuss? --John 01:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
J Bowyer Bell - The Secret Army (ISBN 1-56000-901-2) page 379. (Following the death of Gunner Robert Curtis on February 6) 'The following morning Chichester-Clark [then Prime minister] announced on television that "Northern Ireland is at war with the Irish Republican Army Provisionals"'. Thoughts? Scalpfarmer 06:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
"Mr. Sands was a convicted criminal. He chose to take his own life. It was a choice that his organisation did not allow to many of its victims" Margaret Thatcher. James Chichester-Clark may have thought it was a war but Mrs. T didn't. --Philip Stevens 08:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but you're missing the point. The Prime Minister of Northern Ireland declared war on the IRA, 10 years before that quote from Thatcher. Scalpfarmer 09:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'm saying it's irrelevant because Thatcher (someone around at the time not 10 years earlier) didn't see them as POWs but as common criminals. --Philip Stevens 09:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Pardon? Gunner Robert Curtis died in February 1971, Thatcher made that statement following the death of Bobby Sands in May 1981. Looks like 10 years to me? Scalpfarmer 09:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
It looks like a discussion affecting more articles than those two, or that's how it looks to me. Scalpfarmer 10:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


J Bowyer Bell - The Secret Army (ISBN 1-56000-901-2) page 379. (Following the death of Gunner Robert Curtis on February 6) 'The following morning Chichester-Clark [then Prime minister] announced on television that "Northern Ireland is at war with the Irish Republican Army Provisionals"'. Thoughts? Scalpfarmer 06:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits question is still outstanding, Once again - were those captured after the Easter Rising and sent to Frongoch internment camp and Knutsford POW'S? --Domer48 08:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Indubitably. But that was the original IRA - not Provo terrorists imprisoned for acts of repugnant evil that would be crimes in every sovereign nation....Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 02:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The Chichester-Clark quote does not mention POWs. It is not enough to prove that The Troubles = War; as I said above, that does not automatically mean that IRA prisoners were legally POWs. Look at it from the other direction: were Derek Howes and Derek Wood treated as POWs? were McCaughey and the McCaig brothers? Just because a conflict is a war, doesn't mean that those captured on either side are legally POWs. Once again: You must provide quotes from reliable, neutral sources proving that IRA prisoners were either given POW status legally, or were condsidered as such by a portion of foreign governments and news sources. For example, what did the Irish governement call them? As to the Easter Uprising prisoners, I do not know much about their status but as we are discussing events 55-80 years after the EU I fail to see how citing it is relevant here.--Jackyd101 09:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Despite this ongoing discussion this editor User:Biofoundationsoflanguage has decided to predetermine the outcome and conclusion. Their penetrating insight has defined the parameters of debate and their next logical step would be I suppose to claim it to be an edit war and have the article locked with their changes in place. --Domer48 10:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Three British Army infantry battalions were deployed in the north of Ireland in1969. At its height 30,000 British soldiers were deployed around 100 locations. In July 1970 Martial law was imposed on the Lower Falls area of west Belfast. The view is that the Irish Republican Army is professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient, who engaged those forces. Are editors denying that this happened? And that the conflict was just a law and order matter? --Domer48 13:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Who has said it wasn't a war? That's not the point, to quote Jackyd101, "The Troubles = War; does not automatically mean that IRA prisoners were legally POWs" --Philip Stevens 14:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The legality of it doesn't come into it. What is at stake is whether they can be objectively described as POWs or not. The Prisoners of War article certainly suggests that they should.GiollaUidir 15:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • "The legality of it doesn't come into it"! WHAT?! Of course the legality comes into it, if they're not legally POWs they shouldn't be in the category. --Philip Stevens 15:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
In the early 1970s thousands of Irish Catholic men and boys were legally taken from their homes in the middle of the night and held for years without charge or trial. You'll have to excuse me if I don't pay to much heed to the "legality" of British actions in Ireland.GiollaUidir 15:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not talking about legally in terms of what the British government thought or for that matter what the PIRA thought. It's about the Geneva Convention's idea of a POW; now tell me, did Swiss inspectors go round the Maze Prison? The way you've put your question shows you're far too emotional with respect to this subject. You should let the unbias editors make a judgment and leave it at that. --Philip Stevens 16:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Even if our article does say that, that doesn't count as a source as we can't self-reference like that. Unless someone from the "side" wishing to categorise IRA members as POWs is able to find a neutral reliable source descrbing them as such, there is no debate to be had here. --John 15:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

GiollaUdir says above that "What is at stake is whether they can be objectively described as POWs or not". This is incorrect. What is at stake is whether they were objectively described as POWs by somebody other than themselves. His failure to "pay to much heed to the "legality" of British actions in Ireland" is utterly irrelevant because Wikipedia does pay heed to the legality of British actions in Northern Ireland. Descibing IRA prisoners as POWs based on what the Wikipedia article Prisoners of war is OR and doing so without sources is as severe a breach of NPOV as describing them as terrorists. Sources must be provided backing up this viewpoint.--Jackyd101 16:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

(from User talk:John)

John, I have been looking at this dispute and remain somewhat unclear about the POW category. Certainly from looking at the contents, it seems a bit of a dolly mixture of cases. Is there any Wiki policy you can refer me to on this? The more I look into this the more unclear I am as to why MF is not allowed be included.(Regards (Sarah777 20:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

Not a policy, no. But see Talk:Michael Gaughan (Irish republican)#POW status where User:Rockpocket makes the seemingly reasonable suggestion that we use Category:People convicted on terrorism charges instead.--John 23:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Rather a dramatic difference between being described as a POW or as being "convicted of terrorism" I would have thought! Anyway; surely being "convicted of terrorism" has no bearing on becoming subsequently a POW? So BOTH categories fit the MF case. There is no need for an either/or here. (Sarah777 03:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC))
However, being convicted on terrorism charges is verifiable and neutral, unlike the contentious criminals and POW categories, which is why I prefer it. --John 05:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I can't see how buying into a Government construct (they abolished a pre-existing political prisoner category) in a time of rebellion can be characterised as neutral. There is enough evidence that the British establishment regarded it as a "war" (especially when seeking to justify extra-legal killings); so clearly, enemy operatives captured and imprisoned by them were "POW" by their own logic? (Sarah777 18:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC))
That's an arguable point of view, but it is not a neutral point of view. If we could find reliable sources indicating that anyone outside the republican movement regrded them as POWs, I think this argument would have more of a leg to stand on. --John 18:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you are taking this "no synthesis" notion beyond common sense or it's original intention. If the Govt regards itself as "at war"; takes prisoners from the enemy and incarcerates them - they are POWs; no synthesis or references required (and I'm not saying there aren't any). To exclusively us British Government terminology, even when it contradicts the logic of their own position, is simply pushing British State POV, and is not neutral. Also, is there anyone outside the British Establishment on record as saying they were not POWs? Their release after the GFA en-mass coperfastens the case that they were POWs. (Sarah777 18:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

(deindent)But the British state never did acknowledge it was at war with the IRA, instead treating them as terrorists. To make an analogy, Andreas Baader would doubtless have regarded himself and the other RAF personnel as prisoners of war. The group had after all declared war on the German state. Nevertheless in the absence of reliable sources recognising the existence of such a state of war, and in the interests of the NPOV policy, we do not call him a POW. --John 18:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The British state has frequently acknowledged that there was a war on! They can't have it both ways like Bush and Guantanamo; the fighting in Afghanistan was a "War on Terror" but the enemy captives are not prisoners of war!! This isn't WP:NPOV, it is an absurdity!
Would we deny that Vietnam, Gulf One, Yugoslavia, Iraq were wars, just because the Western Governments involved never declared? (Sarah777 18:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC))
Believe me, I thoroughly sympathise with this point of view and I agree with you about Guantanamo. Unfortunately perhaps, governments do have a tendency to "have it both ways". I repeat, in the real world, the IRA prisoners were not given POW status, and so we cannot call them POWs. Whether they ought to have been granted it is another and quite interesting discussion, but not one which I feel will advance the discussion about the use of the category. Best wishes, --John 18:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
To reply to the second comment, the Falklands War is an interesting case in point. War was never declared by either side. I would say that as both sides treated the captured enemy as POWs we would be correct in calling them POWs. Pragmatic, real-world considerations have to drive our usage here, not our wishes for a better and fairer world, however commendable these wishes may be. --John 19:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry John. Black is not white until some Western Government decides to concede the point. They are to be categorised as POW's based on the facts of their imprisonment; not on the grounds of what the British Government "granted". It is irrelevant what one of the warring parties called their prisoners if the facts all clearly support the definition "prisoner of war". So, to use your terminology; in the real world, the IRA prisoners were POWs, and so we must call them POWs. Whether the British Government ought to have granted such status officially is another and quite interesting discussion. Slán agus beannacht. (Sarah777 19:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC))
Then should the category also be placed on Baader's page (my example above) because some regarded him as a POW? Best wishes to you too. --John 19:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
In June 1971 Reginald Maudling, the Conservative British Home Secretary, announced that the British government was now "at war with the IRA". Any similar announcements by the German Govt. re Baader Meinhof? (Sarah777 20:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

Not that I know of. I wonder if people (Tommy Chong for example) imprisoned in the War on Drugs would be entitled to call themselves POWs too then? --John 20:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

John - you gonna keep firing these balls at me till you find one I can't hit out of the park!! If Bush says he is "at war" with Mr Chung then I certainly think the situation needs further exploration. For example; against FARC in Columbia it definitely is a war (or the Narco-Warlords in Afghanistan). But would Mr Chung reckon he was engaged in a "war"; or just in the drug business? (Sarah777 21:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC))
It's a knotty issue, you're right. All the more reason that the language we use remains scrupulously NPOV and conforms with neutral reliable sources. Chong, incidentally wasn't in the drugs business; he was convicted of selling drugs paraphernalia, not drugs. --John 21:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
John, I guess we both believe in the same rules of the game - "you can't enter a camel in a horse race". It's just that so many camels look like horses to you -:)(Sarah777 21:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC))
Well, indeed. I don't think the talk discussion is going anywhere; it's just about time we called in outside help. Let's see what some others think. --John 21:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Compromise suggestions section

(I hope nobody minds my bringing the debate over here; it seems like a more generalised one that was better discussed centrally. --John 16:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC))

Reliable neutral source describing certain prisoners as POWs. Scalpfarmer 16:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to again insert here my suggestion of a compromise in which IRA prisoners are gathered in a category named Category:Imprisoned IRA members (or something similar) which is then a sub-category of both Category:Prisoners of war and Category:People convicted on terrorism charges. The most basic reason for this is that as the situation currently lies, the Prisoners of war category is now very overbalanced with IRA members. Irregardless of whether they deserve to be in the POW category or not, they should certainly be moved to a new sub-category for ease of navigation within the POW category. Questions of which categories this new sub-cat should then be in can be discussed there without having to substantially alter (or witness edit wars on) dozens or hundreds of articles. --Jackyd101 16:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It always surprises me how eager many Republicans try to justify the terrorism of the Provisional IRA by saying they were soldiers in a war. Look at Northern Ireland today, its still part of the United Kingdom, the Provisional IRA has disbanded, Ian Paisley is the First Minister, the Irish Republic has given up its claim to the North and has named the Provisional IRA as an illegal organisation. If the troubles was a war, then the Republicans definitely lost. These people, who so many of you want to give the honour of POW, were murderers, criminals and thugs. These are the people who in 1983 killed six people shopping in Harrods, how were shoppers preventing a united Ireland? I can not imagine the thought process that goes through even the most ardent Republican’s mind to make these terrorists soldiers and prisoners of war. Open your eyes and see what they did, do you really want to give them such respect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.76.139 (talk • contribs)

It has nothing to do with honour, respect, or who "won" the "war"; it has everything to do with observing the core policies of our project such as WP:NPOV, and the pragmatic question of having a category that is useful to users. --John 17:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree its nothing to do with "with honour, respect, or who "won" the "war"" just like its nothing to do with who Maggie decided to categorise republican POW's. Just beause her government refused to recognise there status as POW's doesnt not negate the fact that they were POW's just like the fact that those from the Easter rising who were transported to Frongoch and Knutsford were also POW's despite what the British government said.--Vintagekits 17:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
These people, who so many of you want to give the honour of soldier, were murderers, criminals and thugs. These are the people who in 1972 killed fourteen people marching in Derry.... Scalpfarmer 17:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this is insensitive but, speaking as someone who couldn't care less about the sovereignty of Northern Ireland, I find all this ranting about 'Catholics taken away in the middle of the night' and 'Brits being blown up as the shopped' all very boring. Can we please stick to the question, should PIRA prisoner be classed as POWs? In case anyone's missed it, I think people who were put in jail for a specific crime, like murder or possession of firearms, should be classed as criminals. --Philip Stevens 17:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
You asked for a source they were prisoners of war, one has been provided. Why are you backtracking now? Scalpfarmer 17:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you addressing me? I never asked for a source, that was John. I've always maintained that they were not POW by the any definition of a POW. --Philip Stevens 17:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought sources were needed not personal POV? Scalpfarmer 17:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The people who you want to put in the POW category, by the definition of a POW both on Wikipedia and the Geneva Conventions, were not POWs, that's not my personal POV, it is a fact. The assertion that they were POWs is propaganda created by the Republicans during internment. I don't think Wikipedia should promote propaganda. --Philip Stevens 17:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Sources were needed and yes you have provided one, so lets see what the next hoop we have to jump through is? The other question was not answered though, Re the 1916 rising?Philip Stevens, can you support your opinion with referenced sources?--Domer48 17:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
If you look at the discussion above, it was made quite clear that people could not interpret either the Wikipedia article or the Geneva Convention to claim they were POWs, a source was needed. A source has been provided, and now people are interpreting the Wikipedia article and the Geneva Convention to claim they weren't POWs. This doesn't seem right to me. Scalpfarmer 17:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Reliable neutral source Like I said, just another hoop!--Domer48 18:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I think there is merit in Jackyd101's suggestion - it needs tweaking but its the bones of a compromise. Republicans dont recognised Britain categorising them terrorists and the British government dosnt recognised Republicans being categorised as POW's - thats the crux of the issue and there must be a factual, neutral and correct middle ground that we have all suffer.--Vintagekits 18:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Suggestions pleasae??--Vintagekits 18:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I also support Jackyd101's suggestion as a compromise. The problem I have with a POW cat is that a POV is inherent. The Category:People convicted on terrorism charges does not because it relates to fact. IF the person was convicted of a charge of terrorism then they can be added to the cat. It says nothing about whether the person is/was a terrorist, simply that a court convicted them of it. Now, if they cat was Category:People who claimed Prisoner of War status then we could add all the IRA people without concern, since again, the cat does not say anything about whether they are POWs or not. As it happens, there is a very interesting academic review of the status or IRA convicts by Walker, C.P. Irish republican prisoners—political detainees, prisoners of war or common criminals? Irish Jurist, 1984, 19, 189-225. His conclusion is:

The disparate claims for some sort of special treatment for convicted Republican prisoners can be rejected with confidence as almost totally without foundation in domestic or international law.

Its a very good read, and seems to be the best source I have seen to provide a basis for why calling IRA prisoners POWs would be inherently POV. Rockpocket 18:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Not sure that what we are looking for here is a LEGAL endorsement because as has been very well explained above the nature of liberation movements is that they are attacking existing legal systems. If there is a war, which both parties acknowledge, and both parties claim they are fighting in, then any prisoners taken are "prisoners of war". Simple. Anything else is POV. Otherwise the ONLY view that Wiki will ever represent will be Establishment propaganda. (And not just the British Establishment). (Sarah777 19:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC))
Our use of the term POW must have a clear definition, otherwise any editor could claim any prisoner under that status in their own personal wars against consumerism (thieves), gender equality (rape), personal freedoms (drugs charges). Cats cannot be used as proxies for something that would not get by our policies in the text. Therefore, if we are to categorise individuals as POWs we need an independent, reliable source calling that person a POW explicitly. If that is not provided on request, then the cat can be removed, as any other bit of unsourced text can be. Analyses suggesting that because there was an admission of war on both sides anyone imprisoned is a POW does not cut it per WP:OR, especially when there is independent academic sources that provides no support for that definition. Similarly for Category:People convicted on terrorism charges we need a reliable source that reports that the person was explicitly convicted of a terrorism charge. If none is provided on the talk page, it can go. Wikipedia is not about negotiating a fair compromise about two disparate POVs, it is about providing verifiable material in a neutral manner. Those two things are very different. WP:V and WP:RS are non-negotiable and if sources cannot be found to either support cats, they will continue to be removed. Rockpocket 19:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


Under British law Reliable neutral sourcethey were considered POW’s that is until they changed the law. --Domer48 19:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, there you go. This would appear to suggest that those prisoners that were awarded special category status because they were considered POWs (although the scare quotes in that source suggest to me that that there is an acknowledgment that they are not true POWs in the traditional sense of the word, but that is neither her nor there). This source would be sufficient justification to add the cat to SCS prisoners, in my opinion. However, this would explicitly not apply to someone like Michael Gaughan (Irish republican) who was clearly not given SCS status and thus was not considered a POW. Do you have a source that calls non SCS prisoners POWs? Rockpocket 19:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
We've now seen that source three times and whilst it is a good start I have a couple of issues with it. 1) I said above that you needed sources (plural) 2) Its reliability and neutrality must be investigated before it can be accepted as evidence as its provenence is not clear at first glance (I'm not suggesting it is ineligible, only that it needs further investigation) 3) It does not represent the viewpoint of "a foreign government or major news organisation" i.e. it presents no indication of widespread acceptance of its viewpoint 4) The term 'Prisoner of war' is only mentioned once in the selection avaliable and then it is in inverted commas, which is hardly a ringing endorsement. 5) The term only applies in the source until 1976, which leaves 22 years of The Troubles uncovered. The source is fine as a start, but much more is needed before your case is proven.
In the meantime, I'm glad to see growing acceptance of the compromise suggestion. Comment from more users would be good to see what issues need to be thrashed out before it is a fully viable solution. I echo Vintagekit's call for suggestions.--Jackyd101 19:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Not only do I totally reject the "compromise" suggestion I regard the notion that it is a "Compromise" as nonsense. We need look no further than my summary above for a solution. Any refusal to accept the facts is POV. Or is Wiki supposed to reflect some alternate reality? (Sarah777 19:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC))
I support a compromise position just not this compromise solution. Can we have some more suggestions please.--Vintagekits 19:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
So it is accepted that they were POW’s up until the law was changed. As a result of a Hunger Strike, they were given back SCS. Which was in inverted commas “prisoners of war.” One more thing, all other things considered and rejected of course, are we agreed that it was a war? --Domer48 19:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
1) I quote "unless you can provide a source to contradict me" - a source, singular, not plural. 2) Does this apply to any statement in any article, or just statements you don't like and keep moving the goalposts for? 3) Again, those are your goalposts, who put you in charge? 4) More goalpost moving, it says they were classed as prisoners of war. A source has been provided as requested, stop making excuses. If the main category will be overcrowded, I suggest "Irish Republican prisoners of war"? Scalpfarmer 19:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


Vintage - I am not sure why you are seeking to establish some independent view on the status of the prisoners when you have already established that BOTH combatants declared they were at war! The more I look at this the more it becomes as clear as day that they were POWs. So, how can you compromise between fact and fiction? According to Jackyd101 the fiction stands till we can get multiple sources to utter certain magic words that deny the fiction before the fact is accepted!(Sarah777 19:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC))
Sarah, establishing there was a "war" does not in itself mean that anyone imprisoned becomes a "prisoner of war". That is classic WP:OR. Individuals members of organisations at war still can be convicted of criminal charges. Please read our Prisoner of war article to see some of the caveats of that status.
I, personally, like the source provided by Domer48. I think it equates POW status with SCS nicely. It dovetails with the source I provided, which says that there is no inherent legal basis for calling them POWs. However, the author points out that his conclusions are based on formalistic law and concedes that does not pre-empt decisions made on "moral or political considerations". The political consideration is the SCS the British government afforded the prisoners. It certainly would be nice to see more sources back this up, but I don't buy the argument that one source is insufficient. I have another idea as a compromise. Why don't we create a cat for Category:Special Category Status prisoners, make that a subcat of POWs and prisoners convicted of terrorism, and put our IRA prisoners in there. That seems to be the most informative way to categorise. Rockpocket 20:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I beg to differ Rocket. No way is my argument WP:OR, classic or otherwise. It is what we'd normally call joined-up-English! (Sarah777 22:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC))
Well that one is a no from me. I suggest the remove of the two existing cats and replacement with Category:Irish republican Prisoners of War.--Vintagekits 20:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Another source - for the benefit of those with poor eyesight it reads: "What Special Category Status actually entailed was that prisoners had de facto prisoner of war status". Scalpfarmer 20:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
It appears there is now good support for correlating SCS status with POW. If someone challenges it, provide the sources. The next (inevitable) debate is whether non-SCS prisoners should have POW status. These source suggest to me they shouldn't since they seem to explicitly link the two together. By the way, Vk, these sources seem to validate prisoners with SCS status as a perfectly sub-grouping of POWs. There is no good reason in WP:CAT that that sub-cat not be created and the prisoners subgrouped in there. Mind you Category:Irish republican Prisoners of War appears to be a valid subgroup too, so long as all the members had SCS status. Rockpocket 20:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Good, the more sources the better. Am I right in believing that Special Category Status was revoked in 1976? Where does that leave the remaining 22 years? I think however that Rockpocket has a good point here. As a compromise how about Category:Irish republicans imprisoned during The Troubles? --Jackyd101 20:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone got a youtube link for Peter Taylor doc inside the Maze - that shows it was a POW camp is all but name.--Vintagekits 20:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
It should not just apply to those on SCS just because they were imprisioned in NI - its should also apply to those imprisoned in the 26, England, Scotland, Wales, Germany, Holland etc . --Vintagekits 21:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we are all aware of what, in your POV, you think it "should" apply to and what you think the Maze is like. But what you think is not really that important when the sources we have equates POW status with SCS: The quote provided by Scalpfarmer says "What Special Category Status actually entailed was that prisoners had de facto prisoner of war status". The obvious corollary to that is those without SCS did not have POW status. So, if you can find a source stating that non SCS's prisoners were considered POWs then we can address that, however it seems obvious to me that that is not going to happen. There is a problem with Jackyd101's cat. Say (hypothetically) Gerry Adams was arrested an imprisoned for urinating in public in the 1980s. He could be put in that cat along with those imprisoned for IRA acts, after all he is a republican and was imprisoned during the troubles. A good cat should provide specific information. This is why Category:People convicted on terrorism charges is a neutrally written cat. It tells you the person was convicted and it tells you why they were convicted (the people doing the convicting found them to be terrorists). That is all this cat tells us, nothing more, nothing less. If we wish to sub categorise this, we should go for Category:Irish republicans convicted on terrorism charges or, more specific still, Category:Irish republicans convicted on terrorism charges in the UK. Rockpocket 21:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Havent you disgraced yourself enough today with this breach of WP:CIVIL? --Vintagekits 21:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Its not incivil to explain the difference between your opinion and verifiability. You provide bald statements of what you believe should happen, without providing any sources to explain why what you believe is verifiable. I sense you are getting worked up again over this, Vk. If you are feeling frustrated, please take a break and come back when you have calmed down. This debate is not going anywhere, it will still be here tomorrow. Getting riled and suggesting people have "disgraced themselves" is not constructive to this debate. Please remember the terms of your probation. Rockpocket 21:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Irish Republican Prisoners considered themselves prisoners of war. After all, if it was not for the conflict they would not have been in there. Dose it not strike anyone as pure hypocrisy, that through an act of legislation, by one of the combatants can revoke their opponents status as POW. Credit is due to Scalpfarmer for the referenced source. --Domer48 21:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it is hypocritical, is it also hypocritical to declare oneself a prisoner of war without adhering to the rules of war? Still, Wikipedia is not a tool for promoting justice, it deals with verifiable facts. Rockpocket 21:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Rocket, If the Category:People convicted on terrorism charges stays then the POW stays. Or both are remove or we come up with a compromise cat.--Vintagekits 21:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
<personal attack removed>GH 21:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Last time I read our policies, I didn't see anything about you getting to over rule WP:V, Vintagekits. I am not suggesting any category deleted, but to add anyone to a category a reliable source is required to established the belong in that category. That has been provided for SCS prisoners, due to the good detective work of Domer and Scalpfarmer. Good work, gentlemen. That has not been provided for non SCS prisoners yet. The burden of proof is on the person wishing to add content. Compromise is great, but it does not trump WP:5P, we don't get to make deal if the result is a violation of policy. Rockpocket 21:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
"Excellent detective work of Domer and Scalpfarmer" - no doubt. But completely unnecessary to establish the POW status. That is established by the fact that both parties considered they were at war. (Sarah777 23:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC))
<personal attack removed> Rockpocket 21:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There's an awful lot of stuff here. I've tried to read it all carefully but forgive me if I'm making points here that have been dismissed already:

  1. Category:People convicted on terrorism charges is not NPOV. British readers have great faith in British Justice, so if somebody was convicted on terrorism charges, then they were guilty of terrorist offences — an inherent POV.
  2. We already have a compromise suggestion from padraig3uk way back in POW category added to IRA articles, to wit:
I would include all those imprisoned for their part in the conflict, maybe we should have a People Imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict as a main category with Republicans Imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict and Loyalists Imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict as sub-categories of that.--padraig3uk 09:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Scolaire 21:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

With respect, Scolaire, your first point is entirely at odds with how WP works. If I understand you correctly, you are saying. because British readers are already biased in their trust for the British Justice system, we should not report a verifiable fact (that the British Justice system convicted them of terrorist charges). The reasoning being that in doing so British people will somehow believe that "they were guilty of terrorist offences." Errr... so what? They were found guilty of terrorist offenses. Thems the facts. Whether someone is guilty of anything in your/my/his personal opinion is entirely beside the point. A republican will read that and think "well the British justice system was biased" and a Unionist was read that and think "the British justice system got it right." Our job is not to consider how readers might interpret fact and try and counter their POV, our job is provide facts, and let readers make their own opinions. WP:NPOV applies to facts we provide, not what opinion our readers should have. Category:People who committed terrorist acts is inherently POV, Category:People convicted on terrorism charges is not. Rockpocket 23:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
With respect, Rockpocket, you are making the common mistake of confusing NPOV and verifiability. "Them's the facts" refers to verifiability. but the fact that a thing is verifiable does not make it NPOV. There are two possible points of view here: that they were terrorists and that they were freedom fighters. The first POV can be put forward by categorising them as "People convicted on terrorism charges", which is verifiable; the second cannot be put forward without strident demands for "sources", which of course may not be Republican sources, because that would be biased. Therefore, an inherent POV. And it is naïve to say that we are not responsible for how the reader understands our words, and I think you know that. Scolaire 08:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Not so. I could find many British sources that describe the IRA as terrorists and use them to justify a Category:Terrorists. That would be POV, though, and so no-one is suggesting that. The reporting of the result of a court case is in no way POV, otherwise all our cats that describe people as being convicted killers, rapists, etc would be POV, are you proposing we remove these too? The threshhold for inclusion for both cats under discussion here (POW and convicted of terrorism) is the same, neutral verifiability. This is why I support the inclusion of POW status for SCS prisoners (because we have sources for that) and for conviction on terrorism charges for the appropriate prisoners (because we have appropriate sources for that). We don't have sources for POW status afforded for non-SCS prisoners. Rockpocket 17:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Did you read what you just wrote? There is a Category:Terrorists, and Category:People convicted on terrorism charges is a sub-cat of it! therefore, by your own words, it is POV!
Besides, you are now trying to backtrack and say that verifiability is the criterion, not NPOV. Let me restate: Category:People convicted on terrorism charges is POV — it presents a point of view on the right to bring those charges, the competence of the courts to try them, the fairness of the system etc. that is not shared by a substantial number of people, which is not the case with killers, rapists etc. in a stable democracy. NPOV requires that where there are two conflicting points of view, they should each be given due weight, and this is not something you can do when naming a cat, unless you call it something like Category:People convicted, rightly or wrongly, on terrorism charges. Scolaire 07:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
When did the British Army stop acting and engaging the IRA as an Army. The answer is never! Only now released under the Freedom of Information Act. http://www.patfinucanecentre.org/misc/opbanner.pdf . IRA prisoners were POW.--Domer48 09:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
"This is why Category:People convicted on terrorism charges is a neutrally written cat." - Rocket. It most certainly is not. It is a form of weasel words; the average non-Irish reader will miss the implications of the "convicted" bit and assume that those so convicted are 'terrorists'. As for "not allowing cats to say things we couldn't say in the article"; this is exactly what a category containing the word "terrorist" does! In the main article we can't call them "terrorists" (because the very word is pure pov) - so we sneak the term into a category that most casual readers will clearly interpret as meaning they are terrorists. It is not Wiki's job to endorse or give wings to the weasel words of the British Legal System. The fact that the political agenda of British Law is verifiable does not make it WP:NPOV! That is simplistic nonsense. (Sarah777 11:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC))
Article 5 of the GCIII states that the status of detainee may be determined by a "competent tribunal". Until such time, he is to be treated as a prisoner of war. So for those who did not get designated with SCS - then I would like to see the reference for their "competent tribunal" - otherwise they are assumed to be POW's especially if POW status is claimed.--Vintagekits 11:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Comments: I think that Vintagekits is misinterpreting a single article of the Geneva convention. First ones needs to determine if the there is a war within the definition of the Geneva Convention. Under Article 1 The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention through all circumstances, well the IRA, and other NI paramilitary groups, certainly do not respect the convention, so by definition they cannot be a High Contracting Party. Even if we might consider all paramilitaries as being party to a conflict within the convention terms, then under Article 3.1 and 3.2 they have certainly nor complied with the provisions that prohibit: violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; taking of hostages; outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognised as indispensable by civilised peoples, and that the wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. (well maybe they did comply with the later but I don't think in all cases).
So, let's look at Article 4 about POWs in particular, if and only if, they can be considered High Contracting Parties might 4.1.1 apply to Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces, because certainly 4.1.2 does not apply where it talks about other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organised resistance movement So long as they fulfil the following conditions: (my emphasis) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognisable at a distance; that of carrying arms openly; that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Of course we all know that these conditions were not met in NI during the "Troubles", so POW status is out and does not, in my view, apply.
There is no compromise to be had on this topic. All the paramilitaries were just terrorists, plain and simple. ww2censor 16:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Is that what you think WW? Then why not insert that "fact" into the article? (Sarah777)

(Deindent). The implications of Sarah777's comment above seems to be that we should not have a 'people convicted of terrorism' category because the convicted people may not actually have been terrorists. The logical extension is therefore that all categories must be removed because maybe the conviction (or general assertion in the name of pretty much every category) was wrong. That is patently a nonsense. If someone is convicted of something, that is a recorded, verifiable fact, and WP:V is about facts. The reader can, of course, always read the articles in question, check the sources, and come to their own conclusions.

As regards PoW - it has a legally defined meaning under international law. I accept Ww2censor's argument that PoW status cannot and did not apply to the IRA (or any of the paramilitary groups, Republican or Loyalist). However, the IRA and others did, until 1976, receive 'Special Category Status.' I would therefore be in favour of a 'Category: Prisoners accorded Special Category Status', being a subcat of the PoW cat. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 17:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Bastun's analysis. Sarah's comment that "the average non-Irish reader will miss the implications of the "convicted" bit and assume that those so convicted are 'terrorists'" is to suggest we should pander to those that can't read, and remove any cat that has the possibility of being misunderstood. Utter nonsense. I am going to go ahead and make this subcat, since it is verifiable and informative. Rockpocket 02:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Have you not been keeping up to speed on this discussion, "PoW status cannot and did not apply to the IRA, " Under British law Reliable neutral sourcethey were considered POW’s. When did the British Army stop acting and engaging the IRA as an Army. The answer is never! Only now released under the Freedom of Information Act. http://www.patfinucanecentre.org/misc/opbanner.pdf . IRA prisoners were POW. Article 5 of the GCIII states that the status of detainee may be determined by a "competent tribunal". Until such time, he is to be treated as a prisoner of war. So for those who did not get designated with SCS - then I would like to see the reference for their "competent tribunal" - otherwise they are assumed to be POW's especially if POW status is claimed. Have you got the idea now? --Domer48 18:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Same question back atcha... 4.1.2 does not apply where it talks about other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organised resistance movement So long as they fulfil the following conditions: (my emphasis) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognisable at a distance; that of carrying arms openly; that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Of course we all know that these conditions were not met in NI during the "Troubles", so POW status is out and does not, in my view, apply - though I'd be happy to see the pre-'77 ones included as a subcat. I.e., compromise. As regards reliable, neutral sources - that's one scholar giving his opinion. For post-'76, a subcat along the lines of 'Prisoners refused Special Category Status', 'Prisoners claiming Special Category Status' or similar would be ok. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 19:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Like you said thats your view. And statements like "Of course we all know," is pure BS. This whole discussion is not depending on your opinion. I settle for "Irish Republican Prisoners of War," which sounds just about right. --Domer48 19:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Not every member of armed forces wears a uniform, e.g. heads-of-state who are normally the commander-in-chief ot the army. Then the Talibans were denied PoW - and the excuse - they were not wearing uniform - though they bore their arms openly. And very few states actually command in law that their troops to wear a uniform. Then there is the situation of levée en masse. A very cloudy area. I agree with Domer48, and the cat he suggests. GH 19:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course - just as its not depending on your opinion, either :-) If "Of course we all know..." is indeed bullshit, then doubtless you can provide references for IRA members complying with Geneva... BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
But heads-of-state (even where they are C-in-C) are very rarely directly involved in military actions and operations. Agree, its a cloudy area. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Bullshit? LOL - that's not an opinion, I only came on to support Domer48's suggestion. He makes some very valid points if you read a couple of paragraphs further up, have a look. Opinions don't count for naught here. GH 22:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify, my BS remark was in response to Domer's comment, not yours. Cheers, BastunBaStun not BaTsun 00:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) No, but policy does. I can't believe we've wasted so much time on this. IRA prisoners were not POWs. However much a bunch of Irish nationalist editors think they ought to have been. We work with facts here; in the absence of any neutral reliable source we cannot call any of them POWs. Opinion, indeed, is worthless. Facts. --John 00:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"However much a bunch of Irish nationalist editors think they ought to have been." That is clear breach of WP:CIVIL John. Opinion, indeed, is worthless. Not least yours. The FACTS are the IRA prisoners were POWs, as I have repeatedly explained. (Sarah777 02:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC))
It's so silly having two cats for IRA prisoners. Wikipedia doesn't have to do that. Let's get real here. Something along Dormer's line, e.g. Category:IRA prisoners during the Troubles. We don't have to get into semantics, or multi-cats. It's not necessary. GH 00:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, could I plead with John to desist from edit warring until this issue is resolved. It really isn't appropriate behaviour for an Administrator. I note that Irish Admins have correctly recused themselves from involvment in Anglo-Irish conflicts. (And they don't kid themselves that this is a conflict between "fact" and "pov", like some others). (Sarah777 03:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC))
I have not edit-warred Sarah. There was no breach of civility intended, just a statement of facts. A group of editors here is presenting the Irish nationalist POV, that (for example) the IRA prisoners were POWs. It is a POV I am very familiar with because of my upbringing in the west of Scotland. It is not, however, an encyclopedic one. Wikipedia deals in verifiability not "truth" for precisely the reason that this little dispute highlights; everybody has their own "truth" , but verifiable facts allow us to build a well-referenced and NPOV resource.
As far as recusing myself, I have no conflict of interest here and am entitled to edit the articles like anyone else. I would not take administrative action against anybody I was involved with here as a matter of normal ethics; for example when a block on a certain user for personal attacks and meatpuppetry became necessary I took it to a centralised discussion to attain consensus before blocking them. I would do the same again should the behaviour of any user here again make such action necessary. --John 04:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Why has a new category been created? This discussion is not concluded, and the category name isn't acceptable to many people involved from what I can see? Scalpfarmer 07:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I created it because it is a perfectly acceptable and appropriate subcat of Category:Prisoners of war. No-one has contested the fact that SCS was a de facto POW status, there are multiple independent sources that reflect that. A number of editors here (though not specifically you, Scalpfarmer) simply refuse to accept reliable sources because they do not support their POV. There is no point seeking acceptance in the face of such intransigence. Moreover, this is not a talking shop, the point is to move forward in building an encyclopaedia, so I took the sources we have and moved forward. If someone has a source that suggests SCS is not a subgrouping of POWs, or that it is not a subgroup of people who were imprisoned on terrorist charges, then lets see the sources. Rockpocket 07:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
This is bizarre! We now have Category:People imprisoned for terrorism which is a sub-cat of Category:People convicted on terrorism charges which is a sub-cat of Category:Terrorists!! And this is supposed to be a compromise?? Quite apart from the neutrality, where is the logic? Scolaire 07:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I agree with you there. Category:Terrorists has been nominated for deletion a number of times yet it never reaches consensus. Part of the way of getting people out of that cat was to create the subcats that attribute the term, i.e. by qualifying that they were convicted for terrorism or imprisoned for terrorism. In doing this the qualifier terrorism is the POV of the people doing the convicting or imprisoning. Rockpocket 07:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, POW is correct (part 2)

(from Domer48 talkpage)

Michael Gaughan (Irish republican)

Domer. I appreciate the good work you have done in finding the SCS source and its relation to POW status. I respect its validity and would support its use a source to justify the adding of the POW cat to SCS prisoners.

However, please note that Michael Gaughan was not a SCS prisoner and therefore your source is inconsequential. You have twice added unsourced content that has been removed. I would ask you to read WP:V#Burden of evidence which explains why it is appropriate to remove unsourced content. Once again, I ask you to provide a reference for Gaughan as a POW or remove the content again yourself. Continuing to add unsourced content after it has been challanged is a violation of policy. Thank you. Rockpocket 20:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps User:Rockpocket is not aware of the latest trends in this IRA/POW discussion. We have clear evidence that both parties stated they were at war with the other and (b) that the British originally admitted that the IRA captives were POWs. Thus the burden of evidence now falls on those who would argue that apparent reality is not what it seems. I ask User:Rockpocket to cease removing established fact and substituting it with WP:POV (Sarah777 23:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC))
Perhaps Sarah777 would refrain from a copying across a comment I made on an matter independent to this discussion, and implying it is somehow related. If you have a source that reflects the "established fact" that Gaughan, a non-SCS prisoner, was considered a POW, please provide it in the appropriate talk page. Thanks. Rockpocket 23:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry. Topic:IRA/POW - This is clearly related. Perhaps you have a source stating otherwise? (Sarah777 00:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC))
See Talk:Michael Gaughan (Irish republican) for the relevant discussion on this issue. If you have something to add, preferably a reliable source for what you are promoting, go ahead. Rockpocket 00:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I rest my case M'Lord. (Sarah777 00:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC))
Well, feel free to re-open your case if and when you find some source that describes non-SCS prisoners as POWs. Until then keep believing in that "apparent reality" of yours. Rockpocket 01:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I think I have already explained why POW isn't Wikipedia:No original research. I thought I'd made it as simple as possible. What bit do you not understand? (Sarah777 02:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC))

When did the British Army stop acting and engaging the IRA as an Army. The answer is never! Only now released under the Freedom of Information Act. http://www.patfinucanecentre.org/misc/opbanner.pdf . IRA prisoners were POW. --Domer48 09:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "prisoner of war" is not found in that reference, therefore I do not see it's relevence to this discussion. Since people seems to be making grand claims based on OR, lets summarise what sources we do have and what they say:
We have two reliable sources that say "'special category' status... priviledges were a recognition of their 'prisoner of war' status [15] and "What Special Category Status actually entailed was that prisoners had de facto prisoner of war status". [16] These both explicitly link POW status to SCS status. But this status was restricted to prisoners in certain prisons for a specific period of time. What about the rest of them that are were not afforded SCS, is there a valid, independent and reliable source the describes all IRA prisoners as POW irrespective of SCS status? No. So perhaps there is an argument that they meet the criteria set out in various conventions.
Notwithstanding this argument is a clear violation of WP:OR, the issue is addressed by Walker, C.P. in Irish republican prisoners—political detainees, prisoners of war or common criminals? Irish Jurist, 1984, 19, 189-225. There is a detailed analyses addressing the basis on which IRA members could be POWs in his chapter VII Claims to prisoner-of-war status under the rules of armed conflict. This chapter addresses claims under both Article 2 and Article 4 of Geneva III, ("The overwhelming liklihood is that terrorists belonging to the IRA fail to qualify for the privileges granted to POWs under Geneva III," pg 211) and Protocol I of 1977, Article 1.4 ("Article 1.4 does not cover the activities of the IRA," pg 219) and Part III, section II ("Provisions of the Protocol forbid attacks, 'the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population;, and such activity may be dealt with by criminal prosecution," pg 220).
The conclusion of this study is that, "There seems to be an abundance of evidence to suggest that claims that groups of terrorists be treated as prisoners-of-war under the Law Of Geneva would fail. The European Commission in McFeely and others v UK draws the same conclusion...that the IRA has not attempted to give the declaration under Article 96 of Protocol I, which would be necessary if it seriously claimed that the protocol was applicable," (pg 221) He also goes on to state explicitly that "Prisoner of war status [is] not available to IRA prisoners languishing in UK prisons" and finishes on a note that "It may be concluded that the choice of the tactic of terrorism leaves a rebel group largely outside the Laws of Geneva. Most important of all, claims to prisoner-of-war status are without substance" (pg 225).
This summary of the sources provided on this page appear to be very clear on the subject. SCS status was granted by the UK government for political reasons, and this approximated to POW status, for all intents and purposes. However, outwith those that were given this status, the independent sources provide no support that IRA prisoners are POWs, or that they had a valid claim. If someone has sources to explicitly counter this then please provide them, but until then the "the latest trends in this IRA/POW discussion" based on the beliefs of the correspondants are secondary to WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR. Rockpocket 00:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The above is a classic example of "legalistic" bull, which utterly misunderstands what Wiki is all about. "The overwhelming likelihood is that terrorists belonging to the IRA fail to qualify for the privileges granted to POWs" - how can a source that uses a term which is pure pov be regarded as neutral or credible? It isn't. It is legal propagandist bunkum.
Look Rocket; there was a WAR, admitted to freely by both sides. Prisoners taken were, by definition, Prisoners of War. No legalistic spinning by people who use words like "terrorists" (unacceptable in Wiki articles as pov) will change simple English (not, as explained to you over and over WP:OR). If you cannot address these points I suggest you have nothing useful to contribute to this debate; endless repetition of legalistic propaganda is pointless. Wiki is about presenting verifiable facts; not legal opinion from sources which in their own words condemn their credibility and neutrality. (Sarah777 00:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC))
I suggest the mere fact of a Good Friday Agreement proves that there was a conflict, or war, or battle, call it what one want. Rocket is arguing an extreme case of "no war". GH 01:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Please do not misrepresent me. I am not arguing "no war." I am arguing that it is a non sequitur to state that someone jailed during a war is, by definition, a "prisoner of war". The term has a very specific meaning, and this source addresses, independently, whether the IRA meets that definition. By your rationale anyone arrested for drug dealing during the US' War on Drugs should be a prisoner of war.
By the way, before you attack a scholarly article as being "legalistic propaganda" you should read it. With regard to his use of the word terrorism the author states "This term is not used in any pejorative sense" but per its definition in UK law, because the article addresses the prisoner convicted by the UK legal system." This, in addition to the other two references provided, are the only independent sources we have. If you don't like what they say, that is too bad, but until you come up with some verifiable facts yourself, dismissing them is not an option. Rockpocket 01:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Not used in any pejorative sense but per its definition in UK law. Dismissing this sort of rubbish is not only an option, it is a necessity! Your inability to understand the concept of WP:NPOV, or to understand that British classifications are pure, calculated pov, is not surprising, but is annoying. You are obviously preconditioned to give excessive deference to Imperial British Law - which completely misses the point of factual reporting.
I am not arguing "no war." I am arguing that it is a non sequitur to state that someone jailed during a war is, by definition, a "prisoner of war". - Rocket. Of course someone jailed for shoplifting during he course of a war isn't a POW! But a member of one of the two forces fighting such a war is, by any measure of common sense or joined-up English. Frankly, your arguments are starting to border so close to ridiculous that the continued assumption of good faith is rather difficult. (Sarah777 02:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC))
I have explained, multiple times, how there is more to POW status than that simplistic interpretation. I'm not sure what more there is to say. You are welcome to your opinion of Prof. Walker's work as "rubbish" "legalistic propaganda" but he is a well published expert on political violence a Professor of criminal justice studies. Your comments are those of an anonymous Wikipedian, so forgive me if I don't give your analysis of the subject quite the same credibility as his. By the way, my name is Rockpocket, not Rocket. Its the same in joined-up English. Rockpocket 03:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey Rocky, anonymous Wikipedian - you can call me "Sarah" (my name) rather than "Sarah777". I don't mind. I doubt your name is "Rocketpocket" somehow - mine IS Sarah and I live in Sandyford, Dublin! I have explained, multiple times, how there is more to POW status than that simplistic interpretation Nope. You have asserted that many times, without the slightest supporting rationale bar quoting Establishment legal opinion. You simplistically cling to British Legalism; because, apparently - based on your writing - you can't envisage a world outside it. (Sarah777 03:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC))
Your interpretation is, because the British Government didn't call them POWs, then they were not POWs. You are getting tied up in legalities here. Slavery was once legal in this part of the world and in the USA, and because it was legal, does that make it right? I think you are getting mixed up between de jure and de facto concepts. Also because of Britain being found guilty of torture in NI at the Strasbourg court, it would not be in WP interests to use their assessment in the POW issue. GH 01:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not making that argument. My point is that we have no independent sources that support the IRA claim for POW status based on the Conventions defining what a POW is. Not only do the British government not believe them to meet the criteria for POW status (except for the ones they granted discretionary SCS), but a published academic jurist came to the same conclusion, as did the Strasbourg court [see EHRR 161 (1981)]. POW combatants must meet the criteria under the rules of war according to the conventions. If you believe the claim to be so clear, please provide an independent source that explicitly states the IRA meet those criteria, since I have provided independent sources that say they don't. As for you argument about slavery: Since when does Wikipedia categorise according to what is morally "right"? We categorise by what is verifiable. So it would be pefectly appropriate to categorise individuals who were enslaved in Category:People who were slaves. Rockpocket 02:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
There is currently an ongoing prison protest by members of the CIRA and RIRA, for the restoration of special category status, which they say was removed with the signing of the Belfast Agreement and the release of Republican and Loyalist prisoners as part of that agreement, this status and the conditions in which prisoners where held were re-stored after the 1981 Hunger Strike, and where the same as those given prior to the ending of Special Category Status in 1976. The British Government treated them as POWs. Even the then Secretary of State Mo Mowlan had to get permission from the OC's of Both Loyalist and Republican prisoners in the Maze prison before she was allowed to enter the wings of the H-Blocks to try and sell the GFA to the prisoners there, something that seen as necessary to prevent the breakdown of the entire peace process.--padraig3uk 09:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

padraig3ukand GH I think at this time you are not getting anywhere. The fact that the conditions the prisoners had under POW status and through hunger strike regained are the same is not lost on Rockpocket. They just will not accept it. As their reverts on the Sands Article illustrates. Regardless of this discussion, they will continue to do this. --Domer48 12:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether the conditions are the same is beside the point, what matters is the verifiable status of the prisoners. You says SCS status was "re-stored after the 1981 Hunger Strike". Really? If you can provide a source for this, the problem is solved. The reason I self reverted Sands was because it was pointed out he was afforded SCS status earlier in his life. That is verifiable. Rockpocket 17:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
"SCS = POW = Fudge". Why else would SCS be created. Brings it back to de jure and de facto interpretation. My only initiative here is that WP must remain neutral in its objectivity. The middle ground would surely be something like this, Category:Northern Ireland Conflict POWs or something similar, as a sub-cat of POW. I think Rockpocket is purely arguing from a British Establishment stance, which I respect, but it's not W-P. GH 17:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
You think incorrectly, I'm arguing from a WP:V stance, and speculation on my motivations are not helpful. I accept your initiative is for neutrality, please afford others the same respect. Rockpocket 17:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that's fine. I'm glad you cleared that up. GH 17:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It's all bloody semantics. POW category with subcats relating to various international conflicts, whether conventional or sub-judice, would seem the right way forward. For example, prisoners at Guantanamo bear at least superficial paralells in being denied POW status, as those Republicans and Loyalists in the custody of the six counties, the 26 counties and Great Britain. This is an encyclopaedia, not a political platform. Brendandh 21:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Compromise suggestions section (part 2)

This debate has now been running for seven days and currently runs to 17,900 words. What has become abundantly clear is that both POW and "convicted on/imprisoned for terrorist charges" are unacceptable to some, and will always be unacceptable, and will always result in an edit war. Please feel free to continue that debate in the other sections, but in this section I would like discussion of possible compromises only. So far I count four:

  1. "People imprisoned during the troubles": Guliolopez 10:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. "prisoners given special category status." Valenciano 17:19, 10 July 2007
  3. People Imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict: padraig3uk 09:52, 13 July 2007
  4. Category:Imprisioned IRA members Jackyd101 00:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we discuss these, and any other suggestions, and then maybe conduct a poll. Scolaire 07:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

1 and 3 are too vague, and to me 4 is very specific. 2 seems fair. Out of curiosity, are people applying the PoW tag to all IRA prisoners or just those interned? There's a very significant difference. beano 14:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
One specific article is Michael Gaughan (Irish republican), who was not interned and was imprisoned in England, not NI. (2) has actually been created, but it does not cover all articles. Scolaire 14:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

(Deindent) What happened to 5? "Irish republican prisoners of war". That gets my approval. Scalpfarmer 14:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"Prisoners of war" is specifically excluded from this particular discussion. Please see my intro. Scolaire 14:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Beano - 1 and 3 too vague, 4 is too specific (but could be used if there were similar cats for every other paramilitary group), 2 seems fair. And 5 isn't a compromise. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 14:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that 1 and 3 are too vague. No doubt some wag will point out that Jeffrey Archer was imprisoned "during the Northern Ireland conflict," but nobody will seriously try to add him to the cat. Anybody seeing the cat will understand that the imprisonment was related to the conflict, and it is truly NPOV because it does not imply guilt either on the part of the jailed or the jailer. Scolaire 14:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

(Deindent) There is no need for compromise, as they were de facto prisoners of war according to a reliable source. They were also prisoners of war according to the Third Geneva Convention Provision 4.1.3. Scalpfarmer 14:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"Prisoners of war" is specifically excluded from this particular discussion. Please see my intro. Scolaire 14:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The discussion is frivolous then. Certain editors requested sources stating that Irish republican prisoners were prisoners of war, and they were duly provided. At that point the editors then began shifting the goalposts and insisting that prisoners of war could not be used. They claimed the prisoners of war were not so according to the Geneva Convention, when anyone wishing to prove their rightful prisoner of war status had earlier been informed any attempt to interpret the Geneva Convention was something called "original research". All I see are contradictions and repeated attempts to move the goalposts. I personally spent time researching provided two reliable sources for prisoners of war, and for what? So a category could be added which could have been added before this debate with editors who will not give an inch? Scalpfarmer 14:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Scalpfarmer, there are eight sections above, all of them still active, where you can pursue that argument, just not in this section, please! Scolaire 15:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Scalpfarmer, is making a valid point, this discussion is pointless if all options are not open to discussion, sources were provided to prove the POW status of the prisoners, editors are now moving the goalposts because they lost the debate on that point.--padraig3uk 15:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't accept that at all. But regardless, there are now nine sections where this is being "debated". I again submit that a major discussion that will likely effect multiple articles with multiple cats/subcats should not be held on the talk page of one project when, quite likely, there are multiple projects that will have an interest in/be effected by any outcome. I respectfully propose that the whole subject be taken to either CfD (where it should have been brought in the first place), or Arbcom. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 16:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The current POW category even includes people who specifically were not prisoners of war anyway, for example Michael Durant never had POW status, as Somali militia don't follow the Geneva Convention. Scalpfarmer 16:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, we may as well draw a line through this entire section if it's only going to be a continuation of the "I'm right!", "No, I'm right!" shouting match. I can read for myself what was said above, and I'm not denying what you say, but re-stating it here is not going to help towards a resolution. Some sort of compromise might help, though, so why don't you tell us what's wrong with "IRA prisoners" or "Prisoners during the Troubles" instead of re-stating your position on POWs for the umpteenth time? Scolaire 16:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Option 2 is specific, informative and verifiable, see Category:Prisoners accorded Special Category Status. Note also that cats are not mutually exclusive. If you believe there is an appropriate cat per WP:CAT and you can verify that people belong in that cat, then there is nothing stopping you creating it. However, I think option 1 and 3 are not phrased in specific enough language for their purpose, though I see nothing wrong with option 4. Rockpocket 17:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Neither of those names (or the others mentioned) adequately reflects their de facto prisoner of war status. We were asked for reliable, neutral sources for that status, provided them, and now people are moving the goalposts. I reiterate that Michael Durant was not a POW, yet he is in the category as there are sources describing him as a POW. It seems to me the whole problem is that some editors will do anything to avoid using the term "prisoner of war", despite it being sourced. Scalpfarmer 17:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The article on SCS makes it perfectly clear what the status entailed, moreover the category is is a subcategory of POW. I'm not sure how that isn't an adequate reflection of the de facto status. However, if you wish to make it clearer why not edit the lead in the cat? It currently says

This category lists prisoners granted Special Category Status after being convicted of a scheduled terrorist crime in the United Kingdom.

but could be altered to say something along the lines of:

This category lists prisoners granted Special Category Status, effectively a prisoner of war, after being convicted of a scheduled terrorist crime in the United Kingdom.

As for your argument about Michael Durant, please read WP:V: verifiability, not truth, is the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. Rockpocket 17:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Your last sentence illustrates the point I'm trying to make. If Michael Durant can go in a category called "prisoners of war", so can Irish republican prisoners with SCS. Both can be verifiably described as prisoners of war. Scalpfarmer 17:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
They are in the Category:Prisoners of war, simply subcategorised into a more specific and informative subcat. Your comment above seems to suggest you don't fully understand how the categorisation system works. We should always attempt to subcategorise when we can, if it adds value. If you think there is good reason they should be in both a parent and a subcat (per the guidelines at WP:SUBCAT) then do so, but be aware that the same argument could be made for Category:People imprisoned for terrorism... and the arguments above start again. Rockpocket 17:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I assumed this discussion was to decide on a name for that exact category. The subcat of Category:Prisoners of war should be "Irish republican prisoners of war". Scalpfarmer 12:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Scolaire may exclude "Irish republican prisoners of war" from the discussion if they wish, but I consider it to be a very applicable title. --Domer48 18:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, Domer, not the debate — just this particular section. I opened this section to try to find a possible alternative to POW. I'm not saying POW is wrong, only that they're going to keep reverting it until the cows come home, and adding the terrorist/terrorism cats as well! Scolaire 18:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
And your point being? You concede the point because of the hassle it will cause? It is my view that it is simply a case of jumping through all the hoops that they put up until you reach a point were editors will have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to prevent the use of POW. Wikipedia is going to be around for a long time, I just copping on to that. So why do you not just get all the hoop that they want jumped, and lets tick them of one by one? --Domer48 19:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you can tell us then, in terms of Wikipedia policy, what exactly is wrong with Category:Prisoners accorded Special Category Status? Rockpocket 20:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
As a prisoner, materially what was the difference in conditions between PoW status and SCS. None! So what is wrong with the Cat “Irish Republican Prisoners of War.” ? With the report I produced is there any question as to weather there was a war or not? --Domer48 20:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Because the prisoners were, explicitly, afforded SCS status. Hence the category is the most specific, accurate and verifiable way to cataegorise them. I wouldn't have a great problem with the cat your propose, for those people afforded SCS status, but it makes no sense to me to label a cat as something "that is essentially the same as" something else. When you can just label it exactly what it is. So, I have told you why I prefer SCS, perhaps you can answer my question now. Rockpocket 21:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The 5 demands where the essence of what was POW status. Within 2 weeks of ending the Hunger Strike the prisoners hand got their demands. Now the POV of editors who oppose the use of POW is that it would legitimise the actions of the IRA. That is, they see POW’s in the traditional/conventional sense, i.e. conventional wars. The use of “Irish Republican POW’s” would remove the traditional understanding of the term and facilitate the unconventional nature of its use in relation to the conflict/war in Ireland. --Domer48 21:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I find it interesting that I ask you to justify why the cat is not appropriate in terms of Wikipedia policy and you talk about Anglo-Irish history and the cats use to facilitate the removal of the "traditional understanding of the term". Please refrain from speculating on the motivations of other editors and instead discuss the policy. Rockpocket 21:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Rocketpocket, I totally disagree with your approach, otherwise we will end up with multiple-categories, and Wikipedia must be readable too. It's getting a bit tiresome. GH 22:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
What approach is that, subcategorisation? My approach has reduced the number of cats each person is in (it has reduced POW and imprisoned for terrorism into one common subcat), so I don't quite know what your reasoning is. Rockpocket 22:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It is my impression that Loyalist prisoners were also given "political status" (SCS) too. Were they also POWs? The last 1800+ words of discussion above shows a great deal of naivete. "Political status" was not in any sense a recognition of either group as soldiers under the Geneva convention: it was a purely pragmatic way of trying to take the heat of the situation. Mo Mowlem going through the motions of talking first to the so-called wing commanders was again pure pragmatism. She needed a result and realised that coming over all legalistic would be a very efficient way not to get it. So she played along with the fantasy. If there is a WP:BecauseIlikeit, demanding to use term POW here is a classic case of it. --Red King 22:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"All the world's a stage!" --- WP:AsIlikeit GH 22:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Touché. Actually, WP:ILIKEIT. Rockpocket 22:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
http://www.patfinucanecentre.org/misc/opbanner.pdf . Now what was the fantasy, make it all legalistic would be a very efficient at criminalisation of a political conflict. --Domer48 22:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
What is the relevant part of the above 98 page document we're supposed to be reading, and whats the point its supposed to be supporting? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it shows a fundamental failure of the British government and the British army to realise what they were walking into. They thought that they were "aiding the civil power". They failed to realise that the RUC at the time (especially B Specials and Specian Branch) was the military wing of the Unionist Party and thus they moved from being part of the solution in August 69 to part of the problem within a year. But the fact the British Army was involved doesn't make it a war. --Red King 23:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
What I find most telling here is the partisan interpretation of sources. When an independent, academic source doesn't provide information sympathetic to the Republican cause it gets dismissed as "Establishment legalistic" propaganda, but when other independent, academic sources provide information that promotes the case being argued, its validity is accepted without concern. Similarly, when content coming directly from the British Government doesn't help the argument it is dismissed as biased, yet when it contains something that is considered helpful it gets trotted out time and time again in support of the argument (Cf. the nth repeat of the reference above). We have also had the Strasbourg Court cited in support of why the account British Government should not be trusted, yet apparently the Strasbourg Court's finding that IRA prisoners are not POWs is entirely beside the point. WP:V is not POV selective. Rockpocket 23:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the European Court at Strasbourg is the final arbiter of this debate. Any disent from that is POV. --Red King 23:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't necessarily agree the EC is the final arbiter, but it is a good source and consistant with the other sources provided, all which fail to find support that the IRA prisoners qualify for POW status under Geneva (irrespective of whether the campaign is described as a "war" or not). Indeed, that EC court finds that, not even do they not qualify, but the IRA hasn't even claimed POW status for its prisoners, which would require a declaration under Article 96, Protocol I of 1977. The argument in opposition appears to be that the treatment of prisoners by the British Government was essentially the same as a POW would have had, and that because Britain may have used the term "war" to describe the campaign it follows that they should be descibed as "prisoners of war." Both of these are non sequiturs considering our article on prisoner of war and the information therein regarding those that can claim to be POWs. Rockpocket 23:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Misleading category changes

User:Padraig3uk, User:Domer48 and User:Brixton Busters have been changing categories like Category:Northern Irish solicitors to Category:Irish solicitors, and Category:Northern Irish Roman Catholics to Category:Irish Roman Catholics. This is misleading and in violation of the biography categorisation structure. Their reasoning is that "Northern Irish" isn't a nationality. This is irrelevant. English, Welsh and Scottish are not nationalities either. All bio cats are named like this, see Category:English solicitors or Category:Scottish Roman Catholics or Category:Welsh Roman Catholics. Basically they changing the cat from a NI one to ROI one. Yes people from NI can determine whether they are British or Irish, but we're not talking about nationality here, we're talking about location. I have pointed out to them that if they have a problem with the categorisation structure they should take it to WP:CFD to request a change from, for example, Category:Northern Irish Roman Catholics to Category:Roman Catholics from Northern Ireland. Can I get some agreement to revert all their changes, if they want to go to CFD after then fair enough. Stu ’Bout ye! 12:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say that it is POV to label many of those people as Northern Irish - sure they are born in NI but I are they NIrish?? However, I would consider a change to Category:Roman Catholics from Northern Ireland could be considered.--Vintagekits 12:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Its not POV, they're from Northern Ireland. Is it POV to say someone from England is English? A change to from Northern Ireland is an option yes, but it would changing all the English, Scottish and Welsh cats as well. Stu ’Bout ye! 16:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I totally disagree with the use of sectarian categories that identify people by religion, I also reject the term northern Irish, this is a Unionist invention to try and create the notion that people in Northern Ireland are a seperate ethic group or nationality from Irish.--padraig3uk 16:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I would agree with you about categorising people by religion, unless it's relevant to their notability the cat shouldn't be used. ONiH had a lot of trouble trying to remove these cats if I remember right. On your second point, it is not talking about nationality, but location. English isn't nationality is it? Yet all English bio articles are English solicitor, English doctors etc. The same with Welsh and Scottish cats, and and every other country cat. Stu ’Bout ye! 16:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish are Nationalities, just because some refer to themselves as British dosen't take away from their nationality, all people in Northern Ireland are Irish or Irish/Brits but they are not and never where northern Irish.--padraig3uk 16:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Stubacca for the record I changed one, that one being on the article I was editing. I like padraig3uk consider them to be nothing other than a sectarian categories. Was Tom Williams a rabid Catholic, why is it there, what purpose dose it serve, who cares what religion he was? Why have such a categorie? --Domer48 18:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Well we are all agreed that the religion cats should not be used unless there is a clear reason for doing so, like the person's religion being important to their noability. But the other issue still stands. And the main point with that is by changing categories from Northern Irish ..... to Irish ..... you're stating that they are from ROI and not NI, which is misleading. I state again that your problem is with the categorisation structure. If you want to change all the bio cats to xxxxx from Northern Ireland or xxxxx from England or xxxxx from Spain etc list it at CFD.Stu ’Bout ye! 18:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Seems to me it's a question of English (language). English, Scottish and Welsh are all English words; Northern-Irish really isn't! That's why "from Northern Ireland" is more appropriate here — not a political thing, just semantic. Scolaire 21:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a difference between the nationality in Northern Ireland and Eng,Scot and Wales - this is on a idealogical level and a legal level. Pre GFA the government of the 26 counties extended Irish citizenship to the O6 and after that both governments acknowledged that individuals can have dual or or either nationality. Unless I am very much mistaken this unique in terms of the UK.--Vintagekits 20:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
All well and good, but the fact still remains that your problem is with the entire biography categorisation structure. The articles concerned belong in Northern Irish xxx categories. xxx from Northern Ireland probably would be better but that's another matter which, and I hate to repeat myself, is an issue to take up at CFD. Domer, Padraig, VK, do you not see that? Stu ’Bout ye! 22:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Scolaire, I've seen it in at least one dictionary. Also, do (or did) people not talk of East/West Germans, North/South Koreans etc.? For the debate itself here, I don't actually agree that xxx from Northern Ireland is better than Northern Irish xxx, but Stu is right that it is a matter for a higher authority than individual republican editors. beano 09:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to change these back today, I think the reasoning is correct and has been made clear. Stu ’Bout ye! 12:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You have no consensus to make changes to these categories and the category you are using is misleading and POV.--padraig 18:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Consensus doesn't apply, this is the categorisation wording and structure as it currently stands. If you want to get consensus to change it then take it to CFD. Can you not see this is the correct action to take? Stu ’Bout ye! 20:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Measuring importance

NEED GUIDANCE PLEASE

Not sure if this is the place to raise the issue; but I took to categorising/rating the importance of articles I was involved in. (Class=stub; importance=low) etc.

Most is straightforward; all Regional roads I classed (with two exceptions) as low; ditto all national secondary roads (N51 - N99). But are the PRIMARY roads important enough to be given a higher importance?

Also, villages and small towns; as a rule of thumb I've classed all settlements with a population less than 2,000 as low (ditto most Dublin suburbs in the continuous built-up area bar the majors; DL, Tallaght, Blanch, Swords, Malahide, Bray - possibly a few more). In time as the articles mature they can obviously be re-rated - but is this rule-of-thumb acceptable for a first shot? (Sarah777 14:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC))

Sarah777, you are talking about articles assessments. This is not a Irish Wikipedians' notice board issue or responsibility per se. What you are doing for these Irish related articles is the job of the WikiProject Ireland assessment members and should be carried out by them. BTW, you have yet to join. While the Irish Wikipedians and the WikiProject Ireland are related they are not identical but do have many similar interests. I note that you have been adding assessments to a large number of Irish articles recently. While these may be totally valid ratings, I suggest you bring up the topic of assessments on the WikiProject Ireland talk page to remind members that little assessment has been done recently by the project members. It would be a good idea to get assessments going again on a regular basis, but I suspect we need some basic Irish-based criteria for this particular WikiProject as we don't seem to have any, especially before we move ahead throwing assessment ratings on articles all over the place without any discussion having taken place. ww2censor 15:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I reckon there shouldn't be too much worries about the few hundred assessments I did! They were all basically stubs with importance low. It was when I got to articles that might require a higher importance that I started to wonder if there was any standard - (though I was following the charts in Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Assessment religiously. I guess nature abhors a vacuum and nobody else seemed to be doing any tagging etc. What have I "not joined" btw? WikiProject Ireland or assessment members? How do you join? (Sarah777 18:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC))
I think I just joined...(Sarah777 18:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC))
Actually all you did was add the Ireland WikiProject membership userbox to your user page, but that is not joining. I just left a link on your talk page. As I understand it the assessments are only done by members of the project in conjunction with the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team (whatever that means as there is no explanation on either page tht I can see)—there is no special assessment members group within the project. You are correct about the fact that you have been mainly assessing stubs and I of course hope you are following the charts, that goes without saying. As mentioned above I think there needs to be a discussion about the assessment process of Irish articles in the appropriate place and will start it there, so hopefully others will participate. Hope that helps. ww2censor 19:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


Aliens from the Planet Zog

I am proposing to add the assorted people who may or may not be Category:POWs or Category:People convicted on terrorism charges to the category Category:People from the Planet Zog. If you disagree with this please find a NPOV source that contradicts this. 194.72.35.70 07:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look on the RTÉ website later but I'm pretty sure Zig, Zag and Zupy managed to get the charges dropped... ;-) BastunBaStun not BaTsun 08:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I thought they exiled themselves in UK in order to avoid charges! Perhaps Category:On the runs would be more appropriate! 86.12.249.63 06:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Mary Harney

Over the past week, I reverted and corrected [User:Cavanagd] edits on Mary Harney. His latest edit today seems out of place. Please look at the article and provide feedback on how go forward. Should we leave the edit, remove it or modify. Thanks. ant_ie 17:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

POWs (mk III)

I noticed that Ruairí Ó Brádaigh is listed as a POW, but as far as I can tell from his article he only appears to have been jailed by the Republic of Ireland. Was the IRA also at "war" with the ROI, and do we have sources that describe them holding IRA "prisoners of war"? Rockpocket 07:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Similarly Martin Ferris. Rockpocket 07:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I think they were, but no matter ones view of the conflict/war, The Troubles did spring from human rights issues, and unfortunately these situations can create very hostile environments. GH 12:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your sentiments, but i'm not sure that is a good justification for calling them POWs here on Wikipedia. However, it appears that Ó Brádaigh, at least, was interned by the Irish at one point. It seems to me, like SCS, internment is a form of POW status also (and as such, any Republican that has been interned by the British, I have not been removing the POW cat from), though I don't have sources to back that up. I can't work out what to do about Ferris though. Rockpocket 17:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:V, not truth. 'Prisoners who held SCS', 'Prisoners who were interned', 'People who were interned without trial' and so on... BastunBaStun not BaTsun 17:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I certainly wouldn't protest those cats. Though oddly there is no cat for interned individuals, currently. Rockpocket 18:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
And 'Prisoners active in the Northern Ireland conflict' as an alternative to 'People imprisoned for terrorism'? Scolaire 12:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Those two cats clearly do not mean the same thing, though. The latter is a subcategory of the former. Moreover, we should try and keep cats to specific criteria that can be sourced without interpretation. For example, was prisoner X imprisoned on charges of terrorism? The answer to that question is explicit in the public record (for example court documents). However, when asking is X active in the NI conflict, we need to determine what "active" means? And where are the boundaries of the NI conflict drawn? It is much more subjective. It seems to me, if individuals are concerned that 'People imprisoned for terrorism' implies we are saying they are terrorists, then the obvious compromise is to change the cat to 'People imprisoned on charges of terrorism', which makes it explicilty clear that we take no position on the subject other than to document the charges. Rockpocket 17:31, 19 July 2007(UTC)
I like 'People imprisoned on charges of terrorism' much better than either 'People imprisoned for terrorism' or 'People convicted on terrorism charges'! As long, of course, as it is not a sub-cat of 'Terrorists' because then we're going right back to saying that they are terrorists. Category:Prisoners and detainees would be the only acceptable parent cat. Would you be willing to do that? I say 'you' because people are less likely to accuse you of bad faith than me, and therefore less likely to revert. Scolaire 20:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd happily support that. The problem is, when there is a subcat made about terrorism, it tends to get subcategorized in 'Terrorists' before too long. Of course, we could continue removing it, but consensus generally finds that 'Terrorists' is NPOV. Its not something I agree with, and have long been a critic of that cat, but sadly consensus can't be reached on its deletion so I accept it. This change will probably be required to go through WP:CfD, which I am happy to do. Is there any strong objections to this? Rockpocket 00:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
My Springer Spaniel has been accused of causing problems recently. He has been accused of frightening a neighbour's cat. After much feline persecution, it certainly is a covert war between them, but I feel that I cannot really categorise him as a Terrorist, because that is what he does naturally, and he's not really a POW because Daddy (me) imprisons him (cf. ROI) in times of need, rather than the Cat or its family! Is the cat morally more a terrorist than the Dog, swanning around with its freedom and causing strife, or the dog because he reacts to it? Brendandh 03:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Question: I don't know why this didn't occur to me before, but the kind of people we are talking about here — Mairéad Farrell, Michael Gaughan et al. — did the charges that were brought against them include the word "terrorist", or does the Act under which they were charged have "terrorist" as a keyword, and has this been sourced in every case? Because of course "they were charged with x and x is a terrorist act" would not satisfy WP:V, and every prisoner was not charged with the identical offence under the identical Act. I would like clarification of that before going to CfD. As regards reverting the "terrorist" cat, I would be happy to do that once a day or more for the rest of my career :-) Scolaire 08:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


Thats a fair point. Its something that I had brought up with regards to Gaughan and, because we couldn't source whether the charges were related to terrorism or not, I had originally categorised him among Category:Irish criminals (the reasoning being, if the charges were not terror/"war" related, they were simply criminal). However, certain editors took umbrage to this categorization also. Anyway, in the end I found a neutral source that said he had been "sentenced in 1971 to seven years for conspiring to rob a London bank for the I.R.A." (my italics). I took that as meaning the charges were not simply for robbing a bank (a criminal act), but for doing so for a recognised terror group, hence the charges were terror related. I may be taking that too literally, but it seemed the best compromise when editors were strongly protesting the simply criminal charges. If there is no evidence that the charges were terror related, then I would propose using Category:Irish criminals instead. If there is no serious opposition, I will propose this at CfD this weekend. Rockpocket 17:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Answer The ECHR ruled that Ms Farrell and associates were shot whilst engaged in an act of terrorism. --Gibnews 16:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Response: Getting your little swipe in ten days after the event is not my idea of being helpful! Scolaire 19:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I would object to them being categorised as Irish Criminals, they were political prisoners.--padraig3uk 17:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
See what I mean ^^^ ? Rockpocket 17:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Woah! Hang on! You're not going to call them terrorists, you're going to call them criminals?? Let me say this one more time — this is not NPOV, this is extremely POV! I really had the feeling that you were pretty clued-in, that you were genuinely interested in finding a solution, but let me say: this is not it! Calling them criminals puts forward a point of view about the criminal justice system in the UK, as well as the competence of UK courts to try the cases, and whether politically-motivated acts can be treated as "criminal". So please, drop this one now! Scolaire 21:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
So this comes back to the same issue regarding "terrorism". The reason the cat Irish criminals is there is because a criminal is defined (by a significant proportion of Wikipedians) as the descriptive "someone who was found guilty of violating a law" rather than the assumptive "some one who has violated a law." Clearly and verifiably Gaughan fits the former category, the latter category is a matter of opinion. I'm guessign you hold the latter opinion. However, I fear you are swimming against the tide here, the horror you express above could easily be said to apply to anyone in literally hundreds of criminal cats. For example consider Category:Murder victims by nationality. Who says anyone in that cat was "murdered"? Well, presumably a court found the "murderers" guilty of that charge. Except - according to your argument - in using that term we "forward a point of view about the criminal justice system in the [country X], as well as the competence of X's courts to try the cases." Irish republican criminals/terrorists/freedom fighters/political prisoners are no different than any other of the people in these cats. So why should they get a pass from descriptive categorisation, when no-one else does? Personally I understand your position and appreciate the scope for different interpretations, but I think the consensus is otherwise. Anyway, all I can do is propose alternatives, and thus propose as an alternative Category:Irish people imprisoned on criminal charges. Rockpocket 22:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I believe we should apply the Nelson Mandela category types. No one can say that a person who fought for civil rights is a criminal. And Rockpocket, there is not a universal WP type application to the categories as you say there is. Again, I refer to Nelson Mandela article. GH 23:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
If a person who fought for civil rights is also notable for being convicted for robbing bank, then we most certainly can. I don't recall Mandela robbing any banks, and I don't recall Gaughan winning any peace prizes, neither do I recall the British refusing anyone the right to vote in the 1980s, so I'm not sure what the comparison is supposed to be. However, while we are on the subject, the Mandela article is a revisionist whitewash also. His Umkhonto we Sizwe's tactics including bombing shopping centres, including one on Christmas killing and injuring numerous women children of all races. They also regularly killed other black people by necklacing, something endorsed by Mandela's wife ("with our boxes of matches and our necklaces we shall liberate this country"). All conveniently not mentioned at the Free Nelson Mandela concerts. After all, images of Mandela's Umkhonto we Sizwe soldiers (aka the Mandela Football Club) settling alight a gasoline filled tire around the neck of an African policeman or torturing and killing a 14yr old African child, doesn't real fit in with the West's black-and-white take on the man (pun definitely intended). Rockpocket 05:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
That's my drift, and war is horrible, atrocities committed by all, from Dresden to Sharpeville to Bloody Sunday. This is why it's more imperative to take a neutral approach, and get the categories right once, and should do. GH 12:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
How about Category:People imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict as a main category and then Category:Republicans imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict and Category:Loyalists imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict etc, as sub-cats, that way we avoid all POV issues.--padraig3uk 22:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
That would seem a good way forward... Satisfies WP:V, if not anyone else, but it doesn't seem like we'll get another compromise. Regards, BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with those as parental cats, but they are pretty non-specific and they don't appear to preclude more specific subcats, so i'm not sure how they will solve the dispute. What is the ultimate goal here? To accurately and verifiably categorise articles so people can find them, or to find some insipid, generalised uber-category that has little purpose other than to pacify those with POVs from both side? Rockpocket 02:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
To accurately and verifiably categorise articles so people can find them, so that, for instance, people looking for IRA prisoners 1970-2007 will look in Category:Republicans imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict which accurately describes the type of prisoner and the time period, not to find some insipid, generalised uber-category so that people can look at Category:People convicted on terrorism charges, or better still Category:Irish criminals, and find all their favourite hate-figures there. Quite frankly, Rockpocket, your veneer of scholarly disinterest is wearing pretty thin. Scolaire 15:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
As regards subcats: "Republicans imprisoned by UK jury courts", "Republicans imprisoned by UK non-jury courts", "Republicans interned without trial" — specific enough for you? Scolaire 15:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they are specific enough as subcats. I'm sorry of you think impassioned POV is a better position to tackle this subject than scholarly disinterest, but that is exactly my position and I don't apologise for it. However, once again, speculating on my motivations are not going to solve the problem.
I think Category:People imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict is a perfectly suitable parent category, but its not particularly helpful for scholars interested in finding people based on the details of the crimes/actions or their imprisonment. That is why we need subcats within that. For example, the following would all be perfectly appropriate specific subcategory system:
Each of these subcats tells us something different, specific and verifiable about an individual - which is the whole point of categorisation. Rockpocket 18:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we might be back on track :-)
And I withdraw my 'impassioned' remark. Scolaire 18:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) Great, and don't worry about that remark. So I guess there are two other things. Firstly does anyone else have more specific subcats that would be informative and verifiable? Secondly, while these cats are appropriate, need to consider whether they are practical. For example, can we get hold of the information that would allow us to distinguish between people that were tried by jury and non-jury courts? If so, great. If not, there is little practical point in having those cats and they should be merged. Also are people ever interned with trial? If so we should perhaps include that, if not, without trial is perhaps redundant. Rockpocket 20:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Interned with trial? Not to my knowledge, no, but I think its still more helpful to leave at 'interned without trial', to distinguish it (for non-lawyers/people not familiar with the term) from imprisonment. Those subcats will also need Loyalist versions; and there will be need to be subcats for '...by Republic of Ireland jury courts', '...by Republic of Ireland non-jury courts', too. Yes, its a lot of cats/subcats, but its accurate, verifiable and hopefully will put this to rest. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 20:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Non-jury courts (Diplock courts) were introduced in 1972. Anybody editing an article on a prisoner should be able to establish whether they were tried by a non-jury court. "Internment" is only another word for imprisonment, so you are either imprisoned following a trial or interned without trial. Scolaire 08:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so there appears to be no further comment, objection or suggestions. I'll go ahead and start implementing this. Rockpocket 05:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Via CfD? Scolaire 07:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Category:People imprisoned on charges of terrorism and Category:People imprisoned on criminal charges should be changed from their current incarnations via CfD (I'm for particularly confident it will pass, but we can but try). All the others can simply be created and populated, I think. Rockpocket 17:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Not trying to create a spoiler here. But should this discussion be on the WP:NIWNB, instead of here? 17:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
No - it should be on WP:CfD. Regards, BastunBaStun not BaTsun 17:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
What about “Political Prisoners,” as a cat? --Domer48 09:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Political prisoners are those imprisoned for their beliefs - e.g., Nelson Mandela - not necessarily for acting on those beliefs to such an extent that they end up imprisoned for them. Regards, BastunBaStun not BaTsun 13:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Bastun, read Nelson Mandela#Guerrilla activities and see if you still believe what you wrote there. Scolaire 21:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Heh, no - touché. Blame the fact I should have been working while editing and didn't check my sources :-) Substitute Mahatma Gandhi instead... BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
So would you agree anyone who was interned was a political prisoner? Scalpfarmer 13:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
My personal opinion? "Anyone" - no. Some of them - yes. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 15:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Translations of place-names

I originally posted this on the WikiProject talk page but got no response, so posting here again. I'd like to start a mini-project to provide translations of Irish place-names. For example (to take some towns at random):

Ballintra (Irish: Baile an tSratha, meaning "Town of the Tiers") ...
Castlebar (Irish: Caisleán an Bharraigh, meaning "Castle of the Barry family") ...
Nobber (Irish: An Obair, meaning "The Work") ...
Termonfeckin (Irish: Tearmann Feichín, meaning "Refuge of the Small debtors") ...

I'd like to get the go-ahead first, though, in case anyone would see a problem with doing this. I've done a little work in the meantime: I've made two templates, Template:Irish place name and Template:Gaeltacht place name, and a category, Category:Untranslated Irish place names. The purpose of these are explained on their pages. I've put one in situ at Castlebar and had one at Spiddal that was, rightly, reverted (see it here). --sony-youthpléigh 23:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've got no response, so I'm going to go ahead. I'm certain to make mistakes, please correct me as I do. If you could leave corrections for such mistakes on my talk page, I'd be grateful for them. --sony-youthpléigh 21:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sir, a non-response is as good as a go-ahead. I agree that the placenames of Ireland are requiring a full etymology and record. Good luck with the task, and god help you in the arguments! :) Brendandh 22:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

President of Ireland FAR

President of Ireland has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Come on folks, it has been 3 weeks and normally 2 weeks is the time frame for FARs. It seems that so far, in 3 weeks no one except myself, has done any work on this article at all except for 2 insignificant edits. There are now 3 votes to removed the FA status and NO votes for keeping it. It badly needs inline citations and the lead needs a cleanup and expansion. I am finding it difficult to locate sources online. WE ARE LOSING THIS ONE if no one steps up to the plate to help out. Should you decide to step in, make a note of this on the FAR page. This may not be a hot topic but we have way too few Irish FAs (17 right now) and can hardly afford to lose another one as has happened this year already. Thanks ww2censor 14:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Racist Remarks

I have challenged Rockpocket on some of his racist remarks. Discussion can be seen here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive97#Block_Review_-_Vintagekits. I have asked Rockpocket to step down from the revelent Irish pages. Also two other editors have by their edits supported Rockpocket. These editors are Tyrenius, and Major Bonkers. I am also asking them to step down from the revelent pages. GH 00:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Instead of demanding that everyone who disagrees with you step down, why don't you see whether the wider community supports your view of things with a WP:RfC? There is the possibility, you see, that your take on this matter is not exactly shared by everyone else. If everyone demanded everyone else who disagrees with them step down, there will not be many of us left to do the editing. Rockpocket 00:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not demand other editors how to think. I do not demand anything. Editors can make up their own minds on this. They can read. GH 00:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, everyone can read, and everyone can say their bit (again), content that we have wasted our time with more self righteous finger-pointing that serves only to further poison the atmosphere around here. Still, having driven SirFozzie to a (virtual) burnout I guess there is space for another admin to be thrashed between the Irish rock and the British hard place, eh? Alternatively - and stick with me here while I propose something radical - we could try and work together to improve the project in a constructive manner. Rockpocket 01:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
So let me see if I have this right. You do not believe VK should have been blocked for his racist tirade. You want those admins who've supported VK's block to step down. "Fiery Irish temper" is a racist remark which must be apologised for. "Germanic ice in their veins" is...? Somehow I'm not just seeing any balance there. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 07:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I have challenged Rockpocket on one or two things myself over the last few weeks. That particular discussion got pretty heated, and a lot of things were said. But to brand as racism the phrase "fiery Irish temper", enclosed in quotes, and in the context of saying something positive about the editor in question, is OTT in my view. For the record, I am Irish, and I would have no difficulty with the assertion that my temper was in my genes. Scolaire 08:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, GH. You don't have red hair by any chance? --sony-youthpléigh 08:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfair - I support Rockpocket and I haven't been listed. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Given the overwhelming anti-British sentiments expressed by obvious IRA supporters on the many pages they have set up on Wikipedia I think it somewhat rich that they also universally call for condemnation of anyone who opposes them, under any number of the usual WP Rules which, needless to say, they never violate. David Lauder 18:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I support Rockpocket's past and present actions 100%, and I also support his "modest proposal" about working together in a constructive manner. It is those who are unable to adopt collegial working practices who will need to adapt or move on from these subjects, not a good, patient, fair-minded person such as Rockpocket. As for the "racist remark", I strongly suggest you either get over it, or take it to RfC.--John 18:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Also 100% support for Rockpocket. This is a spurious complaint, which is becoming harassment. I suggest DH studies the use of punctuation, particularly scare quotes, the use of which is to refute the quotation. Tyrenius 00:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
David, read this section again! There is no universal call for condemnation. There is an almost universal call for co-operation and a constructive approach - the biggest exception, I'm afraid, being you. Scolaire 19:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your expressions of support. I was planning to refrain from further comment, as I don't see the point of beating this particular dead horse any more. However, I would like to re-iterate what Scolaire has said. This isn't an issue between two factions, and the last thing we need is for it to be made into one. All it is was a careless use of a phrase meant in jest (by me) and one individual taking issue with it. What I am guilty of here is underestimating how careful one must be in interacting with other editors around this subject. I have no personal experience with this subject and therefore appear to offended someone entirely unintentionally. That I regret. Its not for me to decide whether GH's response is reasonable or not (something an RfC would shed light on), but i'm certainly not about to generalize his response to an entire group of editors and I would hope no one else would either. Indeed, there has been as many Irish editors who have indicated that they are entirely underwhelmed by the whole fuss as there has been British. If there is to be co-operation in editing, we all need to stop looking for reasons to perpetuate disputes and start looking for reasons to end them.
In among all this, Scolaire and I have come up with a proposed categorisation heirarchy that we think could adequately and neutrally address the ongoing issues behind the categorisation of people jailed in the Troubles. I'm going to propose this for further discussion at CfD later this evening. I would ask we all direct our interest away from this energy sink and support that (if you agree with it) or suggest improvements (if you don't). Thanks Rockpocket 20:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
One of my friends clued me in to this conversation. I am editing Wikipedia very sparingly, because yes, I am pretty much burnt out, on the constant conflict, but I figured I should say something. It seems to me that what is needed is just a reminder of Assuming Good Faith. I'm not saying that both sides need to be sitting at a campfire singing Kumbaya. I'm hopeful, but I'm not naive, folks. But there seems to be a lot of assuming the worst possible faith of each other in all the discussions I've come across, which means every discussion is destined to unravel into accusations, recriminations and arguments. So much bad feelings can be avoided by A) Assuming Good faith of the other person in the discussion and B) Assuming the other person is Assuming good faith of you. There is a lot of otherwise good editors who find themselves slowly drifting over the Disruptive Editing line by not doing A and B. I'm doing my best to keep folks here, honestly. Wikipedia cannot become the next battleground in this conflict, and if it does, it's more likely that ArbCom or whomever will not side with one side or another, but simply remove who they consider "edit warriors" from both sides. SirFozzie 20:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Now we have all exposed ourselves as ordinary mortals, and yes Rockpocket, you are forever taking offence yourself. At least two Irish editors, ONIH and VG forced out of the Irish articles by the Scottish editors, it's time to ask how many more editors are to be squeezed out. There is a lot being written, but little being addressed. The only way foreword is for those forever talking editors to set out, in detail, what the actual problems are. Then the detail can be addressed. I know that Wikipedia can become a game with some, but please not at the expense of genuine editors, whether we disagree with them or not. GH 00:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oookay. Just to clarify something here. ONiH is actually not an Irish editor; ONiH is English through-and-through. At the end of the day, this has precious little to do with "Irish" editors versus the rest rather, it's being caused by disruptive, POV-pushing editors. Furthermore, the slinging of accusations of racism and accusations of accusations of racism are really not helping matters here - Alison ☺ 04:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
A ban for personal abuse and physical threats of violence != "forced out of the Irish articles." BastunBaStun not BaTsun 08:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to add more to this issue; Scolaire has put it very well, and there is not a great deal that I can add to his remarks. However Gold heart: (1) if you really feel that this issue is so important, I suggest that you add it to the Potato Famine ArbCom rather than setting out a separate RfC; and, (2) lest we forget, Vintagekits was both a frequent poster of offensive comments himself and one of the first to take offense. It's up to you whether you want to take a throwaway comment, which was not directed at you, has been explained and apologised for, and now debated ad nauseam, further. (In my own opinion, most of the complaints made to Admins on the subject of Anglo-Irish articles are extraordinarily childish and I'd like to encourage everyone to calm down a bit and lay-off 'Admin-bothering'.)

In answer to your second post, the main bones of contention, as I understand them, are:

  • Ulster flag. 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);
  • 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)
  • It was inserted onto my talk-page, and therefore it was my prerogative to demur. All Rockpocket had to do was withdraw the remark, which he refused to do, and I said that I harboured no vexation against him. As you can see from my edits, I don't edit much any more. Why should people contribute their time and effort to the project, only to be hounded and pilloried. WP is losing many more editors than the "blocked editors". If everyone is happy with that situation, then that should be Okay. GH 19:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Please stop misrepresenting me. I have offered to withdraw the remark on three occasions, each time you ignored my request. [17][18] [19] Please show me a diff where I "refused" to withdraw the remark or withdraw your allegation. Rockpocket 20:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Gold Heart, would you not just let it go? You haven't had a single word of support either here or on the admins notice board. Nothing is being acheived by this silly campaign except maybe keeping people from getting down to the work of sorting the difficulties out. You yourself said that the way forward is "for those forever talking editors to set out, in detail, what the actual problems are." Major Bonkers has done this for you. Now, why don't you withdraw your spurious accusation and let us all get down to addressing those problems. Scolaire 20:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Scolaire, I don't need your support here, I have studied law at university level, and a degree and all that, and I know this field very well. Okay, get on with it, I wish you the very best at sorting out this whatever-it-is. Maybe a few minds have been focused in this process, something good might ensue. GH 21:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Something good might ensue if you were to apologize to Rockpocket - you don't need a law degree for that. Scolaire 22:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
An apology is not required. I appreciate you agreeing to move on, however GH, and I'm sorry again for any offense I have caused you over this. Happy editing. Rockpocket 01:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Irish_wikipedians%27_notice_board/Archive16&oldid=1142500711"