User talk:SirFozzie/NI Article Discussions
I've created this page for folks involved in Northern Ireland article discussions can make sure that the otherside is ok with proposed edits before making them to try to improve the editing atmosphere here. If you're going to make a request, please copy and paste the template so there's always an empty one when you're done :)
Request for change[edit]
Article:Ulster Defence Regiment
Section to be changed:Lead
Change to be made:Ref no 1 to be changed to reflect page 1, paragraph 2 of ISBN ISBN 0850528194 to more closely reflect the raising of the regiment in the "anti-terrorist" role. Thunderer (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Response:
Anti-terrorist is not going in you have not provided a single source that states that the UDR were formed as an anti-terrorist force. Using the synthesis that you love so much I could make a claim that the regular army were formed as an anti-terrorist force too all of them regarded in their "anti-terrorist" role as the equals of the Regular Army. If they are equals then they must have been an anti-terrorist force too. How far would I be wrong with that, I think very far. As David has stated and I did yesterday the White paper and Hatersley are the only reliable sources so far provided and should be used. BigDuncTalk 16:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Actually the quote on page 1 makes it very clear they were raised as an anti-terrorist force but I have also suggested "counter-insurgency". Their role is critical and must be explained.Thunderer (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- I am going to say this once more the ref or any ref you have provided nowhere states that the regiment were formed as an anti-terrorist force. BigDuncTalk 19:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- The quote is In that time a regiment which began as a largely untrained, amateur part-time body of volunteers, motivated by their duty to protect their country against terrorist attack......all of them regarded in their "anti-terrorist" role as the equals of the Regular Army. Thunderer (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- I am going to say this once more the ref or any ref you have provided nowhere states that the regiment were formed as an anti-terrorist force. BigDuncTalk 19:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Request for change[edit]
Article:Provisional Irish Republican Army
Section to be changed: Lead
Change to be made: Remove the Irish wording "Oglaig na hEireann" from the lead as it is far from being a literal translation of the name and is disputed as an official name of the organisation. Thunderer (talk) 12:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- please point to dispute? I believe that they use it themselves as does the Irish Army, RIRA and others, No? Opiumjones 23 (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- On the talk page of the above article. Last item.Thunderer (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Response:
Who "disputes" the use of this name? It is well-referenced that the PIRA, as well as the splinter groups, use and have used this name. Its use goes way back, it is noted in the article about the "old" IRA, along with a reference. There is no reason it should not be used in the PIRA article, provided that it is noted that the Gaelic phrase is not a literal translation, and that the Gaelic term is used by both the army of the Republic as well as by the IRA. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. That's all I have been asking for. There is no dispute that various IRA's have all claimed the name. My intention all along has been to clarify the matter. As they don't have 100% claim to it, except through "styling themselves" for obvious reasons (pro-treaty/anti-treaty)it is my contention that it shouldn't be in brackets beside the main lead of the article as it then gives the impression that the Irish wording is a literal translation of the English. That's all I want changed.Thunderer (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Do you speak Irish? >Literal translations are irrelevant as Irish is a very different language from English having an Indo European rather than Latin origin. It would be incorrect to change as this is what the org calls themselves !! Now many might disagree with their use of it e.g; the Irish Army but as it is commonly in use and also helps a reader understand the term when they come across it in ref to the Provos it is best to leave as is. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- You're misunderstanding the reasons for the change. They are only one of a group of organisations who claim the name, all of whom have articles on the wiki. I don't feel it's appropriate to list it in that position in the lead as it is not a literal translation. It can stay in the lead, it's relevant but not as a translation. FYI, English is not a Latin based language. It is a hybrid based on several Indo European languages including Latin which is a Proto Indo European offshoot. Thunderer (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Do you speak Irish? >Literal translations are irrelevant as Irish is a very different language from English having an Indo European rather than Latin origin. It would be incorrect to change as this is what the org calls themselves !! Now many might disagree with their use of it e.g; the Irish Army but as it is commonly in use and also helps a reader understand the term when they come across it in ref to the Provos it is best to leave as is. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like your help is needed here [1]. The whole issue is quite problematic but changing is bound to stir up accusations of violation of WP:NPOV. There are many people who argue that the use is illegimate by th eProvos but it is commonly used by them. Still the argument about literal translation does not hold water on the basis of language. It is in fact probably the "official" name that the group use. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- The argument here isn't about the use of the name. They can use whatever name they want. Where's placed in brackets after the English name however it appears to be showing a literal translation. Because this is a wiki and we're striving for accuracy as well as verifiability, the usage of the Irish term is and should be explained in the article and should not be thus placed to give the false impression that it is a literal translation of Provisional IRA. It could be argued that it is a translation of IRA, if you want to look at the Irish meaning, but not "provisonal". That's my case.Thunderer (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like your help is needed here [1]. The whole issue is quite problematic but changing is bound to stir up accusations of violation of WP:NPOV. There are many people who argue that the use is illegimate by th eProvos but it is commonly used by them. Still the argument about literal translation does not hold water on the basis of language. It is in fact probably the "official" name that the group use. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- That does make sense. Also known as would work in the headerOpiumjones 23 (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Request for change[edit]
Article: Ulster Special Constabulary
Section to be changed: All
Change to be made: I request permission to edit the article under supervision to expand it as per Hezlett's "History of the Ulster Special Constabulary" to supplement work already done. Thunderer (talk) 12:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Response:
I would not agree to any wholesale changes without discussion like when Thunderer removed whole sections and created POV content forks on the UDR article without any discussion before hand. BigDuncTalk 16:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- If you think there's any POV content anywhere in the UDR article we should be discussing that on the talk page. My intention is to rid it of POV.Thunderer (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Request for change[edit]
Article:
Section to be changed:
Change to be made:
Response: