Talk:Richard Saul

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Irish air marshals[edit]

Why remove the category? Wallie (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would surmise because Ireland is a tricky category. For starters place of birth does not equal someones nationalilty as discussed with Dowdling and then look at examples of people born in France who are British.
On top of that Ireland didnt come into being until 1920 iirc, so prior to that was Saul a self identified Irishman, an Anglo Irish settler or British? Do we have a source to confirm any of these positions?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that he was born in Ireland says it all, really. Ireland was in being as at WW2 was it not? Assuming someone is British by default is not correct. There has to be proof for that. Wallie (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again you have missed the point by a long shot. Being born in Ireland when it was still part of the United Kingdom of GB and Ireland does not make you automatically a national of the newly formed Irish state in 1920.
He was born approx 30 years before it was created hence why i have asked for proof that you can assume he is "Irish" in the modern sense by default.
The situation regarding Ireland is a tricky subject; the population prior to independence was varied hence why i also asked for proof that he was a self identified Irishmen, was he Anglo-Irish or was he British.
I think you should take a step back from all this until you understand the situation regarding the UK and Ireland much better because your utter ignorance on these subjects is somewhat alarming. I think someone much better qualified should answer the above questions and provide evidence for the article regarding his nationality. --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All I am saying is that he was born in Ireland. When I discuss something I do not accuse others of "utter ignorance". I would suggest that this could constitute a personal attack - so let's keep it civil. I have shown proof that he was at least born in Dublin. Have you ever considered how many British flags are scattered all over these articles? To other countries, nationality is not so important. However, if it is mentioned it should be correct. Otherwise , it should be left out. Wallie (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can at least be truthful Wallie. Stating that you are showing utter ignorance is not a personnel attack, your complete misunderstanding of the British state and the above issues show that you are not fully up to speed on the issue.
You have tried to link Saul with a state that didn’t exist at his time of his birth and placed him within an ethnic group without the least bit of evidence (as in not everyone born in a country is defacto a member of its main ethnic group, especially with Ireland). If you say nationality is not so important then your edit history speaks different - why have you caused uproar over several article while at the same time accusing editors of being extremely bias and crediting nationality as one of the important factors in this bias?
If a British flag is on an article it is there for a reason, as in the state was a combatant in a war or a person is of British nationality, and you bringing it up as no relevance to this current discussion.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Saying someone is "showing utter ignorance" is a personal attack - period. I am linking Saul with Ireland, as he was born there. People who are born in Ireland, now or then, are Irish. I can assure you also that Ireland certainly exist when he was born, and that Irish people were Irish then also. As for an ethnic group, I have no idea what you are talking about - that is a red herring. Wallie (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland as a state did not exist, which is what you were linking the man with. Am saying that you are showing utter ignorance as the population of 19th Century Ireland was not made up solidly of Irish people; it was made up of Irish people (primarily Catholic born lower classes) and British settlers termed Anglo-Irish/British (primarily Protestants middle to upper class) hence why am trying to convey to you need proof before slotting the man into something.
Being born in an area/country doesn’t make you automatically XYZ for example British civilians born on army bases in Germany are not Germans and Emma Watson isn’t French.
How hard is it to provide a piece of evidence for once instead of carrying on your personnel crusade of “de-Britishising” people?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find the term "crusade" highly insulting and with very negative religious overtones. Please stick to the discussions, and avoid the personal attacks. Thanks. Wallie (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confusing but the country of Ireland did not exist when he was born as has been explained more than once, but Saul was born in the United Kingdom which would make him both British in the wider sense as a citizen of the UK and Irish (as in the home nations - Irish, English, Welsh or Scottish). As Engima has said we cant assume what he identified himself as. I suspect this is yet another confusion in the concept of being British. You can be British and Irish, British and Scottish, British and English and British and Welsh at the same time depends on context. British is the nationality which does not have anything to do with where you were born. But as he was in the RFC/RAF then he should be correctly identified with the Royal Air Force Air Marshal category (which doesnt use nationality or birth place). But under the current categorisation it would be correct to call him an Irish Aviator as that is based on place of birth (that is the island of Ireland not the country which did not exist in the late 1800s). So bottom line in the way that the categorisation is set up he was not an Irish Air Marshal particularly as the Irish (state) do not use Air Marshal as a rank. MilborneOne (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I see what you are saying. I was saying that he was an Irish air marshall, not an Irish Air Force air marshall. I can also see that Wikipedia is set up so the ranks are tied up with the services (at least most of the time). There is a cat for Scottish admirals....
As another Irish-born British military hero who didn't self-identify as Irish once said, "Just because one was born in a stable, it doesn't make one a horse". David Underdown (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't work though. Wellington is still described as "Anglo-Irish". It is very hard to shake off your birth place. Unfortunately, there is no quote around saying that Richard Saul does/doesn't want to call himself Irish. I looked at the article on Kiera Knightly, which says she is English. I wondered why it didn't say she was British, as per the Wikipedia nationality of British people guidlines. A reference was made to the fact that she wants to be called English and not British - so fair enough. Wallie (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wallie i have also described several times to you what Anglo-Irish means, it has nothing to do with shaking off your birthplace.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's also a term that hadn't really been invented at the time Wellington was speaking, but his point that he wasn't "ethnically" Irish is valid and still stands, taht's what the term Anglo-Irish was later invented to describe. David Underdown (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To true. I think that is what some of these terms are all about - showing "ethnicity". It is not just about nationality. Wallie (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irish[edit]

... The other issue is the way he is described. You mention he could be an Irish aviator. He could then be an Irishman too, could he not? Wallie (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He could be an Irishman but that is not a nationality in this context (like Scots, Welsh and English have not really been nationalities since 1707). But as Enigma pointed out that we have an ethnic groupings to further mess up the issue. It is a very difficult area confused by the partition of the island of Ireland in the 1920s, one only has to look at the talk pages of Irish-related article to get a flavour of the problems this causes in definitions. But I dont think we have a problem with Irish aviator or Irish soldier or airman. Before 1921 you could only be Irish by being born on the island, after 1921 you could be born elsewhere and become an Irish citizen because part of the island had become a nation. But I am sure others will be along at some point and explain it is not always straight forward. MilborneOne (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I think people think I am being awkward. That is not my intention. I want to work it out in my own mind. Others here are very clear thinkers - they are lucky. Actually, according to the definition in Wiki Dictionary, Scottish etc. are nationalities. You can say someone has a nationality of British or a nationality of Scotiish. As far as context is concerned, I agreed that Irish air marshals was shall we say confusing, as some might think that they were in the Irish airforce. I just want to get it right. I think that there could be a consensus arrived at because one or another country group is in a majority. It is very difficult to debate against any such group. I am also prepared to change any views I have which may be improved or clarified. Wallie (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have hit on some of the main problems that confuse about England and Scotland being nations, they are but not as you know it. Just an example you cant become English you can only be born English you cant get a legal bit of paper that says you are English as it (since 1707) and Scotland have not been independent nations. So all Englishman and Scotsman are really British nationals. But as you say we have a lot of patriotism which can support other views. But all this is probably not a discussion for this page! MilborneOne (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richard Saul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Saul&oldid=1209983083"