User talk:Traditional unionist/Archives/2008/October

WP:AE
Your comments are requested at Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement.--Tznkai (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not today. Tomorrow maybe.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As an example: responding to a revert with a reversion is edit warring, except in egregious cases.--Tznkai (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thus WP:3. The mindset that *you* have to be the one to fix the injustice seems to be what got you in particular under the dragnet. Ignoring rules is the application of common sense, not doing what you think is right. IAR works only when you look at things from a larger perspective: notably that its not a big enough deal that you needed to revert it, right then, right there. Reverting always leads to further problems, or exacerbates existing ones.--Tznkai (talk) 15:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Probation notice
Due to your edit warring on Ireland related articles, I have placed you on the probationary terms available to administrators under the The Troubles. This probation self expires in one month from this time, or until lifted by administrator or community discretion.--Tznkai (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The section of the report dealing with your conduct is here. Please read at your earliest opportunity--Tznkai (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

James Chichester-Clark
Hello. I just noticed this edit. Now, let me state at the outset that I absolutely loathe these ahnentafels, generally used by nobility hobbyists (in this case, a banned user) to pollute articles with yet another decoration rather than contribute actual content. For royalty, I've reluctantly come to accept them, since it's a losing battle with these people (and since one can make a very tenuous case that knowing who a royal's ancestors were for several generations is useful). However, Clark was a commoner, which raises the question: to what purpose the ahnentafel? Of course who his parents were is important, and we say that in the body of the article, but how is anyone better-served by knowing who his great-great-grandparents were? And if we accept it for Clark, why not for Paul McCartney or David Beckham? You see where this is leading? We are an encyclopedia, not a genealogy site. Biruitorul Talk 16:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, his family was important, and we should note that in the body. By that standard, though, any one of these people deserves a chart in his biography, which seems silly. Here's how the Dictionary of National Biography (who have been writing biographies since 1885, so they know a thing or two) cover the issue:

Chichester-Clark was descended indirectly from Sir Arthur Chichester, the seventeenth-century lord deputy of Ireland, and directly from George Dawson, Sir Robert Peel's colleague and brother-in-law. Dawson's family owned Moyola Park, the Georgian mansion which was James Chichester-Clark's home for most of his life. Chichester-Clark's more immediate ancestry was to shape his public career. Many of his Dawson and Chichester ancestors had sat in parliament, either in Dublin or London. His father was MP for South Londonderry in the Northern Ireland parliament from 1929 until his death in 1933. In that seat he was preceded and succeeded by his mother-in-law (Chichester-Clark's grandmother), Dehra Chichester, née Ker Fisher (d. 1963), who was, as Dame Dehra Parker, minister of health and local government in the Northern Ireland cabinet from 1949 to 1957. After Chichester-Clark's father's death, his mother married (in 1938) Charles Edward Brackenbury.


 * Nice, isn't it? In fact I can e-mail you the entire biography if you'd like to expand the article further. As for the ancestry chart issue: convert to prose, I say. But if you still disagree, shall we seek out a third opinion? Biruitorul Talk 21:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (I've sent you an e-mail.) Well, having a family tree for everyone from an "important" (good luck defining that) family would be silly for a number of reasons. First, no equivalent work (DNB, ANB, Britannica) does this in encyclopaedic biographies: they give prose, not family trees. Second, while (as I have said) a general statement that "the illustrious ancestors of person A included B, C, D and E" is accepted practice, a tree seems excessive, the province of hobbyists. Third, many ancestors (particularly women, up until modern times) are of no historical interest - they happened to be part of a family, but didn't do anything special themselves. Fourth, trees don't add anything: what we say in prose is generally more than enough.
 * Now, it is acceptable to include family trees for commoners in articles on the families themselves. Good example: Udall family. A nice list by generations, and a family tree. Nothing wrong with that - it's the appropriate place. It would not, however, be appropriate to include that tree in individual family members' articles, because that's not what they're for. Do you agree, or shall we seek out that third opinion? Biruitorul Talk 01:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Advice re. POV censorship re. UK nationality
Hi, could you advise if there is anything that I can do by way of reporting/complaint about Domer48's censorship of the nationality details of NI politicians? I edited the NI MPs' articles to add British citizenship to those MPs listed only as Irish (and - ironically - to add Irish to Mark Durkan's article, which stated only British). Domer48, however, is now removing all references to any nationalist politician's UK nationality. He has so far censored the Adams, McGrady and McDonnell articles.

As you know, essentially anyone born in the UK is a UK national, and so UK nationality is a statement of fact with reference to the British Nationality Act 1981. Unless it can be shown that someone has revoked his or her nationality through the relevant statutory means, then the article should show UK nationality in addition to ROI nationality.

(I am unable to engage in editing for fear of being banned for "edit-warring".) Mooretwin (talk) 12:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * How does that stand with the likes of Adams etc carrying Irish passports?  If they've availed themselves of article 2 of the Irish Constitution (pre 1995)? Thunderer (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Carrying an Irish [sic] passport" doesn't mean you don't hold another nationality. I could apply for one tomorrow, but it wouldn't stop me being a UK citizen. Mooretwin (talk) 12:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * They are Irish passport carriers so are Irish you are the one who is pushing POV. You removed Irish from the Nigel Dodds and then insert British knowing it to be contentious. BigDunc  Talk 12:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry? When did I deny that Adams was an Irish passport-holder???? I didn't touch the reference in the article to his ROI nationality! Please withdraw the accusation. I actually added ROI nationality to Durkan's article. Mooretwin (talk) 12:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there any legislation which can be quoted to confirm UK Citizenship of Northern Ireland domiciled Irish passport holders who've taken advantage of Article 2 of the ROI constitution?Thunderer (talk) 13:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid your question doesn't make sense. If one "holds" an ROI passport, how could one not have taken advantage of Article 2? UK legislation says nothing about the citizenship laws of other countries: you're either a UK citizen or you're not - whether you also hold citizenship of another state is irrelevant. Mooretwin (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, I hold both Irish and British passports - what does that make me?Thunderer (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that you can't acquire a passport without holding citizenship, clearly that makes you a citizen of both the UK and ROI. Mooretwin (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I hate internet explorer (long story, but I'll answer this for the second time). British and Irish nationality law is not clear cut. Do we know if Nigel Dodds one of parents were born in the UK? If one of Durkan's were born on the island of Ireland? If not we don't know what nationality they are, notwithstanding they need to hold British, Irish or Commonwealth citizenship to enter Parliament. I am, as I suspect you are Mooretwin, an Irish citizen. I also suspect that you like me do not hold an Irish passport nor do you asdsert your irish citizenship in any way. Neither of us asked for it, but were given it by a government other than our own for their own reasons. The nationalist converse argument does not stand quyite so well, as NI is part of the British national territory, but the argument is nontheless similar. Unless we have a picture of Dodds holding a British passport at the Dept for Foreign Affairs on St STephens Green whilst renouncing his Irish citizenship, its best to leave it. Frankly, I see no reason for any politician to have they nationality in the infobox at all, unless it is notable initself. For example I believe there are some foreign and non EU nationals on Town Councils in the Republic, that is notable. In short, I don't really have an answer, save for going to the relavant noticeboard and seek concensus to have nationality remnoved from politician infoboxes unless notability is asserted.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Do we know if Nigel Dodds one of parents were born in the UK? If one of Durkan's were born on the island of Ireland?  If not we don't know what nationality they are, notwithstanding they need to hold British, Irish or Commonwealth citizenship to enter Parliament - Dodds was born in the UK before 1983, therefore he's a UK citizen. Mooretwin (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am, as I suspect you are Mooretwin, an Irish citizen. I also suspect that you like me do not hold an Irish passport nor do you asdsert your irish citizenship in any way.  Neither of us asked for it, but were given it by a government other than our own for their own reasons. - No - we were given the right to be ROI citizens, but it is not necessarily to be presumed that we are. Mooretwin (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Under the original Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1949 citizens of both countries have equal rights wherever they are domiciled in the UK. Does holding a passport change anything?Thunderer (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Holding a passport means that you may travel abroad and be accepted as a citizen by the consulate of the country of which you hold the passport. That's all. Whatever rights are conferred on citizens is entirely a separate matter. Mooretwin (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've done a quick check on the UK Government's website here which confirms that having a second or dual nationality does not revoke your British Citizenship. The quote is:

Dual nationality In general there is no restriction, in UK law, on a British national being a citizen of another country as well. So, if you get another nationality, you will not lose your British nationality. Similarly, you will not need to give up any other nationality when you become British. The Home Office provides more detailed information.
 * So Nigel Dodds is British, so is Gerry Adams. Whether they regard themselves as British or not - unless they have specifically revoked their British Citizenship.Thunderer (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks - so how do we stop Domer's censorship of these facts? (I cannot revert for fear of being banned). Mooretwin (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As there is a current discussion on possible sanctioning of Domer at the AE board here I would suggest you bring your concerns to the attention of the admins there and allow them to judge if this is of further relevance to the case.Thunderer (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If I might add a voice of, hopefully, reason. We have gone though these arguments many times before and they rarely lead anywhere good. The general consensus, per Avoiding harm is that we should be respectful of the person's likely perspective. So, for example, it doesn't take a genius to work out that Gerry Adams would prefer to be considered Irish rather than British. So we list his nationality as Irish. Dodds is likely to consider himself British, so we list his nationality as British. If it is unclear what the subject might prefer, then its unlikely to be controversial and either or both can be listed. If it remains controversial, but there is no obvious clue to what the person may consider themselves, the simply don't list a nationality. This subject is a sensitive one, and we should always be looking not to antagonize other editors, or the subject him or herself, simply to prove a point. Rockpock  e  t  01:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a question of fact: not perspective. No-one is questioning Gerry Adams' Irishness. In the category of "nationality", however, he is also a UK national and this fact should not be censored by Irish nationalist POV editors. Adams' "perspective" or his consideration of his own identity is irrelevant to the legal question of UK citizenship. ROI citizenship is different as it is not automatically to be presumed that someone is an ROI citizen - hence (unless we have evidence to the contrary) we cannot presume that Dodds is an ROI citizen. Mooretwin (talk) 08:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Given the sensitivity of the issue I wouls suggest removing nationalist from the info panel altogether and putting a section into the article which say simple. "Gerry Adams was born in the UK but considers himself to be Irish" or something similar along those lines.Thunderer (talk) 10:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no contradiction between being born in the UK and considering oneself to be Irish, therefore the word "but" would be entirely inappropriate. I see no need to comment on his nationality at all. If Adams' legal nationalities are to be censored in the sidebar, then removal altogether is preferable. Mooretwin (talk) 11:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think with regards to encyclopedic content it would be preferable to note that Adams was born British but considers himself Irish. IT's in context.Thunderer (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Whats important for our readers to know is that Adams, for all practical intents and purposes, considers himself and is considered by others as Irish. Whether he is technically still a British national is of little relevance. If there is an strong concern that we detail the peculiarities of British citizenship, then Thunder's suggestion is probably the best: just explain he was born in NI, but chose to adopt Irish nationality. Rockpock  e  t  20:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1.No-one denies that he is Irish. 2. Being a British national is relevant, given that he is dedicated to removing NI from the UK and thereby from automatic UK citizenship. Mooretwin (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Then note that in the article. It's relevant.Thunderer (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ivan Neill
Thanks - I was surprised that no-one had written an article on him, and when I found that he'd actually died in 2001, and could start searching for an obituary, I had plenty for an article. His autobiography seems to have gone largely unnoticed; the Belfast Telegraph article just mentions that he wrote a book in 1995, and it doesn't appear to be available from Amazon, abebooks, or even the British Library, so I don't expect to find a copy. It'd be good to add a bit more on his more distinctive political opinions - the article still seems a bit dry, to me.

Incidentally, given your recent deletion of unreferenced opinion, you may be interested to know that I've got some useful information on the National Democrats, so I will probably expand that article soon. Warofdreams talk 23:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Irish flag
Careful with that TW rollback, its entirely possible the user you reverted was just silly, not a vandal. Good revert otherwise.--Tznkai (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)