Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Archive 3

Sinn Féin categories

 * Reposted from User talk:BrownHairedGirl to seek wider input

Hi, currently there are two categories for Sinn Féin politicians, Category:Irish Sinn Féin politicians and Category:Sinn Féin politicians.

Irish Sinn Féin politicians is for those 'who were members of the original Sinn Féin party in the early 20th century (1905–1926)' and Sinn Féin politicians is for those 'who are, or were, members of the Sinn Féin, an Irish republican party in Ireland, originally founded in 1905 and established in its present form as Provisional Sinn Féin in 1970.'

This is a bit confusing for anyone not familiar with the history of Sinn Féin and all the splits in the party. I propose leaving the Category:Sinn Féin politicians as it is, being populated by modern politicians. The other category could be renamed Category:Sinn Féin politicians (1905-26), since at that stage the pro and anti treaty factions had left to join Cumann na nGaedhael and Fianna Fáil at that stage. But then what about the rump that was left, do we need another category for 1927-69? Any thoughts? Snappy56 (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point.
 * Category:Irish Sinn Féin politicians is one a series of poorly named categories which were created two years ago by a clueless newbie who should be suitably chastised; they all used the format "Irish foo politicians", even though the "irish" was in most cases tautological (FF, SF, FG etc don't organise outside Ireland). Most of them were renamed at CfD on 10 Nov 2007, but I omitted "Irish SF politicians" from that nomination partly because I hadn't thought through the solution.
 * You are right in your description of the usage of Category:Irish Sinn Féin politicians, but I'm not so sure about the suggested renaming to Category:Sinn Féin politicians (1905-26) &mdash; that doesn't seem to me to adequately account for the 1922-26 period.
 * The difficult bit is, as you say, post-1922. For the 3rd Dáil, the Oireachtas Members database describes the anti-treaty TDs as Sinn Féin (Anti Treaty) members of the 3rd Dáil, but for the 4th Dáil they have Republican members of the 4th Dáil and in the 5th Dáil (after the foundation of FF) they have Fianna Fáil members of the 5th Dáil and Sinn Féin members of the 5th Dáil for the rump who didn't join FF.
 * It might be best to start with identifiable separate periods and see which could be combined.
 * 1905-1922, which can be straightforwardly called Sinn Féin, but needs some disambiguation
 * 1922-23 what the Oireachtas calls Sinn Féin (Anti Treaty)
 * 1923-26 what the Oireachtas calls "Republican"
 * 1923-1969 what the Oireachtas calls Sinn Féin
 * 1969-1977, when there were Official SF elected politicians (such as Joe Sherlock); can't remember whether the Provisionals were contesting elections in that period
 * Post 1977, after OSF became SFWP, when there was only one body calling itself plain SF
 * I note that the Wikipedia article Members of the 4th Dáil calls the anti-treaty TDs just "Sinn Fein", which seems at odds with the Oireachtas database's uses of "Republican".
 * Not quite sure what to do with all this, but I think that a wider discuussion would be useful to get more views on a subject which is likely to the the difft sides of the debate on Republican legitimatism. Would it be OK with you if I repost this thread to WT:IE? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't be too hard on clueless newbies, they can turn into fine Wikipedians over time! I wonder why the Oireachtas db calls the ant-Treaty faction from 1923-26 Republican? Surely they were still Sinn Féin (or Anti-Treaty Sinn Féin)? Anyway please repost this at WT:IE in order to canvass more opinions. Snappy56 (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, will repost there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I take your point about the "Republican" label, but the Oireachtas Members Database says that "The original research for this project was carried out in 2002 by the Debates Office of the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas, the Department of Modern History of Trinity College Dublin, and the Office of Public Works." That suggests to me that they should have some well-referenced reason for the label, and in all my  correspondence with them over the last two years about party labels they have been commendably scrupulous in insisting on unambiguous evidence for any party labels. When my copy of Walker's "Parliamentary Election Results in Ireland 1918-92" arrives in a few days, I'll check that, but I'm rather keen that we should have some references to guide us in naming for the complex 22-26 period.
 * The other complex period seems to be 69-77. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason for the use of the Republican label for Sinn Féin in some elections is simply that it was the name the Sinn Féin choose to stand under, it was also used in the north of Ireland after partition a number of times, especially during times when Sinn Féin was banned and couldn't stand candidates under its own name, so Republican was simply a label of convience.--Padraig (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's right, Pádraig. SF candidates also ran under the banner of Independent Republican (Ireland). Someday I hope to compile a list of those who ran under that title.--Damac (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Omagh bombing
Omagh bombing is currently at 'start class'. I think that it's actually more of a 'b-class' article. Also, I think the article could use a peer review since it doesn't seem clear how to improve it from here. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rerated as B/mid for WikiProject_Ireland/Assessment. Go for a formal review but make sure to be patient not like the previous attempt earlier last month. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Go for a formal review As an anon, I believe that I physically cannot do that. Could a registered user do that? Their request would be more appricated by other registered users anyways. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ww & Anon; now that Ww has made it a B (easily merited in my view) - best not bother with a review unless someone objects to the "b". Sarah777 (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone objects to the 'B', but I do believe that the article may have a pro-RUC and pro-Omagh-victims WP:NPOV problem. I would really like other editors to take a look. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll put it on my "to do" list. Sarah777 (talk) 09:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

page creation requests
Micheal Gallagher (activist) -- The leader of the families of the Omagh bombing victims.

Oliver Traynor and Seamus McKenna -- alleged Real Irish Republican Army members. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * For the last two, you'll be lucky. No source material, mainly due to the fact that trial by media doesn't work. One Night In Hackney  303  11:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No source material, mainly due to the fact that trial by media doesn't work. With Oliver Traynor, you're right. When it comes to "Seamus McKenna", well, there's so many people in Ireland with that name that there's no real way to sort through the source material. What about the first person, though? 24.32.208.58 (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sergeant James Graham
I have recently written an article about Sgt James Graham, who shut the gates at Hougoumont and was identified by Wellington as the "Bravest man at Waterloo". Sources say he was born at "Cloona", County Monaghan, which I think is probably Clones. Certainly, an unciteable blog mentions he's from Drummelly. (b 1791). It would be great to get some photos or pictures, of gravestones/plaques etc, plus confirmation of his birth, if there was anyone here willing to take up the challenge. There's a watercolour portrait of him at the National Gallery of Ireland, if anyone can discover if it's in the public domain. He died at Royal Hospital, Kilmainham on 23 or 28 April 1845, had a military funeral and is prob buried nearby. The bloggy site also mentioned there was a memorial plaque at the hospital which was transferred to St Tiernach's Church in Clones. If anyone local to any of those places could investigate/grab photos I would be greatly in your debt. Also, if anyone has any further contribution they can make to the article, then please do so! I think with a bit of polish we can make this a good article. Thanks. Gwinva (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Project-related RfCs
I've some concerns about the verifiability and reliability of sources used to produce Irish-language versions of subjects' names and have initiated a RfC about the issue here.

I also encountered opposition yesterday to my attempts to use the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography to source an Ireland-related biography article and started another RfC on the matter.

The views of project members on both would be appreciated.--Damac (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to modify IMOS
After three discussions on this issue, once in April 2006, again in November 2007 and, more recently, this month,, on the issue of adding the Irish versions of the name of a person normally referred to by an English-language name a proposal has now been made to modify the relevant section of the Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles). Your thoughts are welcome.--Damac (talk) 10:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 18#(Some) Years in Ireland categories
There's a deletion review may be of interest at Deletion review/Log/2008 February 18. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Mahon Tribunal
The article on the Mahon Tribunal pretty desperately needs a whole massive chunk of updating. It's rather high up the scale of current affairs in Ireland wouldn't you say!

Bertie Ahern is a bit more up to date but could do with a bit more updating from the month so far.

zoney &#09827; talk 00:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! You got the job :)
 * You're quite right, it does need lots of updating &mdash; so why not do it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk tags
WikiProject Ireland I've notice this has been added to a lot of WP:GAA pages, would it be a good idea to update GaelicGamesProject to included the WP:Ireland tag as i cant think of a place where something is GAA related and not Ireland related too?Gnevin (talk) 13:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The WikiProject Ireland template is used by the WikiProject Ireland, and its parameters allow the assessment of articles that create the statistics for the project. Many Wikipedia articles are appropriate to several projects and in that case there may be several project templates on the talk page, such as St Patrick which has 3 templates; some have even more. Talk:Irish phonology has both an Ireland and a Northern Ireland project template, so it is not unusual to see articles with similar and even encompassing projects, just like GAA is encompassed by Ireland but a combined template will not work. You may want to upgrade the GaelicGamesProject template with assessment parameters if that is a project need but some idea of the scope of the project would be needed before progressing. For instance the Irish Republicanism WikiProject has currently assessed just over 500 articles, perhaps the GAA has more than that. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Owe ok, guess someone with AWB and bot access can run a pass on the 2,500 + WP:GAA article and tags as WP:Ireland too Gnevin (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you have a decent amount of articles to be tagged. Talk to BrownHairedGirl about her bot User:BHGbot that should be able to do what you want. She tagged all the unassessed WikiProject Ireland articles which, IIRC, came to 5000+ ww2censor (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Date of formation of the United Kingdom?

 * (please note that I am notifying Irish Wikipedians as Ireland was in the UK: 1 January 1801 until 6 December 1922)

After much debate, the editors of the United Kingdom article seem to have settled on 1707 as being the foundation of the state (I note with concern though that this date lacks any external referencing, per official Wikipedia policy WP:VERIFY).

But this article - List of countries by formation dates - claims that the UK was actually founded in 1603 (again, completely unreferenced). Both articles cannot be correct, so which is it? Please come to the party armed with some proper external refs, because I am not sure if we can stomach yet another verbally diarrhetic Talk page splurge with largely consists of ad hominem attacks and statements of totally unsourced opinion. --Mais oui! (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am notifying Irish Wikipedians.......I am not sure if we can stomach yet another verbally diarrhetic Talk page splurge with largely consists of ad hominem attacks and statements of totally unsourced opinion. Ah! And having thus branded all Irish Wikipedians (without a single block/ban threat in response) we get yet another example of rampant anti-Irish Wikipedianism. And Alison would rather whistle past the graveyard! Sarah777 (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sarah, my reference to "yet another verbally diarrhetic Talk page splurge with largely consists of ad hominem attacks and statements of totally unsourced opinion" was nothing whatsoever to do with Irish Wikipedians!! I have (mostly) nothing but respect for the many Irish Wikipedians I have encountered in my Wikitravels. Indeed the average Irish Wikipedian is a lot better than the overall average, in terms of quality of referencing and Talk contributions.


 * No, the verbal diarrhea, semantics, totally unsourced opinionating and ad hominem attacks was actually a reference to the idiocy currently ongoing at Talk:Scotland. The worst offenders are not even European, let alone Irish (I don't think any Irish editors have contributed yet (?)). In fact if any Irish Wikipedians want to contribute to the "Scotland is a nation/country" (delete as appropriate) discussion, then I would welcome it, because I am sick to the back teeth of it. You lot cannot possibly be worse-informed on the topic than some of the self-appointed Humpty Dumpties (""When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.") --Mais oui! (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (Sigh) The United Kingdom was created in 1801 by the Act of Union 1800, which united the Kingdom of Great Britain with the Kingdom of Ireland. The only ref needed is Article One of the Act of Union: "That it be the first article of the union of the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland, that the said kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland shall, upon the first day of January which shall be in the year of our lord one thousand eight hundred and one, and for ever after, be united into one kingdom, by the name of “the united Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”; and that the royal stile and titles appertaining to the imperial crown of the said united kingdom and its dependencies, and also the ensigns, armorial flags and banners thereof, shall be such as his Majesty, by his royal proclamation under the great seal of the united kingdom, shall be pleased to appoint."(see also Act as currently in force) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Kingdom of Great Britain was known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain (Act of Union 1707, Article 2), therefore 1707 is a valid date for the formation of the United Kingdom. From 1603 to that Act of Union, England and Scotland had the same monarch, but they were not a "united kingdom", but two independent kingdoms with one ruler.  Scolaire (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Featured article review for Book of Kells
Book of Kells 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. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A couple of editors are still working on this, mainly adding inline citations. Can you help? ww2censor (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hibernophile
I recreated this article and assessed it as stub class. Some of the text comes from the original Wiki article which I found preserved through a mirror: It was severely lacking and seems to be a copy of Anglophile. I did my best to make it distinct, but I have no sources and I hope the members of this project can help make it work. -MichiganCharms (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)