Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland

Irish Wikipedians' notice board
Home Irish Wikipedians' related news	Discussion Ireland related discussion (at WikiProject Ireland).	Active Users Active Irish Users	WikiProjects Irish WikiProjects	Stubs Major Irish stubs	Peer review Articles on Peer review	FA Articles on FA review	FA Drive Articles under consideration for FA drive

Irish articles assessed by quality

FA	A	GA	B	C	Start	Stub	FL	List	Category	Disambig	Draft	File	Portal	Project	Redirect	Template	NA	???	Total
68	0	248	1,449	5,543	30,726	26,940	8	3,292	26,232	183	79	175	26	20	2,791	3,287	34	22	101,123

Move Categories - NUI Galway → University of Galway

The National University of Ireland. Galway has renamed itself University of Galway and the main article has been updated accordingly. Could an editor with sufficient access please move the associated NUI Galway categories to the new name? Or is there another process an autoconfirmed user can follow to move them? Cashew.wheel (talk) 02:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

RfC about naming "Soldier F" in the Bloody Sunday (1972) article

An RfC about naming "Soldier F" in the Bloody Sunday (1972) article is open here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

RFC Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles Republic of Ireland - Ireland

Should the Republic of Ireland be shown in articles as "Ireland", "Republic of Ireland" or "[[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]"? Is it mandatory to change any link to "Ireland" (unlinked) or Republic of Ireland to [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]? Or is it only useful when in improves clarity? Conform Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles. The Banner talk 16:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• That's not a proper RfC question. Of course it's not mandatory to change links! But neither is it mandatory to revert the changes. Why don't you word the RfC to reflect the difference in opinion between yourself and another editor over whether and how the state should be linked? Scolaire (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC) comment not necessary as the question was changed.

For context, this discussion first arose at WT:IMOS] My understanding is that the consensus is that where the country of Ireland is mentioned in an article the norm is to apply WP:IRE-IRL rather than the exception. Cashew.wheel (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• Follow the Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles (aka WP:IRE-IRL) i.e. Use "Ireland" for the state except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context. In such circumstances use "Republic of Ireland"...If it is thought necessary to link, in order to establish context or for any other reason, the name of the state should be pipelinked as [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]. Scolaire (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
  • So the form is mandatory, but not the linking itself? I.e. unlinked can stay unlinked? The Banner talk 08:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't know where you're getting this "mandatory" from. Nothing is mandatory. IMOS states the recommended form, and the recommendations represent a consensus of editors over the last 17 years. Whether and how the recommendations should be followed is what this RfC is about. Scolaire (talk) 11:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

We've (for years) done it as [Republic of Ireland|Ireland], for the country. How it's done, is irrelevant to me. What is relevant, is that we apply the same solution consistently. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Twelve Bens

I'd be very grateful if other editors could weigh in on this discussion. Thanks. ~Asarlaí 21:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

POV edits

After reverting this by a new editor, I think somebody with more energy & knowlege than me might check his other edits. Thanks if you do. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Here are his edits to The Troubles in Northern Ireland (1920–1922). Palisades1, Asarlaí, and Mabuska are major contributors to that article, so they might know what to do with them. His edits to Resistance movement don't look especially POV. Scolaire (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Were the Easter Rising leaders criminals?

An editor has recently added the sub-module Infobox criminal to the 1916 Easter Rising leaders infoboxes. This now lists their "Criminal status", "Conviction(s)" and "Criminal penalty". See James Connolly, Tom Clarke (Irish republican), Patrick Pearse, Thomas MacDonagh and many more. Is this appropriate for Irish revolutionaries? Spleodrach (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Don't see a criminal infobox on Napoleon Bonaparte, Samuel Adams or Nelson Mandela, don't see why it would apply to Easter 1916. Cashew.wheel (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

All I did was add an appropriate infobox used in conjunction with other persons who were tried, convicted, and sentenced for similar crimes in similar circumstances. I noted the bizarre omission while editing a list article. Whether or not one likes the convict or approves of his motives is immaterial to the factual matter at hand. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela was also convicted of high treason, will you be adding the criminal infobox to his article too? Cashew.wheel (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why it should not be on there. I am not making any moral judgement here. I'm simply listing notable and relevant facts. Many political figures have that infobox on their articles when it is relevant. I'm not trying to push any particular point of view. Wikipedia exists to inform, not as a platform for idolisation or demonisation. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Looks like POV-pushing to me, but a bolder term would also fit. I suggest reverting it. The Banner talk 17:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC) But perhaps User:TheCurrencyGuy has a valid reason to do this.

Ooooh this is actually a tough one. One person's criminal is anothers freedom fighter and all that. However they were actually tried under the laws of the land, and convicted under those laws with punishment enforced so technically and legally yes they were. Should we be classifying them as such, different debate, but we shouldn't be ignoring this and pretending it wasn't against a government no matter what you think of that government. As an encyclopaedia we shouldn't just take one view of these people that would actually against our goals. Taken dispassionately from afar, it's kinda accurate and does in fact add legitimate encyclopaedic information to the infobox that is actually useful for the infobox. So in two minds about it. Is there a better infobox that can convey the information in a different manner? Don't know. I'm a little surprised this editor has moved into this area. Canterbury Tail talk 18:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The act of waging war against the government is considered a serious offence in all legal jurisdictions. By definition this completely justifies the "criminal conviction" section. Whether or not someone approves or disapproves of a historical person and whether or not he considers their actions justified or unjustified is purely a matter of opinion, I added the "criminal conviction" tag to the infoboxes of persons who were convicted according to law by a legally convened court (albeit a military one) by a recognised legal government. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think this one-size-fits-all approach is appropriate. A conviction is not necessarily a significant point in a person's biography, and does not automatically garner it real estate in an infobox. Before you go about making this change on many articles, you should start a discussion and gather consensus for it, particularly in touchy areas like Irish nationalism (WP:ARBCOM/TROUBLES). -M.nelson (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Problem is the convictions here are significant, it's why they were executed. In general I'd agree, but in these instances the conviction and execution by the state are fairly significant. Canterbury Tail talk 21:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Looking at James Connolly for example, I do agree that the charge and execution are relevant, but the labels "Criminal status" and "Criminal penalty" don't align with the tone and content of the article. If we aren't describing the subject as a criminal in the article, we shouldn't be doing it in the infobox. -M.nelson (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair point. Canterbury Tail talk 00:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

This is the tricky issue. Connolly was a person who was tried, convicted, and sentenced for a specific crime, the crime of violent insurrection, which is defined in law as treason; which is still the highest criminal offence in the Republic of Ireland to-day and was punishable by execution until the abolition of capital punishment. If Pearse, Connolly et. al. were alive now and carried out the same acts they were executed for they would similarly be sentenced and imprisoned. There is a stark contrast between a legally convened court trial or court-martial (as in this case) and summary execution (as in the case of figures such as Benito Mussolini or Muammar Gadaffi). Previously the articles seemed to imply there was no charge or trial. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Per the {{Infobox Criminal}} doc, "This template is generally reserved for convicted serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers, old west outlaws, murderers, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 Most Wanted, serial rapists, mobsters, and other notorious criminals.", due to it's impact on WP:NPOV.

Given that context, I don't think it's use on the articles in question is correct.

Mentioning their convection for high treason etc in the body of the article (not necessarily the lede) should be sufficient. Cashew.wheel (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

This is pussyfooting around the issue. A great many political figures have been convicted of politically-motivated crimes and even been executed for them and their articles include the "criminal conviction" infobox. There is no reason why these individuals should have special treatment over, say, Guy Fawkes or William Joyce, both of whom still have their defenders. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 00:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The purpose of the infobox is clearly for use with persons who satisfies WP:NOTE by either a singular crime or life as a career criminal.

If they are not commonly primarily known for the crime for which they were convicted of, then {{Infobox Criminal}} shouldn't be used, just like how neither the articles for Jesus nor Martha Stewart use it. Guy Fawkes is primarily known for his attempt to blow up the Palace of Westminster and subsequent conviction.

Given that context the leaders of the 1916 Rising are notable for their involvement in Irish Republicanism and waging war against the British Empire. While convicted of a crime which should be mentioned in the body of the article, they are not notable as criminals and it would not be a neutral POV to present them as such. Cashew.wheel (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

But one cannot distinguish between "waging war against the British Empire" and being "convicted of a crime", it isn't like adding offences a person committed which are not relevant to their historical notability to an infobox. The reason they are notable is that they committed and were executed for an offence. I would argue it is strongly POV to deny this aspect in the infobox. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 02:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

"The reason they are notable is that they committed and were executed for an offence" - if this is what you truly believe, then it confirms The Banner's suspicion above that this is simple POV-pushing. If you aren't able to see the different POVs and edit with nuance then I don't think a contentious area like Irish Nationalism is for you. -M.nelson (talk) 09:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I have no interest in the topic, I simply wished to introduce a valid and informative section for the benefit of readers after I noticed the infoboxes lacked relevant information which is included in the infoboxes of comparable persons. Infoboxes are not moral judgements of persons, they exist to give a quick overview of the notable facts of a person's life. and when that person's life ended in execution after being tried and convicted of a specific offence then those are pertinent facts a reader should immediately have at his disposal. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 12:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

No way to read this other than pointy POV-pushing. Agree with Cashew.wheel, M.Nelson and The Banner - 'criminal' infobox is in no way appropriate for these articles. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)