Hi Sarah. Firstly, as you know, calling the "British Isles" the "British Isles" isn't the same thing as calling everyone that lives on them "British", and secondly, the notion of someone erroneously being called British is a far cry from being called a Nazi. Please can you make that your last British=Nazi comment. [[User:Waggers|Waggers]] ([[User talk:Waggers|talk]]) 14:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sarah. Firstly, as you know, calling the "British Isles" the "British Isles" isn't the same thing as calling everyone that lives on them "British", and secondly, the notion of someone erroneously being called British is a far cry from being called a Nazi. Please can you make that your last British=Nazi comment. [[User:Waggers|Waggers]] ([[User talk:Waggers|talk]]) 14:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:Let's get this clear Waggers; (1) in my view calling these islands the British Isles is in fact calling those who live in these islands "British". (2) The reason it is '''so offensive''' is because the British Empire which originated the term was worse than the Nazi regime. When folk stop (a) repeatedly asking me '''why ''' the term is offensive, (or ''asserting'', as you do, that it isn't offensive), then there will be no need for me to repeatedly explain it and (b) ''the notion of someone erroneously being called British is a far cry from being called a Nazi''. Well, that's your POV and you are entitled to it - stop trying to impose your nationalist POV on myself and other Irish editors. It is unfortunate perhaps that the British didn't collectively dump the name associated with their genocidal Empire in the same way the Germans have abolish any language and symbols associated with Nazism; but I can't be held responsible for that. [[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777#top|talk]]) 00:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Revision as of 00:33, 6 September 2008
**Revert of the Day - (removed "Texas" from list of "nuclear weapons states")**
Hi folks....I'm back now! wassup?!!(Sarah777 15:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
They're threatening to ban you for an entire bloody year at Arbcom. Absolutely f**k*** outrageous!
Show them your article creation list, Sarah, I think you probably have the record.
Sure you lose your rag from time to time - but don't we all, especially when faced with extreme provocation and wind-up merchnats....Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 17:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm delighted, Sarah. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pipelinking of RoI
Hello Sarah. I hope someday Republic of Ireland gets moved to Ireland (state), but I'm not holding my breath. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reflection, I think simply Ireland would be the most appropriate with "Ireland may also refer to the Island of Ireland or to Northern Ireland". Sarah777 (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe "Ireland may also refer to the Island of Ireland or to Northern Ireland (failed entity)"Sarah777 (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah; the island has had the name (Ireland), much longer then the republic. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you should be aware by now the longevity of a name counts for nothing on Wikipedia. Common usage uber alles. Sarah777 (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had the idea of [Republic of Ireland|Ireland (state)] as a compromise pipelink; but it got rejected (I can't remember where & by whom). GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd have to congratulate those who rejected it! T'would certainly be totally unacceptable to me. Sarah777 (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You guys/gals on Wikipedia, are a tough audience. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS- Now I know how a door-to-door salesman feels, geez my foot is getting sore. GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least it's something that you & Tharky agree on (though not the way I hoped). Maybe, I'll have better luck with encyclopedias (ironically enough). GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an astute observer of propaganda I am aware that a common technique is to propose a variant of one argument and claim it is the "MIDDLE GROUND" between that and its opposite! Sarah777 (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm destined for the funny farm, Sarah. If I'm taken their, promise to visit? Anyways, I'm gonna sit back for awhile; watch how things unfold on the disputed articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. The Funny Farm wouldn't be the same without you! Sarah777 (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giggle giggle, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya Sarah (I've returned from the funny-farm). Are you sure it's a good thing to continuing pipe-linking RoI, while that page's movement request is being considered? GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm following policy. If they are daft enough to impose British POV on this issue then I'd run the risk of persecution. So best to do the right thing and assume that the Wiki powers won't institute the imposition of British POV on Irish articles. Sarah777 (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you're not wasting your time, cheers. GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never look on attempts to improve this project as 'wasting time'. Sarah777 (talk) 00:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While working on the OTRS queue, I found the following message:
"Friday - August 22nd, 2008 - from Rooskey, Ireland: Time approx -02.04
I am not accustomed to using the Internet but while browsing tonight I
spotted your website Wikimedia and I was particularly struck by a photograph
of the River Shannon taken from Rooskey bridge on February 2003. I
gather that the shot was taken by Sarah 777. Would you ever mind passing
my congratulations on to her - I just can't work how to contact her without
knowing her e mail address. It is a very fine shot. I just moved to
Rooskey a few months ago, fell in love with the place and am very chuffed to
see that Sarah 777 has placed it in the International domain. Thank you,
and sorry for troubling you.
John D. Nugent."
Isn't that nice? DS (talk) 03:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice indeed - thank you Mr Nugent! Rooskey is a beautiful little spot as John points out. Sarah777 (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might find this amusing.
[edit] British Isles
"Life would've been much easier, if the term British Isles had never been invented." Nonsense. This term was invented thousands of years before Irish nationalism (really just ethnic extremisim) reared its ugly head. It's not as if the British invented the term (which has always included the Irish.) Life would've been much easier, if the self-styled Irish Republic had not been allowed to break away from the rest of the British nation. Still, lets hope its only a temporary disgrace and insult to national pride heh and long may live the term British Isles, whether the hateful separatists with their anglophobia like it or not. Christopedia (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh I'm also confident something will work out as well in the long run, not just any something but something very close to that which my heart desires. The nation will be reunited, but should never have been divided. There is much to be done and there is much that needs to change, but it is no longer in our hands. It's just frustrating in the meantime and it doesn't look like it will happen any time soon but it will one day, of that I have no doubt and I can certainly wait. People cannot live in ignorance forever. There is a long way to go but each day that passes is one day closer. It is just a tragedy and a shame that the nation ever had to be divided in the first place. Christopedia (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The British people can always join Canada and be United under the one crown. The Canadians would love to have part of the United Kingdom that resides in the British West Indies (the Turks and Caicos Islands) so how about taking the mainland territories in Europe and all? Then only Russia would beat us in terms of land area and we would have a population not far off 100 million strong. Sounds good to me! Christopedia (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
You don't know me but i found this bile when i was reading discussions on british isles and stuff and i agreed with alot of your arguements so i crudely pasted this nonsense for you to have a look at i don't know what type of influence you have on wikipedia but maybe you should watch out for this "Christopedia" character if he begins to edit things you have an interest in.Delete this when you like and keep up the good work i'm happy their are people like yourself on these pages good morning.
Well, at least G'Day and Christo are agreed the Big Foot corpse was a hoax.....Sarah777 (talk) 20:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Life would've been much easier... quote's author? is me. My meaning was, there'd be less disputes on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oooops! Sorry G'Day - I meant the Bigfoot corpse was a hoax; I'm sure that Big Foot one was real. Sarah777 (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've got Bigfoots (or is that Bigfeet?) living in my woods. Their fur is very unfocused (thus the blur in the photos). PS- I wish they'd learn to stop leaving droppings in my backyard. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikification: Ballyconnell
As part of WikiProject: Wikify I've been keeping an eye on new articles tagged with {{wikify}} to help prevent an enormous backlog. I noticed you tagged Ballyconnell just today, however when I took a look at it, it didn't seem that it needed to be wikified. If there is something I am missing please let me know and I'll fix up the article. Thank you! Bvlax2005 (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a lot of stuff from the article and thought I'd still missed a lot so having no time to do more, I tagged it. Reading it now I agree the tag is unnessecary and have removed it. Thanks for your attention! Sarah777 (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem! I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something before the tag was removed. :) Bvlax2005 (talk) 10:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nationalist
Hi Sarah, I replied to your comments here because I think it's wrong to try and categorise editors into Irish Nationalist or British Nationalist. I am aware that both categories exist on Wikipedia but everyone should take note that there are people who don't want to be classed as either. There are many people like me who were born British because of partition, who are loyal and law abiding citizens of the UK, but who also have a deep and intense pride in being Irish. Why do we have to be one or the other?The Thunderer (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I reckon Irishness is a state of mind. A key element in the very essence of Irishness, a defining element, is a belief in Independence. The Unionists often don't regard themselves as Irish and will always describe themselves as British first and Irish second. Nationalists in NI regard themselves as British only in an accidental technical sense, and have no loyalty at all to the British state other than what is required to function day to day. And there are what would have been called "Castle Catholics" in times gone by; folk in the RoI who deep down (or not so deep down) think independence was wrong/a mistake - they are a tiny minority but I believe heavily over-represented in the media.
Anyway, this is all beside the point; Irish editors who take a particular stance are habitually dismissed as "nationalists" by other editors (mainly British) - as exemplified by Matt's "cabal" remarks to me. And yet there is near outrage when I describe them in the exact same terms! As a simple matter of objective fact I'd say Matt's comments add to an open admission of his British Nationalism. I'm always amused why British Nationalists (not confined to Wiki) are so loath to describe themselves, or to be described as "nationalist" - something Freudian I suspect. But I'm a great believer in the duck test. And I do usually WP:AGF- I think because of cultural conditioning many British people (and Americans btw) who are very nationalistic are not even aware of it.
But denial isn't a way forward. And I have never said that all British editors are anything; merely observed that a lot of editors who are engaged in the Irish/British interface on Wiki patently are. Sarah777 (talk) 10:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are entitled to your beliefs however I see in your explanation above the same fundamental flaw in rudimentary Nationalism as I see from all ardent Irish Nationalists and that is the failure to see the Unionist perspective. They don't want to be part of a United Ireland and they have the right to their independence from the Irish state. The Castle Catholics you refer to are properly termed Empire Loyalists and there were hundreds of thousands of them and still are quite a few, although many of them were killed or expelled during the pogroms which went on in Ireland between 1919-1930. Many Irish Nationalist folk heroes, like O'Connell and Parnell were in fact constitutional reformers and Unionists, not advocates of independence. Nationalism in the rest of the UK carries a different meaning. It has dark connotations, particularly when one considers the British National Party and many people do not want their pride in their country to be mistaken for the type of hatred spawned by the BNP. That's why there is near outrage when you describe British people as Nationalist. You also should be aware that the same cultural conditioning you describe applies to you and all other Irish people too, whatever province they come from because we all live with our own victor's version of the post-rising period in Ireland and North or South it has all been artificially enhanced to give the indoctrinated a sense of being. To summarise, it is incumbent upon all human beings to give respect and dignity to others they come across in life. That sometimes includes paying lip service to their political or personal views. As a an Irishman who carries a British passport, like so many hundreds of thousands more, I would respectfully suggest that Nationalistic views should be tempered with common sense during discussion. After all, you're not going to make the Unionists want to be part of the utopian United Ireland by being hostile to them - are you? Perhaps if you stroke their fur the right way you'll convince Ian Paisley to vote Sinn Fein.The Thunderer (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have made it clear at various times in these debates that I don't want to make NI Unionists do anything; a United Ireland isn't something I'm very fussed about, frankly. But total, unambiguous recognition of the essential non-Britishness of my country, Ireland, is as important to me as it is for the Germans to distance themselves from their brutish Imperial past.Sarah777 (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland as a state however is non-British. Northern Ireland on the other hand is British by self determination - the same self determination which allows you to be Irish. As for the Germans, methinks that argument is over simplified. Not all Germans were/are brutish. Bear in mind the actions of Oglaigh na hEireann in the Congo - the slaughter of hundreds of innocent women and children. That doesn't make all Irish people, or even all Irish soldiers baby killers.The Thunderer (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I'm not talking about NI. (2) You may harbour the pov that the German and British Empires are not equivalent - I disagree. (3) I didn't say all Germans (or British) were/are brutish - their Empires were. (4) I have no idea what you are talking about baby-killing in the Congo but even if it were trues it wouldn't imply all Irish folk were "brutish"; just as the genocidal British and German Empires didn't make all their subjects brutish.
A tip: if you are going to comment here please read what I say and respond to that rather than attribute things to me I didn't say. Sarah777 (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The entire thrust of what I'm saying has Northern Ireland, Ireland and the United Kingdom inextricably linked, as they truly are. It's part of my argument about Nationalism. Nor am I being critical but your statements are very sweeping and generalise a lot. You say the British & German Empires were brutal and genocidal but that is patently untrue of the British Empire in particular which was extremely benevolent in the majority and primarily based on trade. Now if you'd said the Belgian Empire - diiferent matter altogether. It's a misconception to take incidents which suit an argument and then try to fit the evidence around those detrimental facts. That's why I gave the example of the Irish Army in the Congo. Every nation makes mistakes and it is our mistake to hold those over them. As for addressing your points, that's what I thought I was doing. I'm sorry if my command of the language is somehow lacking.The Thunderer (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
that is patently untrue of the British Empire in particular which was extremely benevolent in the majority and primarily based on trade. Th, if you believe that (which I doubt) there is really not enough common ground between us to even think of having a civil discussion. Better we stop right now. To my mind that is simply a version of holocaust denial.Sarah777 (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. There is no parallel whatsoever between the premeditated intent of the Wansee Agreement and the running of the British Empire. If you want to back out of a discussion because you think the British are murdering thugs who had an agenda for killing throughout their history then that's not painting a very pretty picture of your judgement. There's no justifying anything which may have happened in the past but neither is there any need to hold it up as an example that a particular culture is genocidal. Discussion is about presenting points, which I'm doing. What you've done so far is to make a series of unfounded, sweeping statements about other cultures. Where's the rationale in that?The Thunderer (talk) 09:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should go and talk to some Australian indigenous people Thunderer, genocide is pretty appropriate there. Look at the concentration camps in South Africa, the massacres that followed the Indian Mutiny (I could go on). It does with being an Empire. If you grow up in one you tend to hear the history from the sunny side of the fence. --SnowdedTALK 09:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was no policy of genocide against the Aborigines by the British Empire. If you say on the other hand that the de facto government (many of whom were Irish) pursued a campaign against them then I'd agree but it was very unlike the US persecution of the Native Americans. I have looked at the concentration camps in South Africa and it's very evident that, once the British realised their mistake, they took radical action to alleviate the suffering of those incarcerated. Regardless of how I grew up or in what circumstances (quite impoverished actually) I have a sound mind and am able to examine history and make judgements based on what was custom and practice at any given time. In an empire like the British example where there is such longevity you will find manifold examples of cruelty, but then go on to examine why. The Indian Mutiny for example, WHY did Brigadier Nicholson (an Irishman) take such punitive action against the rebels? What cruelty was inflicted against British women and children to provoke such a reaction?The Thunderer (talk) 10:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Its best to be honest about this sort of stuff Thunderer. There was a de facto policy of Genocide. Aboriginals were classified on the census as flora and fauna until 1967. I remember when two activists I was working with in the 70's were were shot the police reaction was "there're just abbos, whats the problem. Concentration camps were official British Policy in South Africa when it turned counter productive the policy was changed - not out of any humanity. The reaction to the Indian Mutiny was as you hint barbaric (imperial reaction albeit with Irish officers). We can go on to talk about the sustained and systematic use of torture in the Malaysian insurgency (and I could bring in the black and tans as well). I could go on to the systematic elimination of local language in Canada, Wales and Ireland and others. Its common to all empires, the British may have been a bit better than some, worse than others. We should acknowledge it, not try to hide behind myths that it was all about economics. While we may not be personally responsible for the actions of our forebears, our status as a nation and our standard of living come from that period - so we have to take some share of the responsibility I am afraid.--SnowdedTALK 21:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You say "once the British realised their mistake, they took radical action to alleviate the suffering of those incarcerated." I believe the mistake they made was allowing the world press to find out. Do you really believe they did not know what they were doing? As far as Irishman are concerned, don't forget, they were representing the British Empire. I may be wrong in this, but I feel when you use the words de facto government you are attempting to distance it from Britain itself. When Britain was invaded by the Romans and slaughtered the inhabitants do you blame the Roman governor (de facto government) or Rome? I am British as I assume you are, we are not responsible for the deeds of the past governments of Britain, but sometimes we have to hold our hands up to the wrongs that were done by our country and it's politicians. Skipper 360 (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I'm not an apologist for the British Empire and that's being straight but in different times, different things were acceptable. Too many people jump on the "Concentration Camp" aspect of the Boer Wars, totally forgetting that the concept HAD been used before by many nations. It was in the British Parliament where most pressure to bear on Kitchener to relieve the suffering of internees and it was the British Government who set up the Fawcett Commission. The Irish and the British Empire are inextricably linked as many Irishmen supported it and were part of its machinations, given that the Kingdom of Ireland was part of the United Kingdon after 1800. The actions of Roman Governors are exactly the same thing. Carried out by a de facto government whose ability to communicate with it's home base meant that some decisions had to be taken locally and urgently. These may seem horrific or just plain wrong to us today but we must bear in mind that they were "of their time" when what appears to be barbaric now, was pretty normal. My point here is: while we are not responsible for the actions of our forbears, nor should those actions be held up as an example that our culture, Irish culture, French culture, German culture was in any way genocidal or brutish. No more than it was unpatriotic for Irish folk heroes like Dan O'Connell or Parnell to be constitutional reformers rather than the more popular "Nationalist" (pro-independence, pro Catholic) figures in modern Republicanism. Just as it's wrong to label pro-British supporters "Nationalist" because the inference is much darker than when applied in the Irish context because of different political developments in both countries. I am one of those fortunate people who, by virtue of now non-existentent Irish legislation, am both British (born and bred) but Irish too by right - and proud to be both.The Thunderer (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And another thing Thunderer. Wellington (Duke) was born in Dublin but when told he was Irish in later years he said "being born in a stable doesn't make you a horse". So don't go quoting servants of the Empire as "Irishmen". They were either Anglo settlers or loathsome quislings who were generally topped by the real Irish at the first opportunity. Every occupation in history has had its collaborators and traitors. Sarah777 (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Topped by the Irish" - doesn't that make the Irish barbaric and brutish? Isn't it proof of the ethnic cleansing that went on in the West and South West between 1919-1935? Or is it further evidence of popular support for Fascist Blueshirts who fought for Franco in the Irish Brigade? The same Fascists who were banned by oul Eamonn himself - that's Mr de Valera to you, the man who banned the IRA when it outlived it's usefulness for him. Oh yes, we Irish can weave a tale ok and very nearly (almost) convince others of our totaly innocence in anything controversial.The Thunderer (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And another thing - it was the Irish merchants who tried to charge the starving for the corn which Britain had sent to relieve the suffering of the starving during the 2nd famine. These weren't "servants of the Empire" they were the same gombeen men who'd rob you blind in all parts of the country now. Ireland's as big a shitehole as anywhere else in the world. Full of the same eejits, North & South, who want to convince you that they, and only their version of history, is correct. We're the ones who they hope will fall for it - some of us do, some of us don't. I consider myself to be amongst the latter.The Thunderer (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a Donald Duck Nationalist, if anybody's interested. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone join the Donald Duck Nationalist party? The DDNP? Who are we trying to break away from, Disney? Skipper 360 (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't proof that there was ethnic cleansing in Free Ireland; there wasn't. But the servants of the Crown were often dispatched (long before Independence) like the criminals they were. No apology required; they were the equivalent of the occupiers and collaborators in France. The folk who supported the Blueshirts were actually anti-Republicans including large numbers of former British operatives. And even they remained safe in Free Ireland - once they had been de-fanged. Sarah777 (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dont't forget, quislings or not they were still Irishmen with different politics, right or wrong. Skipper 360 (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Like Wellington, unless they identified with Ireland and Irishness they weren't Irish in any meaningful sense; it is an identity more than a race. And NO former colony commemorates its traitors. Ireland ain't unique in that - though we may be unique in our tolerance of them. Sarah777 (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland was controlled by the British when the famine was allowed rage as the third or fourth major physical and cultural genocide in the long centuries of attempted conquest and absorption. Fortunately for us we were more numerous and less vulnerable than the Tasmanians; had Gas Chamber technology existed in the Imperial British heyday I have no doubt they'd have been pressed into service. Only a fool could doubt that when you look at the tens of millions killed at the hands of that Brutal Empire across the globe. Sarah777 (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your above statements are absolute crazy rhetoric. It's that type of talk which has killed thousands of Irish people since 1916. You should be ashamed of yourself for espousing such views against another culture, a culture which your own government said could live happily alongside Catholic Nationalists in the "New Ireland". How does it feel to break an olive branch across your knee or are you too busy strangling white doves to answer?The Thunderer (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this could be a case of not forgetting but not letting it rule your life and your thoughts. Life is far to short for hatred. Skipper 360 (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Less of the personal attacks please. I supported the GFA; the NI Unionists can have any identity they wish - including their current choice which is to be British rather than Irish. But that doesn't mean I'm going to pretend the past was other than it was for the sake of 'peace in our time'. Sarah777 (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree more Skipper. Sarah, with the greatest of respect, you're not coming across well on this. Why so much hatred?The Thunderer (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need to bear in mind Sarah, that for those of us who grew up through the violence, it isn't the past. It's still with us and always will be. If we can forgive that then the least we can expect is for anyone harbouring anti-British sentiments because of something, real or imagined, which happened 100-400 years ago to exercise the same benevolence of thought.The Thunderer (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do the Germans and their neighbours have to pretend the Third Reich never existed in order to get along peacefully today? Is being honest about the past being "hateful"? Are the Jews "hateful" for commemorating the Holocaust? (As distinct from using it as justification for their own Imperialism). You guys sure have trouble escaping your conditioning, don't you? Sarah777 (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What conditioning would that be then Sarah - the conditioning that makes an individual want to live peacefully with his neighbours or the one which makes people want to go out and get guns or bombs to kill members of their own community?The Thunderer (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And please do not assume you were the only person affected by "the Troubles", OK? Sarah777 (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm presuming you read the sentence which said those of us who grew up through the violence? The word those intimating a plural. That being the case why accuse me of "assuming I am the only person affected by the troubles?"The Thunderer (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My original point was that we should be honest about the past. I believe it is the only way countries and people can move on. Skipper 360 (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Honesty yes, but wearing it like a badge in order to condemn another culture - NO!The Thunderer (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not todays culture. Skipper 360 (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK Th; then don't assume that only your side were the victims. The British State uses bombs on civilians this very day (Iraq? Afghanistan? - perfect continuity) The IRA have stopped; the Irish Government never started. So don't be so precious and self-righteous and hypocritical. When you are finished clapping each other on the back maybe read some current affairs! Sarah777 (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I appear to assume any such thing? I said clearly - those of us who grew up through the violence. Where does it say MY SIDE or have you failed to notice that all through this dialogue I have pointedly avoided being on ANYONE's effing side. That's the whole thrust of my argument here: there are those of us who don't take sides. Can you not understand that? And another thing, let's stop bombing the Taleban and Al Queda, but don't come running to me when you're going on vacation and your plane gets blown out of the sky, and while you;re at it - go try and explain all that to the victims of 9/11 or 7/7 - or perhaps they don't matter because it wasn't Imperialism on somebody or other's behalf? The Thunderer (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
O dearie me TH! Your slip is showing! Remember the duck test? Your comments on Taleban and Al Queda are further evidence, were any required. I referred to "bombing civilians" - not to Al Q or the Taliban, didn't I? And Al Q weren't in Iraq when the British State started slaughtering innocent civilians there by the thousand. Your alleged concern for the relatively tiny number of Irish people killed by "rhetoric" (sic) since 1916 is thrown into rather stark relief by your support from bombing tens of thousands. You have made my point for me; seems you aren't so precious after all when it's Arabs at the wrong end of the bombs. Sarah777 (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And as you seem a bit chronologically challenged I must point out that 7/7 was a response to the British slaughtering of ten of thousands of innocent Muslims; not the other way around. Still, I don't see how you can condemn either the Irish Republicans or the 7/7 and 9/11 guys when you seem happy enough to support shredding innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hypocrisy is the word one normally associates with that attitude and the British are, of course, famed for it. Sarah777 (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Tens of thousands of innocent Muslims"? Jaysus gimme a puff of whatever you are smoking. Either it's good stuff or I need a new calculator. No-one has killed tens of thousands of ANYBODY! Need I remind you that it was rhetoric which started the Tan war and the Civil War? Plus all the actions of the various bodies calling themselves the IRA since 1922 and who all claim descent from 1st Dail? Isn't that what they all start out with "we are the legitimate successors of Dail Eireann"? Need I also remind you that on the day of 9/11 it was only the grounding of all transatlantic flights which prevented terrorists detonating devices on US airliners heading out of Great Britain? For the record, I abhor violence in any shape or form but am realistic enough to know that wars happen. Even Irish troops have killed people in modern conflicts you know, and been killed themselves. Look up Operation Rum Punch. As for Irish Republicans I can condemn them just as easily as I can condemn rabid Loyalists. We were born into the Realpolitik of Irish affairs, that doesn't mean to say we have to repeat the mistakes of previous generations by perpetuating the hatred and sectarianism which partition accentuates. There are times when I wish the Civil War had been between the North and South, because no matter who feckin won at least it would all be over now and we'd have learned our lesson - then again, maybe not, because the Irish (north and south) are that imaginative that they'd soon find another reason to start it all over again. Something along the lines of you calling the British guys who don't share your views "Nationalists" which you well know irritates them because of its racist connotations, although I can see how you would describe it as a parallel - particularly with Northern Unionists who are actually Nationalist in their own way.The Thunderer (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, I am British, I didn't believe in the invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq. I'm afraid the people who believe the reasons given are rather naive. I also strongly believe the palestinians have been given a raw deal. But, as I said, I am British. I would feel more comfortable if you said British government. Skipper 360 (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, I did not come here to clap anyone on the back. If I have come across in any way as not being civil, I apologise. That was not my intent. Skipper 360 (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh btw, I read the Scotsman. That admission will probably get me condemned out of hand. The Thunderer (talk) 11:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a courtesy notice to say that the three original 'polls' (now called "Questions") at Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) (here), were amended during the voting process. This was due to initial confusion in their meaning. They are now unambiguous, and fully according to their original intent. You might like to check your contribution. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NowCommons: Image:IMG 0212w.JPG
Image:IMG 0212w.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:LUAS light rail into underpass.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:LUAS light rail into underpass.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean the image has been removed from the article? Sarah777 (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. It appears not! Sarah777 (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't erase comments
Do NOT modify the comments of other editors, as you did here and here. A comment being "unsigned" is nowhere NEAR a good reason to remove it, and using "abusive" as a reason to remove a comment is highly inappropriate for someone who is currently involved in the argument and thus has a conflict of interest. --Raijinili (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Know what? I totally disagree with you! Sarah777 (talk) 01:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that you have made an extraordinary 200 edits to Wiki articles since you first appeared three years ago. So I'll pass on your advice I reckon. Sarah777 (talk) 01:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations!! Sarah777 (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just read the Wikiquette thread - it was Uncle Matt who made the comment I removed!! Well Holy God - as we'd say here in Glenroe. If only I'd known that at the time we could have had a right ole argy-bargy :-) Sarah777 (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An idea
Hi there, I have put forward an idea Here on the Republic of Ireland talk page. I would appreciate your views, positive or negative. Thanks. Skipper 360 (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the Irelands
Hiya Sarah. Seeing as you're continuing to pipelinkRepublic of Ireland as Ireland across Wikipedia? I've given up my hopes of moving the RoI page to Ireland (state) & I no longer oppose the article Ireland being moved to Ireland (island). GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The longest journey starts with a single step......Sarah777 (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Antagonizing others at the RoI movement proposal, won't help (rather it will hurt). GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bending over backwards to facilitate British POV, as some earlier Irish editors did, didn't help much for the past six years. You gotta better suggestion? (I'd love to hear it). Sarah777 (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I've none. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being in a philosophical mood, I'd say that folk advised Churchill that declaring war on Germany would hurt too. And it sure did. So, was he wrong? Sarah777 (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My god, what have I started?? :> Skipper 360 (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An Irish revolution? GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being philosophical, I'll resist the temptation to reply to that Skip ;) Sarah777 (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, philosophy, goes right over my head, as do many things. Skipper 360 (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In an equally philosophical move I'd say the decision to start the Easter Rising gave rise to the thought that it might hurt. It did. Do you think THEY were wrong Sarah? ;) The Thunderer (talk) 11:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not - taking up arms against a genocidal Imperialist is never wrong. Unless you are representing another Empire, in which case it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. Sarah777 (talk) 11:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland naming etc
Calm. Long breaths, time away from the computer and calm. Step away from the debate for a few hours before before you say something you may regret. It's not worth it, don't let the rest of your editing suffer. Canterbury Tailtalk 11:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, you misconstrued me. I'm not trying to persuade you of anything, I'm not trying to change your opinions of viewpoints, and I don't have a problem with anything. I was just looking through the debate on the WP:IMOS talk page and I can see you're getting worked up again over the naming. I'm trying not to get too involved in all that these days, it's just not worth it, but I was just looking in and looking out for you. I just don't want to see you get blocked, or someone pull the anti-Sarah777 British Imperialist card. Believe me, my interests are actually benign. Canterbury Tailtalk 11:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK Ben - I was just after posting a rather bland reply to Thunderer when you popped up so I assumed a connection - my mistake. As for the threat of British Imperialism we have battled that fearlessly for hundreds of years (not personally you'll understand) - so I'd not let a few wee threats deter me :) Sarah777 (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
British Imperialism *snort" - you don't arf make oi larf! The Thunderer (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Th; while is was not my intention, if I make you laugh that must be surely a good thing? They say it's excellent medicine. Sarah777 (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should have an idea of my views by now. I'm not a fan of outdated rhetoric and I find it remarkable that someone like you, who obviously has a fine mind, is drawn to using it. I've seen you using British Imperialism, American Imperialism and Israeli Imperialism; all of which are archaic political terms used by fanatics. In the neutral environment of Wikipedia they are just so out of place. I do find it rather funny when I see these terms being employed although it does make your views seem rather strident at times. I'd hate to have you near me when you've had a few. I can imagine me cowering in the corner being berated on the crimes of the English in Ireland from the 12th century to the present day. Perhaps we can organise a trip to London sometime and I can take pictures of you dancing on Oliver Cromwell's grave LOL The Thunderer (talk) 12:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Imperialism is a fine fully functional word. It means what it says; when clarity is required it is better than any amount of weasel words. Sure, it has negative connotations just like "terrorism" - (a much less precise term) - yet the T word is used throughout the Wiki discussions. Stridency is in the eye of the beholder and any beholder who is soft on Imperialism and is not someone I'd much worry about. In the neutral environment of Wikipedia they are just so out of place. Alas, Wiki is not a "neutral" environment - it is dominated by British and American nationalists who believe their nationalist pov is "neutral" - as I've explained many many many times before. Sarah777 (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Imperialism is a concept which died out in the Western world in the early to mid 20th century. Hence my insistence that the term is archaic, although it could still be applied to countries like Iraq up to GW2 or the USSR up to Glasnost. The UK dismantled its Empire slowly from 1899 up to the mid 1960's. So while modern evidence may still remain and it's in living memory (just), it's no longer appropriate to call the British govt Imperialist. As for Americans, I have come across few of them (that I'm aware of) and have had no problems with their POV but given that they have extremely large numbers in the English speaking world I guess it's understandable, if not forgiveable, that their viewpoints dominate some articles. From our (mutual) point of view, it's Irish nationalism (and here I allude to Unionism being a form of nationalism) that appears to be the major issue. Whilst those from the British mainland may have what appears to be a nationalist POV their circumstances are entirely different, given that nationalism in England is identified with neo-Nazi style groupings or the BNP. The issue of English nationalism is of course a hot potato and has been for many years given the West Lothian Question. Here I struggle to find a term which describes those in England whose national pride would class them as nationalist in the traditional sense but I can't find one - and therein lies a problem. As the English number around 50 million though, you're always going to find that we Irish are going to be in the minority. As we are a dogged and determined race however, (whether native Irish or Ulster-Scot) we are capable, and it is evident that we can, hold our own. Then of course we have to deal with our own differences and, in most cases, the British will side with northern Unionists. Or would you disagree? (try not to be too strident, my eyes are tired) The Thunderer (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Focusing on "Ireland" (only!) as the name of the state
Isn't it better to focus on one solution? When things get watered down in this way nothing ends up happening. Cross proposals, conflicting suports etc - it all leads to the status quo remaining, and has done countless times. I can't see "Ireland (state)" working as the main page (for reasons given in my oppose vote). I'm building a proper 'Ireland' proposal, and I'm hoping you'll still back it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Matt, as explained, your proposal is my preferred option. I will try to stay focused in future! Sarah777 (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rfc closed
Hi there, I have now closed the Rfc. There seemed to be no new editors coming in. In trying to help I hope I haven't confused it more. I'll be off to pastures new and wish you all the best. Cheers. Skipper 360 (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Skip, 'tis better to have tried and failed than never to have tried! Sarah777 (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I'm not a little dissapointed even though I knew it was a long shot. But who am I to think I can help solve a disagreement that has been going on for so long. :< Never mind, I'm sure you and others will solve it one day. Take care. Skipper 360 (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
British Isles
I only gave an opinion Sarah, I don't say it should be called British Isles, but that's what it's called. If the name was changed and was in common use I would be pleased for you, but until then I can't see any other name being used. I'm new to this debate, so if a very good reason was given for changing it I would listen. I can see I'll have to tread lightly around you. ;) Skipper 360 (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah - ever been to one of the Costa Coffee cafés? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 18:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have I what?!!
My local Costa Coffee café
So....they.... make the coffee out the tanned hides of native Africans? It's a front for the Provos? You've seen me in one?? I feel I'm being suckered here Bastun, but I confess - I have been. Sarah777 (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering... :-) My first time in one today. And while someone using the term "British Isles" in a geographical context doesn't bother me in the least - the "mission statement"-type blurbs I read in Costa certainly do! "The only UK-based store to blah blah blah... the best coffee brewed to suit British palates..." - this being in a Dublin city branch! BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well Holy God! I never noticed. Note all that glass in the building? - I'm off to collect some rocks! Sarah777 (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm - that's my "local" coffee costa too.... --HighKing (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Well, its possible they may not have the signs in every branch - and the one I was in, it was in a quiet alcove. But yeah - that sort of cultural imperialism - "Ah, sure its only the next country over, and they speak English too, we needn't change anything" does get to me... (If you have any rocks left over, I recommend a visit to Starbucks too, but only for the crime of what they pass off as coffee... ;-) BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Been to Starbucks...once. Never again. As you say, the coffee is ********. Sarah777 (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the coffee in the Italian - pity they closed their smaller "La Corte"... --HighKing (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
British != Nazi
Hi Sarah. Firstly, as you know, calling the "British Isles" the "British Isles" isn't the same thing as calling everyone that lives on them "British", and secondly, the notion of someone erroneously being called British is a far cry from being called a Nazi. Please can you make that your last British=Nazi comment. Waggers (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get this clear Waggers; (1) in my view calling these islands the British Isles is in fact calling those who live in these islands "British". (2) The reason it is so offensive is because the British Empire which originated the term was worse than the Nazi regime. When folk stop (a) repeatedly asking me why the term is offensive, (or asserting, as you do, that it isn't offensive), then there will be no need for me to repeatedly explain it and (b) the notion of someone erroneously being called British is a far cry from being called a Nazi. Well, that's your POV and you are entitled to it - stop trying to impose your nationalist POV on myself and other Irish editors. It is unfortunate perhaps that the British didn't collectively dump the name associated with their genocidal Empire in the same way the Germans have abolish any language and symbols associated with Nazism; but I can't be held responsible for that. Sarah777 (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
