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
64	0	239	1,421	5,365	30,173	26,956	8	3,275	25,890	179	96	175	26	20	2,476	3,149	23	180	99,715

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)

I think you're right. While the information is important in some cases, and in some way should possibly be in the infobox at least for some of the articles as it's pretty notable, the infobox criminal is most likely not the correct way of doing it. Canterbury Tail talk 12:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Are there any other options? I actually decided to add it while editing a list article and noticed that that infobox was used on the articles of other political figures who were executed. If it is valid for, say, Nicolae Ceausescu, Guy Fawkes, and William Joyce why not here? TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 12:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The clear intent of all these edits is to paint Volunteer and ICA members (and later IRA members) as common criminals (see this edit using "mass murder" in the short description, infobox and categories). Per M.nelson, the edits don't align with the tone and content of the article. And per Cashew.wheel, the infobox (or infobox module) "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." TheCurrencyGuy says he has "no interest in the topic". I would ask him to respect the consensus of those editors who do have an interest, and were involved in writing these articles. I have reverted all the contentious edits. Please do not restore them unless and until there is a clear consensus to do so. Scolaire (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I was editing the list of people who were executed article.

Do you deny a person found guilty and executed for mass murder was.... a mass murderer? This is bizarre logic. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I must commend Scolaire for very neatly summarising the consensus here. Undoubtedly, it is the correct decision. Finnegas (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Just because a person is convicted of an offence (as it is the only tool at hand for the state to prosecute), from an NPOV does not necessarily make them "that thing". Other factors such as circumstance, military service or other factors in context can change how they are perceived. i.e. soldiers are not considered serial killers nor air force pilots who drop bombs considered mass murderers.

I understand that you have a wish to document what you perceive as the facts on these articles, however I think you're totally missing the nuance in the subject and unaware of the implicit bias that those technical facts bring. As Scolaire touched on above, by blindly classifying these people by the offence for which they were convicted, you are re-framing the article to cast them as common criminals (which can be perceived as pushing a POV) rather than as the political/revolutionary/separatist actors for which they are known. Cashew.wheel (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

So will you be lobbying for removing the "criminal conviction" infobox from the articles of Nicolae Ceausescu, Guy Fawkes, William Joyce, and Nazis executed for war crimes? Because that is the angle I was approaching it from and why I decided to add it. I am analysing these individuals dispassionately as historical human beings holding them to the same standard as comparable historical people. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Seems to me the only new piece of information added by these infoboxes (for the ones I looked at, anyway) that aren't in the previous one is that the individuals were executed by the state. This is a relevant piece of information (I think there is general agreement on that). Is there a way to include that fact in an infobox without using the criminal one? -R. fiend (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

My final statement will be this:

If being dispassionately factual about historical people who are long dead offends your feelings, then this wikiproject has catastrophically failed in its mission. This is supposed to be a general purpose encyclopaedia to factually inform readers, not to act as a place of pilgrimage for fringe ideologues.TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

It's about NPOV. Is there any information your edits add to the article that isn't in there already? I don't see any, and if that's the case I don't think you have much to complain about. -R. fiend (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Careful, TCG. You've been making a reasonable argument, but drifting toward "fringe ideologues" doesn't usually take you to a useful place. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that saying a person convicted of, say, murder was "not a murderer" is a fringe viewpoint, that is what I meant.

I consider it eccentric that historical individuals are being treated with kid gloves. I understand in the case of living people where libel laws and such apply. But I do not consider it controversial to note that Dead Person A was tried, convicted and sentenced for Action B when that is a major part of what they are notable for. For instance Peter Barnes and James McCormick were brought up earlier, they are solely notable for the fact they were executed for killing 5 people and wounding more, that is considered a serious offence by all criminal jurisdictions and it is highly POV to omit that. Just because they were part of an organisation which considered itself a government does not detract from their having been tried, convicted, and sentenced in a civilian court of law as civilians guilty of a civilian crime.

At present the lede for Barnes says nothing about why he is a notable person, it merely gives a brief biography completely omitting the notable part of his life. It would be rather like the lede and short description of John F. Kennedy's article not mentioning that he was the President of the United States. In what way is Barnes a notable person save for his conviction and execution? TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Is this your final, final statement, then? "Fringe ideologues" - seriously? Pilgrimage? Well... yeah, for some, I guess? :-) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Try to keep to the facts at hand. I had a moment of pique because this bind is extremely frustrating. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be fixated with these people being notable for being convicted and executed for a crime. Barnes was notable not for being executed, but for his participation in the IRA's sabotage campaign in the 1930s. The conviction and execution are footnotes.

Sorry to rehash the analogy, but based on your blindness to the nuance and context of these historical figures, I half expect your next edit to be updating the short description of Jesus to "Nazarene carpenter, convicted and executed for treason". Including that fact that they were tried and executed in the article is not in dispute (and cases where reference to the trial is missing should be rectified), but focusing so heavily on the crime and punishment angle is just misleading. Cashew.wheel (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

If Barnes was more notable for the campaign than his conviction and execution then why are the so-called "footnotes" longer than the thing you consider him notable for? TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

"Sticking to the facts at hand", please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If the Barnes article is so badly written that you can't tell from the lead why he was notable, then that's a problem with that article - which you can fix!. It is, however, not relevant to the articles on Connolly, Clarke, Pearse, McDonagh, et al. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Usually, the infobox criminal (or what the name is) is used for people notable because of their criminal career. The way you use it, it can be used for every person that is once convicted for speeding or careless driving (like Michael Heseltine), regardless of what makes them really notable. The Banner talk 16:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

So would you also be in favour of removing it from the infoboxes of other executed persons? Such as, say, Guy Fawkes? TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Once again, TheCurrencyGuy - read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you want to debate whether Mr Fawke's bio should include the criminal infobox, have that discussion, by all means. On the Guy Fawkes page. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I think you fail to get the point of this discussion, THG. The Banner talk 17:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I honestly do not understand the kid gloves mentality. I am not attempting to impart any biases, only to align with known fact. I do have my own opinions on deceased political leaders (though the ones in question are not ones I am strongly opinionated on beyond wishing to correctly categorise them), but I am trying not to cloud my conduct with them. I believe it is the duty of an encyclopaedia editor to introduce as much relevant fact to the table as possible and allow the reader to make up his own mind about the subject on the basis of the facts given without trying to whiten or blacken the subject, the raw information provided should do all the talking.

The statement "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" means nothing to me, it is perfectly possible for a man to be both. If one thinks the information provided is unbalanced one can bring more to the table to counterbalance it if it is encyclopaedic, sweeping away material or becoming nervous about the categories used for fear of treading on the toes of the easily offended is censorship, not nuance. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Please stop with the "kid gloves"! Nobody is pampering these people; what they did and how they died is stated in the article. Nobody is arguing for changing the facts. What we're disputing is edits to the infobox, and if there is a consensus that it doesn't go in the infobox, then it doesn't go in. And by the way, adding a "criminal" module to the infobox is an attempt to impart bias, viz., that these people were on a par with Jack the Ripper or Fred West. Scolaire (talk) 22:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

One could equally say that it is bias to consider petty theft on par with human trafficking. Noting that a law was broken and a guilty verdict was passed by a legally convened court is not bias. A convict's motive, be they monetary, self-gratification or political, is not relevant to their categorisation. Also, jack the Ripper and Fred West are bad examples, neither of those people were ever convicted. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

That nicely illustrates your problem. A criminal, for you, is someone who has been convicted of a crime. You can rape, torture, mutilate and murder young women, and still be a fine, upstanding citizen! Unlike the petty thief! That's rubbish. Of course Jack the Ripper and Fred West were criminals! Many things are relevant to a person's categorisation: not just their motive, not even just what they were charged with, but the context of the act, who is trying them, what law they are tried under, etc. How about WP:Verifiability? There are many books by authoritative authors on the people under discussion here, and none of them call them criminals. Scolaire (talk) 11:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

And I would be in favour of taking this from the infobox of Nicolae Ceausescu, Guy Fawkes and William Joyce, for the same reason. Scolaire (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, is there a solution in which we can include the charge and penalty then? Because then I will be able to set about modifying other infoboxes. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I can't think of one off the top of my head. If you're serious about wanting to modify them you could ask on the talk pages of those articles, or at the Teahouse. Scolaire (talk) 11:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Jesus. No. You are a minority of one, here, and will never win consensus, for the many valid reasons outlined by multiple editors. Step away from dead horse. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

• I have read most of the discussion and feel that both sides have valid points. Adding a criminal infobox definitely seems like a WP:NPOV issue. If some people see the person as a criminal, and others don't, then by adding the infobox we are taking sides. I would say the use of that box should be restricted only to those individuals who (a) derive their notability from the crime they allegedly committed and (b) do not have any significant mention of defenders in WP:RS.VR _talk 11:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
• Egregious POV pushing. There is a consensus for it to go in the infobox. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)