Talk:Terry Wogan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Irish nationality[edit]

I think the long-standing formula of calling him Irish then describing the dual nationality he took up later in life, was perfect. It seems we have a nationalist wanting to change it. This should be resisted, in my opinion. It is particularly offensive to try to renationalise someone who has just died. Wogan was Irish. --John (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

As you say, the article says this: "He held dual British and Irish citizenship and was thus entitled to use "Sir" in front of his name". I don't see that it is offensive in any way. It's just a fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
It absolutely does and it absolutely should. But we don't link countries, and he was far more Irish than British. In the lead sentence Irish has been the long-standing compromise. Why change it now? --John (talk) 12:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Many bios have nationality linked to "people" so we should link here to Irish people? I see that his nationlity was discussed 5 years ago. Perhaps it should be discussed again? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC) ... and why is it described as "this nonsense"??

John - I would ask you to withdraw the comments you have made describing me as a nationalist at once. I would also request you do not improperly use edit summaries to accuse other editors of "nationalistic POV pushing" AusLondonder (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, please read the section of this page above entitled Irish-British. The consensus there seemed to favour my approach. AusLondonder (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

What do the sources say? --John (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Huff Po says Irish. No surprise there. But are we looking just at obits? Martinevans123 (talk)
It isn't controversial if it is a reliably sourced fact. There are ongoing arguments about Peter O'Toole's nationality, with long arguments on the talk page over this. Shane MacGowan is described as Irish, but he was born in England.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Here's how a selection of respectable sources describe him:
  1. BBC – "Veteran BBC broadcaster ... Limerick-born"
  2. The Guardian – "beloved BBC TV and radio broadcaster ... Limerick-born Irish"
  3. Irish Times – "I’m an effete, urban Irishman ... I was a West Brit from the start ... Although born in Limerick, I’m a kind of child of the Pale."
  4. The Australian – "UK broadcaster"
  5. The Independent – "veteran BBC broadcaster ... born in Limerick, Ireland ... had joint Irish and British citizenship"
  6. FT – "Irish bank clerk who become one of Britain’s most accomplished broadcasters"
  7. Encyclopaedia Britannica – <no entry>!
I favour a form of words like "...was a radio and television broadcaster who was born in Ireland but worked for the BBC for most of his career."
Andrew D. (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Working for the BBC does not confer British nationality. There have been arguments over whether "Sir Terry Wogan" is correct and it would be correct only if he held British nationality. Bob Geldof received an honorary knighthood but it is not correct to refer to him as "Sir Bob" because he is not a UK citizen. Terry Wogan did have dual nationality [1], so he can be correctly styled as "Sir Terry".--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
So do you have strong objections to the use of "Irish-born British" in the opening sentence? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Given that he took British citizenship (despite having no need to) and also accepting a knighthood, I think it is clear his British identity should be mentioned alongside his obvious Irish identity. I note Irish-British was proposed and accepted several years ago. Reuters says Irish-born British and Nine News Australia says British and Irish. I ask User:John - how can it be nationalistic to want to emphasise both identities? You are the one being nationalistic here. AusLondonder (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Nobody forced Terry Wogan to accept British nationality as it was his own decision to do this. The wording needs to allow for his dual nationality in later life rather than giving prominence to one or the other. The current wording, Irish-British is OK in my view.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
That's interesting. So, what do the sources say? --John (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Is anyone ever "forced to accept British nationality"? And I see that AusLondonder has clearly given two clear sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I've assumed that he applied for British citizenship. Bob Geldof hasn't, which is why his knighthood remains honorary.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Clearly. The BBC mention his Irishness, but what would they know about the guy, eh? --

John (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't think "mention of his Irishness" was at issue here. lol. And has no-one read the parameter notes for "citizenship" at {{infobox person}}: "Country of legal citizenship, if different from nationality. Rarely needed. See usage notes for nationality above. Should only be used if citizenship cannot be inferred from the birthplace... " ?? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
If you look at the edit history of Peter O'Toole, people have gone round in circles over his nationality and the page was protected over this in March 2015. The lead there currently says "British-Irish". His birthplace is still a matter of dispute. This page should try to avoid similar long running disputes.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
A good example of what not to do, I guess. But why are we using ""citizenship" in the infobox here? Wogan's birthplace is not in dispute. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk)
There is no dispute about Wogan's birthplace and we are not talking about the infobox. --John (talk) 07:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

"Nobody forced Terry Wogan to accept British nationality as it was his own decision to do this."

Actually, he was born in the Irish Free State when it was still part of the Commonwealth, with George VI as its King. He was thus a British subject by birth. I believe that in order to obtain a full rather than honorary knighthood he would merely have had to assert that status, not apply for citizenship. None of which changes the fact that he was an Irishman, albeit one who lived in Britain for most of his life. Haldraper (talk) 08:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

"albeit one who lived in Britain for most of his life" - try "one who lived there, established his career (and therefor notability) there, referred to it as his home, took citizenship and of course died there". I'm not trying to dispute his Irishness, in fact over here in the UK (well I'm in China right now, but whatever)

we knew him as an Irishman, who in turn was able to bridge a cultural and politcal devide. However, Wogan was a British national treasure, and taking into consideration all the factual evidence above, and the sources, describing him as "Irish-British" seems not only acceptable by WP standards, but by standards of respect for ones personal feelings and choices - even if they are now passed on. (And if Wogan can't be described as British, why are those two particular memebers of U2 now described as "Irish"?!)

Totally agree with this. There's a nasty nationalistic double standard here. Some editors are utterly determined to remove all references to the UK and British identity, sometime whilst simultaneously accusing others of being nationalists. To suggest someone who has gained their notability in the UK and is a British citizen is exclusively Irish is racist and factually wrong. Birthplace does not equate to nationality. Peter Hain was born in Kenya - is he Kenyan? George Orwell was born in India. Was he Indian? AusLondonder (talk) 09:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. We are not here to talk about Hain or Orwell though. Wogan was Irish his entire life, and British for 11 years. I don't think we can call him Anglo-Irish or whatever, even though there are one or two sources which repeat this mistake. I certainly think we should finish the discussion here before POV-pushing this into the article, no matter how urgent the nationalist agenda you are pushing. The article has been stable like this for a good long time. A few days to finish the discussion won't kill you. --John (talk) 10:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
John, I really don’t think that accusations of "pushing a nationalist agenda" on either side are helpful. I’m sure everyone in the debate here is just trying to reflect what they see as “the facts”. Yes, the article may well have been "stable like this for a good long time" but Wogan’s death has brought a level of scrutiny to this article that was not simply not shown while he was alive. Similarly, there are now many more external reliable sources available which mention his nationality. Many of those describe him as British. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The absolute rank hypocrisy of you accusing other editors of having a nationalistic agenda is breathtaking, User:John. A typical and cynical trick. Accuse others of what you are guilty of to distract attention. How about you read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. It seems the consensus here and above favour a British-Irish compromise but you continue to edit unilaterally. AusLondonder (talk) 11:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

He was born in Ireland to Irish parents. That's the difference between him and Hain, Orwell and others born in countries where their parents were servants of the British Empire. Haldraper (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Either he had dual nationality or he didn't. If he did, that's how his nationality should be stated. It's an incontrovertible fact that he did have dual nationality. Ergo, that's how his nationality should be stated. Not just Irish, not just British, but both. It's that simple. WaggersTALK 11:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately certain editors find it extremely hard to accept facts if they don't suit a narrow agenda. AusLondonder (talk) 11:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I heard a clip yesterday of Wogan himself describing his growing up in Limerick and describing himself as "a West Brit" rather than feeling he was truly Irish. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

If you asked Wogan whether he considered himself Irish or British I can believe he'd give you a confused stare and ask you if there were any chocolate hob-nobs in this interview. He was proud of his Limerick heritage, happy to have entertained the British public for so long, and not particularly political. I think John has pretty much got it right. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Even at the height of The Troubles, Terry Wogan was never a controversial figure in Britain. He would be disappointed if his ethnicity or nationality became a major issue.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I know. It quite sickens me that his corpse is hardly even cold and we have people coming here to try and take his Irish nationality away from him. Ritchie exhibits clue. He was Irish. As Martinevans123 says, he was not an Irish nationalist, but I think you would be hard-pushed to find a deent source that called him British. I know one or two do exist but I m standing by them being mistaken. --John (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
John, that‘s a complete misrepresentation. No-one here is trying to “take his Irish nationality away from him”?! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
John what the hell are you talking about? How on earth could describing him as "Irish-British" equate to taking away his Irish identity? Did you miss the word Irish before British? You are acting in a remarkable unreasonable and paranoid manner. AusLondonder (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
So is there a consensus here for "Irish-British", or just a majority? Do we need to open an RfC? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Terry Wogan was as Irish as the Blarney Stone, but from 2005 onwards he also held British citizenship. I don't agree that anyone here is trying to take away his Irish identity. Describing him as Irish-British is a bit clunky and inaccurate, as he held dual British citizenship for only eleven out of his 77 years.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but even one day of UK citizenship still makes one British doesn’t it? The article suggests he moved to England permanently in April 1972. Perhaps it would be clearer if is said this explicitly? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The Guardian thinks he was Irish, but what would they know when we can cherry-pick an Australian source that thinks he was English? --John (talk) 07:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Ethnicity and nationality are two separate issues. Wogan was born in Ireland but acquired dual citizenship in 2005. Boris Johnson was born in New York, but nobody thinks of him as an American. Nevertheless, since his birth was registered in the USA, he could in theory run for President if he wanted to do this.[2]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
And he has even better hair, of course. But Reuters says Wogan was "Irish-born". Martinevans123 (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Have you been hacked, User:John? Or just been drinking a little much? Firstly, that "source" is an opinion piece. Secondly, the "cherry-picked" source does not say he is English nor have I or any other editor sought to say it did or that he was. It says British. He permanently in Britain (first by simply exercising free travel rights), his career was in Britain and he ultimately accepted British citizenship and became a 'Knight of the Order of the British Empire". Boris Johnson is a good example. He was born in the USA (not a British colony or even a Commonwealth country) but is recognised as British. Birthplace does not equate to nationality and it is simplistic and nationalistic to think it does, especially in a Europe of free movement. AusLondonder (talk) 08:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
The Hindu says British while another interesting angle is from the Irish Times which notes his use of phrases such as "To a British eye and ear..." while also recognising his Irishness - clearly recognised by having the lede stating "Irish-British" AusLondonder (talk) 08:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Also, let's remember in Wogan's own words he described himself as a "West Brit" and a "child of The Pale" AusLondonder (talk) 09:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I now notice User:Haldraper has reverted to their preferred version irrespective of the consensus here or at Talk:Terry Wogan#Irish-British AusLondonder (talk) 09:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
No, I haven't, because we haven't reached a consensus here. As I said in my edit summary, the discussion is ongoing.

As I said above, Wogan was born in the Irish Free State and was thus a British subject at birth, a status ended by Ireland leaving the Commonwealth in 1949, meaning he only needed to reassert that status, rather than go through a citizenship ceremony, to claim a full knighthood. Does that mean we should describe every Irish person born before 1949 as "Irish-British"? Haldraper (talk) 09:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You're telling us that "Irish-born" is wrong and it should be "British-born"? So it should be "British, born in Ireland"? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm saying he should be described as Irish, given that he was born in Ireland to Irish parents. The legal stuff about why he was entitled to a full rather than an honorary knighthood should be covered elsewhere in the lead, as indeed it already is. Haldraper (talk) 10:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I like "British, born in Ireland". How can that offend anyone. It is accurate. It includes the British Isles element and his ancestry. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I see there are people commenting here who obviously have no clue about this issue and I will assume good faith that it is honest ignorance rather than trolling. We cannot call him British. I do not think it is ok to call him Irish-British either, because he was Irish all his life and British for only a short period right at the end of his life. It's ok to continue to discuss this here until a modicum of consensus emerges. --John (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Ooo, good job you don't name anyone, John. So 11 years is a "short period"? But I thought it was a categorical thing, not a duration thing. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Based on this section and Talk:Terry Wogan#Irish-British I have again sought to restore Irish-British but been reverted by User:John using the red-herring of accusing me of being a "nationalist POV-pusher". Ironic given he is openly pushing the narrow-minded anti-immigrant nationalistic version rather than the inclusive, non-nationalistic version. AusLondonder (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I then attempted to discuss on his talk-page but like the tolerant, sensible grown man he is he refused to reply and simply removed my post. AusLondonder (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I disdain to edit-war with you, but I do think your edits are wrong, misrepresent both Wogan's lifelong nationality and the (lack of) consensus in these discussions. I do think that the consensus would be better judged by someone without a strong nationalistic interest in this as you clearly have. Sorry if saying so hurts your feelings but there it is. --John (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I think we all know you disagree. It's interesting that you suggest there is a "lack" of consensus on this matter. Presumably you are saying that because you don't agree with the consensus. I know you don't like the concept of consensus all that much. You are saying there is no consensus but I think that the consensus would be better judged by someone without a strong nationalistic interest in this as you clearly have. AusLondonder (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I can't think of a better description to stick in the lead without it becoming unnecessarily long and clumsy. He was Irish and he was British so Irish-British gets my support. However the mention of acquiring British nationality without saying he was born in Ireland does look odd. Perhaps if it started by saying born in Ireland or Irish born instead then the Irish-British bit could be removed and the dual nationality business would look better. Dmcq (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Irish to start, as per MOS:BIO
In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable.(my emphasis)
As for "Wogan acquired dual UK citizenship in 2005" that is poor too. Murry1975 (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Too poor to mention? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
LOL thanks for the earworm. Poorly phrased, dual means two, or of two, then it only mentions one. Murry1975 (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I've got rid of the Irish-British business altogether as it is too ambiguous what it refers to. The starting sentence says he spent most of his career as a broadcaster for the BBC in the United Kingdom and I've instead sai he was 'from Ireland' which I think covers the Irish bit adequately and makes the business of dual citizenship later on meaningful. Dmcq (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Dmcq: did you miss the consensus established in two sections of this talkpage? AusLondonder (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, well that is not quite as retarded as saying "Irish-British", but I'd still like to see it brought into compliance with MOS:BIO. Will we have to wait a month or two for the ignorant blow-ins to lose interest? --John (talk) 11:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd support linking Republic of Ireland and United Kingdom, but then I'm probably just an ignorant blow-in. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh dear the irony of @John: calling something retarded is obviously lost on him. The consensus established is crystal clear. Talking of MOS:BIO did you miss WP:OPENPARA and WP:BIRTHPLACE. Also, could you fix the bios of The Edge and Adam Clayton since it's racist and nationalistic to say Irish and British? We all know it only works one way with people like you. AusLondonder (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I refuse to have anything to do with people like me. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
There was no discussion on just chopping out the Irish-British and saying exactly what the situation was. It was an argument between people sticking in just British for the radio bit and Irish for the nationality bit which shhows the positioning was goving rise to ambiguity in meaning. By saying from Ireland and worked most of his career in the UK the ambiguity is resolved and it describes the situation just as well as any argument about Irish-British versus Irish or British. Only change back to Irish-British if you feel that makes the article better not because there was some consensus that made the article confusing and contentious. Dmcq (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Well the change was reverted to with 'If you want to change the consensus, go to talk. Stop disrespecting other editors'. Well I did go here and I repeat again, edits including reversions should reflect the belief of an editor that the edit makes the article better, it should not solely be based on having a previous consensus. A consensus is a reason why a person reverting should have the revert left alone and the person doing a change talk more or give up but a change should not be reverted solely on the basis of consensus. Disrespecting editors who earlier came to some consensus is not a sufficient reason in itself to revert a change. If you feel the change was wrong say something like that makes it worse and is against consensus. Dmcq (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I wholly support you, Dmcq. Well said. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: Sarcasm? AusLondonder (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately not. Waiting with bated breath for a line to be drawn under this light-hearted and frivolous discussion, so that we can have a real meaty no-holding-back RfC. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC) @AusLondonder:(sarcasm)
The current wording of "Terry Wogan was a radio and television broadcaster from Ireland" has sidestepped the whole issue of nationality. It is not ideal wording, but if it stops other editors from going round in snarky circles it is OK by me.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────. He was an Irishman who became an British citizen. Why and wherefore is not for us to decide. To describe him as "Irish-British" is made up and false. To call the more common "Anglo-Irish" would be silly. He is, at his own choice, an Irishman who had dual citizenship. Why is there even a discussion? The edit by User:Dmcq gave the facts without opinion, which is what all editors should be aiming for. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

How can it be "made up and false"? He was Irish and he was British. Nothing false or made up about that. Please also see WP:OPENPARA (I know you're very keen on rigid interpretations of policy so you will surely respect what it says) AusLondonder (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
It is unclear whether the Irish-British refers to where he broadcast or to his nationality. It is unclear what Irish-British means in either context. WP:OPENPARA is a guideline not a policy and it does not say how the nationality should be specified. All it advises is that the nationality should be in the first paragraph. However if you are really unhappy about the dual nationality being in the last paragraph of the lead rather than the first how about simply moving the last paragraph to the end of first paragraph - would that make you happy? By made-up I think Richhoncho is probably referring to the problem that Irish-British can't be backed up by secondary sources and is a Wikipedia own invention as a description. Dmcq (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
It is referring to his nationality. I am unhappy especially given this seems to be a case of an attempt to exhaust opponents by dragging the discussion on forever and arguing endlessly, even when a clear majority have supported Irish-British. AusLondonder (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Those are just assertions on your part. There seems to me to be a lot of opposition to Irish-British and its variants. I do not like being referred to as a time-wasting disruption. How about actually resolving the matter with an RfC and then the actual situation with support checked and the problem can be resolved? Surely you can see that others really are unhappy with describing him as Irish-British or as Irish or as British and there is ambiguity over what it refers to? After all he was a British broadcaster most of his life and he did always say he was Irish. The advice from that guideline is that the nationality should be in the first paragraph, can you see some other way of putting the dual-citizenship in to the first paragraph nicely? Dmcq (talk) 09:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there is some opposition. I respect your viewpoint. But more editors favoured Irish-British (including in an earlier now archived section). That is generally how consensus is formed. I never used the words "time-wasting" or "disruption" so lets not put words in my mouth. His statements and actions on his nationality were ambiguous. He described himself as a "West Brit" and a child of "The Pale". He applied for British citizenship despite having no reason to do so. He accepted a Knighthood of the Order of the British Empire. I don't dispute his Irishness. But he was certainly British to an extent, as well. You state that people are "really unhappy" but I can assure you that other people are "really unhappy" about other proposed versions. Why should the "unhappiness" of the louder more persistent editors trump the will of the majority in two sections? How long do discussions need to go on for people to be satisfied? On another note, I think that it is clear that per WP:BRD Irish-British should remain as the default agreed position until consensus is changed. AusLondonder (talk) 09:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
The first sentence of the 3rd para at Nationality reads, "Nationality differs technically and legally from citizenship, which is a different legal relationship between a person and a country." This is why, unless supporting unequivocal independent RS can be found, the term "Irish-British" should be avoided. Using the term confers opinion and original research. I have no objection to the sentence in the lead of "Wogan acquired dual UK citizenship in 2005" as a bald statement of fact without opinion. As all the relevant facts are already in the article and the use of "Irish British" is disputed and unreferenced, what's all the fuss about? In response to AusLondonder's comment, "until consensus is changed" - I think it is quite clear that in this discussion, the consensus has changed. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC). Additional edits and comments added. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break after 2 months[edit]

So did we gain consensus here? What was it? Or do we need an RfC? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Alternatively, just open a brand new thread at the bottom of the page and we can pretend all the above discussion didn't happen? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I certainly don't think "from Ireland who worked for the BBC in the UK for most of his career" is any kind of decent compromise. I thought we had agreed to follow MOS:BIO here but it seems the nationalists have not yet gone on to pastures new. --John (talk) 10:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


This needs tidying up as radio and direct-to-DVD work have all been listed under television. It is also missing Lunchtime with Wogan (his first chat show), the 1972 Miss World Show, stints doing the National Lottery and of course the long-running Auntie's Bloomers - all of which are cited on this page That's all before you get to the many others listed on IMDB!. (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Cause of death[edit]

What type of cancer was it? (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

"A family statement issued by the BBC said: "Sir Terry Wogan died today after a short but brave battle with cancer."[3] The reports so far haven't gone into detail.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Does/did anyone dislike him?[edit]

He's just died. All of BBC News was taken up with Wogan.

Did anyone remotely famous actually say they weren't keen on him? (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't think anyone "remotely famous" would say that. It seems that he was well-liked and many fellow broadcasters have said just that. Maybe some of their tributes could be quoted in the Death section. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
This calls for a tribute. Wogan was probably least popular around the mid-1980s, when he was off the radio and doing probably a little too much prime-time television. A Rowan Atkinson comedy sketch from this time had the line (suspecting Wogan was actually an alien sent to invade Earth) "We know him as Wo-gan the terrible, because he is - bloody terrible", though it's possible Wogan was in on the joke. The only comparable person I can think of is Kenny Everett. As far as tributes, I'd restrict them to highly prominent people as there are so many; is the Queen a closet TOG I wonder? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
We probably think so: “Both the Queen and Margaret Thatcher were reported to be regular listeners .. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Personal life[edit]

"Everyone in Britain was "brought up and educated" a Christian."[citation needed] ... but not, of course, in Ireland.

The "Personal life" section was largely about Wogan's relationship with a radio-broadcaster priest. Was this the only, or the most notable "long-term friend" of Wogan? Apparently, since no others are mentioned at all (apart from his wife). Is there a source confirming this?

Wogan was brought up and educated as a Catholic. In an interview with Gay Byrne on the RTÉ religious programme The Meaning of Life and in the Irish newspaper The Sunday Independent, he stated that he was an atheist but respected those who have "the gift of faith".[68][69] He was a long-term friend of Catholic priest and broadcaster Brian D'Arcy, who administered the weddings of his children. D'Arcy said that in his deeds, Wogan was "certainly the most spiritual, faith-filled man in the world".[70] D'Arcy provided pastoral care to Wogan and his family in the last days of his life.[71]

Since this is an encyclopedia article, I reduced this to the only neutral, encyclopedic information it contains: "Wogan was an atheist". zzz (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

You think "brought up and educated as a Catholic" is non-neutral and/or non-encyclopedic? What exactly is wrong with the short quote? Being a long-term friend of a priest (who's notable in his own right) and having them administer the weddings of one's children is not suitable? How come? And what's wrong with that quote from D'Arcy himself, who obviously knew Wogan very well? You've left a four-word paragraph that looks lost and a little out-of-place. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Why is it necessary to mention that Wogan, an Irish citizen, was "brought up and educated a Catholic"? He was an atheist. The entire paragraph is no more than an attempt to append an asterisk to that undeniable fact. I've not seen any article that states "such-and-such was a Catholic, but... "zzz (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Isn't it another undeniable fact? Or do we just expect the reader to assume that everyone in Ireland is "brought up and educated a Catholic"? I don't see why many other articles couldn't say that, if it was true. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Everyone in Britain was "brought up and educated" a Christian. Should BLPs mention that? No. Do they? No, I would guess not. "Brought up and educated as an atheist" might be worth mentioning. Ireland is already helpfully linked (I assume), but if your point is that not everyone knows anything about Ireland, then it should read: "Like everyone in Ireland, Wogan was brought up and educated a Catholic". zzz (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
You have a very strange view of faith in Britain. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't have any views about that, it was just an example. I'm sure there are other examples. Any country in Europe or North America would probably suffice. zzz (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
A small majority of Britons might have been "brought up and educated" as a Christian, but most certainly not "everyone". Religion in the United Kingdom will enlighten you further on the present day state of affairs. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I was extrapolating from my own experience of schools across the country, the situation may have changed since then. zzz (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
If the reliable source states that Wogan was raised a Catholic, then that should be specified in our article. It allows the reader to appreciate that Wogan's atheism was a departure from the beliefs with which he was raised. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Wholly agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The statement was unsourced. zzz (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
If it is unsourced then it should not be in there; if a good source can be found, then the information should be kept. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
You don't get an inkling by reading the "Early life" section? That source quotes Wogan directly: "‘There were hundreds of churches, all these missions breathing fire and brimstone, telling you how easy it was to sin, how you’d be in hell. We were brainwashed into believing.’ Losing his faith at 17 was a relief." In case there is any doubt The Daily Telegraph here, says this: "He never held back from delivering stinging criticism of the strict Catholic faith in which he was raised." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
That would be an appropriate source. zzz (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Would you like to re-add what you removed? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Since I'm not entirely convinced of the need to mention his upbringing, in relation to his atheism, especially since it's already described elsewhere in the article, I'm not entirely sure how best to phrase it. zzz (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I think we're using a detail of his upbringing to throw light on his beliefs/ spirituality, which might fairly be considered a part of his personal life? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Every Irish citizen at that time had the same Catholic upbringing. It's not obvious why that "throws light" on him abandoning it. I agree the fact could be mentioned, though. zzz (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
e.g. really? I think you should restore all of the material you removed which, as far as I can see, was added with consensus, and then discuss here how it could be added to, reduced, adjusted, or supported with more sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Ok, to split hairs, nearly every Irish citizen at that time had the same Catholic upbringing. So, it's not obvious why that "throws light" on him abandoning it. Which is why I'm not sure how best to phrase it (or whether it's worth repeating at this point in the article, although I agree that it could be). zzz (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The rest of the paragraph has no consensus. It was only just added, as far as I'm aware. It consists of a very precise and detailed run-down of certain occasions when he stated that he was an atheist. And various statements and claims made by this priest, which appear give the impression that Wogan was, more or less, a life-long Catholic, in all but name. This hypothesis would need to be well-supported by independent reliable sources. zzz (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
It was added before your earlier trimming of this section on 31 Jan? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Very well. Let's start with adding back that first sentence: "Wogan was brought up and educated as a Catholic" supported by that Telegraph source, ok? Then we can move on to the interview with Gay Byrne. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It should state, probably, "Wogan was brought up and educated as a Catholic, but was an avowed atheist from the age of seventeen", with the (off-line) source you quoted above. zzz (talk) 22:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
So you can suggest, perfectly well, how to phrase it! Many thanks. I wonder would Midnightblueowl care to comment before we add that? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I think details of particular interviews are unencyclopedic, without demonstrating the notability of the interviews in question. Further analysis of his atheism is probably beyond the scope of what independent reliable sources provide. zzz (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Let's try and take one sentence at a time, shall we? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I just noticed the ref is not offline, so I'll add the sentence now. I think Midnightblueowl already expressed agreement with that. zzz (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I think that the suggested wording would work out just fine, although "avowed" might be unnecessary. The Telegraph source could then be used. I do think it important that his Catholicism is mentioned given that a) not everyone in Ireland would have been raised as a Catholic (there were small minorities of Protestants, Jews, and non-religious people living in Ireland during the time of Wogan's birth), and b) many readers around the world may not be familiar with Catholicism's grip on Ireland during the twentieth century. If I were a seventeen year old reading this article in Johannesburg, Singapore, or Mumbai I may well not have the foggiest whether Ireland was Catholic or Protestant or even whether it was Christian or not. Remember that millions of the world's English-language speakers and readers will not necessarily be familiar with the religious history of the British Isles, even if it might seem obvious to many of us familiar with this part of the world. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I wish I hadn't stuck on that point, now. I agree that "avowed" is unnecessary. zzz (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
OK. Now what do you think was wrong with the Gay Byrne quote? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
It conveys little or no information. He said that he respected those who have "the gift of faith". He said that one time, it's no surprise at all, and it wasn't widely reported or commented on. Therefore I can't see why it should be mentioned, unless to illustrate something, in which case that should be stated directly (and cited to independent RS) - not merely implied or hinted at, by selecting a qote. zzz (talk) 10:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Many people do "say things one time", as part of a formal interview, which gets published in a newspaper and then reported here. We don't say "oh, we can't believe that as he only said it once", do we? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
We can certainly believe it, in fact it is not really saying anything, is my point. I just noticed it is in fact widely quoted, though, so I withdraw my objection. zzz (talk) 10:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I suggest "Wogan was brought up and educated as a Catholic, but was an atheist from the age of seventeen. In an interview with Gay Byrne on RTÉ, he said that he respected those who have "the gift of faith"." zzz (talk) 11:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC) zzz (talk) 11:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Gay Byrne is a notable broadcaster and was, I think, a friend of Wogan. Surely he should be mentioned by name? Martinevans123 (talk)
Added. zzz (talk) 11:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Ok. Now for "He was a long-term friend of Catholic priest and broadcaster Brian D'Arcy, who administered the weddings of his children". What do you think is wrong with that? I'm sure multiple sources could easily be found. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
The media have focussed on this friendship recently. The priest was there when he died, so that could be mentioned in the Death section. zzz (talk) 11:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
It could go there, but I think the children’s weddings are better mentioned here. And surely this part of Personal life addresses Wogan’s spirituality and it’s appropriate to have a quote from a close friend who is also a minister of religion? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The section is titled "Personal life". So, it mentions his family, and that he's an atheist, which is fine. The section about a priest, complete with quotes from the priest and a mini-bio of the priest, belongs only in the priest's article. Otherwise, you are making a special case for Wogan -an atheist - whereby his friendship with a priest is equally or more important than his family and other friends. This conjures a truly sad picture, which I can only hope is fictional. And the quote in question -in his deeds, Wogan was "certainly the most spiritual, faith-filled man in the world"- is an empty platitude, at best. Unlike certain sections of the media, Wikipedia does not treat Catholic priests as experts on "spirituality". They are experts on Catholicism. zzz (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see a section dedicated to his spirituality. But I think you're over editorializing to the detriment of material that most readers would find interesting. I don't see that were claiming that "Catholic priests are experts on "spirituality"", but merely suggesting that a close personal friend, attuned to matters of faith, was an expert on Wogan's spirituality. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I concur with Martin here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I can't see a "Spirituality" section happening, based around a few sound-bytes from this priest. As I see it, editorialising is precisely what I'm objecting to. Those who would find this stuff interesting have no doubt read the quotes already elsewhere. Quite frankly, despite your claim to the contrary, you literally are suggesting that Wikipedia should treat this Catholic priest ("attuned to matters of faith" as you put it) as an expert on "spirituality". This cannot happen in a neutral encyclopedia article. zzz (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
There is no reason to restrict a section to "few sound-bytes from this priest". Perhaps User:The Almightey Drill has a view, as they originally added the quote. We make no assumptions about what readers have or have not seen elsewhere. Who would you suggest was in a better place than D'Arcy to make such a judgement, apart from perhaps his immediate family? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I was answering your assumption that readers would find this stuff interesting. In case we miss anything, why not just paraphrase everything out of newspapers. zzz (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
"Make such a judgement" - what judgement? zzz (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
That "Wogan was "certainly the most spiritual, faith-filled man in the world"" - the thing you call "an empty platitude". I assume you're just being sarcastic about "paraphrasing everything out of newspapers". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
No. That is not a "judgement". Unless by "judgement" you mean media sound-byte opinion. It is a clear example of an empty platitude, that could go in a "Tributes" section for empty platitudes. Like the "International reactions" sections at the end of articles about natural disasters. My point about newspapers is that they print anything that people might find interesting. zzz (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
You're suggesting we can't use any newspaper as a source as it runs the risk of being interesting? (Am going to take a break for air, in the face of the rising sea of sarcasm). Martinevans123 (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm saying WP:NOTNEWS. I'm not even necessarily saying this comment can't go in the article. I'm saying that it definitely can't be presented in a Wikipedia article as a Catholic priest's expert "judgement" on the "spirituality" of Wogan - an atheist - when, in neutral terms, it's nothing more than an empty platitude/sound-byte for media consumption. As a rule, Wikipedia does not recognise the primacy of the Vatican in "spiritual" matters, and I don't think this article should be the exception. This is not sarcasm. 17:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe an RfC might be in order? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I inserted it because there is much more nuance in most people's lives than believe/non-believe. Wogan spent most of his life not being attached to any church, but also a great deal of that time in a friendship with a man of the cloth whom he let support him and his family in his final days. I'm not suggesting at all that Wogan had a miraculous conversion, but to inform the reader that his well-documented lack of belief had subtleties to it '''tAD''' (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia, as opposed to journalism, is supposed to inform the reader by stating facts and what independent RS have said about them, not by implying or hinting, as in this case. The section says he was an atheist, but qualifies that by saying he had a long-term friendship with a priest, and the priest officiated in his daughters' weddings. "Ah" says the imaginary reader, "maybe he kind of actually was a Christian, then!" And then, in case the reader didn't quite get the point yet, they are forced to read a media-friendly quote from the priest about Wogan which includes the word "faith"; but that might not be laid on heavily enough yet, so the paragraph ends with the statement that the priest provided pastoral care to Wogan on his deathbed. Unknown to the reader, the independent reliable source for this information is the priest himself, as quoted in The Telegraph. In fact, the priest didn't actually say that, although he made an effort to imply it. But, because Wikipedia's standards for accuracy and neutrality are lower than The Telegraph's, and/or because our readers are too stupid to be trusted to get the hint, for whatever reason, the implication is simply reported as fact. This material should not have been in the article. zzz (talk) 03:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
That's quite a startling display of not WP:AGF. And I think Wogan's long friendship with D'Arcy is perfectly valid detail for this article. Perfectly willing to open a RfC for this. And I think it's perfectly reasonable to quote Catholic priests, or indeed ministers of any denomination, on matters of faith. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I just want to point out, because the material was added incrementally, I don't think I was criticizing any one editor particularly. zzz (talk) 09:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
D'Arcy was a close friend - one of the last people to see Wogan alive (Saunders of Bungay reaching to call the conspiracy theorists right now) and was a regular guest on WUTW's "Pause For Thought" feature at 9:15. Wogan didn't go into the street and sing "Kumbaya" with a tambourine, but he was still happy to have obviously Christian speakers on his show for a few minutes. I seem to recall he was happy to have Muslim speakers on from time to time, though I'd have to look for sources for that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Just for the record, The Daily Telegraph reports D'Arcy thus:
"Despite the late broadcaster's professed atheism, the priest said he was "certainly the most spiritual, faith-filled man in the world".
"He was filled with love, he was filled with charity, he helped so may people in a quiet way," he said. "Honest to God, if there is not room for Terry Wogan in heaven, well then, the God I've been preaching is a way off.
"He put it into practice, whether he could agree with religious institutions or not is an entirely different thing. But he had certainly a great deal of faith." Martinevans123 (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


Commons:Category:Terry Wogan contains some unused images, just so editors know. Rcsprinter123 (jaw) 20:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. But of the two unused, this one, in a crowd at Thatcher's funeral, looks cluttered and is perhaps a little indecorous, while this one, at a book-signing, needs the caption trimming off. But that last one is the most recent, from 7 October 2015. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I fixed up the second one, see what you think. I do not especially support adding it to the article at this point though. --John (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Terry Wogan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Terry Wogan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Irish nationality yet again[edit]

It seems that the question of Irish-British in #Irish nationality above has not been resolved. I thought just saying th facts about where he came from and where he worked and not saying Irish and British in the first sentence would stop the war over his nationality but it seems there is still an appetite for going on with the business. So what do people want - a big debate over British, Irish, Anglo-Irish, Irish British, British-Irish or just say he came from Ireland and worked in Britain? Could you also say which options you think are worth putting forward if an RfC is set up Dmcq (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Or just tell the truth, as reported in multiple sources, that he was Irish and took joint UK citizenship in his last few years? Indeed, being Irish is one of the main things he was known for. And following our guidelines for situations like this. But it seems there is no lengths nationalist POV-pushers will not go to to deny this man his nationality. Petty. --John (talk) 11:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, dear the irony of John dismissively labelling other editors as "nationalists" and "POV-pushers". Some people have no shame. AusLondonder (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Exactly which nation am I supposed to be POV pushing for here? Dmcq (talk) 11:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
As I've said before, I'm not sure that 11 years is just "the last few". But, as the lede currently hints at, this was really part of the "knighthood package"? His cultural contribution was of course far bigger in the UK than in Ireland. And I'm sure, somewhat ironically, our Eurovision friends saw him as British and not Irish. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm cooking Sunday lunch. Do whatever causes the least fuss.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, well let's review the options. We can't say "Anglo-Irish", "Irish British", "British-Irish", because there are no sources for those and we are not allowed to make stuff up. We can't just say "British". We can't say "from Ireland who worked for the BBC in the UK for most of his career", because it's rubbish. Apparently there are some here who are offended by saying that he was "Irish", although that is truthful, well-attested, and what our guideline recommends. I am not sure what other possibilities there are. --John (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
No, that's not "rubbish" at all. It looks quite accurate. I'm not offended by the term Irish. I just don't think it's that simple. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
With all respect Martin, it is totally rubbish. What is the distinction in your mind between "from Ireland" and "Irish"? Which sources are you basing your judgement on? --John (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I think you'll find most Irish people are from Ireland. Some might even see those two as synonymous. Martinevans123 (talk)
I agree. So what, in your opinion, is the merit of using the formula "from Ireland" if it is a synonym of "Irish"? --John (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
It's not a complete synonym. It just looks less definite: [4] I didn't say it was good prose, though. It's just not wrong. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
A good answer. I was taught that there are no true synonyms in language, that all words have evolved to evoke nuances and overtones. We are not in the realm of "right" and "wrong" here, but in the realm of nuance. I agree that it is lousy prose. Rightly or wrongly, we have a MOS which suggests stating the nationality of a subject in the opening sentence. Your apparent conviction that it is an oversimplification to state "Irish" and that we need to reach towards something "less definite" may seem to betray a subtractive view of nationality. I know you have the ability to see the importance of nuance in describing UK/BI nationalities; we even have an essay on the subject. A few years ago I participated in the discussions around how to describe the far more complex and interesting case of Albert Einstein's nationality. The decision was made to omit his nationality and just call him "German-born" (of course the details of his various citizenships are described in the article later on); I am not sure though that this article approaches the complexity of Einstein's in this regard. Are you suggesting that it does? --John (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Well this petty nationalist POV pusher isn't up to such nuanced and delicate reasoning but thinks 'from Ireland' a) doesn't contradict people who say he was British - which is also true, and b) doesn't confuse the issue - does 'Irish broadcaster' mean from Ireland or broadcaster in Ireland? Dmcq (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I didn't realise I had a subtractive view of nationality. *blush*. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Leaving aside John and his hypocritical personal attacks, I think a suitable compromise is Irish/British or Irish-born, British-based. After all he was, whether you like it or not a British citizen and a Knight of the Order of the British Empire AusLondonder (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes. There are no sources for any of that and we are not allowed to make stuff up to please nationalists. Try reading what you are replying to, just once in a while. --John (talk) 07:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think 'Irish born' quite covers it as he grew up in Ireland and being Irish was part of his persona, that's why I thought 'from Ireland' was better. I was wondering if in the UK or in Britain or in England was better when referring to where he spent most of his career. His citizenship is dealt with in the last paragraph of the lead. Dmcq (talk) 07:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
What is the distinction in your mind between "from Ireland" and "Irish"? Which sources are you basing your judgement on? --John (talk) 08:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
You are asking what things like "But Terry, despite spending most of his life in the UK, remained at heart the small-town boy from Ireland" means as opposed to "Seán O'Casey, Irish Playwright"? He became a British citizen so he wasn't just Irish. Dmcq (talk) 08:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
John, the sources have been shown to you before. You don't remember? Good for you. I'm not going to play your pathetic games. Your bad-faith abuse of the editor who raised this matter is appalling. AusLondonder (talk) 10:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment @John: Do not remove my comments, as you did in this edit AusLondonder (talk) 10:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Very well, I will let your personal abuse stand. It reveals the paucity of your argument. Now, if anyone with a clue would like to comment? --John (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I would prefer if you both avoided personal abuse thanks. Dmcq (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
John - are you serious mate? You were off with the abuse right from the start. Then you have the brass neck to actually remove my reply without even saying so in your edit summary? That's totally unacceptable and disgusting coming from an experienced editor like yourself. Get yourself together. AusLondonder (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Has Ian finished doing his roasties yet, I wonder? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes I have finished cooking and washing up after Sunday lunch, but still can't think of much new to say on this issue. It is going round in circles in the same incivil way as ever.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)