User talk:Damac/Archive 1
Irish Republican Army
Fear Eireann has responded to the debate on Talk:Irish Republican Army by making changes along rather different lines to what was being discussed, along with some personal attacks on me on the talk page and on my talk page. I find this rather depressing and I'm not sure what the best way to respond is.
Should we continue the discussion (which it seems to me we can no longer hope for civility in) or should we simply implement the discussed changes, which all the contributors except Fear Eireann have agreed with?
If you think you can mend fences with him or persuade him to at least accept the good faith of other contributors, you might leave a note on his talk page. Palmiro 21:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
I trust you don't mind that I split your recent contribution into two parts - the first a response to McCann and the second the new proposal re October 1917. (I hope you are sure about that date, it is spookily close to the Russian Revolution!) --Red King 22:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- 1921 v 1922: Your case for 1922 is credible: I look forward to your references because the more we can nail this article down to indisputable facts, the less room there will be for people to tack their fantasies onto it.
- Thinking about October 1917 again, there must be contemporaneous material equating the "Irish Revolution" with the Russian Revolution, so if you have access to that it would be great to include it in the pruned version of article that you proposed a few weeks ago. I'll bet that "Reds under the bed" was alleged a lot earlier than 1956. (or 1969 for that matter!) --Red King 09:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Did you get a chance to check the date of that meeting in which the disidents decided to break away and set up their own Army Council? I think we are close to resolving this long running saga and the only thing that is critical now is the end date, the date of the split. --Red King 17:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- You'll see that I changed some of what you wrote to make the phrasing a little more NPOV. I suspect that this one is going to rumble on, so I'll dig out Kee and others to provide hard references. I think we need to quote more credible historians than an author of childrens' stories with a chip on her shoulder. --Red King 16:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Irish Volunteers - IRA
I originally put this question to Palmiro, who referred me to you. Do you know when exactly the Volunteers became the IRA?
Lapsed Pacifist 12:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- There was never a formal transformation of the IV to the IRA. I wanted to write something about this but am a little bit busy at the moment. I would say that the first emergence of the IRA was at the Volunteer Convention of October 1917, when the Irish Volunteers were formally re-organised after the Rising of 1916. A new leadership was formed, with Cathal Brugha elected as "chairman of the resident executive". There was an article on this on the internet which I came across recently but it seems to have since disappeared.
- It's interesting to note that in the deliberations of Dáil Éireann from 1919 to 1922, the organisation was referred to in many ways, including the Army, the Army of the Republic, the Volunteers, the Irish Volunteers, the IRA, the Republican Army etc. --Damac 14:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
IRA Chiefs of Staff
Please remember to cite your sources for your List_of_IRA_Chiefs_of_Staff page. The data is really only useful if we know the sources.
- Thanks for adding your sources --Ryano 14:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks! Ferg2k 07:24, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Category:Irish Republican Army
I merely reverted the changes done due to the current CFD discussion. By removing these categories it left the category empty, which gives a false impression of the category in the discussion. Although they are POV, their remaining there for a few days until the end of the CFD discussion will not hurt anything. I request that you replace them until the end of the CFD debate. I noted this on the CFD at the time of removal. Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 14:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Why do you feel its ok to delete reference to Sinn Fein 'Kevin St' and Sinn Fein 'Gardiner Place' which were the names used offically by these groups, yet at the same time include Official Sinn Fein and Provisional Sinn Fein within the article when these were only nicknames attached to these groups by the media and were never offically used by either group.--Padraig3uk 09:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- The two parties even used the street name additions very reluctantly. The Kevin/Gardiner names were only really around in the early 1970s, by the late 1970s Ruairí Ó Brádaigh for example was always referred to as the President of Provisional Sinn Féin. He may not have liked that but that is how 99 percent of the media and any worthwhile book on the topic referred to him and his party. The same applied for the OSF.
- Using Kevin/Gardiner Street does not help those with no knowledge of Irish republicanism to see what the relationship was between each wing of Sinn Féin and each wing of the IRA. Using Official/Provisional helps considerable on that front.
- Wikipedia is not about presenting organisations as they see/saw themselves. We are offering a NPOV.--Damac 09:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Iam not saying that reference to the terms provisional and offical shouldn't be used, but they should be acknowledged as what they are as purely media terms used by the media and given to the two groups by the media, The Kevin Street and Gardiner Place tags were adopted by the two groups themselves and used by them on publications, posters, press releases etc.
- Also as the Sinn Fein article is mainly about the party led by Gerry Adams is it necessary to have the 'From "Official Sinn Féin" to Democratic Left' section as this really belongs in the the 'official Sinn Fein/Gardiner Place/Workers Party' article rather then here. Would it not be better to have a History of Sinn Fein sub-article where all the history of the various splits etc could be explained in detail and then enable the current article to be used only in reference to the Sinn Fein party led by Gerry Adams.--Padraig3uk 09:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
List of Town Councils in the Republic of Ireland
Damac - Táim díreach tar éis do theachtaireacht a leamh... Dúrais: I suggest that if you want this to remain a list of towns which had urban countil status, you change the heading from "List of Town Councils in the Republic of Ireland" to "List of Towns with Town Councils in Ireland". Bhuel, ta se déanta ag duine éile idir an dá linn!
B'fhearr liomsa "List of Local Government Towns in Republic of Ireland". Cad a cheapais féin? Lozleader 20:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I would value your opinion on this
The recent behavior of User:Blue sea along with my fruitful collaborating with a Turkish editor on some articles have made me think if there is a way to deal with all this mutual suspicion among Greek and Turkish wikipedians. So I came up with the idea of a wikiProject where Greek and Turkish wikipedians work together assumming good faith and trying to overcome the said suspicion. I have written a draft of a proposal. I would greatly appreciate it if you would read it and comment on it. Could it be done? Is there any point in trying? Does it brake any wikipedia anti-cabal rules? Thank you in advance! -- Michalis Famelis 03:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, do you think we could get away with AfDing some (if not all) of these articles:
Ó Brádaigh and Ó Conaill, RSF
- The leadership of Sinn Fein is elected each year from the votes forwarded by each cummain, just prior to the Ard Fheis, it became clear that both Ó Brádaigh and Ó Conaill had lost their places on the leadership, but before the results were announced to the Ard Fheis they were allowed to withdraw their names from the leadership contest, and resign, this was a face saving gesture on the part of the leadership.--Padraig3uk 03:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)