User talk:Red King/Archive 2

Dail template

Actually it is in it. It is in as Dáil Éireann (Chamber of Deputies). Each of the three Dála had different English translations - the Irish Republic's Dáil was the House of Assembly, the Free State's was the Chamber of Deputies while the modern one is the House of Representatives. I used both the Irish words and the English meaning rather than just dates alone. Slán FearÉIREANN^(talk) 1 July 2005 22:42 (UTC)

Some people don't know how to do links - really?

Is there a problem? As far as I can tell, you are saying that I should have optimised the Scandinavia link by changing [[Scandinavia|Scandinavian]] to [[Scandinavia]]n. But since that seems to be exactly what I did, I'm afraid I don't know what you are getting at. --ROY YOЯ 6 July 2005 00:19 (UTC)

Orange Order

Are you sure they refuse to engage only when Sinn Féin members are present? I don't know of any meetings, ever.

Lapsed Pacifist 6 July 2005 14:12 (UTC)

I don't understand either of your references, "soapbox" or "editorialising". I mentioned the commandment to give context to the Order's objections. I still think the fact they have never spoken to any residents' groups from the streets they march through, even before Sinn Féin was a political force, should get a mention.

Lapsed Pacifist 6 July 2005 17:46 (UTC)

Now I see. It was a foolish mistake on my part, and a slight misunderstanding on yours. The reference I made was to the Fourth Commandment, "Honour thy father and thy mother." I should have written the Third Commandment, "Thou shalt keep holy the Sabbath day." And to top it all, you assumed I meant the Fifth, "Thou shalt not kill.". Red faces all round.

Lapsed Pacifist 7 July 2005 00:27 (UTC)

Apartheid article

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were a sock puppet for the anon (although he has used sock puppets). It's just that your paragraph replying to him was at the same indentation level as his paragraph, and since he didn't sign his, it looked to me at first like a single comment of two paragraphs, signed by you. That's why I put in the clarification. I'm just hoping that the Apartheid article can now have some constructive work on it. I was intending to do some major edits to it, although now I'm having a touch of RSI :-( Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia -- it looks like you've been doing great things! --Bcrowell 6 July 2005 14:49 (UTC)

• Greetings, and thank you for your cogent remarks at Talk:Apartheid. Would you be interested in voting in the straw poll Talk:Apartheid#Proposal_for_moving_forward as well? Tomer ^TALK July 6, 2005 15:57 (UTC)

ahem

I beg your pardon, sir, but I do not cotton to being told to shut up. I very carefully do not do so to others, no matter how asinine or disruptive they are being. That being said -- you are absolutely right. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 7 July 2005 01:08 (UTC)

Mediterranean Region

Thank you for supporting my article Mediterranean Region. Whilst admitting there is place for improvement, it took me time and patience to create that article, even though the deviant viewpoint caused a bit of problems. thanks.

]]Maltesedog 8 July 2005 08:13 (UTC)

Paramilitary

When I said that "paramilitary has nothing to do with terrorism", I didn't mean that paramilitaries can't commit terrorist acts. What I meant was that an organization can be terrorist and not paramilitary, or paramilitary and not terrorist, or both, or neither. I don't know that much about the conflicts in Northern Ireland, but it sounds like the groups there were originally called paramilitary because they used military terminology, rhetoric, and organization. Then people got used to calling such groups "paramilitaries", so the term was just applied to all of them, whether they actually had military trappings or were just violent. So I think it's basically a local meaning. Another case of "local meaning" is in Colombia where only one side is referred to as "paramilitary".

I wouldn't call survivalists, marching bands, or self-styled militias paramilitaries. By contrast, I might (and some do) call the Boy Scouts of America a paramilitary organization: they wear uniforms and have ranks, and some of their training has definite military applications. And the Civil Air Patrol is an even better example: they are legally civilians, but they have a rank structure, have an official mission to support the United States Air Force, and have even flown combat missions in wartime. Isomorphic 03:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

"Tampere is not a city", says EU

Yes it was added by me. There really was a mention in the Finnish media that an EU directive says Tampere is too scarcely populated to be a city. Whether the directive was ever accepted (or existed in the first place), I don't know. — JIP | Talk 05:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not an EU directive after all, it's an Eurostat statistical definition. I don't know if they use that definition any more. By Googling I found out that it was adopted in 1998. Googling for "Tampere ei ole kaupunki" ("Tampere is not a city" in Finnish) gets lots of hits, all confirming my claim. Unfortunately, Googling for the English version only hits three Wikipedia mirrors. — JIP | Talk 05:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Columbus and Galway

Thank you for your message. I can very well understand your point, and I personally do not believe that Columbus had to go to remote Galway to learn anything new about the world. The thing is just: the claim as a such does exist, and there's a memorial stone in Galway Spanish Parade with that claim. That's what my footnote says, but being quite new to Wikipedia, I somehow got the footnote numbers wrong. If you think my addition is worth the while (perhaps rather under Galway Trivia than Galway History) could you help me to get this right? I think it's at least an amusing fact... --Robin.rueth 10:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again for your valuable hints (How on earth did you find that stuff?) which dragged me into serious work from what had begun as just fooling around with Wikipedia by adding some outlandish, but not totally unfounded claim (the stone does exist, and so does the legend) and seeing what comes out of it. I also modified the Christopher Columbus page, integrating my ad hoc English translation of parts of the Italian text there, rather than on the Galway page. So thanks a lot! --Robin.rueth 17:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The memorial stone in Galway has been there for five years or more - it's a sort of curled up granite representation of a galleon, about the size of a soccer-ball. Some crusty used to spray paint it every year with a rant about the destruction of the native Americans. Whether or not the story of his visit to Galway (Columbus, not the crusty) is true, it is not far-fetched: prior to the plantation period Iberian links with the south and west coasts of Ireland were very strong; the west coast was used as a base by Spanish and Portuguese boats for their Newfoundland fisheries from the 15thC.; prior to it's destruction in the Desmond Wars in 1580, Dingle was described as a Spanish built town. And I think it's documented that Columbus had an Irish pilot on board during his Caribbean voyages. What article does this discussion link to?--shtove 17:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Irish Republican Army

Hi there

I understand your position, but I don't think you should have wiped out information I contributed in good faith to the IRA article. Please note that this article failed to include the IRA between 1922 and 1969, yet there is no other obvious home for that: the organisation was known as the IRA and no other organisation had that name. Plenty of people who objected to its politics (and indeed to its existence) during this period nevertheless referred to it by that name. These issues were all raised on the talk page and nobody countered them.

Also, if you wanted to make a major deletion like this, I think it would have been better to have allowed it to be discussed on the talk page.

I suggest that we should try hard to find a consensus about where the various IRA articles should go and what should go on the Irish Republican Army page. I've made some suggestions on the talk page. Please let me know what you think. Regards, Palmiro 11:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

You say "the consensus was that there is a very real break at that point and that the later organisations that claimed the name ought not to be given legitimacy by association." There is no such consensus. Neither did anyone counter any of the arguments for including material on the post-treaty IRA. Why don't you address them now? Let's try to find a consensus. In the meantime, let's discuss the issue on the talk page. Palmiro 12:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I've done some changes to the IRA series, namely

• created an IRAs template and put it on each page;
• moved the stuff covering the period from 1922 to 1969 to a separate self-contained article in the series.

Let me know what you think.

BTW we do need to try to improve the articles in the series. Most of them are badly in need of a make-over. They don't even give such basic facts as when was each of these IRAs created!!!

FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 17:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi there,

Thanks for editing that section on the IRA and the Treaty. I was too tired to do it after finding it. It's not all from Macardle by the way. I used Seamus Fox's Chronology of Irish History 1919-1923 (and included him in the sources). He has basically made a chronology using some of the major works on the period. Certainly useful and more up to date than Key. Great to see the article coming on and the crude simplifications of one user in particular being replaced by real history and analysis. --Damac 19:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Irish Republicanism

I've left a comment on the talk page for this article. Basically, I think Fine Gael should be included if it describes itself as a republican party, and the same goes for the PDs. Labour, I'm pretty sure, doesn't. Palmiro 20:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't have any appetite for it either, and I also don't have any access to appropriate sources, so unfortunately I think I've taken it as far as I can. Palmiro 19:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

crossed wires

I'm afraid you misinterpreted my words. I was being tongue-in-cheek in using the agreed? reference to start my contribution. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

IRA: the saga continues

Hi there.

I've left some comments on Talk:Irish Republican Army (1922-1969) relating to your recent changes, a couple of which I tweaked or changed back for reasons that are explained there.

In relation to the dismal saga of 'what goes on Irish Republican Army?', what exactly did you mean when you started your latest contribution with "Not so"? Were you disputing my entire reply to JTD, or just the question of where your preferences currently lay? I think it was the latter, but it reads rather like the former.

With regard to the substance of your argument, we've already established that we disagree on what consitutes the ideal approach. But if you look at Baath Party, for example, you can see entirely different (but related) organisations dealt with on the same page (despite the very strong POV that comes through against the "Baathitude" of the two main current organisations). Granted that it's not a great article in itself, it's in my view a lot better for users than sticking them all on different pages, let alone confining the Baath Party page to up until the time of the sixth Party congress.

Palmiro 17:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Belfast Blitz

Ta, very. It needs photos. Whsat is the copyright status of old newspaper photos? A lot of criticism can be laid at the then NI government. Not sure how far to go. Am findind it difficult to get the correct tone on the 'human cost'. There is plenty of material. Some very distressing. Regards--ClemMcGann 15:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

re the NI govt. I was thinking of their excluding Catholics from the civil defence. desertion of posts by those in authority. even later event such as refusing help from the south. dev even offered electricity (ard na crusha had a surplus) but they said no --ClemMcGann 19:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

check this for source: http://www.localdial.com/users/airforce/bel-blitz.html

As they approached the city outskirts the southern fireman saw smoke and flames rising hundreds of feet into the air. Horrified at the carnage, John Smith, Belfast's chief fire officer, was found beneath a table in Chichester Street fire station, weeping and refusing to come out. There was little the firemen could do to fight the flames - hoses were cut by falling buildings; fittings were often the incorrect diameter, and the water pressure had fallen too far. There were numerous individual acts of heroism but both Spender and MacDermott felt that firemen and civil defense workers had performed badly. An American, seconded to the Short and Harland factory by the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation; was not impressed by his fellow workers; in a letter to his parents in California he wrote.

"You have heard how tough the Irish are-well all I can say is that the tough Irish must come from the South of Ireland because the boys up in Northern Ireland are a bunch of chicken shit yellow bastards - 90% of them left everything and ran like hell. Short and Harland's the Aircraft factory that builds Sterling here had 300 Volunteer fire fighters in the plant, after the raid they were lucky to get 90 of them".

many years ago a retired Dun Laoghaire fireman (and we can't use 'original research') told the story that when they got to Belfast their instructions were to report to Chistester Street fire station. They asked for the office in charge. Those there were only too happy to show them where he was

--ClemMcGann 22:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Brookeborough

well andrews was totally incapable. his brother was the director of h&w who went down with titantic. after brook gave andrews the heave, andrews was made grand master as a sort of compensation. i might do something on the incompetence of the ni govt they even said that the bombers found their way by flying to dublin which was fully lit and then following the railway line north . --ClemMcGann 14:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC) i've checked several photos but they are (c). a crowd called hutton barton (or something like that) seems to have bought out the rights--ClemMcGann 14:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

re who was #2, I have yet to find out why. --ClemMcGann 20:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Text move

Sure thing! Cheers, HKT ^talk 21:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Mordechai Vanunu

The "kidnapping" problem has been going on for a week, with probably about 25 changes just on this one word. You don't win revert wars by persistence, so how about compromising on "abduction", which even the pro-Israel editors seem to be okay with? – Smyth\^talk 13:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Well, I don't care either way what his opinion was, but the quote was very ambiguous and looked very out of context to me. A little googling turned up a longer quote, which made its meaning clearer (and less radical, in a sense, than it had appeared in the BBC article which took it out of context). --Fastfission 13:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I wasn't referring to that quote; nobody had any complaints about it. – Smyth\^talk 14:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Cogadh sibhialta na Spáinne

It isn't really accurate to say that the IRA sent volunteers to the Spanish Civil War. Some IRA men definitely went, but the people who were most active in supporting the republican side had already left the IRA: they were the likes of Frank Ryan and Peadar O'Donnell, who had formed the Republican Congress in 1934.

Re Gort, if you're ever around the neighborhood you can see Thoor Ballylee, though I don't think you can visit inside (maybe you can now, it's years since I was there). There's a stone set into the front of the tower with a poem Yeats write for the purpose inscribed on it:

I, the poet William Yeats, With old mill boards and sea-green slates, And smithy work from the Gort forge, Restored this tower for my wife George; And may these characters remain When all is ruin once again.

One of his poems recalls the passage of the Civil War through Gort, and a visit a detachment of Free State soldiers paid him. Unfortunately, I can't remember what it is entitled. Palmiro 20:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Home Rule Act

.. hello, wanted to thank you for your earlier comments (been away). Actually the page is not all mine, some additions are, much was overrided, or has distanced far from the title, which I left stand. I understand your point, nevertheless I feel the whole issue of Historical revisionism is a central issue for that period and is why I raised it. Would appreciate any siggestion as to where the theme could otherwise be accomodated without making the impression you say it makes. Osioni Aug.23.

Thanks for what you raised. It prompted my re-texting my user-page, which may clarify (or confuse further). Also see my entry to LP under D.D. Sheehan. His reply was fine, I still have to come back to him on several points (have other priorities) hopefully making things clearer all round. Osioni Sept. 2nd.

Appreciated yours lines. To illustrated de-existed history I have added a section "Attempted implementation" to Home Rule Act 1914, from which might be deducted that Britain could have been induced to follow through with negotiations in 1919, were two innocent policemen not first murdered. You are correct about us still fighting religious wars. When I compare all that Europe has put behind, in the North we still drumm our Boyne drums, in the South bong our noon and evening church bells over all broadcasting systems in what is supposed to be a constitutionally non-sectarian society. First step: withdraw all provocative symbols. Osioni Sept. 15. 01.20

Understand re. POV speculation, which I am not putting out officially (slightly remodified above). I surmised on the two attempts made to implement HR in 1916 and 1917 and the subsequent Fourth HR Act implemented in 1920. I have listed two good books as references for what I entered under HR Act 1914. Going further afield today on Irish history, section "Partial indepemdence", I found it largely interpretation, many links and facts ommitted (avoided ?), which I have now included. It is still lacking, will come back to it sometime. Thanks for advice and help. Osioni 13:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

History of Ireland (1801-1922) - the page is difficult to come across. Good hint. I have clarified some extremes in two sections. Much more texting needs to be made less biased, less discrediting, less filtered in all pages covering the period. A huge task. In contrast I have several biogs. from the www.oxforddnb.com - all fair and balanced. Osioni 23:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

IRA

Another option would be to use the full name Irish Republican Army to refer to the army of the Irish Republic, and use acronym IRA for all successors, given that they were usually referred to by the acronym rather than the name. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK/Wikimania 2006

Hi, this is a circular to Wikipedians in Ireland to draw your attention to Wikimedia UK, where the establishment of a local Wikimedia chapter for the United Kingdom (and possibly for the Republic of Ireland) is being discussed. See the talk page, as well as the mailing list; a meetup will take place to discuss matters in London in September, for anyone who can get there. On another topic, plans are being drawn up for a UK bid for Wikimania 2006, which would be conveniently close to Ireland. On the other hand, Dublin's bid was one of the final three last year - might we bid again? --Kwekubo 09:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Sheehan

Thank you for demo help: I am waiting for supervisor Hall Monitor to move the biography text under Martin's photo to its own page (he did this to help me with Daniel J., saying I should not have done it that way. I'm his item 65 ! - I shamefully do not yet know how to copy move WIKI-texts). Wow, that looks a super creature ! Osioni 20:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Once again thanks for the considerable input, I didn't expect Windows/Word functions to work quite normally in the Wiki. Will move on soon to newer ground.Osioni 21:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)