Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland

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

Irish Wikipedians' notice board


Irish Wikipedians' related news


Ireland related discussion (at WikiProject Ireland).

Active Users

Active Irish Users


Irish WikiProjects


Major Irish stubs

Peer review

Articles on Peer review


Articles on FA review

FA Drive

Articles under consideration for FA drive

Irish articles assessed by quality
Featured article FA  A-Class article A   GA  B-Class article B  C-Class article C  Start-Class article Start  Stub-Class article Stub  Featured list FL   List  Category page Category  Disambiguation page Disambig   Draft   File   Portal   Project   Template   NA   ???  Total
42 0 143 936 1,823 17,744 16,335 4 2,247 17,084 152 7 52 3 2 1,193 570 3 58,333

Localisation within Ireland[edit]

Somewhere in Co Limerick
Somewhere in Co Tyrone

I'm looking to improve the localisation of Irish imagery on Commons later this year, but I'm not sure of the best approach. I believe it that local identity is typically tied to townlands. Is that right, and true in both the Republic and Northern Ireland? In that case its the townlands that are the ideal end-goal for rural photos; but which intermediate concepts are also useful? Baronies and Civil Parishes? In terms of a potential hierarchy as it applies to the two images to the right:

  1. County (Co Limerick) -> Barony (Pubblebrien) -> Civil Parish (Croom) -> Townland (Lurraga)
  2. County (Co Tyrone) -> Barony (Dungannon Middle) -> Civil Parish (Clonfeacle) -> Townland (Mulboy)

Northern Ireland is complicated by the modern districts which often just ignore the historic units, which makes it hard to work with them. However, on both WP and Commons, the detailed categorisation is done via counties (eg Category:Towns in County Tyrone).--Nilfanion (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

You are correct to use the County -> Barony -> Civil Parish -> Townland hierarchy. It has the best historic parentage and the best searchable online resources. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of United People[edit]

The article United People has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: lacks notability.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. BSOleader (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Is that Charles O'Carroll Kelly's party? Scolaire (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Sede vacante[edit]

Is it true to say that the office of Taoiseach doesn't end until a new Taoiseach is appointed? Alternatively, might an analogous situation of sede vacante be said to exist upon the resignation of a Taoiseach? Is there a Taoiseach between the resignation of one and the appointment of another? If so, what is the Constitutional basis for it? Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Where exactly are you going to use this information? I can't find any reference in the news or in books to a "sede vacante" in Irish politics, so I can't envision any WP article where the fact – true or not – might be added without it being OR. Scolaire (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
It's an analogy, nothing more. There must be a legal ref one way or another to the situation. Is there an interregnum or not? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
If a taoiseach died in office then presumably there would be a vacancy until the next one was appointed. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I thought they got a special dispensation to continue their work in heaven? CalzGuy (talk) 03:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
If a Taoiseach dies in office, then the Tanaiste becomes head of Govt. But what happens if he just resigns? Is there a Taoiseach or just a Tanaiste? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Reliable source? Template:Rayment, Rayment-hc, Rayment-bt, Rayment-pc etc[edit]

A discussion is taking place about whether a series of templates used to generate references to the work of Leigh Rayment fall within Wikipedia's content guideline to use reliable sources, or alternatively whether they should be deprecated and tagged with {{Self-published source}} and/or {{Better source}}.

These templates are used for referencing over 10,000 articles relating to the House of Commons of England, the House of Commons of Ireland, the House of Commons of England, the House of Commons of Great Britain, the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, and the peerages and baronetcies of the islands of Ireland and Great Britain.

Since whatever decision is made will effect so many articles, I am notifying the following WikiProjects of this discussion: WP:WikiProject England, WP:WikiProject Ireland, WikiProject Northern Ireland, WikiProject Scotland, WikiProject United Kingdom, and WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom.

Your comments would be welcome, but please post them at WT:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage#Leigh_Rayment.27s_Peerage_Pages_.282017.29, so that your contribution can be weighed as part of the discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Derry + subcats have been nominated for renaming[edit]

Category:Derry, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Derry (city). 29 of it sub-categories are included in this proposal.
A discussion is taking place to decide if this fits with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Terrorism categories[edit]

This seems to be an issue that has been bubbling for a while especially in regards to "Category:Terrorist incidents in the United Kingdom in <add year>". When exactly should we use these category? Most recently it seems to be going full-swing at Attack on Cloghoge checkpoint going by its edit history, where DagosNavy alone has removed it four times in the past month despite several editors objecting.

  • It appears obvious from that ANI that the currently blocked editor @Apollo The Logician: doesn't agree with terrorism categories being used at all in regards to any attacks by republicans as they felt all targets were legitimate.
  • @DagosNavy: appears to disagree with their usage on articles where the attack was against the state instead of civilians, as well as citing WP:LABEL.
  • @Minimax Regret: appears to have joined the dispute against their usage via interacting with Bastun.
  • Several editors such as myself, @Bastun:, @MillycoverAshley:, @Andy Dingley: and @Jon C.: if I may be so bold as to claim seem to agree that any attack by a recognised terrorist organisation as part of its terrorist campaign whether it be against the state or civilians counts as terrorism.
  • @Canterbury Tail: has also been involved in regards to terrorism categories.

The oft used defense for their removal WP:LABEL does not fully back the argument for exclusion of the term "terrorist". Indeed the opening sentence of the full article states There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with caution, because they may introduce bias.. It is hardly against caution and introducing bias by calling a spade a spade in regards to what is widely regarded by all but IRA supporters/sympathisers as terrorism. The exact LABEL section on that article states Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term. - I doubt anyone here believes that the IRA's terrorism campaign is myth and disagrees that there is copious amounts of evidence that recognises the IRA's campaign whether it be against civilians or the state as nothing but terrorism. I have never seen anything scholarly or otherwise that tries to claim that the IRA carried out two camapaigns: one terrorist and one legitimate.

I formally propose that the category be used on all attack (added attack for clarity Mabuska (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)) articles by paramilitary organisations (republican and loyalist) regardless of whether the target was civilian or not. Mabuska (talk) 12:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Under the same standars, whe should use the category "War Crimes" in any battle involving the SS just because this militia was classified as a criminal organisation by Allied powers after WWII.--Darius (talk) 12:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with this specific issue and is a matter for those interested in the SS, World War II, war crimes or whatever. This is about terrorism in regards to the Troubles and we can agree our own specific MOS for this area. So please try to stay focused on topic and not try to deflect the issue by referring to a completely different set of circumstances. Mabuska (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • A relevant definition of "terrorism" would be as a form of asymmetric warfare where the induction of fear and terror in the civilian population at large is used to sap their will to maintain the conflict. This can be achieved by attacks on civilians, the military or any arm of the state, such as judges, tax inspectors or police. This view is demonstrated by the PIRA themselves in the '77 Green Book as, "A war of attrition against enemy personnel based on causing as many deaths as possible so as to create a demand from their people at home for their withdrawal."
The PIRA are quite specific here, that attacks on the GB military are themselves the core of a broadly terrorist campaign: attacking the military, so as to shift opinions amongst the civilians. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I would disagree slightly with Mabuska here (and this might explain why the SS might not always be conducting war crimes). Where an IRA action was carried out for purely military, or purely criminal reasons, then there could be a case that this was not a "terrorist" action in the sense above (and scoped to that action alone). Some of the large flying columns actions before the establishment of the Free State could be seen as military, even if not fought by the army of a recognised state. Some of the larger drug dealing in the '80s was purely profit-based and was secretive, thus not providing a propaganda motive. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

(ec) @Mabuska:, should this not be a formal RfC? (I don't know, I'm just asking the question). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a big need for that at present, unless DagosNavy wants to start one. The point here is to maintain what seems to be regarded as a generally held consensus, with just a few dissenters. Such an RfC would be putting forward the proposition, "The PIRA are not terrorists, or they might be terrorists, but didn't carry out terrorist acts." Andy Dingley (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
A RfC would be the next step in dispute resolution. A prerequisite for a RfC however is that we first of all actually discuss the issue rather than just peform reverts and justify ourselves via edit summaries. That way we can see if we can come to our own consensus or whether we need outside input. Mabuska (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC).
Noted, thanks. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Support the proposal with Andy Dingley's caveat that it shouldn't be used on all articles, just those involving actual attacks. Obviously common sense should apply, too: the War of Independence flying columns and drug dealing/bank robberies/prison escapes, etc., were not terrorist in nature by any common definition; and a reliable source should describe the attack as terrorist. If an article lacks such a reference, there should be opportunity to source it rather than a category being removed on the grounds its "unsourced". BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify I am on about Troubles era IRA, not the flying columns or whatever beforehand. The examples you provided Bastun I agree should be outside the scope of the category. I realise I used the word article in place of attacks in my proposal and have amended and dated the amendment above. My proposal was meant to be in regards to attacks by paramilitaries and now reflects that. Mabuska (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I think Attack on Cloghoge checkpoint should not be labeled as a terrorist incident - myself, DagosNavy and perhaps others object to its inclusion, while others object to its exclusion. It was a military attack on a military target. Minimax Regret (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

DagosNavy is aware of this discussion and can speak for himself. As can "others". A terrorist attack on a military target is still a terrorist attack. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
We should go to the heart of the matter, and this is the definition of "terrorism". There is a Wikipedia page that deals directly with the issue (Definitions of terrorism). Well folks, I have bad news: there is no agreement even among scholars!. However, if you read the article, one of the main features, especially under UN and USA legal definitions, is the violence against "civilian and non-combatants". This American author (p. 136) gives us an interesting definition of "non-combatants" from an official US agency: ".. the term 'combatant' was interpreted to mean military, paramilitary, militia, and police under military command and control, in specific areas or regions where war zones or war-like settings exist...Noncombatants therefore included civilians and civilian police and military assets outside of war zones and warlike settings". Under this criteria, Warrenpoint, Derryard, the shooting down of British choppers and the ambushes and IEDs aimed at security forces in the area of conflict (i.e.: Northern Ireland during Operation Banner) were not terrorist acts, since the target were combatants in a warlike environment. Any attack outside NI, including those carried out on armed forces, would fall within this legal definition of "terrorism", not to mention Enniskillen, Mountbatten assassination, La Mon, Teebane, etc---Darius (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Of course these are terrorism: both UK government and the PIRA (at least their internal documents) agree on this: it is the use of violence to induce fear in others beyond the realm of those directly at risk, the usual amplification of threat at the heart of most guerilla tactics, from the NVA to the Sicilian Mafia. There is no limitation at all on who their direct targets are.
The US, post 9/11, takes a different view to most others: for reasons of both security theatre and federal infighting, they find it advantageous to now call everything "terrorism". Nor do I see why an anachronistic definition from decades and an ocean away would be relevant. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
The PIRA distinguished between "legitimate" and "ilegitimate" targets, and avoided to target civilians deliberately (for political reasons rather than humanitarian ones, of course), especially during the last phase of the Troubles. Their use of violence was not indiscriminate, they shot, bombed, mortared and killed British troops and RUC constables not "to induce fear" or as "symbolic targets", but to attrite them and deny them the use of roads, as they did in South Armagh, a clear strategic goal. The ill-fated campaign of Lynagh before Loughgall was aimed to obtain the same results in East Tyrone (the use of transport vehicles for troops there was in the end restricted after Ballygawley roadside bomb). The main UN definition of terrorism is from 2004 and the American author cited a US legal definition from 2005, both well beyond 9/11. And guerrilla is something different than terrorism, you seem to use them as synonyms.--Darius (talk) 01:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
So was Warrington a legitimate or illegitimate target? Or as Apollo the Logician would have it, another glorious military victory over the forces of colonialism? This was 1993, late in the active campaign, yet very far from, "avoided to target civilians deliberately". Yes, I would agree that the PIRA made a late decision at the AC level to avoid such actions, recognising that they were now deeply counterproductive at a time when dialogue with the Conservative government in Westminster was active. Hence the gasholder bombings. However that did not stop a campaign (authorised at whatever level) that killed English children in a way that's still seen as more heinous in the English tabloid mind than the Birmingham pub bombings - a PIRA campaign against civilians in England that now "didn't happen" according to the re-imagining of the glorious Troubles history as a purely military campaign by the Republican revisionists of today, when it was just some boyos from a Midlands cell getting a bit over-enthusiastic and careless with warnings.
The PIRA pursued a campaign of terrorist bombings against civilian targets throughout the Troubles. There is no getting away from that.
The PIRA in their guerilla era (and I use such terms very careful, some like "legitimate" I can even spell all by myself) acted as guerillas and conducted military operations in such a way. By the 1970s, the notions of Marxist struggle, international revolution, the Long War and even just reading the books written by the Malaya-served CO of their opposing forces (Kitson) had changed this to a more propagandist and specifically terrorist organisation. Of course the old tactics of isolating the small sangars and interdicting communications to them were still in use, especially South towards the border, but the core of overall PIRA strategy in this Long War period was no longer to win a military ground campaign, but to win a campaign in the minds of the English. Draisine bombs were still part of that. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Agree with you that Warrington and all the bombings and even attacks on military outside NI were terrorist acts, so disscussing about this particular issue is superfluous.
The "Long War" was a typical case of attrition war. The strategy is stressed in the IRA "Green Book". According to Ed Moloney the doctrine implies a "war of attrition against “enemy personnel,” a bombing campaign to deter inward investment, opposition to all attempts to create internal political stability, and a propaganda campaign in Ireland and abroad aimed at broadening support for the war effort". There is nothing in this statement supporting that the campaign was aimed to "scare" or "terrorize" British public opinion. The eventual "demand from their people at home for their withdrawal" would be a natural consequence of war-weariness, not induction by fear. The main target continued to be the British security forces and the main goal was "wearing down the British Government’s will to remain in Ireland".--Darius (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Rather than getting into a back and forth about what is and isn't terrorism, and when something could have been considered terrorism and when it wasn't, etc., it should surely go without saying that attacks by proscribed terrorist organisations designated as such are - by their very nature - terrorist attacks. In any case, I think it'd be useful to hear from other voices at this point. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Minimax Regret: @DagosNavy:. Minimax it was not military attacking military. It was paramilitary attacking military. Proscribed paramilitary at that. The IRA were an "army" of an unrecognised phantom state so do not qualify as military in any meaning of the word. Also if you are calling military targets legitimate for a proscribed paramilitary organisation (largely made up of people who were citizens of the UK from birth whether they accepted it or not) that embarked on a terrorist campaign that included attacking military targets to influence the public by terror then I have to doubt your impartiality on this issue.

So if military targets are legitmate and attacks on civilians are terrorism then clarify what do the following classify as?

  • Attacks on policemen
  • Attacks on retired servicemen
  • Attacks on off-duty servicemen

Reason for asking is because the IRA considered these all legitimate despite the fact none are military. The IRA attacked "Crown forces" and "collaborators" and civilians. Mabuska (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The RUC (I will not make any political and historical considerations about their behaviour) was part of or collaborate with Operation Banner, so they were armed players in the conflict. Retired servicemen certainly count as civilians. Servicemen on leave are another matter. They usually carried on personal weapons, and I can cite you at least two examples in which off--duty men repelled the armed attack (one in 1981 and another in 1992, both of them in Fermanagh). A number of off-duty soldiers returned fire or fight with their aggressors before being killed (1993 in Lurgan and 1994 in Armagh city).--Darius (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
And I can cite many more examples where off-duty men didn't have a side arm or whatever on them when they were murdered. The point being they are in a civilian capacity when off-duty, which has relevance to this discussion if you believe the terror cat tag only applies to specific incidents. Also the RUC were still the police force not the military regardless of whether they were part of Operation Banner, and they were targeted by the IRA well before that operation or the Troubles even started. Indeed the operation was to support the police in dealing with the terror threat. And on that if they were to support the RUC in response to the terror threat then are attacks on the army by those carrying out the terrorism not terrorism? Mabuska (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Second appeal to editors to discuss the proposal at hand rather than discussing individual attacks. WP:NOTFORUM - if editors want to discuss individual attacks and debate whether they were or weren't terrorist, this is not the place to do it. Ye have talk pages. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
It is highly relevant to find out what exactly DagosNavy and Minimax consider legitimate for usage of the term terrorism or not especially on grey areas. Mabuska (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I support the labeling but am very unhappy about it. If a better term could be got I'd be much happier with that. Terrorism is a pejorative label rather than a straight description. It does not describe the actions - it describes the people doing it and not very well either. There is a world of difference between attacking an army post and attacking a crowd of teenagers at a concert. Also the word is not extended to state actions which are intended to terrorize and subdue the population rather than achieve any military goal. It is too broad a word in some senses and too narrow in others. Dmcq (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)