User talk:ClemMcGann/archive2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Rockall 2 Pekingese 3 Tayleur 4 King Billy's statue 5 BC/BCE at Bible 6 The Emergency: the Belfast Blitz 6.1 Brookeborough 7 Bantry Bay 8 Loganberry 9 Apocrypha 10 You may be interested 11 VfD pollution 12 Good work on the IRA 13 Dublin 14 Common Era 15 PL/I 15.1 References 16 IRA 22-69 article 17 Servant of God 18 Saint Linus 19 styles 20 Hiberno-English 20.1 Spelling 21 Wikimedia UK/Wikimania 2006 22 Chaim Herzog / Zion National School 23 Palatium Britannicum, again 24

[edit] Rockall

Because the caption said "the designation (U.K.) is in dispute." this is not stating that the island is dispute but that the use of UK on the "caption" is in dispute. Look at the talk page. Someone had previously removed UK from the caption, but as the island is actually part of the UK by Act of Parliament and no other nation has officially incorporated the island into their nation it follows that the use of UK on the caption is entirely appropriate. Imagine if France laid claim to the Isle of Wight but did nothing to take possesion. Should "UK" be removed from the caption for the Isle of Wight? Jooler 07:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You say "Imagine if France laid claim to the Isle of Wight", how about "Imagine if the UK laid claim to Rockall"?

The UK claim is not recognised by any other state. From the talk page:

quote: {The United Kingdom continues to claim jurisdiction over Rockall, but this claim is not accepted by Ireland. Each country remains aware of the continuing position of the other.} see [2] (http://www.gov.ie/debates-00/18oct/sect7.htm) -- ClemMcGann 23:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) --ClemMcGann 09:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Has Ireland or any other country passed any legislation that incorporates the Island into their country? Answer No. Whether France or Ireland or the man on the moon choose to not recognise that the Isle of Wight is part is of the UK is irrelevant. By Law the Isle is part of the UK. The same applies to the Rockall. Yes several nations claim the isle as thier own, but only one nation has it in law. Therefore the designation of UK on the isle for the map is correct. Jooler 09:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

you say: By Law the Isle is part of the UK

by what law? - by UK law - which has no force outside of the UK

as soon as the law was enacted it was rejected bu the other nations --ClemMcGann 10:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is part of the UK de jure and de facto owing to the lack of substantial efforts by any other nation to lay claim by occupying the isle or by any legal means. Whether this is right or not is not the issue. The issue is whether it is right to put UK on the map. And just like Jersey and Guernsey on the same map Rockall is part of the UK. This map is from a CIA World Fact book document so obviously someone somewhere responsible for putting together this document accepts the claim. Jooler 11:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be having trouble with the English language. I know that Ireland claims the island. Argentina claims the Falklands. Spain claims Gibraltar. But you will find that UK is still written on the maps. Jooler 16:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What problem do you have with the words "Ownership is disputed" ? Jooler 21:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

as I already posted on your talk, the ability to own is not accepted --ClemMcGann 21:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Ownership is disputed. Jooler 22:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

try again, its not just ownership, it is the ability to own --ClemMcGann 22:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pekingese

No problem. There are SO many links to move up into their new positions in the whole List of dog breeds, and so I tend to assume that the existing links are correct unless i happen to know in advance that they're wrong (e.g., AKC moved all their pages, so I know that I have to fix the AKC links), so I don't even check them. Thanks for pointing out that they were incorrect. Elf | Talk 18:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tayleur

Thanks for your note ref classification of Tayleur as a Clipper. Definition of a Clipper is a slightly grey area as there is not a standard list of attributes which qualifies a vessel as a Clipper or not. However one accepted attribute is that the vessel is designed to carry a cargo as fast as possible.

Tayleur is sometimes classified as a clipper and sometimes not, but as she was designed by William Rennie who was probably the most famous and successful of all Clipper designers hen this makes your recommendation very valid.

Thanks for your consideration in letting me know and thanks for your edit. rgds, Ian aka Boatman

[edit] King Billy's statue

Hi, yeah read that in "1690 Battle of the Boyne" - recent book by Padraig Lenihan. On page 258 it says, "The most prominent physical manifestation of William III's cult wasthe statue erected in 1701 showing him in classical dress, his head corwned with laurel wreathes, atop a prancing horse. The monument stood in College Green outside what would become the Irish Houses of Parliament. The horse's rump backed onto Trinity College (the more Tory fellows and students took this to be a studied insult) and the head pointed towards Dublin castle, the seat of the colonial executive...Like the Boyne obelisk it did not survive Irish independence, damaged in an explosion by the IRA in 1929 it was then removed and broken up in a builders yard." Regards Jdorney 12:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BC/BCE at Bible

I appreciate your comment. Actually, BCE was already elsewhere in the article in the prior version to Jayjg's edit nearly a year ago, so he was only making it consistent throughout. I also think that in this particular article, BCE is more appropriate since both Jewish and Christian texts are the primary subject. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Emergency: the Belfast Blitz

It may deserve an ariticle as well, but it is critical in The Emergency - a valuable contribution. Conversely, I can't see how you could have an article about the Belfast Blitz without including most of what is in the Emergency article as context.

Someone is going to demand a source for the statement that Brookeborough requested assistance because there is certainly a view that it was unilateral.--Red King 11:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The BBC [1] has a time line:

• 4.15: John McDermott phones Sir Basil Brooke to ask permission to request fire engines from Eire
• 4.35am: De Valera agrees to send fire tenders to North
• 6.45: 70 men + 13 fire engines from Dublin, Dun Laoghaire, Drogheda and Dundalk speed Northwards

A retired fire-fighter, who was there, told me that it was at the Cardinal’s request!!

The article should note the efforts of Irish mariners. The kept Ireland functioning. If it was not for Irish food exports, Britain would have starved.--ClemMcGann 13:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

re the Blitz source - that's good. A footnote to that effect would save future arguments.

re shipping - true, but sources needed. "Britain would have starved" is a bit OTT though. Certainly had a much more difficult time of it.

New article on Belfast blitz is great work! --Red King 14:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

There is an article on WikiMedia about copyright laws around the world. It depends on the material! Check the provenance on this:

I think you've got the tone about right - let's see who edits. Yes, it was big news in Ireland, but by English standards it was small beer.

Criticism of the Brookeborough gov't is with 20:20 hindsight. Yes, they were naive, but then the War Office must have judged the risk to be low - no air cover, 6 ack-ack guns. The lack of response to the Luftwaffe recce was criminal - did they think he was taking holiday snaps? --Red King 17:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know about the sectarian Civil Defence - of course it's obvious but you'll need sources. "Deserting post" is strong stuff - sources again are critical. Re help from the south - I guess Aiken's "our people" speech went down like a red brick. Yes, that has to go in too. --Red King 19:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Great stuff. Yes, has to go in! (though, through modern eyes, the Belfast Chief Fire Officer was in shock, not cowardice). --Red King 09:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brookeborough

Was he deputy PM at the time? In NI, Agriculture Minister was a very senior post. --Red King 14:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

My reason for asking was this - how come it was Brookborough who was asked for approval to invite the Dublin F/B? I can guess why not Craigavon - he would have been unconscious with a whisky bottle. Andrews took over after Craigavon and by all accounts he was a complete waste of space. But who was formally the deputy? Was Brookborough just "duty officer"? --Red King 19:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bantry Bay

Wow, I don't know how I was that far off, or where I got that date from. Scratching my head > WikiDon 11:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Loganberry

Thank you for the correction :). I don't know much about botany at all, and because of the other mistakes that had been made in the article, I had assumed the writer meant "spots" as in "patches" of blackberry or something like that. Ah, well. Now i know what a bud sport is. Thank you! Berdidaine 16:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apocrypha

Yes, I believe you're correct regarding the Apocrypha in the KJV. As to why the dating scheme went from BC/AD to BCE/CE, I have no idea. That was an edit introduced by User:Portress on May 26. ——Preost ^talk contribs 03:32, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You may be interested

You might be interested in this current vote: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Roman Catholics -Doohickey

[edit] VfD pollution

Ril enlisted Persecution by Muslims for VfD again, just 24 hours after the article withstood the first VfD. You might be interested to watch it. [2] --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 10:44, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Good work on the IRA

Good work on the IRA article. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 23:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)}

[edit] Dublin

I enjoyed your edit to Dublin! Palmiro 19:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC) Yes, that one.Palmiro 21:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Common Era

Thanks for you message on my talk page. I am afraid that I dunno much about the subject. I have just disambiguated OED into Oxford English Dictionary [3]. You should probably ask User:205.188.116.136 (see the edit: [4]). Cheers. --Edcolins 12:05, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Btw, you may wish to add the {{dubious}} tag (just after the disputed statement) and drop a message on the article's talk page. --Edcolins 12:07, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PL/I

First off, thank you for getting back to me. I guess the easiest way to bring up concerns about factual information like that is to bring it up in the discussion pages, but the way you removed the line without a clear comment did make it impossible to know that you were doing so to dispute the timeline.

I suppose that some of this is my fault for confusing two languages. I could have corrected the error when I first saw it. I actually had a counter-example from NELIAC, which was first publicly announced in 1958, based on publications from the Naval Research Laboratory. What year was the compiler that you were refering to written?

[edit] References

• Huskey, H. D., Halstead, M. H., and McArthur, R., "NELIAC- A Dialect of ALGOL" in ACM/ CACM 3(08) August 1960
• JOHNSEN, R. L. JR. Implementation of NELIAC for the IBM 704 and IBM 709 computers. NEL Tech. Mere. No. 428, Sept. 1960.
• HOPL entry for NELIAC which is the source of the following quote:

Significant in that it provided the first ever bootstrap implementation, and the standard reference for NELIAC (Halstead's book) was for many years the primary reference for such compilers.

Ok, I just re-read what I wrote on PL/I. It's odd that you deleted what you did, since your delete did not argue the point specifically. That is, you removed one of three sentences in that paragraph, the only one that did not claim PL/I was the first commercial (and this is a key point) language designed this way.

That said, I think the idea here is that BALGOL was a research language used in commercial settings, much like C was at first. PL/I was designed to be a commercial language. At least that's how I read it from the source I got that from. Now, of course, I can't find that source. Stupid me, I should have put it in the article, but not being a PL/I guy, I just assumed that it was common knowledge.

Easy things first: do you dispute the dates involed? E.g. do you dispute that NELIAC came before BALGOL or that PL/I came (about 8 years) after both of them? Of not, then I think we can move on too the question of if PL/I can claim to be the first commercial bootstrapped language, no? -Harmil 22:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Harmil. If its ok with you, could we continue this at Talk:PL/I#Was_PL.2FI_the_first_commercial_language_to_compile_itself.3F I have taken the liberty of copying our postings to date there, regards --ClemMcGann 01:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IRA 22-69 article

Hi there. I se you added some info to this article. Do you think you might have a chance to check the date that man arrived in Ireland and then make sure the chronology of the entire section makes sense? I think it would make it a bit clearer. Unfortunately I'm unlikely to be able to find suitable sources, or I'd do it myself. Palmiro 22:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

replied User_talk:Palmiro#Gunther_Schuetz--ClemMcGann 01:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Servant of God

I know what "Servant of God" is. We don't start articles with titles like that. And neither we do with "Saint", "Sir", "His Holiness", "Her Majesty" and other such titles. The only titles that are reasonably used are those that are part of the name under which a person is usually known (like "Santa Claus").

Also, the name of this title is extremely biased. Are we going to start articles about the Roman emperors from "God XXX" ? Many of them were officially deified after their deaths.

Nothing stops you from describing such things somewhere later in the article. Taw 13:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Replied - User_talk:Taw#Servant_of_God --ClemMcGann 14:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saint Linus

WikiRat

First, thanks for showing me this feature of wikipedia (I was not aware of user messaging). That is appreciated. Please check out my reply to your comments in the Saint Linus discussion area. Basically a summary is this;

I'm willing to do more leg work to find sources to support Saint Linus' lineage, however I cite Saint Peter's words found in "Apostolic Constitutions" (Bk. I, Chap. 46) as "original source" rather than "peer reviewed sources" as justification that the ordering is in doubt.

In the spirit of Key Policy #2 and Key Policy #4 I'm willing to compromise and recommend the middleground which I believe to be:

We enter a paragraph that cites Peter's words. We add that these words have lead some to argue that Linus may have been appointed the first Bishop of Rome by Saint Paul, however this is in dispute. Would you agree to that compromise?

WikiRat 13:48, 16 August 2005 (EST)

replied: Talk:Pope_Linus#ClemMcGann--ClemMcGann 14:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] styles

Hi Clem,

re the tricky issue of styles. You might be interested to know that in an attempt to create a consensus on the issue on Wikipedia a discussion has been going on at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Style War proposed solution. The consensus favoured replacing styles at the start of articles by an infobox on styles in the article itself. I have added in the relevant infobox to all the papal articles from Pius IX to John Paul II. I'm currently working on a redrafting of the wording to be put into the MoS but as the consensus to use infoboxes rather than the style in the article wasoverwhelming (indeed it far exceeded my expectations, given the blood'n'guts nature of the last attempt to decide on a policy) and everyone I consulted said 'go ahead' with turning the first of the infoboxes live, it seemed like a good idea to go ahead with the new policy initially on the papal pages. They are less complicated than the royal pages and so easiest to do. It also will give people a chance to see how the idea would work in practice.

If you have any comments or observations, feel free to leave them either on my talkpage or on the page linked above. Hopefully this new policy, with a clear consensus behind it, will end the endless revert wars over whether to keep styles in or out. (You were, BTW, quite right to reinsert the Servant of God link as the new policy had not yet gone live at that stage.) Slán FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 23:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)}

[edit] Hiberno-English

[edit] Spelling

I don't understand your list. Surely these are additions to the Lexicon. How do they illustrate spelling? (I've never come across "rere" by the way. Come to think of it, I don't remember seeing any greengrocer's apostrophes in Ireland either?) Will such a section have any content? --Red King 16:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

You have a point. Spelling and Lexicon could be the same. btw, it wasn't my request, however I agree with it. I replied on the "rere" issue on the talk page Talk:Hiberno-English#Please_add_a_spelling_section, Regards --ClemMcGann 21:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, "Lexicon" means "here are a list of words that are used in Ireland and rarely elswhere", whereas "spelling" means "these are words that are commonly misspelt or unconventionally spelt". --Red King 22:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Would you believe it — that letter was from Skyring. He admits it on his livejournal! What a plonker. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 02:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)}

[edit] 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 03:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chaim Herzog / Zion National School

I can't find much information about the Zion National School to warrant an entry in the Wikipedia, as I'm not a fan of one or two sentence stubs. I found five entries on Google with little or no substance that I can use to base an entry on. The most that I could find was that it was established just a few doors away from the home of Dr Isaac Herzog [Chaim's father] at Bloomfield Avenue and that it might now be located on Bushy Park Road, Rathgar. If it was relocated I don't have any details on why or when about it. It might now be called Zion Primary School, but again I don't know that for certain and I don't want to write or collaborate on an entry that is based on guesswork and supposition. I can't promise anytihing but I will do a bit more research. I found some more information; not a lot though, so I've emailed the online contact of the Irish Jewish Community ( http://www.iol.ie/~irishcom/ ) to ask for some help on getting some authorative information for an entry in the wikipedia. Kenguest 20:48, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Palatium Britannicum, again

WikiRat keeps insisting on removing the {{disputed}} tag from this article. Care to contribute to the discussion? -- llywrch 22:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

The design is old, but in the US at least the photographer always has a copyright on photographs of 3D works of art. Can you provide a source for this image? --Gmaxwell 12:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)