Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut:
WT:IMOS
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] Irish names in biography articles

I've stared a discussion on the provision of Irish names in biography articles on the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Gaeilge project page and would appreciate people's views on the matter.--Damac 21:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Referencing "local" years in Irish-related articles

A reasonably comprehensive list of "years-in-Ireland" has been built up. I propose that we incorporate an injunction in the IMOS that we use the form [yyyy in Ireland|yyyy] rather than simply [yyyy] - unless the latter is, from the context, evidently more appropriate.

Example: 1169 rather than 1169.

Each "Irish year" has a direct connection at the top of the page to the global Christian year - so the proposed is far more likely to direct the reader to relevant information without breaking the global connection.

Sarah777 (talk) 12:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, but I'd like it more this was standard all round for Wikipedia. Rather than make the proposal here only, how about making it to the full Wikipedia MOS. It is already half-suggested (see section), but I think it's time to hammer it our more. I don't think that "YYYY in Ireland" would always be appropriate, for example when talking about setting up the League of Nation in an Ireland-related article, or about World War II, it may be more appropriate to talk about global events. Or if and Ireland-article refers to the 1848 revolutions, it may be more appropriate to link to YYYY in Europe (if that exists). But certainly I think the closer to the subject the link is, the better. --sony-youthpléigh 13:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Adds: Just saw "unless the latter is, from the context, evidently more appropriate" - sorry, you'd alreay mentioned that. --sony-youthpléigh 13:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Most of the yyyy in Ireland articles don't link to the actual year from my experience, but other than that I have no issues with this and it seems a very sensible idea. On movie articles they link to yyyy in film. But yes I'd like it to be more in the general MOS as well rather than just the Ireland articles. Ben W Bell talk 13:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that Ben and have been working through the centuries to standardise the header with the international link centre top. I think maybe we could fix the format of the "yyyy in Ireland" in the IMOS while we are at it. All the years I've looked at are in one of three styles; fairly similar bar the missing international link in one of them. (Sarah777 (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC))
Don't you think it might be better received in the wider community if we said "This is what we do in Ireland related articles. We think it might be good if it was adopted by a wider audience", i.e. do it here first and then offer the option to the community to adopt it. Just a thought. MurphiaMan (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Good idea (Sony and Murph). I think maybe Sony might propose it (?) - I'm know out there for being a bit truculent! (Sarah777 (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC))
The years in Ireland have always covered Ireland, there was fork a while ago, when a Canadian started a series of "years in Northern Ireland", (I cant find where this happened). I think the years should be done on Island basis, certainly Sports, Arts, and even deaths would seem natural, and as NI politics are distinct from Britain, I think there is an equal case treating it on an all-Ireland basis as an all-UK basis. However I think the risk of Ireland years getting hijacked by the Ireland stops at the dotted line brigade needs to be looked at, before this is rolled out. Fasach Nua (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the NI/Ireland question is probably a separate issue; either way if some folk insist on a separate post-1922 set for NI it may be daft, politically motivated and cranky but till the occupied six are liberated I guess we are stuck with it. (Sarah777 (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Birthplace: Ireland or N. Ireland?

Jim McFadden, Bobby Kirk, and Sammy McManus all show "Belfast, Ireland" as their place of birth. Is this the agreed-upon standard, or should this display "Belfast, Northern Ireland"? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 13:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

See the archives, notably Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)/Archive 1#Names of areas and Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)/Archive 1#Ireland pre-independence biographical convention.3F. The people I have changed were not born in Northern Ireland, as it did not exist as an entity at the time in question. One Night In Hackney303 14:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Once again, putting "Belfast, Ireland (now Northern Ireland)" would be the best way to get rid of the confusion and hurt feelings. The current policy is confusing to the vast majority of general readers who don't understand the subtlety of its rules. Malick78 (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
And as was pointed out to you in the archive, that is totally factually incorrect. Ireland is not now Northern Ireland. One Night In Hackney303 18:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
<pedant> "Belfast, Ireland (now Belfast, Northern Ireland)" would solve that </pedant>. Rockpocket 18:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but what's the relevance of adding previous or future context to a place? Bear in mind it applies to literally thousands of articles (including the USSR, Yugoslavia etc etc). Why should exceptions be made for any article without a very good reason? It's a slippery slope to documenting the history of a place every time it's mentioned in any article. One Night In Hackney303 18:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Rockpocket 18:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
"Why should exceptions be made for any article without a very good reason?" - Clarity. It's our mission. Also, it wouldn't be factually incorrect to have "Belfast, Ireland (now in Northern Ireland)" - no one would make the misunderstanding you're wilfully making. Other articles do do it as you know - such as that on Stanislaw Lem - born in "Lwów, Poland (now Ukraine)". Why can't we be as grown up as the Poles and Ukrainians? I guess it'll never happen on this page... Malick78 (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
If you bring an attitude like that to this page, people aren't going to listen to you. One Night In Hackney303 19:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
It's called tough love. :) Malick78 (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I realized last night that they say "Ireland", and not "Northern Ireland", because they were born there before the division. But since you've brought up some good suggestions, why don't we use "Belfast, Ireland (now in Northern Ireland)"? It seems logical. Bear in mind that I have no interest in debating about which "Ireland" is better, as I am not from the island. What I care about here is clarity. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
<reduce indent> Twas, Malick and Rocket, as far as I know Belfast is still in Ireland, so "Belfast, Ireland (now in Northern Ireland)" is grossly misleading - in fact, you will find, I believe, that the entirety of Northern Ireland is still in Ireland, partition for all it's effects could do little about that. Malick, the examples you give all refer explicitly to political entities with changing borders, akin to the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, where towns have shifted "ownership" between states over time. Ireland is not a political entity; it's borders only change through the natural processes of erosion and deposition. Thankfully, these processes are quite slow and thus, as close as Belfast is to the coast, for the time being, it is safely far enough inland to avoid any danger of becoming dislodged and drifting elsewhere.
The same applies for the other jurisdiction on the island. Thus the Duke of Wellington was born in Ireland, and his place of birth is still in Ireland. We don't ascribe him as being born in "Ireland (now the Republic of Ireland)". However, if we were to describe describe Dublin as being in the United Kingdom, a causal mention of the fact that it is now in the Republic of Ireland might be apt.
You might try to describe Bobby Kirk or others as being born in "Belfast, the United Kingdom" but consensus (as was virulently defended by UK-based editors) is to describe UK places in their traditional manner. We easily describe Shakesphere as being born in England, without fretting to clarify that Stratford-upon-Avon is now in the United Kingdom. Which puts us right back to where we were. Pre-1922, Belfast is in Ireland. Post-1922 it is in Northern Ireland. This is, from my experience, the usual way of historically describing places in Ireland. It's clean, neat, conventional and accurate. --sony-youthpléigh 00:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Good point. Confusion arises because, typically, when people say "Ireland", they are referring to the republic. Anyway, I don't care anymore. This isn't something with which I want to get involved, so I will leave the squabbling to those who squabble. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
If someone was born pre-division then I honestly believe it should be the name of the state as it was. ie Belfast, Ireland. Updating it to be relevant to modern geography opens a massive can of worms as using it here would mean using it in all other articles where the name of the country/state has changed since the person's birth which is thousands of articles. The link is there for them to determine what it is now, but putting in (now in Northern Ireland) or the like is just adding extra information that isn't actually relevant since the article isn't actually concerned about geography but is biographical in nature. My vote (if it was a vote) would be just country/state as it was at the time. Belfast, Ireland. But not Belfast, United Kingdom or the like as all people from the UK (current UK and former UK) tend to be listed by their constituent part rather than the whole union name. Ben W Bell talk 00:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Ben. Working on some ancient years it would be an immense pain to have to say that "Fethard was founded in 1200 in what is now County Tipperary in the modern [Republic of Ireland|Ireland]". Sarah777 (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
You're all au fait with Irish history. People like Twas Now and myself are not (even though I have Irish ancestors) - therefore seeing Ireland - we automatically think of the modern state (and definitely not the island!! sony-youth) - hence confusion. The average reader is who we should consider, and this confuses them. Adding (now Northern Ireland) is the least confusing way of doing things - and no one (with the exception of Hackney) can easily be offended by it.
Lastly, referring to the state as it then was can be problematic in itself - no one talking about Boudicca would hesitate to say that she was born in "what is now Great Britain" - to call it Brittania would be perverse, even though that is what it was then called. As I say, if Poles and Ukrainians are happy with the way Lodz is described, why are we so touchy about following their lead? Malick78 (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
"... no one talking about Boudicca would hesitate to say that she was born in 'what is now Great Britain' ..." - yet, that is exactly that the Boudica article does. (Unsurprisingly, since she was born in Great Britain, that being an island.) Boudicca was born in Britain, Bobby Kirk was born in Ireland. This is the standard way of describing things. If I buy a travel guide to Ireland, I expect Belfast to be described in it (see for example). I expect most people do also. --sony-youthpléigh 11:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
My point was more that they don't use the term, Britannia, which was in use at the time of the events. The article says Britain, which is clear to readers now (who will associate it more with the current state rather than the island actually) - but links to Roman Britain - a helpful link, where the article then says: "The Romans referred to their province as Britannia". So the term which is most accurate historically, Britannia, is used only when it is appropriate and clear.
Basically you're arguing for accuracy to make those in the know happy, while I'm arguing for a compromise that allows more casual readers to avoid jumping to the wrong conclusion. Why should a reader in Kenya, for example, be expected to realise that while Belfast was under one jurisdiction at one time in its history, it's now under another when we can just state it straight away with a minimum of fuss? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malick78 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
If you were aiming for political accuracy, then you'd say someone born in Belfast in the 19th century was born in "Belfast, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland"; but if it's just geography, then there's nothing wrong with Belfast, Ireland. People know Belfast is not today in the Republic of Ireland, but as that didn't exist in the 19th century, "Ireland" is hardly ambiguous. Ireland, as well as being an island, is a nation like Scotland, England and Wales, and doesn't need to have full sovereign independence to be recognised as Ireland; no-one has a problem (well, a few Britannic nutters aside) with writing Edinburgh, Scotland, in any era. More to the point, Ireland doesn't link to the modern state, but to the island nation, so I don't see any problem with "Belfast, Ireland". Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, when you say that when people read "Ireland" they assume it refers to the place that has Dublin as its main city - I could not agree more! But that is another can of worms because it opens the question of the most appropriate title for the article now called the Republic of Ireland. But going back in history the island has been divided into two states for only 80 years of its recorded history of 2,000 years plus. So when talking of events in, say 1200, it is completely irrelevant which of the two states a place was then. I guess the call would depend on the specific context. Does this hypothetical Kenyan want to know what modern county Ormonde was in? The current article doesn't think so (nor does it give the modern state). Does he need to be told, while reading of the Siege of Fethard that modern Fethard is situated where the R692, R689 and R706 regional roads intersect? Sarah777 (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Malick, you wrote: "Why should a reader in Kenya, for example, be expected to realise that while Belfast was under one jurisdiction at one time in its history, it's now under another ..." Belfast is not under a different jurisdiction since the time of the birth of these people. That's the difference. Your example before was that "... if Poles and Ukrainians are happy with the way Lodz is described, why are we so touchy about following their lead?" First, did you mean Lviv or some other place? In any case, it's simply a different situation. Lviv changed hands between the Ukraine and Poland. Belfast was in Ireland. It still is. Belfast was in the United Kingdom. It still is. Belfast did not change hands between any state. Lviv did. That's the difference. That's why it is sometimes wise to describe Lviv in those terms. After re-unification (slightly joking), George Best will undoubtedly be described as having been born in "Belfast, Northern Ireland (now in the Republic of Ireland)". But for now, these people were born in Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom, and we don't need to go confusing things by running off on tangents about how a different part of Ireland is no longer a part of that state. Nothing about the location of the Belfast has changed since then. It is still in the United Kingdom; and it is still in Ireland. Lviv on the other hand, has gone from being in Poland to being in the Ukraine. That, sometimes, might be worth noting. --sony-youthpléigh 12:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure, Lviv - don't know why Lodz popped into my head. Hmm, I feel we may not convince each other:)) How about a vote? And is there a more neutral place to have it? I feel this page will automatically attract people with a vested interest when we really care about the average reader. Thoughts? Malick78 (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Be mindful of WP:POLLS Gnevin (talk) 12:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You could drop a line at Wikipedia:WikiProject Northern Ireland or the Wikipedia:Northern Irish Wikipedians' notice board to notify people there of the discussion. A word at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland or the Wikipedia:Irish Wikipedians' notice board, and possibly Wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' notice board, would not go amiss also.
I'm a bit worried that you think that this isn't a "neutral place" or that editors here would have "vested interests". You should know that the the editors have have argued against a change to the current practice have come from a broad cross section of "interests" regarding Northern Ireland, but wider input wouldn't be a bad thing, as neither would adding any outcome to the IMOS itself.
I would not be in favour of a straight vote (see WP:VOTE), but outlining some consistent approaches might be useful. --sony-youthpléigh 12:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Btw, a quick google search shows "Ireland (now Northern Ireland)" gets 1180 hits. Can it really be so bad? "Poland (now Ukraine)" gets 1560. It's a useful way of expressing the complexity of the issue. Malick78 (talk) 09:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It gets 58 unique hits. One Night In Hackney303 09:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Derry dispute

The insistence of some changing the name of County Derry to Londonderry is somewhat bizzare, when referring to GAA teams in particular. It also seems to be inconsistant when you take the following into account; "A compromise has been proposed at WP:IWNB that the form "is a town on the coast of County Cork, Ireland" should be used. This is already widely used and will allow it to appear as Ireland whilst linking to Republic of, as per Follow local conventions."

Couldn't a similar arrangement be made for the Derry/Londonderry dispute when the subject is related to the GAA i.e. County Derry?. Afterall the largest sporting body in Ireland, the government of the 26 counties and the majority of people in Ireland recognize the county as being called Derry. Maccabass (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem with GAA teams and Derry/Londonderry?Gnevin (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I added the following to an article on Jeremiah O'Donovan Rossa "Other GAA teams throughout Ireland have also been named after him including Ard Bó Uí Dhonnabhain Rossa in County Tyrone and Ó Donnabháin Rosa Machaire Fíolta of County Derry". I find the insistence of changing Derry to Londonderry strange particularly when talking about GAA clubs (or as another example, people from Derry who clearly see themselves as Irish).Maccabass (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
On top of this I'd also be interested in seeing where " a compromise solution was proposed and accepted by many users" as stated in this article as that point is still awaiting citation. And even if this did take place the term "many users" isn't exactly a solid foundation to base changing Derry to Londonderry.Maccabass (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
With the county and the GAA teams if the terminology is referring to a geographical area it should always use County Londonderry as that is the official name of the area that is under discussion. However if the terminology is specifically referring to the GAA Leagues then it should be County Derry as that is the name of the GAA league and no official county naming can change that. If specifically using County Derry and not County Londonderry is an issue for you and is relevant to the article, then word it so it is obviously discussing the league and not the geographical location. Ben W Bell talk 00:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, given the article for the geographical location entitled "County Londonderry" states in it "...or County Derry" there is a clear indication that the county is known by two names. For this reason and others wouldn't it be pertient to come up with a better compromise than the current one?Maccabass (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the statement in WP:IMOS goes beyond the compromise, which was purely about the article titles. I think the GAA point about the league and county team above is legitimate, while on the other hand, I think this edit comment [1] is wrong --Rumping (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
How is that edit summary wrong? If we're going for an approach of "a source says Derry" or "a source says Londonderry" it's just inviting people to find sources that support their preferred name, while other people will find sources that support their preferred name. Result? Edit warring! And I updated the guideline page to reflect the current way the guideline is used. For months and months (if not longer) editors (regardless of background) have used Derry for the city and Londonderry for the county in articles citing this very guideline, the guideline now reflects that. I don't think anyone wants the door opening to mass edit warring across hundreds of articles or a similar number of individual talk page discussions about which name should be used in that article, it would be a waste of everyone's time. One Night In Hackney303 23:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Irish names for people who did not use them: PROPOSED TEXT

I have added the following text to the Manual of Style:

  • If someone did not use the Irish version of his or her name, it is not appropriate or encyclopaedic for Wikipedians to "invent" such names. Books about Irish surnames are interesting and useful, but making use of them to devise Irish names for subjects of the Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, as it constitutes original research.

I trust it will solve some of the problems we have had of late. -- Evertype·✆ 11:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No I'd also add ,
If the Irish version of his or her name has wide spread usage or publication but the person them self rarely use's it is appropriate to use the Irish name such as GAA players Gnevin (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
This would be:
  • If someone did not use the Irish version of his or her name, it is not appropriate or encyclopaedic for Wikipedians to "invent" such names. Books about Irish surnames are interesting and useful, but making use of them to devise Irish names for subjects of the Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, as it constitutes original research. If the Irish version of a person's name is in widespread usage or publication even if the person rarely uses it may appropriate to use the Irish name (GAA players are an example of this). But in such a case there must be an external citation for the usage.
-- Evertype·✆ 16:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Whoah! I think we're melding two separate questions:
  1. What sources are acceptable as proof that a particular Irish version of a person's name is accurate
  2. When is it appropriate to include the Irish version of a person's name?
This happened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Gaeilge#RfC: Verifiability and reliability of sources used to produce Irish-language versions of subjects' names, where the RfC was about #1 but strayed into #2. Evertype's proposed text is, I think, intended to address #1 but is ambiguous; Gnevin's addition clearly relates to #2. I suggest we need 2 separate discussions.

For point 1, the consensus from the RfC (all except User:Domer48 I think) was something like the following:

  • When giving the Irish version of the name of a person normally referred to by an English-language name, a source can only be considered reliable if it provides an Irish version explicitly for that individual. It is not acceptable to cite a generic English-Irish dictionary of names to translate the person's forename(s) and surname(s) and present this combination as the person's name in Irish.

I suggest we agree this quickly and then move on to question 2, where the real fun can begin. jnestorius(talk) 23:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Support for Point 1: Glad that we're moving on. I agree with Jnestorius in that we should discuss the essence of Evertype's original suggestion, adequately reflected and enhanced in "Point 1" above, and then move on to Point 2.--Damac (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think before we get carried away with ourselves, that a post is placed on the relevant notice boards to build up consensus?--Domer48 (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
After three discussions on this issue, once in April 2006, again in November 2007 and, more recently, this month, a consensus has emerged. Notice on above proposal has been provided on WikiProject Ireland and WikiProject Gaeilge.--Damac (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There has been various discussions, but as of yet no consensus. Consensus must be established first. --Domer48 (talk) 12:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Support for Point 1: I accept that the two elements can be separated. With regard to Domer48, I can only say that I have seen that he wants to use Surname books to devise names for people. That is Original Research, and therefore out of bounds. Where he says (as here) "there is no consensus" he may mean "there is no unanimity", but consensus does not require unanimity. I suspect, Domer48, that the rule will be against the practice that you wish to engage in. (I have made the proposals under discussion in bold type above for clarity. Would someone like to try to merge them so we can have one text to discuss?) -- Evertype·✆ 13:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I know what consensus is! I also know its not a vote. --Domer48 (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I recognize that since April 2006 there has been consensus that inventing Irish names for people is Original Research and therefore such practice should not be engaged in on the Wikipedia. I see no counter-argument. Therefore I stand by the text as proposed. -- Evertype·✆ 13:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The two proposals

1. What sources are acceptable as proof that a particular Irish version of a person's name is accurate?

Proposed text:
  • When giving the Irish version of the name of a person who is normally referred to by an English-language name, a source can only be considered reliable if it provides an Irish version explicitly for that individual. It is not acceptable to cite a generic English-Irish dictionary of names to translate the person's forename(s) and/or surname(s) and present this combination as the person's name in Irish.

2. When is it appropriate to include the Irish version of a person's name?

Proposed text:
  • If someone did not use the Irish version of his or her name, it is not appropriate or encyclopaedic for Wikipedians to "invent" such names, as this constitutes original research.

I think that's right. -- Evertype·✆ 13:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

What source would be considered to be verifiable and deemed to be reliably sourced, and cite examples. Would a book published by the Irish Genealogy Press for example, be considered to be verifiable and deemed to be reliable sourced. A book which gives the root branch of the original name, in addition to is subsequent originate.--Domer48 (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
A source which talks about an individual person and gives his name in English and Irish would be such a source. NO GENERIC BOOK which lists forenames and surnames would be permitted. ONLY a book which indicated the Irish name of a specific individual person would be permitted. To put it another way, inventing Irish names for people by looking up the names in a book about personal and surnames would NEVER be permitted, because that is Original Research. -- Evertype·✆ 15:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
As i've said the trouble with this wording is GAA players where they may not use the name themself but its widely used by the GAA
If someone did not have an Irish version of his or her name in common usage, it is not appropriate or encyclopaedic for Wikipedians to "invent" such names, as this constitutes original research.
Is better, no ? Gnevin (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need a manual of style entry on this? Every edit is subject to WP:VERIFY. Djegan (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Djegan on this if it meets WP:VERIFY then it stays if not it goes simple really. BigDunc (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
If we have to have an entry that explicitly prohibits something that is already not permitted then we have a very serious problem and are just underlining it. Action is needed where their are problems, not a restatement of well defined policy. Djegan (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
We don't need a debate on how to codify policy for Irish names that are "invented" when their is already a clear and well defined policies. People who add "invented" Irish names are subject to the same policies as everyone else. Therefore suspected "invented" names are subject to verification on demand, and subject to removal when not verified in good time. No need for a policy "as gaeilge" here! Djegan (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Evertype I have asked you to cite sources which would be considered verifiable and deemed to be reliably sourced. Why would NO GENERIC BOOK which lists forenames and surnames would be permitted. Are the authors just "inventing Irish names"? To put it another way, just making them up. Is that what you are saying? How is a book which meets our criteria on verifiable and deemed to be reliably sourced considered by you to be verifiable and deemed to be reliably sourced. --Domer48 (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Any "fool" can take out an old Irish-English school dictionary and translate names of people, places and things. That does not mean that they should be added to Wikipedia. They must pass WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR. Word playing with dictionaries is clearly original research, it is not permitted. Djegan (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Djegan the book I was citing is not a dictionary, but gives a history of Irish names. --Domer48 (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

My comment is not an accusation against your character or contribution.
Rather if we are to add the Irish name of something it must pass all official policies in the first instance when challenged, it also needs to be reasonably notable. These are things which are already generally accepted on wikipedia. Djegan (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem Djegan. --Domer48 (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

A book saying that O'Sullivan and Ó Súilleabháin are equivalent names is one thing. A Wikipedian using such a book to create the Irish name of any particular individual would be engaging in Original Research. That's right. You CANNOT give any particular person Irish names. You have to find an actual source showing that the particular person used an Irish name. -- Evertype·✆ 16:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly Evertype this is covered already with WP:VERIFY and WP:RS IMO this is another waste of time by Damc the same as the RfC he started regarding ODBN in which the reliability of the source was never questioned. BigDunc (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Djegan, I understand what your saying. The rules are clear about what is going on. Domer48's insistence on baptising specific people with Irish names by looking names up in generic dictionaries and then combining and applying this info, defies a number of WP rules, specifically original research and synthesis.
Time and time again I've tried to point this out to him, but he remains obdurate. Consider this example, where Domer, within the space of a few weeks, moves from insisting that a particular Irishman, Raymond McCartney, has an Irish name (providing "sources" of course) to arguing that he has a Scottish one:
First, one removes unreferenced material,[2] only to have a completely unreliable, unreferenced and self-published source used to reinsert the material.[3] Then, after one points out that this represents original research,[4], along comes an editor (who has been exposed as a sockpuppet master this week) and reverts without any discussion.[5] One continues to point out WP rules in this regard.[6] and even starts a discussion on this particular name on the talk page, but this is all reverted again.[7] The one is forced to raise the unreliability of a specific source[8], providing a detailed explanation on the talk page.[9] That solves the problem for a while, until Domer48 charges back in and decides that this person doesn't have an Irish name after all, but does have a "Scottish' one.[10]
That's how ludicrous it has got. With this character, no matter how you explain it to him or what rules you refer to, he will carry on regardless.
This has dragged on for too long. The only way I see of resolving this issue is to have this rule added to the IMOS, thus reaffirming and clarifying overall WP policy. A formal proposal has been made which, if passed, will solve this problem once and for all.
Beware of Domer48 and BigDunc's obstructionism. When consensus emerges on an issue, they demand discussion. When a proposal is made to modify the IMOS, they demand more discussion. When a discussion starts, they hurry to point out that its not a vote. Then when someone like Djegan, whose motives are beyond reproach, suggests that we simply apply the rules, these two disruptive editors jump around like cheer leaders in the hope that, once again, this issue will be allowed to pass and they can continue with their policy-defying disruption.
If we fail to provide a clear rule, this pair will create havoc every time any of us tries to remove one of these conjured-up Irish names from articles. We have to act now.--Damac (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Damc there is a clear rule in place already WP:V this covers it we dont need to waste time on this discussion. BigDunc (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
BigD, you've zero credibility when you talk about WP rules. Were we to follow your ramblings, we'd still be reading edit summaries such as "Removed reference to "Sites that require registration",[11] "Subject of article is not Oxford DNB?",[12] "Do not add restricted sites when unrestricted ones are available",[13][14] used to remove perfectly verifiable sources from Wikipedia.--Damac (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Well Damac you have just proved you have zero credibility when it comes to supplying diffs as anyone can see I made 2 of the 4 diffs you supplied when I misunderstood WP:EL and your edit summaries.BigDunc (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Least we forget Damac your explicit threat to disrupt wiki, for a bit of point scoring. So we all know what motivates you. Not to mention a little canvassing. What next on your list, Street Names, Towns, Cities, because if you don't have an issue, I'm sure you will find one. --Domer48 (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
My interest in this whole issue goes back long before last week and you know that.
Canvassing? I was simply contacting people who have an interest the issues. I also contacted relevant boards, before and after your request. You wanted discussion and you have it.
I've no intention of moving on to towns and places, especially considering that I've added a few in my time. But unlike the names you provide, all of these can be backed up by numerous and authentic sources. There are so many references that can say that town XX in English is town YY in Irish. That is not the case for the Irish names you provided.
That's the issue here.--Damac (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


Everyone: WP:NPA -- Comment on content, not on the contributor. Djegan (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I wish people would sign their posts. Djegan, I think we really need an explicit IMOS here, as the general rules do not seem to work with the editors in question. -- Evertype·✆ 19:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I here what your saying Djegan and of course you right. I have tried to be reasonable, as can be seen here and here. It was suggested that the names had to be referenced and that is what I attempted to do (have a look at my contributions for the 10 November). Read my comments here, here and here, during the last discussion, was I being reasonable, I think I was? So this "with the editors in question" nonsence, it gets a bit old, if you know what I mean? --Domer48 (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me (and the participants of this discussion) of that particular incident. Thanks to you insistence that we can use newspapers as a source for people's Irish names, Mairéad Farrell now has three names according to Wikipedia: her English-language one and two Irish-language ones (Máiréad Ní Fhearghail and Mairéad Ní Fhearail). Both the latter are referenced with An Phoblacht articles.
Imagine, two names! Both cannot be correct. And Raymond McCartney now having a "Scottish" name, according to you.
Anyone who stands over such stupidity can never be reasonable in my book.
This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia and unless each Irish name provided is backed up with authoritative sources stating that that particular person went by a specific name in Irish themselves, we shouldn't be conjuring them up and adding them here. That's what this is all about.--Damac (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


Yes, I'm afraid we do need such an entry on the IMOS. It should cite WP:V and clarify "for the avoidance of doubt" that it applies specifically to the issue of adding alternative names where the source cited does not meet the criteria of WP:CITE (because it is a citation for generic translation of names, not a specific citation for this name for this person). The problem here is that Domer48 does not accept that his (good faith) edits are in violation of WP:V because he can cite the dictionaty, so it has to be spelt out for him. --Red King (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Red King, it was at least gracious of you to concede that my edits are a least done in good faith, thought slightly tinged with the having to “spell it out” to be. Credits were its due though all the same. However, Damac just can not seem to stop themselves from telling lies, and credits me with Mairéad Farrell having three versions of her name. The diff’s clearly show that I added no such thing, as can be seen here, and sure was it not himself who added the other one here. As for the McCartney reference, here is the source, with a note. The source says the name has a Scottish Gaelic origin. Ah but we can’t let the truth get in the way of a good story can we. Damac catch yourself on will yeh, you make us all look bad with your carry on. In deference to the other editors, I’ll not be drawn into dialog with Damac as it has become demeaning, and I apologise for the tone and aspect which this discussion has taken on. --Domer48 (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
That RedKing has said that your edits have been in good faith does not meant that they were right. They were wrong. You (or anybody else) should NOT invent Irish names for people by using surname dictionaries. Do you understand this, or not? -- Evertype·✆ 01:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Their is no place for dictionaries or lists to effect a translation (its original research and not permitted - translation is not a science, it takes a lot of experience to develop the skill). When an Irish name is challenged then someone needs to be able to demonstrate a citation that explicitly uses whats been proposed - and also they need to demonstrate that the usage of the Irish word is notable. We don't provide Irish names of Irish people just because their Irish - this isn't a translation blog. We need to get real on this folks and stop slurring others just because you disagree on their opinion. Get professional folks, not amateurish. Djegan (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I just ignore Evertype, as they are carrying on in the same vein as the other gobshite. Djegan if I were to cite the source I used on an article about Irish Names, it would meet our criteria on WP:V and WP:RS, but if I was to use it to reference a name it would be a case of original research. Now because it has not been explicitly stated to date that this is the case, and is in fact still only being proposed here, why do you insist on calling it WP:OR. Under the proposed discussion, we wish to change the criteria of what is WP:V in relation to the use of Irish names. So the next editor who wishes to claim WP:OR had better be able to show were this was agreed to, because if the can, then what are these proposels being discussed for. --Domer48 (talk) 09:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, you are being both rude and obtuse. We maintain that it is WRONG to use a book of forenames and surnames to cobble together an Irish name for a person who does not use an Irish name. We want a policy to PREVENT people from cobbling together Irish names for people who do not use Irish names. Your suggestion, again and again, is merely that you feel that it is legitimate to use a surname dictionary to determine the Irish names for people. That is original research and it is not allowed. That is the consensus we have here. We want you to stop doing what you are doing because it is the wrong thing to do. Get it? -- Evertype·✆ 11:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Since the dissenter to the obvious consensus here has just called the rest of us "gobshites", I believe the argument is over. I am placing the two new rules into the Manual of Style. -- Evertype·✆ 11:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Domer48 - your easily violating WP:NPA here. You are fighting a loosing battle from here on in. Djegan (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have made a number of points which need to be addressed. As of now, I still do not know what sources are deemed to be accatable? There are only two editor of have referenced, because of they tone and way they conducted themselves, I consider it an adpt discription--Domer48 (talk) 12:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example. An article about Nicholas Williams may not name him "Nioclás Mac Liam" unless there is a source which shows that particular individual to be known under that particular name. (He never, ever, ever is called by an Irish name.) You may not use An Sloinnteoir Gaeilge agus an tAinmneoir or Sloinnte uile Éireann: All Ireland Surnames to invent Irish names for individual people. Never. This addresses your point. -- Evertype·✆ 13:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm violating WP:NPA here, Djegan are we being a bit slective here or what. We have a proposel being discussed, which suggests that there is a problem with the current policy. I'm looking for some clarity, in the proposed wording. And you start edit warring under the new criteria that by not addressing any of my questions, you can revert an edit which was valid. The edit I reverted was again some new criteria, that being, they were offended by a view I had of their conduct so they can introduce their proposels without any consensus. Jesus, all this new criteria, its hard to keep up. Now I'm going to make it simple, this is what I want answered.
  • What sources can be used to reference a name?
Simple question! I don't want a re-hash of anything. I know all about WP:V and WP:RS, and this proposel adds additional criteria to thoses policies and guidlines, but only on the WP:IMOS. So I being told what sources I can not use, tell me what ones I can use. It says a lot about you that you all continue to discuss it, yet implement your proposles, by edit warring regardless. --Domer48 (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
You may not use An Sloinnteoir Gaeilge agus an tAinmneoir or Sloinnte uile Éireann: All Ireland Surnames to invent Irish names for individual people. Never. This addresses your point. -- Evertype·✆ 14:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to jump in here, having just read through the foregoing discussion. The proposed rules seem to me to be reasonable. They are clear, and rational, as to what CANNOT be used as the source for an Irish version: sources which do not use the name specifically of that person. Just because the dictionary says that Patrick is "Padraig" and Pearse is "MacPiaras" doesn't mean we can go on that alone. If that's all you have, it's not enough; it's original research. If you have a source that describes Padraig Pearse as Padraig MacPiaras (and obviously in this case, you will), then you've got a potential source, but still not a verifiable source. We cannot specify in advance what is a verifiable source, since that will depend on the context, and requires a more subjective, consensus-led view. If an Irish language newspaper describes Barack Obama as 'Bearac O'Bama' that would not, I suspect, be enough; if the man himself, in an address to the Boston branch of the Sons of Saint Patrick, calls himself by that name, it might. But every case has to be assessed on its merits, though precedent would count of course. --Rbreen (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


Some comments:

  • In fairness to Domer48, we could do with some examples of what is good practice, rather than simply stating what is bad practice. I don't think there is a single source, it will be on a case-by-case basis; but a few illustrative cases would be helpful
  • Here are some personal theories of mine that might, sourced, be added to Irish name, an article whoch ideally would provide some substance for the policies we are discussing. There was formerly a tendency in all of Europe to translate a foreign name into one's own language; thus Peter the Great not Pyotr; Frederick Barbarossa, not Friedrich; Ferdinand of Aragon, not Fernando. This still applies to Popes, for some reason, but not more generally. In Ireland, enthusiasts of the Gaelic revival, particularly Irish republicanism, translated their names into Irish; some used the Irish version even in English (Edward→Éamon de Valera) some only in Irish (Ernest Blythe→Earnán de Blaghd). This tradition was long followed in National schools; in Irish class your first and last name were translated into an Irish equivalent, if any existed. I don't know if this is still done: there are probably a good deal more children with untranslatable names, both immigrants and Britney/Dakota/Jasons.
    • I forgot to say that, OTOH, it is more common now than in previous generations for children in English-speaking families to be given Irish names: Dónal not Daniel, Diarmuid not Jeremiah, Mairéad not Margaret, Siobhán not Joan, etc.; though often without accents. jnestorius(talk) 19:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think the current text for point 2 goes far enough in excluding excessive Irish versions. "If someone did not have an Irish version of his or her name in common usage", they may nonetheless have a version in uncommon use. Bertie Ahern's article gives Pádraig Parthalán Ó hEachthairn as the Irish version of his name, impeccably sourced to The Department of the Taoiseach. Even with such a source, I would prefer if the name was left out. If you listen to TG4 or RnaG, or read Irish-language newspapers, he is always called "Bertie Ahern" in Irish, never mind in English. OTOH I don't know whether Bairbre de Brún or Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin chose to gaelicize their names from English originals, or have had Irish versions since birth. In the latter case, I don't believe Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin should have Kevin Keelan listed on his article, any more than Harald Schumacher should have Harold Cobbler.
  • My preference would be for the following:

Article names:

Introduction paragraph:

  • Where someone used the Irish version of his or her name but this does not enjoy widespread usage among English speakers, then use the English version when naming the article but refer to the Irish version of the name in the first line.
  • If a person has since birth been known in English by an Irish-language name, the article should be at that name and no English version of their name should be listed, even if a well-sourced version is available, as to provide it suggests the person was sometimes known by that name.
  • Some people were known by an English name in their early life, and later adopted an Irish version of their name.
  • If someone is always known in English by an English name, but regularly speaks/writes Irish, and uses an Irish version of their name when doing so, then this Irish version of their name should be mentioned but not bold:
  • If someone is always known in English by an English name, and rarely if ever speaks/writes Irish, then no Irish version of their name should be listed, even if a well-sourced version is available, as to provide it suggests the person has a greater knowledge of/interest in Irish than is in fact the case
Trouble with that is Shane Ryan ,Very commonly written as Seán Ó Riain, I don't you can ignore well-sourced material. Gnevin (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know the guy, but if he's sometimes known in English as "Seán Ó Riain", then he doesn't fall into the Bertie-Ahern category. Maybe he doesn't fall into any of the categories: do we need a new one? "People who don't speak Irish but are sometimes called by an Irish name in English."
"Shane Ryan or Seán Ó Riain ..." (if he's only occasionally known as Seán Ó Riain it should be italic, not bold; if he's only occasionally known as Shane Ryan the article should be moved to Seán Ó Riain.)
Maybe we also need "People usually known by an Irish name but occasionally by an English name" I can't think offhand of any, but say
"Seán Ó Murchú (or John Murphy) ..."
jnestorius(talk) 21:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you know any GAA player or follow the GAA ,they all have Irish names most of which the players would never used expect in GAA terms .He is known as Seán Ó Riain nearly as much Shane Ryan in GAA programs,Can't the MOS just state for GAA players .... whatever Gnevin (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Just Munster hurling. The few matches I've attended I didn't buy the program. RTE and the press use English names (except of course for Seán Óg Ó hAilpín etc). See also my comment below about the GAA player templates; I think that covers your objections. jnestorius(talk) 21:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note some people have mixed-language forms
    • "Patrick Henry Pearse (also known as Pádraig Pearse; Irish Pádraig Anraí Mac Piarais ..."
    • "Peig Sayers ... (I think this should have Maighréad Sayers as well)

Mentions in other articles:

  • References to a person in articles should generally use the name in the same language as the article title; sometimes the opposite language may be more appropriate in the context.

jnestorius(talk) 15:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Jnestorius, very clear, reasoned and definitely illustrative. I see not obvious fault with it at all, and commend your efforts. I would have no problem with that at all. Would it be prudent to flag this on the appropriate Irish/Ireland forums which would have an interest in this subject to build some consensus? --Domer48 (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, and yes. jnestorius(talk) 19:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice that {{Infobox GAA dualplayer}}and {{Infobox GAA player}} have a space for "Irish name". I'm not sure about that. I guess it's okay in a template, inasmuch as the GAA is pro-Irish, and a reader will probably (hopefully?) infer the name is bestowed by the organisation rather than inherent to the person. Any name filled in that field still needs verifiability, of course; and whether to also include the Irish version in the lead paragraph still falls under the terms of this MOS. jnestorius(talk) 21:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of Northern Irish

I would like to request that parts of this guideline are reviewed. I find it unbelievable that people born in the 6 Counties of Northern Ireland cannot be described as Northern Irish if they were born before 1920. It is particularly questionable for those that were born just decades before NI came into existence and subsequently spent much of their adult life living in Northern Ireland. My main interest here is :Category:Northern Irish footballers. User:One Night In Hackney insists on removing players from this category and placing them in :Category: Irish footballers. For a long time this category has just included seven subcategories with no individual players because in theory every single player in this these subcategories could be placed in the main one. The history of Irish football is complex – two different nations, three national teams with overlapping jurisdictions etc – and that is why Irish footballers are divided into the below subcategories.

Category:Northern Irish footballers
Category:Republic of Ireland footballers
Category:Republic of Ireland international footballers
Category:Northern Ireland international footballers
Category:Pre-1950 IFA international footballers
Category:Dual Irish international footballers
Category:Republic of Ireland female footballers

It is too simplistic and misleading to just to put Irish footballers in a single category. I also suspect that this particular part of the guideline is biased towards the Republican view. Certainly the editors that are enforcing it, User:One Night In Hackney and User:BigDunc, judging by their own pages seem to have Republican sympathies. Away from football I have found several examples of articles which describe the following as Northern Irish.

Sir John Boyd, 1st Baronet
Samuel Cunningham
Terence O'Neill
John Miller Andrews
Sir Ronald Ross, 2nd Baronet
Sir Robert McConnell, 1st Baronet
George William Russell
Joseph Campbell (poet)

None of them were born after 1920. This suggests to me that there is not a consensus on this issue as the writers of these articles opted to categorise these people as Northern Irish. Djln--Djln (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you going to call people from County Donegal before partition? Were they "Northern Irish" too? In an attempt to stop articles descending into farce and maintain historical accuracy, people born before partition are "Irish", people born after can be described as "Northern Irish". A subdivision is being created where one didn't even exist at the time. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument, all that means is that other articles need to be amended in addition. I dare you to go through Category:People from Jerusalem and try labelling everyone in there as Israeli, you'll make CNN with any luck! One Night In Hackney303 23:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Once again ONIH you have missed the point. Perhaps you should checkout some geography. Donegal is not part of Northern Ireland so why would anybody describe people from there as Northern Irish ? Please try to stick to the point and avoid going off on irrelevant tangents Djln--Djln (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Nope, it's very much the point. The people you incorrectly labelled "Northern Irish" were not born in Northern Ireland, because it did not exist at the time of their birth. They were born in a country called Ireland, and are therefore "Irish"One Night In Hackney303 00:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Did any of them play for a team that was called "Northern Ireland", or in many cases even verifiably live there post-partition? One Night In Hackney303 00:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Garibaldi was allegedly a promising calcio player but he was not eligible to play for NI. He did make great biscuits thou. I guess you only like tangents when it suits you then and not when it blows apart your argument. Djln--Djln (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned that if this issue isn't handled carefully, it could lead to categories being depopulated because the category label doesn't adequately convey the intent. For example :Category:Northern Irish footballers could be read either as "people who play Northern Irish football", thereby including folks born in Africa or Asia who play for a Northern Irish team, and/or as "Northern Irish people who play football".

This arose a few days ago when I created Category:Northern Irish women in politics. This raised concerns that some of the notable women in NI politics do not identify as Northern Irish; the problem was resolved simply by renaming the category to Category:Women in Northern Irish politics, to avoid any implication about the implied assertion about the identification of the women concerned. Could this repositioning of the adjective "Northern Irish" help for other categories? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really, because many of them played in England too. It's basically an attempt to prevent Category:Irish footballers being used and have a myriad of subcats (yet not one for people who were born in the six counties or all-Ireland pre-partition, which I'd be happy to accept as an alternative if really needed and properly named), despite the similar Category:English footballers, Category:Scottish footballers and Category:Welsh footballers having no such divides. The category tree just doesn't match at all. One Night In Hackney303 02:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
To give you examples of how ridiculous this is, see two of the disputed articles - Billy Crone and Archie Goodall. Crone's date of death isn't cited, but there's nothing even mentioned post-1897. How is he "Northern Irish" by any stretch of the imagination? Similarly Goodall died in 1929, and according to his article may never even have lived in Northern Ireland after partition. There's others just as bad too. One Night In Hackney303 02:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You cant have someone as being Northern Irish if the entity did not even exist at the time of the birth of these people. They are Irish it is simple, and as for your examples Dijn as ONiH states WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS applies here.BigDunc (talk) 08:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Djln when canvassing for support, try getting the right page first, and not mine. Canvassing is very bold, and only increases the friction. --Domer48 (talk) 08:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Djln, by broadining participation is trying to bring in people who are familiar with the topic, to help reach a concensus, I fail to see how promoting an informed discussion increases friction, and your commemnt seems to be targeting an individual rather than their opinion. Fasach Nua (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Question: what is the purpose of lists? For me, it's a short-cut to main articles. In that vein, I suggest that NI lists are "informative" rather than "accurate". I mean, if A was born in Belfast before partition then that person should be included in NI lists, but with suitable caveats (which would be in their article). Similarly for someone who was born elsewhere but has been significant in NI. For example, if I wanted to know about Dervla Murphy, who wrote a useful book about NI, or Edward Carson, Baron Carson, who was born before partition, it's possible that a list of NI names would attract my search. I know there are purist arguments against this liberal approach, but we should be writing for the inquisistive uninformed reader.

An odd thought: if we are strict about applying national rules at date of birth, would Éamon de Valera be included in British, ie United Kingdom, lists (for early political career) or US lists (place of birth)? Not somewhere that I would look. Folks at 137 (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Quite right - the reader is the most important person here. Everyone, let's loosen up a little:) Malick78 (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
So all that counts on wikipedia is the ignorance of the reader and not facts?BigDunc (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
What matters is informing the readers. In an area where there is some potential for ambiguity, we should allow for readers' ignorance and provide a route to the facts - after all, Wiki would be irrelevant if there wasn't ignorance. BTW, plz address the points; it's more likely to reach a consensus. Folks at 137 (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
If you check Dev's article, the only cat of a similar nature being used is Category:Irish-Americans. One Night In Hackney303 16:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, I was being mischievous in my point - although it does demonstrate that there's scope for ambiguity and perhaps we can't be too purist. BTW, does Lembit Öpik qualify as he was born in Co Down? Whoops, there I go again. Folks at 137 (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Given he was born in Northern Ireland and not Ireland, yes he does. The only way to avoid (unsourced and also incorrect) arguments like "well he lived there for x number of years" is to maintain the current method. People born pre-partition in Ireland do not get described as Northern Irish, and don't use RoI either for people born in the 26 counties. There's no POV involved, it's wholly factual, and there's no room for confusion. One Night In Hackney303 21:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe a solution to this is in the lists' definitions. If I were to look at a list of "People/ politicians born in NI" then Carson would be excluded, whereas Opik would be included (just as De Valera is in the list of people born in New York). However, IMO, if I look at a "list of NI politicians", I would expect to see only people involved in NI politics, irrespective of their place or time of birth, which would include Carson and exclude Opik. I reckon that that would be the common expectation of an uninformed reader seeking information. Folks at 137 (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this argument assumes greater accuracy than the category system is capable of providing. Consider Category:People from Newry: the town of Newry has been there since at least the 16th century, and the category quite properly includes people from many difft eras. However, Category:People from Newry is a sub-category of Category:People from County Down, which is in turn a sub-category of Category:Northern Irish people by county. The same applies for every geographical category of people from what is now Northern Ireland.

There's no neat solution to this. If we start chopping up Category:People from Newry by era, we'd have to do the same for dozens of other similar categories, and thereby defeat the main purpose of categories, which is to enable users to navigate between similar articles. Similarly, if we just start leaving people out of Category:People from Newry, we mess up the usefulness of categories.

The only issue I see here is whether the chronological problem of when Northern Ireland is created is to be allowed to create a fissure in categories. I think that it would be incredibly disruptive to go down that road, because Northern Ireland isn't unique in this respect. What about Gdanzig, Alsace-Lorraine, or any of the many other places in Europe where boundaries have moved around over the years?

What seems to be happening here is that some editors are alarmed by the "Northern Irish" label on some categories, and missing that there are many other categories which don't have that label but are nonetheless subcats of Category:Northern Ireland. The most workable solution by far is simply to read "Northern Irish" in a category label as meaning "relating to the area now known as 'Northern Ireland'". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So people who in virtually every history book going are described as "Irish" will suddenly have the "Northern Irish" label foisted upon their articles? I don't think there's any objections to the category trees using it, but it's totally inaccurate for articles. Nobody is suggesting cutting Category:People from Newry in half after all.One Night In Hackney303 01:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Andrew and Edward Eveson were twin brothers born in 1865 in Portadown, who ran a steady but unspectacular architecture and building business which created unusual combinations of classical, gothic, egyptian and tudorbethan buildings for the burgeoning upper middle classes who were enriched by Belfast's industrial boom and built new homes in the outer suburbs. As detailed in the exquisitely-illustrated "Zen and the Eveson brothers: a taoist perspective on pioneers of fusion architecture" (Siobhan Ni Paisley, University of Claudy Press, 2017), Andy died in the flu epidemic of 1919 and Ed continued in business until a decade before his death in 1971; both are individually notable, having been the subject of separate television documentaries in the Edwardian era.
Are they both to be categorised in Cat:Northern Irish architects? And if not, how does it help the reader to split them across two categories --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
How does it help the reader to create subdivisions in categories where none existed at the time? For example if I want to find out about Irish architects from the 18th and 19th centuries why should I have to look in "Irish" and "Northern Irish" cats? At the time there was only Ireland. One Night In Hackney303 02:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Glad to see others getting involved in debate. Hopefully some resolution can be reached. It should be remembered that :Category:Northern Irish footballers is already in :Category:Irish footballers. All the Northern Irish category does is provide more info as Irish footballers is just too vague a category on its own. It should be remembered that whatever resolution is reached it should be able to be applied to Wiki in general and not just Irish articles. For example none of the earliest presidents of the USA were born in the United States because technically it did not exist. So do we call them Americans ? I challenge ONIH to alter their nationalities. Djln--Djln (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • There's no such nationality as Northern Irish. Checkmate. And I suggest you look at George Washington who has plenty of "American" categories, probably due to the fact he was born in a country called America..... One Night In Hackney303 17:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
And your point being? I see you can't argue against anything said above. The cat tree is irrelevant, providing an offensive and incorrect label isn't applied to articles. One Night In Hackney303 16:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please address the points raised by ONIH. --Domer48 (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And therin lies the problem, there is no nationality as Northern Irish, and these cats seem to attempt to create one? I can't see that working? --Domer48 (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's say for example England is partitioned today into "North England" and "South England". Are we going to recategorise everyone in English cats into "Northern English" and "Southern English" cats? One Night In Hackney303 18:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a point for sake of accuracy but George Washington was not born in a country called America—it didn't exist—he was born in the colony of Virginia. Firstly he was a Virginian then became an American when Virginia became a state of the US. -90.210.90.17 (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please check your history. One Night In Hackney303 19:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Very valid point about Washington. If ONIH actually made a sensible point, I would be more then happy to address it. But when people are trying to revise Northern Ireland out of history it hard to reason with them. If they what to live in a some fantasy world were Ireland is one country then that’s upto them. However the rest of us live in the real world. Statements like Northern Ireland is not a nation and Northern Irish is not a nationality are not helpful either and it is very POV. NI has it’s own flag, national assembly, it’s own prime minister, national sports team etc. All of these support NI being a nation. If NI is not a nation then neither is England, Wales or Scotland. We have categories describing people as Welsh, English and Scottish, so why not Northern Irish. Also could ONIH please stop going off on tangents. We‘ve had Ceaser, Israel/ Palestine and now England being being partioned. What next ? Djln--Djln (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no such nationality as Northern Irish - fact. The only thing that's very POV is claiming there is. I'm not trying to revise Northern Ireland out of history, I'm just making sure it's only used when it applies. "NI has it’s own flag" - no it doesn't. One Night In Hackney303 19:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You are not trying to revise NI out of history ! But then in the same breath claim Northern Irish is not a nationality and there is not a Northern Ireland flag. Hav’nt you just contradicted yourself ? Djln--Djln (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No, both those are facts, which you seem to have some difficulty accepting. There is no such nationality as Northern Irish, and Northern Ireland has no flag. I don't see what's difficult to understand about that, does anyone else? One Night In Hackney303 19:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I timed out but the above anon was me. Interesting, though, that you ask me to check my history; can you advise me which bit I got wrong? Thanks, -Bill Reid | Talk 19:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

America did exist, the United States of America did not. One Night In Hackney303 19:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You said the country of America which did not exist. So you really meant the continent of America. -Bill Reid | Talk 20:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Could ONIH please explain why the :Category:Northern Irish people by occupation exists if Northern Irish is not a nationality. I will not accept the other crap exists argument as the number of articles referring to people as Northern Irish clearly demonstrates that numerous other editors think otherwise. Djln--Djln (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some clarifications, please

The discussion above seem to be getting rather heated, yet I'm not all clear what anyone actually wants.

Please could some of the editors in this discussion try to explain when they think that "Northern Irish fooers" categories should be used? I see a lot of extraneous arguments, a fair bit about editors dislike, bit not much in the above to clarifies what people actually want to be the inclusion criteria for those categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

For people born in Northern Ireland (with the odd exception, since this is a guideline), otherwise you're looking at all sorts of arbitrary arguments. This isn't an attempt to prevent the term being used, only to maintain its accurate and verifiable use. One Night In Hackney303 20:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
That's what I thought you meant, but it would depopulate a lot of the categories. Someone born in Belfast in 1919, who lived all their life in Belfast until dying in 2000, would by your usage not belong in a "Northern Irish" category.
Even if we stretch the boundary back a decade or two, we still create absurdities, with people who may love or despise the entity known as Northern Ireland being excluded from the categories even though they lived their adult lives in NI, and had been born in the same area before it was labelled NI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
You don't think we've got absurdities with the articles listed below? And it depends on the nature of the category, eg Category:Women in Northern Irish politics would be fine. One Night In Hackney303 22:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, there are some absurdities below if "Northern Irish" is seen as label which is always political, rather than geographical. But if we apply the same birth-date logic, we should not be seeing the removal from N. Irish categories of people born in NI after 1922, educated in NI, and pursuing a political career in NI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly anybody who played for Ireland should be described as Irish - that's only plain common sense. "Northern Irish" would be suitable for any pre-partition player who self-identified as "Ulster" to the point that he refused to line out with nationalists. How many of those have we identified so far? Scolaire (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

None. One Night In Hackney303 20:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Articles under dispute:
Yet for some spurious reason they are all "Northern Irish".... One Night In Hackney303 21:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice work ONIH, but with some editors suggesting that Northern Irish is a nationality and there is a Northern Ireland flag, you are going to have your work cut out. --Domer48 (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The claim that NI is a "nationality" is silly, and AFAIK would be supported only by a v small minority of those in Northern Ireland; that issue is a bright red herring with flashing lights on it. However, it is still widely-used, as a geographic term relating to the six counties; the issue in dispute is which people it can be applied to, given that Northern Ireland only came into existence in 1921. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Nice work ! Hardly. All ONIH did was make a list. Anybody can do that. He did not even get all the facts correct. User:Domer48 must be easily impressed. Of the 18 articles listed, I only started or made major changes to 7 of them. This means that other editors identified the other 11 as Northern Irish which suggests to me that this is the consensus view. All of them were born in the six countries that now make up NI just a few decades at most before NI was formed. As far as I am concerned that makes them Northern Irish whether you like it or not. How is that complicated ? If you support ONIHs idea of sticking rigidly to a date, dozens of articles across Wiki will have to be recategorised. What about footballers born in the 26 Counties before 1946. Should they be removed from :Category:Republic of Ireland footballers. The Republic did not exist until then, yet there are dozens of footballers born before 1946 in this category. It cannot stop then at Irish categories, is Garabaldi Italian, is Bismarck German, was George Washington American. Not if ONIHs interpretation is followed. I will not except the NI did not exist argument. It was always there, it did just appear overnight in 1922. Even if you don’t believe NI is a nationality, then as User:BrownHairedGirl points out it is a widely used term and is used regularly to refer to people from NI. The only compromise I can see is that every single player in the 7 subcategories is added to the  :Category:Irish footballers but then these 18 will then have to also included in :Category:Northern Irish footballers. If ONIH wants to go ahead and do this, he is more then welcome to, but I strongly suspect it will meet opposition. Djln --Djln (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Revised list with birthplaces

Last time I checked Belfast, Lurgan, Carrickfergus, Lisburn, Derry and Enniskillen were all in Northern Ireland. So how exactly is it spurious they been categorised as NI. Djln --Djln (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The dates are the simplist and easiest way of doing this. Otherwise we are deciding for them if they are Northern Irish, not basing it on facts. If someone was born in NI after 1922 they can be described as Northern Irish, for people born before and died after we are making a presumption about their personal descriptions and shouldn't be described as such in some ways. However if they lived in NI and played or (to broaden this a bit) carried out their careers in NI after its creation, then it can be argued that they could be described in a NI category but only if we have the evidence to support it. People who lived before NI should never be in a NI category, and if they ended their careers pre-NI then they should also not be described as Northern Irish for that career. Canterbury Tail talk 14:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with Canterbury Tail on the points raised above.BigDunc (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Just because it is simple and easy does not make it right. Anyway it is actually far easier to define people by their place of birth. Despite what you say, the fact is that dozens of articles across Wiki have people born in the 6 Counties before 1922 categorised as Northern Irish, suggesting to me that there is a consensus for doing so. You can make guidelines til the cows come home but if the majority or doing the opposite it is pointless. Djln --Djln (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
All that suggests is that there are a lot of articles with incorrect cats in them. To say otherwise is your POV and nothing else. BigDunc (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • So everybody else is wrong and only you and ONIH is right. Arrogance beyond belief. In my experience of Wiki consensus always wins out sooner or later and I am confident it will in this case. Djln--Djln (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus always wins out, and you have not got it. --Domer48 (talk) 07:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Revised list with birthplaces

DONE. --Domer48 (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Wow, Domer is there no begining to your talents. You can actually copy a list. You're talents are wasted on Wiki. If you really think you have got the consenus you must be in dreamland.Djln--Djln (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Silly question about definition: is the list under discussion intended to be of a) players selected to play for NI; b) players eligible to be selected for NI; c) players born in the political entity of NI; d) players born in the geographical area now known as "NI". Sorry to be pedantic but the discussion seems to be about different things. Folks at 137 (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I just want the editor to prove that they are Northern Irish.--Domer48 (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, depends on your definition. Taking my definitions, above. Inclusion in the NI national (or representative) team could be proof, and application of international eligibility criteria could be another. I think that whether a footballer originates from NI (the political entity) is entirely different and then the date of partition comes into play. The attempt to use a single list is, therefore, open to argument, see above. If a problem can't be rsolved, then work around it. Folks at 137 (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I have presented you with evidence several times now that they are NI, all were born in the 6 Counties, all are placed in categories which in turn lead to other NI categories. If you and ONIH chose to ignore these facts that’s your chose, but please don’t impose your political POV on Wiki. This site Northern Ireland’s Footballing Greats clearly regards them as Northern Irish. Djln --Djln (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Hang on, Djln, please consider my reasoning; the other points have got us nowhere. Definitions are important to a resolution. I can think of several sportsmen who have played for, say England, who have neither English birth nor UK citizenship. I would still include them in a list of English representative sportsmen, although they would be eligible elsewhere (but not necessarily as English sportsmen). This also happens in Welsh, Scots, New Zealand, Australian and French teams. Sporting bodies create their own rules that cut across political and other considerations. We need to allow for this - I believe we can. Folks at 137 (talk) 07:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • In answer to your 4 questions from above. a) these players were selected to play for various IFA and FAI all-Ireland teams. No solely NI team played until 1950; b) However if NI team existed at time all these players would have been eligible; c) none of these players were born in the political entity of NI; d) all of these players were born in the geographical area now known as "NI". Djln--Djln (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
You have been presented with evidence several times now that they were all born in Ireland not Northern Ireland. --Domer48 (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I am not denying they were born in Ireland but they were also born in NI. It is not my fault you have a problem understanding basic history and geography. You should really check your facts. Do not rely on the likes of BigDunc and ONIH. Their version of Irish history is heavily biased toward the Republican view. A simple question. Can you name one town or county that any of these players were born in that is not now part of NI ? I ask again, please do not politicise a category which is basically about football. Could you show me evidence they were not born in NI. I suspect not. Djln --78.32.156.158 (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
No they were not born in Northern Ireland it did not exist. What part cant you understand here? BigDunc (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Dunc, just don't feed it anymore, they are not willing to accept the fact they were born in Ireland. --Domer48 (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] pre 1919/1922 flag

The tri-colour in this infobox is incorrect and should be replaced but with what? Nothing would be my preferred option unless that group had it's own flag,or was know to fly the tri-colour as its official flag. On the larger scale what flag should be used for Ireland related issues pre 1919 or is it 1922? Please note WP:Flag applies to this discussion Gnevin (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed change to Naming articles: English versus Irish

I'd like to suggest a change to this section; currently convention is that where an English and Irish name are relatively similar, then the English name should be used even if it is far less recognised than the Irish one. What it basically means is that however popular an Irish name gets, the English name will always be used.

I bring this up after a discussion at Talk:Gort a' Choirce#Irish-English name. Even though a Google search for 'Gort an Choirce' will bring up 138,000 results, and a similar search for 'Gortahork' just 29,200 results, by the current system the article should still be at its English name. Most of both these sets of results come from English language websites, thus the system goes against WP:NAME#Use English words - "Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form."

By no means am I suggesting a wholesale change of English names into Irish - just where it is obvious that the Irish is more commonly used. More examples would be, for example, Marseille (the traditional English is 'Marseilles'), Frankfurt (the traditional English is 'Frankfort'). Under IMOS, neither of these 'native' spellings would be allowed. --Schcamboaon scéal? 10:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the English language wiki and therefore English language takes priority. Its common sense folks. Djegan (talk) 10:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, not where a black-and-white policy such as IMOS so clearly fails WP:NAME, which allows for exceptions based on whichever language's name is more common among English speakers. --Schcamboaon scéal? 10:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree with the proposal - the current rule is idiotic; even the supposed 'similarity' depends on the pronunciation used; the 'Gort an Choirce' is a good example - as commonly pronounced they don't actually sound the same. Sarah777 (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree also. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by the particular examples given. It seems by no means "obvious" to me that the native form is more commonly used. Of course locally, being a Gaeltacht area, is is; but "Gortahork" seems commonly used by newspapers, the County Council, etc.

The "Marseilles" and "Frankfort" examples are red herrings for two reasons: first, the "traditional" spellings are obsolescent (Marseilles) or obsolete (Frankfort); second, the countries concerned are not English-speaking. I think the current policy could be changed, but it will need a better set of examples to work out the parameters for any change. jnestorius(talk) 01:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. There are many places like this where having the English only causes confusion. Jamesnp (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the fada in English personal names

It seems the issue of the use of the fada in Irish-language personal names of Irish people who use an English surname occasionally arises. (The latest case is Sean McGarry, being disucssed at Talk:Sean McGarry and a previous disucssion occurred at Talk:Pádraig Flynn.) My position is that use of the fada is English (e.g., used in popular media outlets such as newspapers) and should appear in the titles of articles on Ireland-related Irish personal names per ENGVAR. Rather than running off to research each case independently as it occurs, can I get some input here and, ideally, an addition to WP:IMOS dealing with this if it's not already there. Also, could someone add some information on this subject Acute accent#Use in English if possible. — AjaxSmack 01:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)