Talk:Plastic Paddy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Plastic Paddy article.
Article policies
Northern Ireland This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.)
Low This article is on a subject of Low-importance for Northern Ireland-related articles.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Northern Ireland tasks:
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on January 5, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Proposed deletion

This article has already been deleted at least twice. It was previously deleted by AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plastic Paddies, has been reposted and speedied at least once, possibly twice IIRC. Speedy delete it with prejudice and salt Plastic Paddy, Plastic paddy, Plastic Paddies, and Plastic paddies. -999 (Talk) 03:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is this page being suggested to be deleted i have provided information to provide its legitimacy as a phrase and it seems to be done with malice or no reason can somebody give me one good reason why it should be deleted as refernces have being provided 194.83.245.226 12:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If its similar to another article why not put into a disambougus Dwanyewest 13:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The discussion about the proposed deletion is HERE. - WeniWidiWiki 17:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relevance?

I pulled the following ref from the lead - don't understand it's relevance. - WeniWidiWiki 23:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it was included due its mention of how St. Patrick's day parades (and related, "traditional" festivities) actually began as an American tradition, not an Irish one:
"St Patrick's Day dates back to AD461, the year of the Saint's death, however the first parades took place in the United States in 1762 and we followed in their footsteps, making St Patrick's Day a day of celebration on both sides of the Atlantic." (emphasis added)
So the tradition went from America to England and only after that back to Ireland because they're what the tourists expect. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment, what has the St Patricks day parade to do with the term. St Patrick's Day parades were proscribed in Ireland under British rule, and folks were even hanged for playing the harp. 86.42.159.149 17:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you substantiate these assertions please? "Folks hanged for playing the harp"? Ever heard of codology?Bill Tegner 18:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If you read the discussion on St Patrick's Day, Peadar Maguidhir, a native born Irishman, states that, "the British government encouraged the celebration of St. Patrick's Day".Bill Tegner 08:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC) Indeed, and the first St Patrick's Day Parade, held in New York City in 1762, was by Irish soldiers in the British army. (Source: Church of Ireland Gazette) Millbanks (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


This is neither here nor there, but isn't this fact glaringly absent from the Saint Patrick's Day entry? - WeniWidiWiki 00:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. Uh, yeah, I'm not sure I have the intestinal fortitude to work on that article. I'll have to look it over more thoroughly and see if it can be improved in a non-traumatic manner. The info is sort of there for readers who are paying attention (or, I got it, and I was mostly skimming). What should be clarified, I think, is that the fact that St. Patrick's Day was observed as a religious holiday in no way means that the type of debauchery currently associated with it took place until fairly recently. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
debauchery currently associated with it unquote. I would like to let you know that St Patricks Day is a really great day for all good people. I suggest that you should withdraw your last remark. 86.42.159.149 21:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
A "really great day" for "all good people"?? There's a lot of absolutes in there. St. Patrick's Day was primarily a religious ceremony in Ireland up until the late 70s at least. Then came the green inflatable shamrocks, stick-on red beards, etc. You get the idea - Alison✍ 21:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Problem, some of these editors, who sometimes don't know what they are talking about, are absolutely self assured of their own correctness on Irish interest matters. Maybe they should visit sometime. I wouldn't normally edit Scottish articles for the same reason. 86.42.159.149 22:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, Kathryn seems pretty clued in on it actually. Personally, I'm from Ireland having only moved Stateside .. oh, 6 months ago? The amount of Plastic Paddyism that has crept into the Irish celebrations has been only phenomenal. We used to laugh at the concept of green beer and McDonald's green milkshakes back in the 90s. Now, lo and behold, we have them too! Similar to the US, it's now turned into one weekend-long piss-up. Yayy for stereotypes - Alison✍
Hey, I am not saying the phrase does not exist, or else I would have deleted it myself. The page is written in a totally bizarre way that doesn't represent reality. Very asinine citations etc. The article should say that it is rarely used in Ireland, which some editors want to revert. 86.42.159.149 23:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

This article is full of POV and needs a serious cull!--Vintagekits 23:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The term is so rare that it is almost non-existant. It has been used by a journalist or two to gain attention. The term is never used in Ireland. 86.42.134.95 10:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
The term is indeed used in Ireland. Often. Cat Constantine 23:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you see the logical fallacies inherent in statements like "The term is so rare that it is almost non-existant"? This is pure POV and the sources cited prove otherwise. "It has been used by a journalist or two to gain attention" Obviously it has, but attention to what? "The term is never used in Ireland." News articles linked throughout the entry disprove this. I don't think anyone has stated "the term is only used in Ireland." Numerous peer-reviewed journals also use the term and concern the topic and numerous musicians like Eric Bogle, the Peelers, Triskele, etc. have written pop-culture songs about the phenomena, so trying to poo-poo it away because of your personal feelings doesn't change empirical facts. - WeniWidiWiki 15:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, at the moment over half the article is POV, I did try and delete a lot of it but it was reverted by WWW, even though my edits were correct I have enough thing to do than get into an arguement--Vintagekits 15:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing the fact that only the tone of wikipedia has to be NPOV. Plastic Paddy is a pejorative term. The term itself is POV. Direct quotes can be POV. Furthermore, your incessant ranting and raving in the diffs will not get the entry deleted. Currently consensus is to keep the article, no matter how it offends your delicate sensibilities. - WeniWidiWiki 16:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Really the article is just one heap of shit. Who uses the term, just a few smart-ass journalists. And they seem to be the only references. The term is certainly rarely used in Ireland. I have never heard it being used by ordinary folk.86.42.159.149 17:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Just one heap of shit, eh? Well you might not have heard it used by ordinary folk, but you'll see lots of references to it if you surf it with Google. Ah yes, it would be nice, too, if we could condemn it as yet another term used by English "oppressors", but the Scots, so called "fellow Celts", use it too, as do the real Irish. The Urban Dictionary says that Plastic Paddies are "perceived as irritating poseurs by Irish nationals". I can vouch for that. Bill Tegner 19:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that this shouldn't be an article, but simply a dicdef. Okay, it exists, a few journalists have used it, we know what it means. Why do we need an article of this length about it. Wikipedia is not for neologisms. I think it should simply be shortened to a dicdef and moved to Wiktionary. Jefferson Anderson 17:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, this doesn't matter. It sourced and notable. That's why it's here. :bloodofox: 17:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Well do we want WP to be a quality encyclopedia, or just a vehicle for neologists. It should only be in the dictionary part. Any article on the term can only include POV, just like a journalist using it in a pov situation. 86.42.159.149 17:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Just waded in on this one. The term is definantly notable. There are already references to academic papers that were written specifically on the term. The article text itself states clearly that it is a term that some people take offence to. I also understand that the term is, in its defniition, offensive to many. However, because we can establish notability, this must take precedence. It wouldn't be used in any other part of Wikipedia, and you could add references to why people don't like it to mediate the apparant offence of having an article on it. Logoistic 20:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I consider the term is notable, whether it should be here or wikitionary is another matter. However, the article is full of bias and POV and needs a major clean up and/or rewrite--Vintagekits 20:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, why do we have a POV tag on the article? I don't see what's POV about it as it is. If you have any objections to its removal, say now... Logoistic 20:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Its got a POV tag as many of the statements within the article are POV--Vintagekits 20:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I think your edits got rid of the POV. Logoistic 13:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tweaks

Ok, I made some changes with a view to reducing the POV a bit. Can someone check it over & see if we can remove the {{NPOV}} tag or maybe suggest/make improvements? - Alison✍ 20:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking a break from editing this entry for the rest of the day, but the term appears in popular culture and music numerous times. Eric Bogle wrote a song called "Plastic Paddy" and numerous other bands like the Peelers, Triskelle[1], Dropkick Murphys, etc. have all covered it or done their own versions of the theme. I think people are going to take issue because they cannot separate that the mere description of a phenomena or pejorative term does not make the person documenting the usage POV. I think if people have issues with the terminology as it now stands they should tag the specific instances that they think are POV with {{POVassertion}}, {{POV-statement}}, {{POV-statement}} so it can actually be discussed and tweaked. - WeniWidiWiki 22:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
And Christy Moore, BTW.
“ I'm so happy now St. Patrick's day is over,
And all the paper hats are thrown away.
All the plastic Paddies are put back in the clover.
But they will return another day...		 ”

—Christy Moore

... but yeah, the article needs expansion re. the music - Alison✍ 22:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I just added a section on music and song. It'll help balance the article a bit - Alison✍ 23:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
You miss the whole point. The page tries to maintain that the phrase is a mainstream one, well it isn't. Then the page has references to St Patrick's day that have nothing to do directly with the phrase. Then the page cites a Scottish newspaper that calls some Irish players pp's. well it is an isolated article and it is turning the particular into the general. The analysis is really stretched and pushed to its limits trying to prove itself with bad and pretty false citations. There is just far too much POV in it to be worthy of WP. Just a load of crap really. 86.42.159.149 22:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh hey, It's pretty mainstream in Ireland. - Alison✍ 22:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right Alison, it is indeed mainstream in Ireland. It's used quite a lot in the press for example. Bill Tegner 17:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not! I have never heard it once said, except on TV. It depends on the circles we mix in, I suppose. 86.42.159.149 23:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm so not getting into a Maureen Potteresque "oh yes it is!" debate. Suffice it to say that we'll have to differ on that. Goog shows up plenty of refs for it, BTW. - Alison✍ 00:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok - there have been a lot of edits and tidies since the POV tag went on. I'll going to take a chance and remove it. It looks like a lot of the issues have been addressed now. - Alison✍ 15:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cite removals

I have removed 3 irrelevant links from the article that don't add up to nothing, and are against WP policy, see summary. Hope all are happy with that; 86.42.159.149 21:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope. One of them was a legitimate journal citation and has been restored. As per WP:EL, I removed the URL reference but as cites go, it doesn't break policy. The other two could be construed as blogs, however (though the Guardian one was borderline). Hope you're ok with that! - Alison✍ 21:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The article is not <<Controversial2>>, period. It just needed some editors with a NPOV, balanced, clear-minded thinking, to redeem it. And it appears to be on its way. No need for the tag. 86.42.159.149 21:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the characterization of the article being controversial is apt, considering it is up for AfD. I think that you would "catch more bees with honey than vinegar" so to speak, if you would just document what you are doing, and not be antagonistic in the diffs. It is easy enough to cut a ref you object to and paste it intact on the talk page and state why you object to it rather than just deleting it outright and then having another editor re-adding it because they contest the removal and then you reverting, and then them reverting, etc. If you flag a reference with {{vc}} which produces [unreliable source?] or another tag and then wait a bit and then remove it explaining what and why you are doing it, there would be little controversy. It is the wholesale unilateral deletion of content that I object to. - WeniWidiWiki 21:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

wholesale unilateral deletion of content that I object unquote. I can very easily understand your point. But how about, wholesale unilateral addition of content, especially when it doesn't apply to that sentence. The article is not quite right yet, as it is still peppered with pov. But maybe it will have to do for a while in order to stem an insular war;) Cheers! 86.42.159.149 22:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually left a comment on the userpage of the person who added those links. I urge you to go through and cite specifically what you think is POV with {{POVassertion}} [Neutrality disputed — See talk page] - we can't read your mind! - WeniWidiWiki 22:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, my last major point is this one. The reference about the soccer players being plastic paddies is off the wall. They were asked because they are invariably good at what they do, and were not picked by the country of birth. So they played for Ireland, and the last thing they are is pp's. I knew some of them in bygone times through my involvement in sport. Also the piece is topical and not really encyclopedic. The article referenced, is a vitriolic tabloid type attack on motives and the good people involved in sport. And not an apt for the generality of the term. 86.42.159.149 22:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I obviously think that the nationalist debate about who should and should not play a sport for a certain team based on ancestry is a bit much, but it has happened and is happening. I actually read through one of the cited articles and it talks about the crowds jeering a player with "PLASTIC PADDY" over and over and Scottish fans chanting "TRAITOR." It's ugly, but I don't think documenting it is inherently POV. Many soccer football fans are noted for not being too discerning and considerate, regardless of nationality. If you can think of a better wording or can quote a counterpoint in one of the articles, by all means do so. - WeniWidiWiki 22:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Re. the sports players; that may well be the case that it's been used as a pejorative term but that's exactly what's being documented here. It's merely a reference to its (reasonably common) usage and is no reflection upon those who it is used against nor those who use it. I've heard the term being used in this context by Irish people myself - usually in association with the Granny rule[2] - Alison✍ 22:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I have no opinion on the referenced article whatsoever. It is my 2 bit opinion on that inclusion, and I have no problem if you harbour a different consensus. But I stick with my point, it's not encyclopediac, and it's telling the reader what to think about the term and what its meaning should be. 86.42.159.149 23:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
How is it "telling the reader what to think about the term"? I fail to see this - Alison✍ 23:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree - the citations and very weak and what is worse - they do not even relate directly to the ascertions being made in the article.--Vintagekits 23:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Assertions, not "ascertions". Millbanks 20:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Alison, you can argue all you like against me, but I know that I am quite correct on this point at issue. Some years ago I had to write financial reports, and company/share assessments for stockholders and their agents. Oh, I had to be so careful, even over every comma. The same principle would apply to WP. You cannot put your own POV, no matter how trivial it may seem, into a properly drafted article. Imagine giving an investor the wrong bias, he runs out and buys the share, and it flops, wow!! Job not done properly, period. The same principles apply to all analysis and writings. The next question would be, what standard will do?86.42.159.149 00:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
*sigh* - cue Maureen Potter. You wrote financial reports? Isn't that special! - Alison✍ 00:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes Alison, I'm a trained financial accountant. Isn't that cute;)) 86.42.159.149 01:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm truly in awe. Why didn't you say so before ... :-b - Alison✍ 01:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I am bowing out now, so good night folks. I am away to Portugal tomorrow evening, and good gracious there is no internet connection at my destination. See ye in about 3 weeks time. Actually, I am beginning to like some of you folks. Take care. 86.42.159.149 01:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Songs with the term

All we have is one song at the moment, by C. Moore. Saying often may be original research. How many songs do we need to include the word often. So I have removed the word until a credible citation is sourced. 86.42.159.149 17:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Music and Soccer

The Music and Soccer references should come out of the article. It's patently clear that these are very much pov additions. The soccer part references bitterness in Scotland for a Scottish national, playing soccer for Ireland. They didn't even ask the player to play for Scotland. But still sour grapes. So the mob branded him a pp. That's the real story of the paragraph. This is a clear case of WP designing the term, rather than defining it. I won't be around for some weeks, otherwise I would delete the para here and now. 86.42.159.149 22:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


I agree. Also, I found the addition of the song lyrics to be quite unencyclopedic. I got the image of certain editors gloating about the results of the AfD. Jefferson Anderson 22:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree entirely. It's relevant, it's encyclopedic and it shows usage. Where's the problem here? The Eric Bogle song is very well-known and frankly, quoting excerpts of songs where relevant is entirely appropriate. I can think of a lot of other examples here on WP. It is not POV - Alison✍ 23:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, you have already suggested that the lyrics excerpt is copyvio: it is not. Why exactly is there some bizarre war of attrition going on with this article? Sour grapes, to use your term, after the recent RFD? I've already asked this question yet you have failed to respond. What exactly is wrong here? - Alison✍ 23:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree. The removals of large swathes of material to please editors who are resentful of the mere existence of the entry and refuse to acknowledge any POV other than their own is getting tiresome. - WeniWidiWiki 23:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Also disagree. The sourced content on music and sports shows active, popular culture usage. The content was in there when the article passed the AfD. Just because someone doesn't like that the result of an AfD was "Keep" does not give them to right to then try to delete that article piecemeal. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree some seems to be on a crusade to get this article just the way they want it , i've seen songs quotes all over wiki and add to the articles (Gnevin 00:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC))

It's interesting. The people who are taking a "keep it" line here (eg Alison and Kathryn) are educated and Irish. They know the realities of the subject. Bill Tegner 08:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking / edit war -- semiprotected

There seems to be some sort of edit war here over the last few days, with the blanking of substantial part of the article coming from an IP. Please request unprotection at WP:RFPP once some way forward has been worked out on this talk page. Jkelly 04:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A point of view(!)

I read the article quickly and it seems to be fair and accurate. I can't see any trace of POV in it at all. Some editors on this talk page seem to think that the term is a neologism, or is not in "mainstream" usage (while some editors who claim to be from Ireland say it is in mainstream use). I can tell you that this term has existed for at least 20 years. It is definately recognised in Ireland, and not just in the area I live in.

My first reaction was to put it up for possible merger with some other article, but the article as it stands now isn't too bad. Congratulations to whoever helped make it NPOV, assuming it had been at some point (I'm not going to look through the edit history). --Mal 03:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I enjoyed this light-hearted article. The fact that it's quite humorous and not too serious surely doesn't preclude it being in Wikipedia? Bill Tegner 23:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Oirish Pub' link

As for whether this link: 'Oirish' pub should stay in: I think it's relevant, and illustrates the concept, even if the pub isn't called, say, 'Plastic Paddy's' or such. Could others weigh in on this? I think it is relevant, but don't want to edit war. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • That link in the Plastic Paddy See also section, 'Oirish' pub, goes to a paragraph in the Monkey Dust article about an episode of a cartoon show, and within that paragraph is the term Oirish pub, which links right back to this article, Plastic Paddy. The title of the link in the See also section is misleading, does not give any further relevant information, and just links back to this article. That doesn't seem to be the kind of link that belongs in an encyclopedic article, regardless of the topic.Spylab 11:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the bit I think is relevant: 'On one occasion, he enters the pub to be told by a barman named Keith, in an absurd leprechaun outfit that it is now an "Oirish pub". When he asks what happened to the previous barman, who was Irish, he is told that he wasn't "Oirish" enough.' - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If it must be linked, the name of the link should clearly point out what it's linking to; an episode of a cartoon. With the link named Oirish pub, people will think they are about to read an article defining and elaborating on what an Oirish pub is. That is clearly not the case. Link names should not mislead people like that. Spylab 22:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The Oirish pub is a fundamental part of Paddywhackery. In Australia I saw one which offered a "Blarney Busting, Shillelagh Swinging, Leprechaun Loving good time". There are no pubs like that where I live in Ireland, though I suspect that there might be in Killarney and the more touristy parts of Dublin city. Millbanks (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)