Talk:Ruairí Ó Brádaigh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ireland Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ireland on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality 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.)
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is within the scope of the Irish Republicanism WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
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.)
High This article is on a subject of High-importance for Irish Republicanism-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.


Well written article, well sourced. Good work. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 05:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] What is the sigficance of this event.

"On 3 December 1972, he appeared on the London Weekend Television Weekend World programme." its not explained in the article - does it have any significance, why has if been mentioned?? Vintagekits 15:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation request

Removed. The editor placing it mentions this discussion, but that's mostly about people from Northern Ireland. On this occasion there's no dispute that Ó Brádaigh was born in the 26 Counties and lives there, he has no need to hold a passport to be classed as Irish nationality as it applied the second he was born. One Night In Hackney303 17:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If his parents were born in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and hence British by the above definition does his British nationality not apply at the second he was born too? How do we know which of the two (if either) he has opted for?

No, British law has already dealt with this point and removed the right of Irish people to pass on citizenship to their children and grandchildren, it also removed it from People born in the territory of the Irish Free State. The problem of actually separating the citizens was a much harder issue and that is why Irish people resident in the UK were treated, until reforms by Margret Thatcher, more or less as UK citizens and could, for example, be conscripted and had to do national service, and UK citizens were like wise treated the same as Irish citizens for all practical purposes in Ireland, however, technically they were separated off and this lead to problems for people such as Spike Milligan whos was born in India to an Irish born father serving in the British Army, at his birth he would have been a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, however when the Irish Freestate was established his father was now technically a citizen of that state and this left Spike Milligan unable to claim citizenship of hte United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, although he parents clearly served Britain, as he hadn't been born in Britain and by descent he was an Irish Citizen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.30.252 (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think nationality should not be included, however if WP is going to claim he choose to become a national of a state he considers illigitimate, I think it should be backed up with evidence! Fasach Nua 17:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Was he born in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland? His nationality is backed up by evidence, his country of birth is all the evidence that is needed. One Night In Hackney303 17:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
This bodes very badly for the Republic of Ireland Soccer team :-D Fasach Nua 17:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Whether the subject likes it or not, he is a citizen of the Republic of Ireland. He contested the 1957 elections and was elected a TD and as the Article 16.1.1 of Bunreacht na hÉireann states, "Every citizen without distinction of sex who has reached the age of twenty-one years, and who is not placed under disability or incapacity by this Constitution or by law, shall be eligible for membership of Dáil Éireann." Were RÓB not a citizen of the RoI, he would not have been eligible for election.
I can also say with some certainty that RÓB travels on a RoI passport. Irish passports are issued to Irish citizens only, so the application for and acceptance of such a document suggests that RÓB has given some de facto recognition to his status as a citizen of a state that he otherwise claims has no de jure authority.
Of course, RÓB's grandmother was Swiss but he's never claimed Swiss nationality and I very much doubt he's taken up the option of British citizenship either.--Damac 20:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I think your first point is specious, a similar argument might be that Ruairí has driven a car on the public roads therefore he must be in possession of a driving license, as the law says you are not eligible to drive unless you have one. The only definitive proof you could have would be if someone challenged his right to take a seat in a court of law on the grounds of citizenship, and the challenge was thrown out.
On the second point “Irish passports are issued to Irish citizens only” is not true, RoI passports can only be issued to those eligible for Irish citizenship, it is possible for someone from NI to gain a passport and not take citizenship (not so for their southern counterparts).
However the Irish nationality and citizenship act, section 6.1 [1] or section 2 [2] would seem to indicate he has citizenship. (The case for NI is a bit more complex section 7.1).
I still believe that nationality shouldn't be included, and place of birth should be sufficient, but I'm not going to fight over it! Fasach Nua 16:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who said this " RoI passports can only be issued to those eligible for Irish citizenship, it is possible for someone from NI to gain a passport and not take citizenship (not so for their southern counterparts)." but it is a load of rubbish. People born in northern Ireland who decide to use an Irish passport do so as Irish Citizens, they accept their Irish citizenship as per the Irish constitution and the Good Friday Ageement. There is NO PROVISION in Irish or UK law for someone from Northern Ireland to use an Irish passport but not be an Irish citizen - a person born in northern Ireland to parents entitled to residence there were entitled to claim, Irish, British or dual nationality - if they chose Irish, they could get a passport, if they chose British they could get a UK passport, if they chose both then they could get both passports, but the very act of applying for the passport and receiving it was a recognition of citizenship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.30.252 (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is evidence to suggest individuals elected to adopt an eligible nationality other than that derived by birth, we generally attribute nationality to the person's place of birth. In this case the weight of evidence seems to suggest that is correct. I don't think this article is any different from the thousands of other biographies that follow the same principle. Rockpocket 17:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Border Campaign

The IRA at the time referred to the "Border Campaign" as the Resistance Campaign. As O Bradaigh was a key actor in that campaign, it is worth noting this. --WilliamHanrahan (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The IRA's minority name for the event belongs in the Border Campaign article, not this one. One Night In Hackney303 07:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Hack on this. The name is not commonly used, and is only relevant in the article about the Border Campaign (the much more commonly used term), and not in this article. And, you have to provide a reference that says the IRA called it the "Resistance Campaign." There is plenty of evidence for the other name. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a source, but that doesn't mean it should be used in any other article except the BC article. The common name is the Border Campaign and that's what we use here. Otherwise we're in a ludicrious situation where every time any event is mentioned we need to include every name it's known by, no matter how fringe the name. One Night In Hackney303 16:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The name given to the Border campaign by the IRA was Operation Harvest, which was a campaign of resistance, just as each campaign was prior to and and afterwards, but the border campaign was not known as The Resistance Campaign as WilliamHanrahan is claiming, and the ref he is refering to dosent make that claim either, in fact the article in IRIS is a reprint of the book Resistance - The story of the struggle in British-Occupied Ireland published in dec 1957 and banned by both the British and Irish governments.--Padraig (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Operation Harvest was an "operational plan" for the campaign, not the campaign itself; see Bell 1979, p. 283. Those involved called it a Resistance Campaign and some object to calling it the Border Campaign, because it was not confined to the Border. The December 2006 article in Saoirse, p. 16, noting the 50th anniversary of the start of the campaign is titled, "Resistance Campaign Launched," not "Border Campaign Launched" (see http://www.iol.ie/~saoirse/dec06.pdf). Ruairi O Bradaigh is President of Republican Sinn Fein, Saoirse is the organization's newspaper, O Bradaigh is the subject of the wikipedia article, and was on the IRA Army Council at the start of the campaign. Is none of this relevant? It's not an accident that Cronin titled his book "Resistance." Do you need more evidence?--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

See also Micheal MacDonncha's column in AP/RN, "Mícheál MacDonncha continues the series marking the 50th anniversary of the IRA’s Resistance Campaign – more widely known as the Border Campaign – which commenced in December 1956." November 8, 2007.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

With respect being in a ludicrous situation and "fringe" names, these are POV. How is it ludicrous to use the name of an activity that was used by the activists themselves? Is Wikipedia designed to only repeat popular but incomplete information? If it is to be a resource, an encyclopedia, then details and accuracy are important. O Bradaigh was a major figure in the IRA's 1950s campaign and the article is about him.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 13:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The J Bowyer Bell book 'The IRA - The secret Army nor the AP/RN article support your claim that Some activists object to the term "Border Campaign" as it covered a larger area than that even the Resistance book dosen't claim that so what is your source for that statement. And as I said above all IRA campaigns where resistance campaigns.--Padraig (talk) 14:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

All IRA campaigns were resistance campaigns, no disagreement there. But the activists themselves referred to the 1950s campaign as the Resistance Campaign, not the Border Campaign, as noted in the references. While the statement about covering a larger area is accurate, you're right, there's no citation for that. That's why it was in the footnote, not the body. I'll happily change that. But none of this changes the fact that it should be noted that they referred to it as the Resistance Campaign. Correct?--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me rephrase - you're statement that there is no source for the claim that activists of the time object to "Border Campaign" is correct. The statement is correct, but as there is no citation, the sentence no longer refers to these objections. --WilliamHanrahan (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That is the problem you inserted material with the refs you provided, but you also included your own interpetation of those sources that is WP:OR, so the statement isn't correct except in your opinion of the events.--Padraig (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Facts

Ok, Hanrahan, you want to discuss, let's discuss. Please, if you will, respond to the following research.

Search of AP for "resistance campaign" returns 52 results. However most of them are links to the "50 years on" article as you can see: http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awww.anphoblacht.com+%22resistance+campaign%22&btnG=Search

So a more specific search is in order to exclude the term "50 years on": http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&q=site%3Awww.anphoblacht.com+%22resistance+campaign%22+-%2250+years+on%22&btnG=Search

3 results, and only 1 of them about the Border Campaign: http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&q=site%3Awww.anphoblacht.com+%22border+campaign%22&btnG=Search

"Border Campaign" returns 57 results. Just for balance, search for results excluding "50 years on": http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&q=site%3Awww.anphoblacht.com+%22border+campaign%22+-%2250+years+on%22&btnG=Search

42 results!

And we'll try Republican News just to be on the safe side as well: http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&q=site%3Arepublican-news.org+%22resistance+campaign%22&btnG=Search

1 result for "Resistance Campaign", and not about the Border Campaign: http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&q=site%3Arepublican-news.org+%22border+campaign%22&btnG=Search

19 results for "Border Campaign". What say you to that, sir? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I say that's overwhelming evidence it's a minority name even among the Republican Movement, and only belongs in the Border Campaign article. One Night In Hackney303 21:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
It is telling that there has been no response to this evidence. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 22:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's telling that you would comment on no reply when, in fact, I had been banned from participating in this discussion. I have only recently been "unblocked". I have never claimed that Resistance Campaign was a "majority" name. Indeed, the way I wrote the sentence it stated that the Resistance Campaign was "popularly" known as the Border Campaign. The issue, originally at least, and as I see it, was whether or not this information should be in an article on O Bradaigh. At that time, the information was non-controversially included in the article on the Border Campaign. It's since been deleted, which is also telling.

Here's my view. 1. There is factual evidence that activists in the 1956-62 IRA campaign referred to it as the Resistance Campaign. The evidence includes the cited article by Michael McDonncha, the 50 Years ago article in Saoirse that was cited, and, not cited, an article in Saoirse in May or June 2007 (can't remember which) that covered a lecture by Ruan O'Donnell on the 1950s campaign, in Dublin, in April 3007. According to the article, O'Donnell is writing a book on that campaign and in attendance were a number of its veterans. Funny enough, the article describes it as the "Resistance Campaign." The fact that O Bradaigh, C/S at the end of the campaign, is President of RSF, which puts out Saoirse, is not important to you, however. I had also cited the statement at the end of the campaign, which had O Bradiagh as the lead author (as noted in the article on him), in which the campaign was called the "Resistance Campaign." You can talk about majority results all you want, the bottom line is that key people at the time, and reports in AP/RN and Saoirse, call the event the Resistance Campaign. It's not a majority/minority issue. It's an issue of properly describing an historic event.

2. The fact that O Bradaigh, in the statement at the end of the campaign, called it the Resistance Campaign, seems important enough to put in the article on him. We may disagree on that, of course. But if anyone wants to add information on the IRA statement in 1962 and quotes the statement drafted by him and includes the sentence that I had quoted, but there is no reference earlier in the article to the "Resistance Campaign," then there is a potential problem for the uninformed reader, i.e., why is it called the Border Campaign here but the Resistance Campaign here?

3. Border Campaign may be used more often than Resistance Campaign. It may be used exclusively except for the three instances that I have cited. But the reality is that the campaign was not confined to the "Border." To only use "Border Campaign" exacerbates the point and again does a disservice to the uninformed reader. Daithi O'Connell was seriously wounded by Lough Neagh, not along the border.

4. This whole disagreement is about 7 or so words, of: The IRA's Resistance Campaign, popularly referred to as the Border Campaign vs. The IRA's Border Campaign. Wikipedia can't handle a minor, factually accurate, addition to a sentence in an article about Ruairi O Bradiagh? And it can't handle that same kind of sentence in an article on the "Border Campaign" itself? Not good.

WH--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

As evidenced by the search results, the RM use "Border Campaign" an overwhelming majority of the time, in fact RN returns zero relevant search results for "Resistance Campaign". Minority terms for events shouldn't be plastered all over the place, only in the articles about the event. One Night In Hackney303 00:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"All over the place" in two whole articles, both of which have had the reference deleted - including the one "about the event." Makes me feel better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamHanrahan (talk • contribs) 00:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it's not going back in this one. One Night In Hackney303 04:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

In time. WH. --WilliamHanrahan (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Why? It's a minority term, scarcely used even by the people involved. Therefore the only place it really belongs is in the actual Border Campaign article. One Night In Hackney303 00:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

So you admit that people involved use the term Resistance Campaign. Why would they use this if it were not important to them, O Bradaigh organization included? Yet, you refuse its use in an article about O Bradaigh. It's not a question of how many use the term, it's a question of is it important? Lots of people don't really care about China's occupation of Tibet, but that does not make it unimportant for the people of Tibet. WH. --WilliamHanrahan (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing that counters the fact that the accepted name for the event is "Border Campaign", and that even among the participants "Border Campaign" is the accepted and most used name, not the minority and rarely used "Resistance Campaign". Therefore, as before, it doesn't belong in this article. One Night In Hackney303 22:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)