User talk:Jtdirl/Archive 12

Welcome Back!

Let me be the first to welcome you back. I'm glad to see you didn't depart Wikipedia forever. john 16:34, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it can get very frustrating. At the moment I'm just trying to think that I contribute to Wikipedia because I enjoy it, not because I have any expectation that it's really going to be able to become a genuinely authoritative encyclopedia at any time in the near future, and just make contributions on stuff I'm interested in, rather than getting into all these damned conflicts. I dunno. john 16:53, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

And let me be the second -- glad you're back! Peace, BCorr|Брайен 17:10, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

And let me be the third -- I wondered if something had happened to you when you just disappeared like that (it was around the time I bust my leg, so I could understand that happening!) -- Arwel 17:14, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

neat ! anthere

Welcome back!!!!!! I tried sending a couple of e-mails since January, but I've been told since then that the Wikipedia e-mail feature hasn't been working much of the time. This is the best news I've heard on Wiki in a long time! 172 20:53, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! It is, indeed, good news. You have been missed. Danny 23:13, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get jailed in high-security prison with no Internet access? It was a bitter weird to RecentChanges without your name popping up. Anyway, nice to see your appearance again. --Menchi 20:16, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! Wow. I was worried that something terribly serious must have happened. Welcome back!
James F. (talk)@

Thanks, folks, for the messages. I really appreciate them. I guess I am still hooked on the place. Work and other pressures, and problems with the telephone line in my building, forced me to leave rather suddenly. I won't be able to do much for a while, but I'll keep dropping in. Keep up the good work (but then, you guys'n'gals always do!!) Its a sign of how much I miss this place that I have now dropped into an internet cafe on the walk home to check out things . But again, thanks for the comments. I really really appreciate it. :-)

Yes - it is real nice to see you in RC again! If you are having connection problems then just find some places where Wikipedia has no content and create an article for it offline. I for one write on my Palm Pilot while taking transit to work/school. It's great fun and passes the time. --mav 08:10, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back jtdirl I was worried that you had been run over by a bus or something with your sudden dissapearance.

Changing the subject I came across this article The Troubles which I think is rather poor in its present state, and seem as you are our resident Irish history expert I though you might like to take a look at it. G-Man 11:50, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add myelf to the multitude :) Welcome back -- Jim Regan 13:59, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you back here again. It's like one of the family coming back. Mintguy (T) 18:10, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't have said it better than Mintguy. BTW, would you be interested in taking a look at Talk:Augusto Pinochet#Another poll (for a look at the dysfunctional aspect of the Wikipedia family...)? 172 16:17, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back old friend PMA 13:18, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

New joke

What does the Zen-Busshist say at the hot dog booth?

"Make me one with everything."

I am afraid you will not be particularly interested but this does not prevent me from telling you that I have started a project for learning, up to now mainly vocabulary. It is described and discussed at my user page, if you like please let me know there what you think about it. Get-back-world-respect 13:43, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Welcome back! I hadn't noticed you had returned until now, but it's good to see it. →Raul654 05:14, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

Vive l'Irlande!

I just read the "debate" on whether Quebec is a nation or not on Talk:List of people by nationality. Thank you for trying your best to reason them out. :-) I know it is difficult. It seems that in the English language, the word "nation" is generally understood to mean "nation-state" and that causes a major communication problem. I read on your user page that you studied history and politics. It seems we have a lot in common. I am tempted to take advantage of your knowledge... Do you mind answering a few questions for me?

No problem.

If properly informed on the subject, do you think a majority of Irish citizens would give their blessing to Quebec's indepedence?

Because they know so little about it it would be very difficult to adjudicate as to what they might decide. There is no view on the matter and so nothing to go on in judging what their analysis would be.

Ok. I guess I was too vague. You seem to be quite the rational person. :-) (and that is a compliment!). Here is a second attempt: Considering Irish history, do you find it likely that most Irish, if properly informed, would make the connection between their case and our case? (I mean, after all, it is not very difficult to see that Quebec and Ireland are both 1) small nations 2) historically catholic and 3) have been screwed over by the British Empire. ;-) -- Mathieugp 20:25, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Do Irish people wish for the Irish language to becomee the common language of Ireland? (I presume there is a debate on this.)

Very few. Most Irish people veer between an ambiguous liking for the language (ie, love the idea of the language but can't speak it)to detestation. The latter is the result of a disastrous attempt to force the language in the Irish educational system from the 1920s to the 1980s which created a monstrous and tragic backlash. It is a great pity but most of the people I was in school with left school with a profound hatred of the language. How we turn that around is one the questions that those of us interested in Irish ponder, but I'm afraid I don't have an answer. There is fury for example, at a recent decision of the Irish government to oblige Irish utility companies to print bills, reports etc in Irish and english. The Electricity Supply Board spent tens of thousands of euro printing vast numbers of its annual report as gaeilge (in Irish) only to find that not a single person on the island wanted it, while its english language version was read. And whereas the Irish state used to create Irish names for state organisations in the past, it has stopped doing so, planning for example to replace the Irish-named Aer Rianta by a new Dublin Airports Authority. And the Irish government couldn't be bothered registering Irish as a working language of the European Union even when they had the presidency of the Union. So obscure dialects in Europe have official language status in Europe, but Irish doesn't. (Another example: when we became independent, all Bills of the Oireachtas (parliament) were in both bearla agus gaeilge(english and Irish). Today we have so lost interest in translating bills that we are apparently seven years behind in translations, which Acts from 1997 still not translated. And while in the past we did have senior judges like Cearbhall O Dalaigh who used the Irish language version of their name (he later became Uachtaran na hEireann (president of Ireland), no Irish-named judges and few Irish-named national figures exist anymore.

I see. I read about this a few times. What was so bad about the measures to reintroduce Irish as a language of education in schools? Or was it simply Irish as a second language? -- Mathieugp 20:25, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Do you think it is possible for Ireland to become in the majority Irish-speaking one day? (Is there an actual policy aiming towards that?)

An impossibility. Irish is in fact in steep and some think fatal decline. Some experts predict that 'native' Irish language speakers in the Gaeltachtai (Irish language speaking areas) will no longer exist by 2030. Already most of the people in the gaeltachtai are english speakers. Hardly anyone in parliament can speak Irish (the current Taoiseach's inability to speak Irish is infamous). The Irish language tv station, TG4 - having already been rebranded to try to get viewers, having originally been launched as Telifis na Gaeilge (Irish television)- pulls its main viewers when showing European soccer and old American cowboy films.

I'm never sure what to think of cases of really small minority language groups. I guess the case of Irish is closer to that of the Amerindian languages of Quebec than the French language of Quebec. (See below for the rest of my babbling.) -- Mathieugp 20:25, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There is a form of regrowth happening in Irish, but it is in the form of a small minority of english speakers deciding to be bilingual and have their kids educated in Irish. That is particularly an urban phenomenon but the heartland of traditional Irish, the Gaeltachtai, are in serious, worrying and probably unstoppable decline.

The irony is that every census suggests that maybe one in four people can speak Irish. But in reality all they can say is ta me (I can't type the fadas on this damned machine), the equivalent of saying that someone who can say je suis can speak french. In reality we don't want to admit just how bad our Irish is (if it is there at all, it is barely at primary school level but we don't want to admit it), so we still fill in the forms in the census to claim we can speak Irish (but, curiously for supposed Irish speakers, they always fill in the english version of the form, not the Irish!).

(If you want an example of how bad the level of knowledge is of Irish, by the way, look at the Irish language version of wikipedia. It went for months without attracting a single article, yet many Irish people contribute to wikipedia on a daily basis.)

Is it generally known in Ireland that a great number of Irish immigrants to Canada were absorbed into the French Canadian nation?

Unfortunately most people don't know much about Irish emigration to Canada, much less which of the Canadian nations they went to.

Do Irish people know the name Emile Nelligan?

Unfortunately no. I only found out on Wikipedia.

Do you read French?

A tiny bit that I have almost completely forgotten (it is 20 years + since I studied French!)I always intend to return to it. I am a bit of a francophile and love French culture. Though, and this is typical of Ireland, even though I know very little french - I studied it for three years - I know far more of it than I know of Irish, which I studied for fourteen years, simply because like everyone else in Ireland we were victims of an appalling incompetent force-fed teaching of Irish, which turned people off in droves. A recent writer said that Irish language enthusiasts with their messianic determination to forcefeed people the language whether the people liked it or not did more damage to the language than British rule. When Ireland became independent, there still were large parts of the island were people could speak Irish, albeit in small clusters. But under Irish self government, we have lost leinster Irish (apart from one small gaeltacht in Meath), most of connacht Irish, and most Irish speakers in Ulster and Munster, with gaeltachtai that are at best bilingual, at worst where Irish stopped being spoken a generation or two ago, but to keep up the pretence we still call it a gaeltacht as opposed to a galltacht (english language speaking area). And the only reason for that is to get government grants available to gaeltacht residents. A recent TV programme found that most of those receiving gaeltacht grants to promote the language actually couldn't speak a word of Irish. The minister, Eamon O Cuiv, on of the few Irish speakers and Irish named politicians in Ireland, has announced plans to redraw the maps to only cover genuine Irish speaking areas. The fear is however that that may see has much as 70% of the gaeltachtai wiped off the map. It is a pretty disastrous record.

Thanks! -- Mathieugp 02:22, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Slan. Oiche Mhaith. FearÉIREANN 18:40, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

State of Irish language

Some more questions so that I get the general picture.

1. Are native Irish speakers generally bilingual or are they able to speak their language freely in all aspects of life?

All Irish language speakers are bilingual. In theory they can live their lives through Irish. In practice the number of speakers has declined below the critical mass required to make living through Irish a possibility. For example if Irish national TV, RTE, puts on a programme in Irish,it will lose 95% of its audience. The size of the Irish speaking audience, even if 100% watched, is too small to make a major Irish language programming on the main station financially viable. Even the Irish language news bulletin, Nuacht has been moved from the main station because, in the words of one station manager, it was the kiss of death to the channel. Once it appeared, almost the entire nation turned to other channels and then never came back that night. The last time I checked it was buried somewhere on the second smaller state channel and gaining audiences countrywide that sometimes were below 1000, too low even to be measured in the standard methods.

A) Is it relatively easy to work in Irish in a gaeltacht?

In theory yes. In practice the small size of genuinely Irish speaking areas is such that the language is now below critical mass, the number it needs, with the age brackets it requires, to allow for the complete non-use of english.

B) Is it relatively easy to get services in Irish in a gaeltacht?

Yes, but many chose to use them in english. In many places it is the old who opt for the Irish version.

C) Are there enough schools for those who want to receive their education in Irish? The number of gaelscoileanna is growing but in reality those educated as gaeilge except in gaeltacht areas will live 95% of their lives in English, with perhaps 5% in Irish. In the Gaeltacht, schoolchildren can expect to live their lives probably 50-50 between english and Irish.

2. Is the native English speaking majority of Ireland learning Irish as a second language in school? Is is mandatory in order to graduate from high school?

Irish was a mandatory language for most of the twentieth century. That was its problem. Instead of people being able to choose it, it was forced, with, for example, employment in the state sector, in education or in the civil service only being possible if you could speak Irish, or at least pass an exam in it. Woefully bad teaching methods and the highjacking of the language by fanatics (many for political motivation) created such a backlash that when the mandatory requirement was removed, vast numbers ditched the language overnight.

A softly-softly approach might have won respect for the language. Unfortunately a 'we will bully you into speaking Irish whether you like it or not' just alienated all but a small minority. That was captured ironically by McDonalds in Ireland in the 1990s - an advert they ran mocked a famous Irish language writer, Peig Sayers. Peig wrote (or rather had recorded by english visitors) a moving account of her life story in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century Blasket Islands. However Peig became a hate figure for generations of 14 and 15 year old school-children who were forced to wade through her account of life on the islands in difficult Munster Irish. All they got from the bookswas, as one writer put it "an old biddy forever whining about her hard life and her two hundred sons, all of whom were killed tragically. Why couldn't someone kill that old bitch on page one and put us all out of our misery." When Peig was finally banished from the educational curriculum there was widespread praise, which teachers desparate to create an Irish language curriculum that would win over students, not send them running for cover, saying she should have been banished decades earlier. (One teachers' leader said Peig Sayers on the leaving certificate course had done more damage to the survival of Irish language than Oliver Cromwell!) McDonalds ran an advert in which a black-shawled 'Peg' arrived in a McDonalds where she was finally shut up by a big mac. Irish language activists like Senator Labhras O Murchu went ballistic and called on Irish people to rise up against McDonalds. In reality radio shows were jammed with callers loving the ad. One newspaper poll showed 91% support for the McDonald's ad and the message it conveyed, and how it had tapped into Irish attitudes towards Peig. (Note I use the Irish language spelling of her name. Many deliberately to piss Irish language activists off write Peg (as in tent peg)

3. Do Irish speakers have strong cultural instititions to spread their language throughout Ireland? There are strong Irish language institutions like Comhradh na Gaeilge, founded by Dubhlas de hIde, the first Uachtaran na hEireann, but none of them believe there is a snowball's chance in hell of spreading the language throughout Ireland as a seriously spoken language. They are too concerned trying to salvage the language from extinction in the dwindling gaeltacht pockets. Their best hope is to keep the gaeltachtai Irish speaking and give everyone else enough of an interest that they can mutter a few words in Irish or maybe hold the old easy conversation. The latter can be achieved. The former is, tragically, unlikely as it appears to be falling too low among young people and too low as a spoken language in a cohesive community to have the critical mass to interdepend and so survive.

4. Is the Irish language and Irish language culture visible in major urban centres? Signs are in Irish and english. The odd word is used in Irish. But it is tokenism.

5. Can you point me out to some goverment website that would let me know what legislations are in force regarding Irish in Ireland? I'll have to check that out.

In Quebec, we made French a right of all citizens. All citizens (not just the currently French speaking ones) have the right to live their life in French. The right to work in French, th right to receive education in French, the right to be served in French etc. were chartered just like we chartered the basic rights of persons.

In my opinion, this should be done in Ireland right now. Then, if the majority favored it, a national policy could be passed to plan for a smooth transition from English to Irish over the course of 4-5 generations. That's the only way it could be done in my opinion (based on what I know of Quebec's case).

The most important question of course is: Is it possible to convince a majority of Irish citizens that it is the right thing to do in order to keep the Irish language alive for good?

-- Mathieugp 20:25, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid you don't grasp the seriousness of the condition of the Irish language. French in Quebec is 10000 times healthier than Irish. It probably exceeds the critical mass required for survival by the power of 10. Comparing the status of both languages is false.

I agree that comparing the two would be false. However, I never meant to say that. I am sorry for the confusion I seem to have caused by replying at two different places in your talk page. It appears you didn't read my replies above. I will quote myself here now: "I'm never sure what to think of cases of really small minority language groups. I guess the case of Irish is closer to that of the Amerindian languages of Quebec than the French language of Quebec. "

You can be reassured: I fully grasp the precariousness of the Irish language. Thank you for the web links. I will read them and come back to you. -- Mathieugp 13:07, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A more accurate parallel would be if one block of one town in one part of Quebec spoke German, and you imagining that from that you could make all of Quebec german-speaking. Ireland could perhaps have, with the right teaching, made the entire state bilingual within a generation or two from independence. But a disastrous mishandling of the language (for example, an Irish language fanatic in the Abbey Theatre in the mid 20th century almost killed off the theatre by his language fanaticism. Great plays by Shaw, O'Casey and others were banned because they were in english, while fourth rate semi-literate rubbish, once it was in Irish, was put on the stage. By the time Blythe's infamous reign was over, the theatre was on its last legs, with even Irish language fanatics holding their heads in shame at what had happened to Ireland's great theatre because of Irish) has probably killed it off as a spoken language by the second quarter of this century, with it becoming a second language of some people in some contexts, not a first language, let alone the exclusive language of anyone.

Their appalling mishandling is again symbolised, tragically by what happened in the education system, as in forcing schoolkids to read a book by Peig Sayers that in Irish is next to unreadable except to top students. Even in english, most students would have difficulty with it. My class, in addition, were required to study obscure, impossible to understand 18th century old Irish poetry as well as Peig Sayers. Whatever about the chance of interesting kids through reading modern books and writing to develop a fluency, Irish language extremists highjacked the education system and decreed that kids must read Sayers, study study O Dalaigh and Flaherty. They might as well asked them to study Shakespeare in phoenetic chinese. Kids cried their way through classes and left school hating the language with a passion. I am the only one of my class who is still interested in the language, BTW, and the only one to try to read Peig again after leaving school.

The language, if it survives, and I desparately hope it does, needs a mini-miracle. I don't just want tokenism but a real living language in the gaeltachtai. Tragically I doubt if there will be a gaeltacht at all when my young nephew is an adult. FearÉIREANN 20:22, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Spam in wikipedia?

I didn't know Wikipedia could be spammed?! I though you had intentionally added a bunch of external links in your reply to me (which made me wonder why you wanted me to visit so many pages that had nothing to do with what we were discussing). I found these links concerning Irish language policy:

http://www.leitrimcoco.ie/about/IrishPol.htm

http://www.pobail.ie/en/AboutUs/AnnualReport/TheIrishLanguageandtheGaeltacht/

And in French I found this:

http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/europe/irlande.htm (Interesting because it compares the failure of the language policy of Ireland to the success of the language policy of Israel. Very informative.)

WMOS issue

Hi, can you take a look at the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#British_versus_American_casing regarding a section of the WMOS you are rumo(u)red to have originally authored? Thanks Jgm 15:55, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hey, I see you're online today. Hello again! 172 16:50, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

== Thanks for the compliments! Gerry Lynch 16:36, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

FYI: John Kerry is not Irish

Rex071404 17:01, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

?????***????? What????? When did I say he was? He is of Czech origin. I've known that for over a decade.

Good to see you around

Sorry, I seem to have missed the "welcome back" opportunity, but I've missed seeing you around -- even when we disagree, I have great respect for you, and trust you to be working for what you believe is Wikipedia's best interests. I saw a good comment of yours at Talk:John Kerry and realized with delight you were around again. Hope to see more good comments (and content additions!) from you in the future, Jwrosenzweig 17:07, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I second that welcome! Also, your FAQ up above on the current status of Irish is, in my view, excellent. Well, I do my part anyway, dedicating a sizeable chunk of my free time to the Irish wiki. I sent out a blanket coverage advertising the site's 'official' launch to about 20 Irish language newspapers and websites, but I only got a response back from one, Raidió na Life. They were kind enough to do a quick radio interview, but I have no idea whether it got played in the end (being yet to do my Leaving, my Irish is definitely not fluent; perhaps that's ironic). -- Kwekubo 02:35, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No need to apologize

Your note wasn't too long. I am not sure what to think of all this. My opinion is that the Irish language can only be saved if the Irish people agrees to this:

1. Living in Irish is a right. The people of Ireland has been deprived of this right. "Someone" stole their language and they have to unite to reconquer what belongs to them. 2. Irish has to have the status of sole official language in the Gaeltag. You don't save a language by relying on indidual choice and bilingualism (the biggest lie ever). People can only choose among the viable options that are presented to them. Living in Irish only is not viable anywhere in Ireland at the present. People must accept that moving into this particular zone means you are moving into a country where all things are happening in Irish only. The Irish speakers of the Gaeltag must volontarily forget that they speak English when they do. They must not do their own translantion for "outsiders". Outsiders must open up to them. 3. The government needs to plan the gradual "expansion of the gaeltag" so that it covers all of Ireland.

Michael Howard interview

elements cross-posted

Heya James,
Umm... I don't quite understand what you said on my talk page — I was reverting the edits of an anonymous editor who was removing the comment about the interview's theatre being rather... accidental. I, too, am somewhat averse to Howard's political stance, but I felt that removing the caveat was somewhat POV. I rather like your rewording, however.
James F. (talk) 23:23, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Great Britain

I noticed your recent comment on the World War II talk page and welcome it. If you at my contributions, you will see that I have tried to tackle this issue as best as I understand it. There are also a lot of comments on my talk page from people that think the default term is GB and are unhappy or merely surprised when I say it is not. Keep up the good work.
Bobblewik 11:14, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I sometimes try to liken it to saying 'contiguous USA' or '48 states'. These terms are confined to particular circumstances which occasionally are valid but in most cases are either not intended or not warranted by the idea being expressed. I think misuse would be less likely if the term GB had become something like 'Partial Britain', or 'Tri-nation'. Being Scottish, I have always been aware of the misuse of 'England' and 'English' in general references to the nation, culture and citizenship of the UK. By extension I became sensitive to misuse of the term GB. I am glad to have found an Irish person that may be able to contribute when somebody is arguing about it. I don't think this issue will ever disappear. You may also want to look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Bobblewik Bobblewik 09:10, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Duffy, I'm all for correcting references to GB where it is right and proper to do so. But I feel the Bobblewick has sometimes been over-zealous. See the following edits for examples [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8][9] [10] [11] [12][13] [14] [15][16]. There are many similar examples. Mintguy (T)

Saving the Irish language

Hi there,

Happened to see the discussion between yourself and Mathieugp about the state of the Irish language. Have you any concrete suggestions as to what avid Irish language enthusiasts such as myself can do? I have written to local TDs before about other issues, and would consider doing so again. But have you any suggestions as to what can be done, or what I should suggest? I mean, it's not really going to cut the mustard to just keep saying "it's terrible, we must do something". D'foghlaim mé Gaeilge sa scoil, ní raibh roghadh agam faoi sin, ach é sin ráite, ní raibh fadhb agam le sin. Thaiteann an teanga liom. Ach tar éis na blianta sin ag foghlaim an teanga - ní bainim úsáid as an teanga ach an oiread. Níl mé sásta ar chor ar bith faoi sin. Mar sin, cad faoi ná daoine eile nach bhfuil grá acu don teanga? Tá an méad sin obair déanta acu ag foghlaim an teanga - agus fiú amhain, tar éis an iarracht sin, ag deanamh rud éigin nach bhfuil suim acu inti, ní aon maitheas é má bhfuil Gaeilge acu in ainneoin a gcuid fuath!

Sorry, I don't know if for all your support for the language, you can understand the above piece. I can translate if necessary. Apart from anything else, even though I have quite good Irish, due to lack of use, my Irish has deteriorated.

Regards, Zoney 12:35, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Communist state

Take a look at this edit for old time's sake. History is repeating itself today on Communist state.[17] 172 11:51, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, please do look at that edit and consider the arguements I made on the talk page. User 172 is representing that you would engage in edit wars over this matter. I hope you don't. I simply feel that links to Soviet culture and Soviet popular culture belong in the article. Fred Bauder 19:26, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Could you please fix President - a person did what you feared and put George Washington plus eliminated the photo of Mary McAleese. PMA 12:58, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

HRH The Prince of Wales

Hello, Jtd! Here is what I have written on the talk page Talk:Prince Charles, Prince of Wales:

Whilst I, too, hold the highest opinion of you and your knowledge relating to royalty, I am afraid I must disagree that "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales" is incorrect. I actually looked up the issue on alt.talk.royalty before making the suggestion above. Here is what I found:

"HRH The Earl of Wessex" is only an abbreviation for "HRH The Prince Edward,Earl of Wessex",just as "HRH The Prince of Wales" is an abbreviation for "HRH The Prince Charles,Prince of Wales,Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay,Earl of Chester and Carrick". -- Louis Epstein (User:12.144.5.2)

But the above may have been slightly erroneous. For example, from what Peter Tilman tells me, the Earldom of Chester is traditionally mentioned before the ducal titles (as it was formerly regarded as a Principality), but the same is not adhered to above. I therefore looked for confirmation in legal documents.

"His Royal Highness The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, and His Royal Highness The Prince Andrew, Duke of York" -- The Solicitor General's Salary Order 1997
"Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother and His Royal Highness The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales" -- The Saint Vincent Constitution Order 1979

So, as I interpret it, "The Prince of Wales" is a short form for "The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales." This would also be consistent with "HRH The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay."

Now, as to the question of the article title itself: If "HRH The Prince Andrew, Duke of York" is condensed into "Prince Andrew, Duke of York," then it would be equally appropriate to condense "HRH The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales" to "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales." (It might be more appropriate to include the definite article in each instance.)

-- Emsworth 18:32, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

But Jtd, the above documents are reliable sources—they are authoritative versions of official Orders in Council. Legally, I believe, HRH is "The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales," just as the present Lord Chancellor is "Charles Leslie, Baron Falconer of Thoroton." Just as we refer to "Lord Falconer of Thoroton," it would be correct to refer to "HRH The Prince of Wales." That does not mean, however, that the full form used in legal documents is incorrect. -- Emsworth 17:16, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, you're back! I was afraid you had either died or been sent to prison. Deb 19:20, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Image:Paulcullen.jpg

Regarding this image, any any other photos you might have posted. I'm currently helping properly tag all wiki images for technical reasons which go way over my head. In any case, I wanted to ask you before I slapped a tag on this what your intentions were, fully public domain, GNU license, etc? Thanks. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 16:31, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Irish Parliamentary Party

I was wondering if you knew the intricacies of who was leading the various wings of the Irish Parliamentary Party during the 1890s when it was split over the Parnell stuff. I got the impression that Redmond succeeded Parnell as leader of the pro-Parnell faction after Parnell's death, and then became the leader of the reunited party in 1900, but I'm having trouble with who led the anti-Parnell faction. It would appear that it was John Dillon at the end, and possibly from 1896, but the 1890-1896 period seems murky. Can you shed any light on this? john k 02:01, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Irish Presidential Election

Hi JTD. In the article, you've just said about the Labour Party A final decision will be taken by the party's executive body, the National Executive Committee, on 16 November 2004.. Will this not be a little late, since nominations close on 1st October? Or is it all a fiendish plot to avoid the blame for not putting up a candidate? :) -- Arwel 20:00, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Irish articles

Hi. I've noticed you've done alot of admirable work on Irish-related articles here. I've known for a while that we really need an article on the Irish Rebellion of 1867, as well as the '48 cabbage patch fiasco. Also the Irish Rebellion of 1798 really needs expansion, as does Emmet's rebellion, which currently takes up about 2 sentences in his own article. I thought you might be the guy to do it and I was wondering if you'd be interested in taking any of those on. I thought I might, but I'm no expert. Most of my Irish related articles have been about the Easter Rebellion and the people involved, and as a result wikipedia has an abundance of information on that period, but little for these other events. Well, I thought I'd bring them to your attention anyway. Do whatever you see fit. I've been meaning to write a John Devoy article for months now but it's been a while since I read his biography or his memoirs, and I haven't got around to re-familiarizing myself with the details. Well, anyway, keep up the good work. -R. fiend 02:25, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Irish wikipedians' notice board

Hi there, I'm not sure if you know about it, or if anyone has previously mentioned it to you, but there is an Irish wikipedians' notice board up and running. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Irish wikipedians' notice board. zoney ♣ talk 23:22, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Don't forget to check this out too. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/172/Evidence#Additional evidence. Fred Bauder 20:31, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Pope John Paul I

Hi. I'm Litefantastic; I don't think we've met before. I've nominated the article on Pope JP I for a Featured Article, and I was kind of hoping you could help. You worked heavily on the article a while back, and one of the problems in the way of it reaching FA status is where most of this information came from, and whether or not it is NPOV. Feel free to drop by. -Litefantastic 15:52, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi! Want to take a look at Fred Bauder's latest attempt to drive me off this site for old times sake? I'm just about at the end of my rope here. 172 19:52, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Image:MichaelC.jpg

Hi there! Thanks for adding the image Image:MichaelC.jpg. It currently doesn't have an image copyright tag, and I was hoping that you would add one as untagged images may be deleted eventually. (You can use {{gfdl}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) Thanks! --David Iberri | Talk 19:49, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. IANAL, but I'd bet this falls under fair use -- the only issue is that no original seems to be available. I'm wondering if the {{unverified}} tag would fit best. --David Iberri | Talk 17:39, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

There's a similar issue with Image:BVM.jpg — the specific original source probably does matter (hopefully the conditions, etc. in the two sections referred to will allow this to be all hashed out more specifically ...) Anyhow, if you'll have a look, thanks!! Schissel 22:02, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Hebrew Wiki Irish History Project

Hello, my name is Amir, and I am an admin in the Hebrew Wiki. In the last few months I have taken upon myself a project of writing articles about Irish History.

I believe that Israelis have a lot to learn from Irish history, as we are now creating the same conditions in the occupied territories ("plantation" of jewish settlers) that the English created in Ulster, with the same horrid results.

Up to the 19th century I have good resources in Hebrew, and I have a very detailed book in English.

Can you guide me a little in writing of Ireland (The Island, the republic, the north) in the 20th and 21st centuries as follows:

What are the 3 or 4 main poltical parties in Ireland in the last few decades?

Who are the most prominant figures in Irish politics and history since the 1920's? (I have written of DeV and Collins. I intend to write of Cosgrave and Griiffith. who comes next? Who shouldn't I miss?)

Are there some good web resources that detail your Economic Boom in the 90's and the decline of the influence of the church in the last decades?

Are there some good web resources that detail the decelopements in the north since th 1920's?

Thank you for your attention.

he: שיחת משתמש: אלמוג

Thanks for the questions. Re the settlements, the Israeli policy towards the Occupied Territories is much commented on in Ireland. We can see Israel making all the mistakes the English made in the plantation of Ulster in the seventeenth century and later. The policy decisions of the English (later British) governments created a nightmare of two rival groups each claiming superior rights over the same lands, and each with completely justifiable viewpoints. One saying - 'but it was ours and stolen from us', the other saying 'I was born here, so was my parents, grandparents, great-grandparents etc etc.' Irish people groan at seeing Israel make all the same mistakes, practically screaming 'stop. Later Israeli and Palestinians generations will be haunted by this the way Ireland has been.' But tragically Israel won't learn the lessons of history. Those around the world who have had similar mistakes made and have been left with centuries of strife, can only look on in horror as Israel walks blindly straight into the same monumental mistake we have had to live with, and which has resulted in voilence and murder for four hundred years. The tragedy for Israel is that people may well be murdered in 2404 for the mistakes Israel is making today, just as we have people dying for the mistakes made in the 1600s.

Re the political parties - the main parties are Fianna Fail (The Republican Party), the largest party continually since 1932, Fine Gael (The United Ireland Party), the second largest party since it was founded in 1933 (it was built from the merger of Cumann na nGaedgael and the Centre Party) and in third place Labour, a small social democratic/socialist party. The other parties are Sinn Fein (previously called Provisional Sinn Fein), the political wing of the Provisional IRA). It claims to be the original Sinn Fein established in 1905 and from which Fianna Fail and Cumann na nGaedhael broke away in 1926 and 1922 respectively. Modern Sinn Fein was a minor fringe party in the Republic of Ireland until lately. It has grown substantially since the IRA ceasefire in the 1990s, but still is far smaller than the big three. The other main party is the Progressive Democrats, a small right wing liberal party founded in 1987 from people who broke away from Fianna Fail (and a few from Fine Gael). There is also a small Green Party. The Progessive Democrats (PDs) and Fianna Fail (FF) are in government together.

A key figure in modern Ireland is Sean Lemass (Taoiseach from 1959 to 1966). He was the father of industrialisation in Ireland. Another key player is his successor Jack Lynch (Taoiseach from 1966-1973, 1977-1979). A good sourcebook to read is the famed book by FSL Lyons, Ireland Since the Famine, though it only goes up to 1973 (as he died in the late 1970s it ain't likely to go much further!). Regarding the Celtic Tiger, key figures worth mentioning are T.K. Whittaker (author of key plans in the 1950s and 1960s), Patrick Hillery and Donogh O'Malley, Education Ministers who are the people credited with the reform of the Irish educational system that educated the entrepreneurs who created the Celtic Tiger. Also Ray McSharry, Finance Minister in the late 1980s is credited with getting the Irish state's finances back in control.

As to web sources,I am afraid I am not up to speed on what is on it. The Dail website has access to all parliamentary debates. A TV programme called Suffer Little Children dealt with some aspects of a notorious paedophile priest in Ireland. If you websearch Fr. Brendan Smyth (the notorious child rapist whose behaviour was systematically protected by bishops and his abbot. You can read about him in Betrayal of Trust, which was published in the 1990s and is truly shocking), or Bishop Eamon Casey (the Bishop who had a son by his American divorcee mistress), or Fr. Michael Cleary (a right wing popular priest who after his death was revealed to have been screwing every woman he could and who had had two children by his housekeeper). A new (so far leaked rather than published) report details the homosexual shenagans in a RC seminary, the now closed St. Peter's in Wexford, while the word Islandbridge may well throw up information on a infamously brutal orphanage. Good books on the change in Roman Catholicism in Ireland are Moral Monopoly by Tom Inglis are Irish Catholicism Since 1950: The Undoing of a Culture by Louise Fuller (ISBN 0717134570). An example of how Catholicism has declined in Ireland is that most dioceses have had to close their seminaries. Even the main surviving one, Maynooth College, has only a handful of students, and Dublin, the biggest diocese in terms of population, is producing no priests this year and has had to close down Clonliffe College, its seminary. Dublin now produces more Buddhist monks than Roman Catholic priests!

I hope all that helps somewhat. FearÉIREANN 12:25, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I find your remarks of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict interesting and insightful. I have copied our conversation to my user talk page (a rather popular one in the Hebrew Wiki) so that our Hebrew Wiki community could also benefit by reading your views.

I will use your answers and hopefully create a good source of information in Hebrew about Ireland.

Thank you! he:שיחת משתמש: אלמוג

Edward Lovett Pearce

Hi, I've just written a new page Edward Lovett Pearce sadly I have never been to Dublin or indeed Ireland (yet). I wondered do you have any photographs in your collection which could help to illustrate it, articles on architects are useless without a few photos, and all the ones I can find are copyright. (I have already pinched on of your's already!). I would be really grateful if you could help, and give the article a once over for any glaring errors which demonstrate I have never been to Ireland. Thanks Giano 17:20, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards

I have drafted a proposal for a new voluntary association on Wikipedia (joining groups like the Wikipedia:The Business and Economics Forum and the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club) to promote discussion of a sort of system of expert review on Wiki. Please take a look and add your ideas. 172 08:01, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hello. For your information, this Hilda Toledano is no better than the Anastasias. Is also interesting that her supporters cite a document where Carlos recognized her as his heir at a time when he had two legitimate male sons. Also, she was not portuguese, but Cuban. She acquired portuguese nationality by marrying a man 50 years her junior, gossip says also the lover of Rosario Poidimani. The line of Duarte Pio was recognized by Manuel II of Portugal as his successors, overruling the exclusion following the civil war that ended in 1834. Anyway in a whole i find that your edits balanced the article quite nicely. Cheers, [[User:Muriel Gottrop|muriel@pt]] 20:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I really liked your rewriting. Unfortunately the anon Poidimani supporter does not and reverted everything twice already. I will not revert to your version immediately, i'll wait until he disappears again to avoid edit warring. I'm surprised that you had heard about her... Nobody in Portugal for instance does, only history geeks like myself :) best, [[User:Muriel Gottrop|muriel@pt]] 20:00, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk) 18:08, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

RFC pages on VfD

Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:49, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unverified images

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following images:

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 22:10, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

Also:

Image:Birkenau(thumbnail).jpg - Thanks, AlbinoMonkey 05:06, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Styles

I know about the long and complicated history of the titles argument here, but Wikipedia has changed. I understand that compromises had to be made in the beginning to appease the rabid title-haters, but since then (a) Wikipedia has become less Americocentric, and so the anti-title lobby has realised that they can't impose American title-hating ideology on the whole world because it's POV, and (b) titles policy in general has evolved, as people realised that banning titles would result in articles like Robert Gascoyne-Cecil which would just confuse everyone. Since then a consensus has evolved throughout the community that works on such articles that we start them with styles, not only because they exist and should be shown to exist but because it's the simplest and clearest way of showing them and how they are used. Why bother saying "Tony Blair... He is styled "The Right Honourable Tony Blair"..." when you can just say "The Right Honourable Tony Blair..." to begin with? The former is cumbersome and needlessly space-consuming, and contains no more information than the latter. Unfortunately, no policy exists as far as I'm aware that dictates how styles should be used in articles. Perhaps I should go and write one. Anyway, I'm not opposed at all to the removal of styles from the text of articles, as "HRH The Count of Somewhere said to HSH Princess Mary of Elsewhere that he'd met HGDH The Grand Duke of Anywhere..." makes the text very hard to read, but the format of using styles at the start of a person's article is now pretty much universal and thus the de facto policy on the matter. We no longer have people wanting to move Charles, Prince of Wales to Charles Windsor, and the very few people complaining about styles have been rebutted every time they've complained, since most editors now quite reasonably realise that calling Tony Blair "The Right Honourable Tony Blair" is not POV in any way, shape or form. Proteus (Talk) 16:08, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I understand that it's a hornet's nest, but I'm not really willing to take a stance that amounts to "well, I know it's silly practice, but it'll avoid arguments". If, in the end, the community does ban titles on Wikipedia altogether (which I sincerely doubt would ever happen at this stage of its development - likely though it may have been a year or two ago), then I'd leave at once (and so would most other contributors on such pages, which the community probably knows), but until that time I'm going to insist on what I consider correct practice. And though I know how serious such complaints have been in the past, they've almost completely died away as Wikipedia has matured. For instance, every article on a British Privy Counsellor now starts "The Right Honourable" (or, in a few cases, "The Right Honourable") and every article on current members of the British Royal Family (and the majority of members of the Royal Family over the last 200 years) starts "His/Her Royal Highness", and yet no one has complained about them at all. As for international practice, we should follow the practice of the country concerned. The "The Honorable" style held by US Presidents is hardly ever used (partly because it's practically meaningless in a country where it is given to every single minor politician or official), nor is the "His/Her Excellency" style held by Irish Presidents. And as for disputes over the styles of members of the Royal Family, we should avoid dispute by simply using their legal name (which in the cases you mention would mean including HRH). And it seems silly to say "it's all right to call him "King Constantine", but, oh no, we couldn't possibly give him two meaningless words before that!". But all these are simply complications, and I'm quite happy to engage in debates with people over individual cases. What I'm not willing to say is "oh, this is all too much of a fuss, so I give up". Proteus (Talk) 17:55, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, we'll just have to agree to differ. But, at the moment, in the absence of a policy on the matter, I'm not going to agree to your way of doing things simply because a long time ago you and some other people made a decision about it. Proteus (Talk) 18:28, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi. You appear to be confusing Wikipedia:Naming conventions with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). Wikipedia:Naming conventions means that the article on Pope John Paul II should not be at His Holiness Pope John Paul II - as that policy deals with how articles are named. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) makes it clear that honorifics should be used in the article - ie the article should properly start with His Holiness Pope John Paul II. Kind regards, jguk 20:04, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

3RR block

You violated the 3RR on Pope John Paul II, having made, by my count, 4 complete reverts and a further 3 partial reverts in the last 24 hours, and so I have blocked you for 24 hours, in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Proteus (Talk) 12:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pope John Paul I

Can you please clarify the license under which Dr. M.A Tierney has released the images at Pope John Paul I? Untagged images project members have given contradictory tags based on your note. 119 01:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Republics

Need your help and/or advice. The British Wikipedian Republican Party sought fit to delete Wikinfo:Classical definition of republic from Wikipedia. There is a terrible brouhaha at Talk:Republic. They won't even allow an external link! SimonP really doesn't know what he is doing. They deleted the Classical definition of republic and created mixed government and politeia instead. The official title of mixed government is a Republic and the Romans translated "politiea" as Republic. And then to top it off the new article Classical republicanism doesn't refer to the Classical republics of Crete, Sparta, Solonic Athens, or Rome but to Machiavelli's ideology. How can that be when Venice in the 13th century instituted a mixed government and called herself a "Republic".

With Jwrosenwieg and Kim Bruning there was a tacit agreement a year ago to have republic be the modern meaning and a [Classical definition of republic] to describe the ancient republics of Hellas and Rome and their influence. To say the least the "Republic section" is all messed up. We need some clarification. I have new information but User:Snowspinner won't let me bring this back up for undelete. (I do grant that a little bit of the Classical definition is original but the rest is not.) I will not let Sparta be called anything but a republic! I will not let the British wikipedian modern republicans strip Sparta, (my heritage and roots) of her rightful name. She is a Classical republic and needs to be called such! At the least, where is the damage in having an external link?WHEELER 15:09, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sinn Féin

Well done on your de-POVing of this article - I would not have known where to begin.

I must admit I wouldn't exactly be neutral, having watched Sinn Féin/IRA's troubles with glee.

zoney ♣ talk 10:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Home Rule Bills

Thanks for your comments; I do understand your point, but I've replied at greater length at Talk:Irish Home Rule Bill, which seems like the best place to try to gain consensus. Is mise! :o) — OwenBlacker 00:19, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Surname

I will accept the consensus that surnames should be included. However, it would be incorrect to speak of "Victoria Wettin" or "Elizabeth Windsor," since a monarch has a dynastic name, not a true surname. -- Emsworth 21:14, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I Hate You

You really need to get a sense of humor, dude.

No. Mate. You need to realise that this is an encyclopaedia, not a scribble box for vandals. You've been banned a second time and your messages on other people's pages have been deleted. Goodbye. FearÉIREANN 01:54, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

JP2CoA.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, JP2CoA.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —MetsBot 19:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on the papal election. On message boards i'm getting tired of people throwing George Weigel's nonsense about popes being the servants of church doctrine not the masters - popes can _define_ church doctrine but as Weigel is a conservative Pell-ite i shouldn't be surprised at the fabrication. PMA 09:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cardinal article titles

Either the naming conventions are changed [...] or this article needs to be moved to follow the agreed format.

Isn't that essentially what I said in the first place? Alai 23:46, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's all right, no need to lecture me. I know what the naming policy is. I just dislike it. (Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington? For f*ck's sake!) QuartierLatin1968 23:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I also dislike it, since it is inconsistent with all other naming conventions. If it is OK to have Cardinal Richelieu, why is it not OK to have Prince Charles or Sir Winston Churchill? However, I am not going to argue about it. I have not moved any Cardinal articles. I have created two, Jean-Marie Lustiger and George Pell. Adam 00:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What these gents just said. The "logic behind it" I'm not at all taken with: it's an instance of the dreaded Wikipedian practice of exceptions (for cardinals) nested within exceptions (for names) within rules (for using common names for article titles). I could write you a couple of naming conventions off the top of my head that'd be just as practical and more logical, but a particular page move isn't the place to be doing so, and I'll file under "another day's work". So manfully, I'm refraining for voting against it, and pointing out the same reasoning to others. Cheers, 00:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I had forgotten about Franz Koenig, my apologies. I accept that the convention is as it is and I won't argue about it further, but I still don't think it is necessary. With Richelieu, my preference would be to call the article Armand Du Plessis and have redirects from his titles. This is after all what we do with Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, a name no-one knows or uses, and that doesn't seem to cause any problems. Adam 23:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Conclave articles

I noticed you did 2 conclave articles with the nationalities of the cardinals. do you plan to do more? where do you get the data from? 24.222.31.83 03:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An antipodean son of Erin

My contribution to the Cardinal category: Norman Cardinal Gilroy. Adam 09:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Boilerplate and "True Catholic Church"

I continue to believe that the one-size-fits-all boilerplate is misleading and inappropriate for this particular article.The boilerplate identifies the tCC's preferred name for itself as "the correct" title,but their preference for that orthography is specifically rooted in a desire to prevent any appearance of NPOV in referring to them.Both clarity and NPOV require that their preferred title for themselves not be the title of their article,so even if the technical limitations did not exist,it would not be "the correct" name.They want to be referred to in a way that expresses a value judgement we need to avoid.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 17:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(Responding to your response on my talk page)

This IS an issue of "someone claims a title and few people accept it".THE reason they want that T lowercased is to make reference to them imply acceptance of their claim and non-differentiation of them from "those nutters in the Vatican",no matter how dismissive of their claims the referrer may be.There needs to be distinction between them and others despite their attempt to evade it.Calling them the True Catholic Church with a capital T makes clear a specific group is being referred to,while lowercasing the T expresses implies that the word "true" is merely descriptive and not part of their name.--Louis E./12.144.5.2 18:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I note that you have not responded to this argument except by removing your comment justifying the template from my talk page.It seemed to me that this indicated that you were conceding that the template was indeed inappropriate.Now you have joined the anti-reversionism.(I responded on my talk page to your latest).--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 00:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have responded again on my talk page.That you can not understand the impossibility of reconciling NPOV with this group's preferred name for itself is hard to imagine!!--L.E./12.144.5.2 03:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(another round at mine..L.E.)

Templates

Where is there consensus that these templates belong? From my understanding WikiProject Countries strongly opposes international organization templates. - SimonP 23:53, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Where is this consensus? Here is a brief history. In May and June 2004 basic template rules were established after a long discssion. It was decided that geographical templates and very important international organizations are fine. An international organization was deemed very important if it were mentioned in the opening section. After these rules were established all the excess templates were removed. I was involved in none of this. In recent months I have made it one of my tasks to occasionally strip away the excessive templates (my favourite was Template:South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC)). In general the creators of these templates object, but every time the wider consensus established back in 2004 has held. - SimonP 00:14, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Most countries are members of dozens, if not hundreds, of international organizations. Should we have templates for them all? I'm fine with moving some of them to the Foreign relations of ... pages. Unfortunately the discussion that led to this consensus was spread over many user talk pages and elsewhere. The clearest evidence is that at this time the excess templates were stripped from all the country pages without objection (see [18],[19], [20],[21], [22],[23] ). If you want to reopen this issue the best option is to attempt to reach a new consensus at WikiProject Countries. Until a new consensus is established I will continue to enforce the old one. -SimonP 00:50, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I support both the Commonwealth of Nations and Commonwealth Realm template. SimonP's agrresive edits however means I cannot re-insert them without breaking the 3R rule, and he seems to be very fast at reverting, and it takes time to re-add them in. So I am afraid I cannot re-add them back at this moment in time. Notice however, it means that many of the country templates are only some of the pages and not all. eg the Commonwealth Realm template remains on Australia and New Zealand pages only. Astrotrain 12:04, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Jt, on SimonP's page you stated that he was "the main person pushing these changes", i.e., to delte these templates. Please be advised that I have done so as well, and I engaged Astrotrain in a long discussion (under my previous name, User:Kevintoronto) over the issue because I prefer to discuss than to revert, but Astrotrain stopped repsonding to my arguments at Talk:Canada, and continued applying these templates. I wasn't around at the weekend, so I have been out of the discussion, but I urge the two of you to stop trying to force these templates on the Canada page for the reasons I identified on the Talk page. Until you can convince other active editors of that page of your position, you are inciting a revert war, which is not polite at all.. Ground Zero 13:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Talk:David Bawden

Please review, or apparently in at least one case consult for the first time,

my mention of the PoV issue,
the edit that originally added the tag,
if necessary, your stated justification in Talk:David Bawden#Cleanup & NPOV dispute tags for removing it, and
my short stated reason for restoring the tag, and my long one on the same talk sec'n,

and inform me whether you think you owe me a retraction and/or apology re your last contrib to that section of that talk page.
--Jerzy (t) 18:35, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

White House (USA)

Hi. I thought I should let you know I'm considering changing a line you wrote a year or so ago in the White House article about the set of The West Wing versus the real thing. You can find details on Talk:White House. --Officiallyover 05:59, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Papal election" revert

It appears that you have reverted one of my edits to Papal election, adding back a template which I had removed. I feel constrained to point out that I was led to believe that an administrator's revert tool is normally used for reverting vandalism. If that is how you perceived my edit, then I must indeed apologize for making it. However, I wish to note that I do not at all find the template appropriate. First;y, it only duplicates the information on List of papal conclaves, which is itself linked in the see also section. Secondly, it is rather arbitrary, and even misleading, to begin the template with the year 1800. This might be appropriate for other lists or articles, but for the main article "Papal election," it may give readers the incorrect impression that conclaves only began in 1800. Thirdly, it seems contrary to all conventions to include a separate section only for a template. Therefore, if you insist on the template, then I would request your agreement for: (a) putting the template at the bottom of the article, and not in its own section, and (b) removing List of papal conclaves from the See also section, to avoid redundancy. I would, of course, prefer not to include the template at all, given the above mentioned misleading connotations. -- Emsworth 00:03, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Republic - Republicanism - Republican

Hi Jtdirl,

Thanks for your note on my page re. Republican. Hope not to bore you too much by elaborating here on your user page a bit on the broader scope of the topic, that is, a sort of first draft of an action plan to come to an end of the continuous edit wars on the related articles.

My basic assumption is that "republic" and "republicanism" are separated concepts, and for that reason should be treated in separate articles, especially as republicanism is an "-ism" thus indicating ideology, which in itself is already a challenge to tackle in a NPOV way, and too easily leading to unnecessary additional conflict when combined with "republic". Empire and Imperialism are not treated on the same page either, are they, although they have the same kind of relation as "republic" and "republicanism" - maybe worth trying to combine these, for those who are looking for firework and explosive situations; none of this should happen in wikipedia context however.

The reason SimonP invokes for nonetheless combining all the articles having "republic-" as root is a somewhat artificial construction that even goes back to a quote of Jimbo Wales, presently on the wikipedia:no original research page:

An article that makes no new low-level claims, but nonetheless synthesizes work in a non-standard way, is effectively original research that I think we ought not to publish. This comes up most often in history, where there is a tendency by some Wikipedians to produce novel narratives and historical interpretations with citation to primary sources to back up their interpretation of events. Even if their citations are accurate, Wikipedia's poorly equipped to judge whether their particular synthesis of the available information is a reasonable one. ... I think in part this is just a symptom of an unfortunate tendency of disrespect for history as a professional discipline. Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history (WikiEN-l, December 6, 2004).

I agree completely with the quote. Not however with the interpretation SimonP gives to it, although it is not so easy to disentangle where his interpretation goes wrong, but I shall attempt to do so here, solliciting support for the actions to be undertaken as a consequence.

The first remark re. SimonP's approach, which I already sort of gave on talk:republic, is that wikipedia:no original research can never be used to short-circuit wikipedia:neutral point of view. NPOV is the basic wikipedia policy, all other policies should support it, or at least not contradict it. If SimonP's reading of the "no original research" policy leads to a conflict with NPOV, than his interpretation of the "no original research" policy must be wrong, or at least misguided - or, alternatively, the "no original research" policy must have a flaw that must be repaired (improvement of that policy is certainly still possible IMHO, but after thinking it over several times, I don't think that's the real cause of the problem here).

As simple as that explanation is, as a reason why "republic" and "republicanism" can't be on the same page, SimonP doesn't accept, so I'll have to argue that his reading of the "no original research" policy is defective. His basic reasoning is that most books on "republic" also treat "republicanism", and vice versa, and that for this reason the republic/republicanism page should have a lay-out mirroring all those books.

Step 1

I'd like to check the list of references on the republic/republicanism page (that is, apart from the Plutarch references, which I added myself and is are clickable links to the referenced text). Anyway, this is where your help might come in: None of the other references has an ISBN - my impression is that it are all some sort of monographies on a topic more related to republicanism than to republic in general. Aren't this rather thesises or other scholarly studies, not available to the general public? In that case there is a conflict with what is now on the "no original research" page:

Moreover, it is essential that any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data come from a secondary source that is available to readers (e.g. in a library or non-Wikipedia web-page).

If the "libraries" where these books are available are only specialised libraries from schools/universities, I think there is a conflict with the general availability as expressed in "no original research"-related guidelines.

I could perform this first step by adding the template:ISBN to the reference list - do you think that is a good idea to get started? Or would that lead to nothing new to get the republic/republicanism conflict solved?

step 2

There are many books treating republic disentangled from republicanism. What I have is a set of "history" school books in Dutch, none of which talk about "republics" only when also mentioning "republicanism" (and vice versa). I didn't use these books for reference yet (while, ahum, they are in Dutch, and this is English wikipedia). I'm sure people like you (and others) could find such books. Could you help a hand here and add such references to the reference list?

step 3

No encyclopedia I know treats "republic" and "republicanism" in the same article. Thus far I checked:

Petit Larousse, French: "république" and "républicanisme" are separate articles;
Larousse, Dutch: "republiek" and "republikein" (republican) are separate articles;
(Full) Winkler Prins (70ies edition): "republiek" en "republikeinse partij" (republican party) are separate articles, nothing remotely related to "republicanism" in the "republic" article;
... (still some checks to do)

Can you lay hands on encyclopedias in English, where it would be clear whether or not it is usual to treat "republicanism" in the "republic" article? And anyway do you think it a good idea to proceed "this" way, i.e. trying to demonstrate that there's more "novelty of research" in treating Republicanism and Republic in the same article, then there would be treating them in separate articles?

So, going back to the Jimbo quote above, I need more references to show that the line of elaborating republic and republicanism in the same article is a "non-standard" way of treating these topics. Personally I'm sure this would lead ultimately to a split of the articles, but I'm a bit handicapped re. reference sources in English.

Thanks for any help!

--Francis Schonken 10:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

National colours

You signed an edit to Talk: John Paul II using <font> tags to colour your signature, and forgot the </font> tags, with the amusing result of colouring the rest of the page orange, then green after I added one </font> tag but didn't realize two were needed. The tags may have been lost by someone else's browser when updating the page. I think it looks cool and I sympathise with Eire, but please don't do it again ;-) — Miguel 15:09, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

Explained: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#incredible_shrinking_text.3F -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 19:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Habemus articlam papam!

Hi JDT. I see you've arrived at Pope Benedict XVI - I've been monitoring it for the last 2 1/4 hours trying to keep the Osama and Emperor Palpatine pictures off the article, so I'll hand over to you now -- only had to ban 5 anons for 24 hours, too! Phew! -- Arwel 21:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pope Infobox

Yep, there was no way that I'd let the ugly version win. I sorta agree with the sentiment that the boxes be uniform, but what edg2s has done is mix up all the boxes on the various pope pages. Plus, Gerald's is just too elegant to pass up. Glad you started the vote. Cheers, Bratsche^{talk random} 22:59, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC). Oh, you might want to archive your talk page now :)

I think that it would be a good idea to get as much support as you can and then go to the main infobox page and say, right, 20 or 30 or whatever editors want this new box, let's have it. And then, let's all show that it wasn't for no purpose by working to put infoboxes on the pages of all heads of state.Grace Note 23:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Would you mind answering me on my talk page when you comme back? --Astrowob 14:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey, don't want to be rude, but you seem a little curt with ed on the talk page. I believe he is only trying to keep the Wikipedia uniform; he shouldn't be crucified for that. Actually, he has a point: the wiki should be unified, that's why we're taking this all the way to the top :). From a wikifriend, Bratsche^{talk random} 02:34, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, wow Hiberno-English. That sounds kind of interesting and archaic. I think you're right that at least Americans don't use irony, or even know what real literary irony is. Personally, I speak just plain old Americanglish, which has pretty much been corrupted from its original English roots. Oh well.

Have you thrown in your two cents at the infobox talk page yet? It seems like that page isn't very active; the last edit to the talk page before our stuff was a month ago. Cheers, Bratsche^{talk random} 22:00, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC) Talk Thread

Styles

Thanks for the quick response, i was on vacation and just got back. Its good to finially have that resolved. I have another concern though. I was wondering why there is not a difference between the articles of married royals and divorced ones. For example: The articles on Fergie and and Sophie are titled the same: Sophie, Countess of Wessex and Sarach, Duchess of York. Shouldnt there be a difference as Sophie is HRH The Countess of Wessex and Fergie is simply, Sarah, Duchess of york. Maybe married royals should be styled as ex. Sophie, The Countess of Wessex. I'm not sure maybe you could give me a straight answer. Mac Domhnaill 22:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree I think that a clear way to distinguish between divorcees and married royals would be to add the, it also would clearly define Charles as being The Prince of Wales and not Prince Charles of Wales, same for the Duke of York etc. Mac Domhnaill 23:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]