Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Irish republicanism: Difference between revisions

Irish republicanism NA‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Irish republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Irish republicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish republicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish republicanismIrish republicanism NA This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Alright, everyone. I asked for it, and recieved enough support that I believe this project is worth it. Come out ye Fennians all! Let us do or die! Erin Go Bragh 08:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this group was about writing articles on the IRA, not supporting it. Logoistic 00:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughts were correct. I use quite a bit of fanciful language like that, out of habit. I do refrain from it in articles, though. Erin Go Bragh 03:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By which, I mean of course, adding ourselves to the Participants list, and start collaborating! Erin Go Bragh 03:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I've been bold and used Image:Erin Go Bragh flag.jpg for out Banner. I love the flag, and would propose it as sort of an official image for out WikiProject. Erin Go Bragh 09:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest an alternative image, namely File:Ie pres.png ? This flag symbolises Irish republicanism and is an "official" flag, as opposed to the current flag, which feels something like a caricature. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 23:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the symbol we already have symbolises Irish republicanism and nationalism more than the one suggested by Galway.--Vintagekits 23:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the President's personal standard really represents Irish republicanism. I just plain like the one we're using; it's got lots of symbolism in it, and it has my name! ; ) Erin Go Bragh 02:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure how your name is relevant to the discussion. While we're on the topic however, it might be of interest for you to know that Swift's parents were English-born and he had actually spoken out against the idea of a united Ireland. That is to say, he was most certainly not a nationalist. Back to the subject at hand however, the flag is most definitely a symbol of republicanism. If you prefer, the Leinster flag would work just as well (it looks a bit like your favoured flag). In as far as having "Erin Go Bragh" included on the banner, I'd have to be opposed to that, as the phrase itself is not used in Ireland and is a caricature created by Irish-Americans. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 03:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My name fits into the discussion as a bit of light-heartedness, trying to keep goodwill among us through the use of humour. Aside from that, and Swift (who's name I've always admired, both from how it rolls off, and because of the man's literature, and willingness to point out absurdities in the society around him, regardless of how he acted/his politics), and Swift's English parents, my impression of the phrase is that it's used by Irish Nationalists in many places, regardless of where they live. I do recall the tale of several Irish regiments in the U.S. Civil War who fought and died under the banner of Erin Go Bragh, because their families were starving in Ireland and they had to come over to America. The same tale goes on to mention quite a bit of a plan thought out by one of the U.S. generals, who decided he was going to raise a Fenian Army from the American Irish, and go and liberate his homeland. Unfortunately, not many people supported his idea. But, I digress.

You mentioned on my talk page that you'd not label yourself an active participant, but your opinion is still, of course, just as valid. I really like the sybolism contained in the Erin Go Bragh flag. It is distinctly representative of Irish Nationalism. The Leinster flag is representative of Leinster, as well as Ireland as a whole sometimes, while the Presidential standard is representative of the Irish government. Since we're focusing on a non-governmental movement, that's been outlawed by said government, I think it illogical to use the latter, while for the former, the Erin Go Bragh flag simply has more to it. Again, just my thoughts. Erin Go Bragh^talk 08:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Erin Go Bragh flag, Leinster flag or any of these:

• - - File:Irishrep.jpg - File:CIAFLAG2.jpg -

Would be good choices. I don't agree with the presidential flag though, largely as the presidents of the republic haven't ever really been republican. -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 18:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fragmented flag from the first republic was actually the other one I considered when making the banner. I would've put it all up to a vote/consent/discussion in the first place, but everyone who mentioned an interest in the thing to me said that they'd like to take part if such a Projet were set up, so I went ahead and did what I thought was involved in doing such a thing. Getting things moving and all that! If the flag's really a big problem, I don't care as much about that as actually forming a group of editors interested in writing about the IRA and Irish nationalism. Erin Go Bragh^talk 00:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really mind which flag we use, put my personal preference would be the flag of the 1st republic. Derry Boi 19:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the scope of the project remains that of the IRA, I have gone ahead and changed the banner image to reflect the IRA a bit more. Using the Leinster flag with an Irish-American phrase is not only a misuse of the Leinster flag and what the province stands for, but also the image itself did not at all reflect the IRA, especially given the "Erin go Bragh" business. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 22:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dont like it - I propose this - File:Irishrep.jpg - thoughts?--Vintagekits 22:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 22:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the poster and its not a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I just think the File:Irishrep.jpg would be more apt and represents what this project is about a lot more. Sligeach abú!!!--Vintagekits 22:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the Erin go Bragh flag is differnt from the flag of Leinster read this [1] and the IRA picture is more assocaited with the modern IRA --Barry talk 22:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The flag over the GPO was the culmination of the hundreds of years of resistance and republicanism since then see's itself by and large as a jumping off point from that day. Thats the only reason I suggest the GPO flag, its kinds of a point that draws everything together. However, I am happy for Galways poster to remain until the name of this project is changed from IRA to Irish republicanism--Vintagekits 22:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned to Vintagekits on our respective talk pages, I'd be happy with the 1916 flag if/when the scope of the project expands a bit to include the broader ideal of republicanism. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 23:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mibees ya shud make yer mark her den!--Vintagekits 23:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks! I wasn't sure if it would have been redundant, as I made the original suggestion. There it is though. Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 23:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Moved this up from a discussion from below -

Hello everyone. I have some concerns about the banner. Would'nt the flag of the first republic, however battered, be much more approprite? The words Eirn go Bragh on it comes across as a dated Americanism. It was a phrase used on flags carried by Irish regiments in the service of the USA (and sometimes the CSA) during their civil war. And as such, had noting to do with the Irish republican movement beyond that its bearers were Irish. Also the first republic flag actually has the approprite words on it.

Also: the banner is not only the arms of Leinster, it is the coat of arms of the head of the MacMurrogh-Kavanagh clan. As such it is personal property and cannot be used in the present context. Fergananim 14:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The Erin go Bragh thing gives me bad flashbacks to Boston St. Patrick's Day violence and the awful dying of the Chicago River (*cringe*). I support changing the banner. Also, it's looking like consensus is leaning clearly towards changing the name. Given this, I would also prefer the 1916 flag. I think it's inclusive and won't set people off the way some of the other options obviously do. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Right I am going to be bold then and drop the axe!--Vintagekits 00:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I've amended the userbox, though I think it still needs to be renamed or moved, and I forget what has to happen with the category. I'll look into it a bit later if no one else gets to it first. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, Ive just created 2 pages, one on Seamus Clarke and one on Marion Coyle. I am only new to this site so if you have any ways of improving these articles or advice it would be much appreciated Cheers.--MarkyMarkDCU 19:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do groups such as the Irpies, or the political groups fall under this scope? -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 21:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say yes to the INLA. They're an armed republican group in Ireland. As for political groups, like the "political wings" of the various IRAs, I'm not sure. I'd venture to say "Yes, why not?", but it does take some consideration, I guess. Erin Go Bragh 02:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IrishR Hi there! I'd love to collaborate with some of you on writing articles pertaining to Irish nationalism. However, to avoid some potential conflict down the road, might I humbly suggest changing the name of the WikiProject to WikiProject Irish Nationalism, WikiProject Irish Republicanism, or a similar derivitave. The IRA, while an important and necessary part of Irish nationalism, does not encapsulate the entire ideal, and might appear contentious, especially given the recent steps towards peace. A less contentious name might attract more users to participate, as well! Just a thought. Sláinte! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 22:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to suggest that this project change to being Wikiproject Irish Republicanism, and make sure that all people with an interest in the subject take part. There's a danger with projects like these that they become perceived as an organisation to put forward an Irish Republican point of view; because of neutral point of view that often results in someone stepping up to close the whole thing down. Sam Blacketer 23:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a good idea, just IRA to limiting imo.--Vintagekits 23:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started the project to collaborate on articles directly related to the IRA. While I'd love to see collaboration on other aspects or Irish nationalism and republicanism, I must stress that the initial objective of the project was to collaborate on articles related to the Irish Republican Army. As I mentioned when Gaillimh brought up the same thing on my own talk page:

The lines I added to the page about including broader topics such as Irish Nationalism and Irish Republicanism were much more of an afterthought. I'd love to see people working on other aspects of Irish Nationalism, but I'd really like to use this WikiProject to focus on the IRA. If the project does widen a bit, I don't quite see why the name would have to change. I wouldn't say no outright, but I really feel like WP:IRA is an excellent title! It's short, catchy, easy to remember, and it's got such a nice shortcut!

I don't quite understand the motivation for a change in name. Does it really matter that much? If some of us feel like we want to use this space to collaborate on other aspects of Irish nationalism & Irish republicanism, does that really require us to change the name of our project? Erin Go Bragh 03:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it does require that. With a name like this it looks like we're just a bunch of fenians writing propoganda about a pile o' terrorists. Whereas if it's nationalism/republicanism it still allows us to write indepth about about all the same topics, but not looking so concenrated and biased towards the RA. -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 18:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand how devotion to an ideal seems less bias/crazy than to a group of organizations, but I'll stop blocking consensus here. It seems everyone else is in favor of changing the name, and so be it. Let us put it to consensus, for the record. Erin Go Bragh^talk 00:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Of course this is what I'd prefer. But if it comes to it, I won't block consensus. I'd prefer Republicanism over Nationalism. Erin Go Bragh^talk 00:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. I would cautiously support this original name in what could be a minefield of pro and anti POV. Is this project going to focus on 1798, 1916 (and the intervening time), Civil war, Emergency and the Early PIRA and the "troubles"? Or, is it going to be concentrating on the more recent Organised crime disguised as Political activism aspect? Wholeheartedly support the first but not the last. Brendandh 19:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC) - From the discussion above, and the discussion on the MfD page, I'd say this option is the one most likely to gain consensus acceptance. While I am fine with the project having "IRA" in the title, I can understand the concerns that have been raised. I would be happy with this name as an alternative.[reply]

   Comment/Updating - If we are now expanding the scope of the project: [2] We do need to broaden the name. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. --Vintagekits 10:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC), I also am fine with all, however, this title gives it a more inclusive and wide scope to bring in related articles.[reply]
3. -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 18:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Agree with vintagekits and Kathryn, already voiced my opinions on this above on page.[reply]
4. -- One Night In Hackney 06:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Will probably cause less problems in the long run, and also allows us to claim more articles under our scope.[reply]
5. -- Fergananim 14:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Something of this size and scope with IRA in the title is both limiting (which is why I did'nt sign up) and would cause long-term trouble. While I understand Eire's points, it must be understood that such words, images and symbols will have very different and immediate effect on those of us here in Ireland. Which is why I welcome his consensual approach. By the way, the banner is actally the flag of Lenister and the coat of arms of the head of the Clan MacMurrough-Kavanagh, and as such the above use is a violation of civic and personal property.[reply]
6. -- gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 23:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, assuming that some more of these expected people are coming into this Project, how about that Collaboration? WikiProject Ireland has a collaboration article for every week/month something like that. It seems like a good idea to me! If anyone else is interested, I'd like to start a similar collaborative effort for this WikiProject. I've nominated Michael Collins for collaboration on our Project Page, whatever that may mean. Erin Go Bragh^talk 09:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to get some input over at Template talk:IRAs, as to whether the template should be inclusive of groups such as the new ONH and the INLA, who, like CIRA and RIRA (already listed on the template), are "splinter" groups descended from other IRA organizations, and are armed Irish republican groups with quite similar goals, if they do disagree on the means to the end. Anyway, I finally got one response, and I'd appreciate it some others would give their input; two people can argue forever without coming to a conclusion, you know. Erin Go Bragh^talk 00:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, fellows! After some initial discussion and further thought, I feel as though a WikiProject about such a contentious subject as the IRA does not conform to WP:NPOV. Please feel free to weigh in here. Thanks gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 03:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. David Lauder 18:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm into the history but it's too easy for POV disputes to flare up. You spend all day adding a paragraph with refs and then someone removes it or the whole page is locked. If Erin go Bragh wants a web page on this subject, it doesn't necessarily belong on wikipedia; hope to be proved wrong there anyways. Many of these groups in 2007 are tiny and family-based and unpopular. Would you list all the militia groups in the USA or yardie groups in Jamaica on wikipedia?86.42.202.31 19:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's quite a bit of an argument going on over at Talk:Volunteer (Irish republican), and I can't really make heads or tails of it. But it sure could use some attention. Erin Go Bragh^talk 10:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added 2 articles I wrote on the Northern Campaign 1942-45 & IRA Nazi links 1938-44 [3]. There are also around 15+? articles detailing Abwehr spy missions to Ireland that had involvement with anti-treaty IRA or figures to a greater or lesser extent. There are also a few articles on the activities of notable IRA figures in Nazi Germany or those with linkage to IRA. Again, written from scratch just like the 2 articles already appearing in the list- on the Green Book & the S-Plan. Nobody claiming expertise on the organisation or period (1 self announced expert from Galway) had done any work on them but thats self appointed experts for you :) Might join the group to complete some more articles on IRA Nazi links, and activity of Nazi spy in Ireland. Fluffy999 13:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps members of the project could have a look at these two articles, which I have tagged for notability, and if they agree, then nominate the articles for AfD. There obviously cannot be notability claimed for someone just because they were killed, unless mainstream sources validate notability. Tyrenius 05:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine trying to delete these articles? Well there are the usual anti-republican campaigners that would like to. Please feel free to add to the article and improved it as there is a lot of information out there that could be added.--Vintagekits 19:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fergal was working with Seán South, who's relatively famous in Irish Rebel music (The Wolfe Tones wrote a song about him, called "Sean South of Garryowen). There's a standing marble monument to the both of them. So I guess that could make him notable by association? As for McCaughey, Vintagekits listed a number of things at the AfD that make him seem notable enough to me. Erin Go Bragh^talk 08:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking at the Sean South article, it seems that Dominic Behan wrote a song, The Patriot Game, about Fergal as well. So that's a song about him, another about his leader, and a monument to the both of them. Erin Go Bragh^talk 08:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a lot of people concerned with Irish republicans were/are Irish lanugage activists. If you know that a particular person is, then be sure to add the category Category:Irish-language activists to their article. Thanks. Derry Boi 20:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I though the project might be interested to know the article of a Provisional IRA member, Emily Brogan, has been tagged as non-notible and might be deleted in the near future. MadMax 21:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That one's a real tuffy. I think maybe we should get together and talk about what makes an IRA member notable. Because there're thousands to write about, but we obviously can't do that. Erin Go Bragh^talk 08:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a solution would be to create a "Notable members..." page, linking to those who merit substantial articles of their own, or having brief details for those who don't? That would be a way of "saving" pages like that of Emily Brogan, which otherwise stand to be lost altogether. Nick Cooper 13:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good idea. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently created a List of members of the Irish Republican Army if thet's any help. Although it's still largly incomplete, it might serve useful as a wanted list for the project. MadMax 06:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MadMax, well done, that was a great idea.--Vintagekits 10:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Óglaigh na hÉireann (CIRA splinter group). Óglaigh na hÉireann (CIRA splinter group) has been nominated for deletion. User:Astrotrain seems to be blind, ignoring that all statements in the article are sourced from the IMC. Please go make and your voice heard. Erin Go Bragh^talk 23:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy of this kind and attacking other editors who disagree with your point of view is the quickest way to ensure the demise of your project, which must make sure to promote neutrality and wiki policies scrupulously at all times. I suggest an apology and a withdrawal of your remark. Tyrenius 01:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was just stating fact. Sources are in the article. Astrotrain said the article was unsourced. I assume he missed them. I did phrase it in a negative way, but it was a statement of fact. I must ask the question, however: How is my asking people to speak their mind on an open forum advocacy? Erin Go Bragh^talk 08:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have already stated a negative view of the nom, so the implication is that you are urging others to follow suit. I have created a sub page for AfD which simply allows them to be listed with a space for the result. This will be a useful record for assessing how the community responds to such subjects, so that future articles can be created (or not) with that in mind. It is a page that can be watch listed by all interested in the subject. Link is: Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Republican Army/AfD It can also be stated on the AfD page that it has been listed on the sub page, with a link. Tyrenius 18:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several IRA volunteer articles have been nominated for deletion as of late. This is going to continue to happen. Obviously, not all IRA volunteers are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. However, there've got to be many that are (the Chiefs of Staff, for example). I think we should establish some kind of criteria for IRA volunteers. Erin Go Bragh^talk 08:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Are there any existing Wikipedia notability criteria which apply here?

From WP:BIO - Persons achieving renown or notoriety for playing a major role in a event receiving major news and media coverage (e.g., orchestrating and engaging a famous crime spree or a widely known heroic event) sounds reasonable enough to me? One Night In Hackney 10:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than have the current problem of unsourced stubs being sent to Afd by the usual suspects shortly after creation, would we be better off creating them here in a sandbox? Then when the articles are sourced and referenced move them to mainspace. Any attempt to send a sourced article which meets notability guidelines to Afd would then be instantly recognised as a bad faith nomination, instead of us having to fight to improve the article while Afd is ongoing. I'd generally expect an article to be in the sandbox for around a couple of days maximum, as I'm not talking about getting the articles up to featured article standard or anything. Thoughts? One Night In Hackney 07:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really like this idea. I could create it right now! Erin Go Bragh^talk 23:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I placed the template up by the Project name discussion, as I thought it might be useful, but please remove it if it's not. This is the code for it:

{{IrishR}}

Tyrenius 03:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see 1981, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987 and 1988. 1980 is particularly bad, as most of the small amount of information doesn't even concern the IRA.

Does anyone think these article are worth salvaging and improving? If the answer to that question is yes, are we going to create articles for the many years we don't have at present? One Night In Hackney 22:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if we should document every single little attack the IRAs ever took part in, and categorize them personally. -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 23:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither, especially as we have this article - Chronology of Provisional IRA actions. So unless there's any objections I'll prod the other articles? One Night In Hackney 12:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What he said! Chronology of Provisional IRA actions is surely enough.--Vintagekits 12:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This timeline was originally created to transfer the IRA-related events from the deleted Timeline of terrorism, one of the more specific related timelines I'd been transfering events to (ex. List of skyjackings, List of bombings, etc.). Unfortunatly, as I've been busy assisting the WikiProject Crime and WikiProject British crime (as well as being in the middle of a college semester), I've had little time to work on any other projects.

The timeline itself was idealy for listing activities of all Irish nationalist movements possibly as far back as the United Irishmen, Young Ireland movement and similar organizations. While I am aware of more specific timelines, I felt this would cover a more broader range on organizations which would either have a significantly smaller entry using existing formats or an unmanigable amount. I also realize the title itself is misleading, however I certainly welcome any suggestions for alternate names. The "final" changes would hopefully look something along the lines of, for example, 1880 in organized crime or 2006 in organized crime. MadMax 21:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've no objections to the articles, they did seem slightly redundant as they stood though, especially with the large number of missing years. You'll need to de-prod them, including the timeline page. One Night In Hackney 21:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IR-stub is broken. It should have a Category:Irish Republicanism stubs to go with it. As I understand it, and it all seems rather bureaucratic and unwiki, new stubs should be proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals where the great and the good of WP:WPSS will consider your humble petition. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I bring this article to the project's attention. If she is notable and it can be verified then please do so, if she isn't or can't then the article should be nominated for deletion.--Jackyd101 00:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some research and can't find much/anything, I've prodded it myself. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One also added to Emily Brogan‎ for the same reason.--Vintagekits 22:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Just a quick note for any concerned parties, both those articles were created by Whatkindofthing and pre-date this project, please don't blame us for them! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a real problem with most of the articles based on Irish republicanism history, in that they don't include references/footnotes throughout the articles. I realise that there are sources that are mentioned at the bottom of each article, but they should be referenced in the article at the appropriate places. I have noticed this for a while now, but wasn't sure where to mention it - but here seems as good a place as any.--Macca7174 22:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out any specific articles please, so I know where to make a start? Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Macca, have you got an example of what you want it to look like and an current example of what articles should/could be improved. Always keen to learn. regards--Vintagekits 22:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at Colombia Three you'll get a decent idea. When I first saw the article it looked like this, it had one source that was a reference for the entire article, and it didn't even reference a lot of information in the article either. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This might come in useful for newer Project members: for a simple guide to using references, place {{subst:refstart}} (including brackets) on your user or talk page. Tyrenius 03:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, I think Macca, is quite right about the referencing on the Irish History articles it is deplorable. While general users may not be familiar with revisionist writing, I certainly am. I would be more than willing to lend a hand if that is ok. The period of history I am most familiar with is from the Act of Union to founding of the Fenian’s by the remnants of the Young Irelanders. If you need help with referencing, the books on the Young Ireland page that I supplied are my own. I have a large selection of Republican history also. Take care, Regards --Domer48 20:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I've created a tasks template, which is transcluded on the main project page here. I mostly put some articles in there from the project page, I'll work out which ones really need to go in there later. If anyone else wants to edit the tasks you need to edit {{Irish Republicanism tasks}}, or if you click on the edit button in the tasks box some instructions are there as well.

Secondly I've added the grading system to the {{WP:IR}} template, and creating all the necessary categories to go with it. I still need to create the pages on the Version 1.0 Editorial Team section, and try and assess the articles as best I can in terms of quality and importance. Any help would be welcome with this naturally. All the relevant categories are listed below:

Category:Irish Republicanism articles by importance

Category:Irish Republicanism articles by quality

Category:Irish Republicanism articles with comments

Category:Unassessed-Class Irish Republicanism-related articles

Category:Stub-Class Irish Republicanism-related articles

Category:Start-Class Irish Republicanism-related articles

Category:B-Class Irish Republicanism-related articles

Category:GA-Class Irish Republicanism-related articles

Category:FA-Class Irish Republicanism-related articles

Category:Unknown-importance Irish Republicanism-related articles

Category:Low-importance Irish Republicanism-related articles

Category:Mid-importance Irish Republicanism-related articles

Category:High-importance Irish Republicanism-related articles

Category:Top-importance Irish Republicanism-related articles

Please note you don't add these categories to articles or the talk pages, you edit the {{WP:IR}} template on the talk page to include the information. Any questions just ask, thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion over the use of a contentious flag in his article, it is located here. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many more of us peaceful than violent republicans here in Ireland, and always have been. The impression I get here is a focus on violent republicans? Balance, please.Red Hurley 18:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Six edits in to your wiki career! interesting, very interesting - if you want to write an article on "non violent republicans" - then go ahead, I am sure I could lend a hand. regards--Vintagekits 11:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So our project page could do with some restructuring, I think. Originally, I just sort of filled out the base project page with what I thought was what should be there, but the thing as a whole isn't nearly as useful as it should be, looking at some of the other project pages. Our "Open Tasks" section is a glaring exaple of this. Erin Go Bragh^talk 08:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What information should be readily availabe on the WikiProject Page?

• List of participants
• List of applicable categories of articles
• Everything currently in the "Articles" section
• Keep adding things to this list...

I only put some (mostly) random articles in the Open Tasks box to make sure it worked properly, I was kind of hoping some people might add/change some but project activity has been lacking recently.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Hackney, I didn't mean to comment on your doing! It's great that you've taken that initiative! I was more talking about the section as a whole. What constitutes an open task, etc.? Erin Go Bragh^talk 19:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm not entirely sure myself, but I've got some ideas. Basically it's easy enough to see the importance or class of an article now the categories are set up, well once I've finished classifying all the articles anyway! I was basically thinking of picking some articles of high/top priority and/or stub/start class which can be improved. Basically there's not much point including stubs of recently elected MLAs where there's not much source material available at present, a task should be an article which can be significantly improved. It would probably be better if we picked articles covering a broad spectrum of Republicanism, for example I tend to edit the more modern end of things as that's what I've got plenty of books on and there's generally some information available online, whereas anything from say early-mid 1900s I don't have that much information on and online information is scarce at best. But other people have different interests and areas of expertise, so we're probably better off including some tasks for everyone? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've created an expanded template, that's more up to date with Template customs (uses the standard navbox template) an is a more complete navigational box for Armed Irish Republican groups. It can be found for now at {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Republican Army/Preparation/Template:IRAs}}. I'd like to replace the current {{Template:IRAs}} with it, or with a template with similar comprehensiveness. Please see Template talk:IRAs and voice your opinions. Erin Go Bragh^talk 09:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IrishR template has become somewhat bloated. I've started work on {{IR topics}} to potentially replace it. The "Topics on..." style of template has several advantages, one being that it doesn't conflict with an infobox, that it sits at the bottom of the page with all the other navigational templates, and especially in this case, that it is a lot more organized. Please join me in discussing the matter at Template talk:IrishR. Erin Go Bragh^talk 02:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming people aren't too busy for Easter, more input here would be helpful. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didnt see any articles on these, so got the ball rolling Éire Nua Republican Flute Band. Listed as start class. Fluffy999 19:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big fan of flute bands myself and also I am not sure many of them are notable either. Eire Nua Abu!! p.s. good luck with it however--Vintagekits 19:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh they're all pretty notable, or at least i'd like to see someone claim they weren't. Vol. Sean Mcilevenná Republican Flute Band is another of the most famous ones. Fluffy999 11:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are going to have to show references to them in the press or by other WP:RS. --Vintagekits 12:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave word on sources noting each band on each talkpage. This leaves a record of how they pass WP:N. I'm not big into bands but their role in Republicanism was explained to me in detail recently and its not a role appearing on wikia so far. Fluffy999 19:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be very interested to read your findings - good luck with it!--Vintagekits 19:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops a unionist editor nominated them both for deletion while I was involved with reality. Funny how it was almost predicted lol. He claimed that he was going to write a "flute bands" article, ive little faith that will happen so will look into that myself. Unfortunately, the flawed model of wikipedia, a system "gamed" so easily, makes it less and less pleasant to edit. Fluffy999 18:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• HMS Argenta - 1920s
• HMS Al Rawdah (1911) - 1940s
• HMS Maidstone (1937) - 1970s

Listed as start class Fluffy999 11:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added some detail on prominent IRA who were in the SCW, there is an article titled Ireland and the Spanish Civil War but its just a ripoff of detail I put in Frank Ryan (Irish republican) and should be deleted imo. If the blueshirts get their own article then I think this project can support an article on IRA and Unionist who went willing to fight under their command to Spain. Fluffy999 14:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Irish Republicanism tasks}} is updated, and includes what needs doing. Anything else feel free to add naturally. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afternoon, folks. You may be interested in a recent discussion: Talk:List_of_members_of_the_Irish_Republican_Army#Redlinks_2. I proposed 3 suggestions there back on the 17th April, and as no alternatives were forthcoming, I implemented the second one today - redlinks were moved to a new page, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Irish_Republican_Army/Preparation/List members of PIRA 1969 to present, which is now up for speedy deletion. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it's now been moved to a sub-page of your userspace. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely out of process. List is currently here if anyone's interested. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not out of process at all. A non-project member created a page in projectspace that isn't wanted by the project, so it was moved to that editor's userspace accordingly. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After what seems like an eternity, every article in Category:WikiProject Irish Republicanism articles is now rated by importance and quality. I'm not exactly an expert on either so if anyone disagrees feel free to change anything. I know there's some articles that don't have the project template added as well, so if you see any please make sure to add {{WP:IR}} to the talk page. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you got the rating wrong on over 50% of the articles!--Vintagekits 20:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see you rating any articles ;) One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm busting yer chops cos it looked like such a ball ache of a job to do and I would rather argue with people!!!--Vintagekits 21:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, you're not wrong. Up until earlier this evening we didn't even have a project template on the Easter Rising! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know anything about this guy? I moved it into projectspace from mainspace to save it from imminent deletion, but I'm suspicious. I've yet to check any books I have, but I don't have many that cover the relevant time period at present anyway. The only source is a slightly dubious site, but I can't find any record of the guy on any other sites at all, unless I'm going completely mad of course.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]