Talk:Seán Russell: Difference between revisions
m →King: minor editor |
|||
Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
You are being grossly unfair to Damac. And no, just because some constitutional ignorant fools at the time use the wrong term does not entitle an encyclopaedia to replicate such ignorance. They could make fools of themselves. We cannot do so. [[User:Jtdirl|<span style="color:#006666; background-color:orange">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Ireland-Capitals.PNG|15px]]\<sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:Jtdirl|(caint)]]</font></sup> 19:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC) |
You are being grossly unfair to Damac. And no, just because some constitutional ignorant fools at the time use the wrong term does not entitle an encyclopaedia to replicate such ignorance. They could make fools of themselves. We cannot do so. [[User:Jtdirl|<span style="color:#006666; background-color:orange">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Ireland-Capitals.PNG|15px]]\<sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:Jtdirl|(caint)]]</font></sup> 19:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC) |
||
:::Fine, change the goal posts to suit. No problem. Considering the support he can whip up for his agenda, i'll do my best to make future contributions "Damac proof" before posting. Just don't be suprised if more of his bogus edits of serious contributions cause problems. [[User:Fluffy999|Fluffy999]] 19:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:47, 1 May 2006
I am very concerned that my fellow Irishmen are engaging in something of a "soft soap" regarding both Sean Russell and the Irish Free State's engagements with Nazism.
The fact is that the overwhelming majority of people in the IFS were indifferent to the world war, and only such indifference could explain how a statue of a Nazi factotum such as Russell would remain in a European capital city for almost 55 years without controversy. To use the term "naive" is POV, and an offensive one at that to those many millions who suffered so horrifically during those benighted years.
Some of the words above are very similar to those on Russell's page, and in the hopes of averting a revert war, I am anxiously soliciting opinions from the wider Wikipedia community regarding this matter.
Please respond at your earliest convenience.
Thanks!!
Brandubh Blathmac 03:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm very concerned you're yet another sockpupper of Robert Siegel (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/[email protected]) just spreading your sectarian POV about the place. Please respond at your earliest convenience! - Ali-oops✍ 07:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- Revision as of 12:39, 27 April 2006
Dont see why the change from "King of England" to "British King" was made. The wikipedia entry has George VI in 1937-1940 as: "King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the British dominions beyond the seas, Emperor of India and King of Ireland."
I've never heard the phrase 'British King'. Changing it to 'British Monarch' or 'King of the Britons' doesn't make sense either; its not how Americans phrase it, even if they are Congressmen.
I got the anecdote from Enno Stephan's book. I think I will quote what he has to say. Fluffy999 06:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
King
I'm going to deal with this silly issue once and for all as it seems to be clouding User:Fluffy999's ability to think straight and is keeping him awake at night.
- Quote Fluffy999: "When he introduces a phrase like "King of Britain" into an article the onus is on him to explain it."
First of all. I did not use the term "King of Britain". I substituted a reference to George VI from King of England to British King. Why? the king in question's full and correct title is King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There has not been a King of England since 1707.
The reason I choose British king is that the term is commonly used for British monarches. Just as we refer to the British queen, we can also refer to the British king. English is far too narrow a term for an encylopaedia - Tony Blair would never be referred to as the prime minister of England, but British prime minister is most commonplace. Providing the full UK title is too cumbersome and is avoided on Wikipedia as elsewhere. The adjective British is the most commonly used term used to denote the prominent personalities from that state. English is not.
Fluffy999's reference to a king of England in this context is simply sloppy, just as his references to the "Treaty of 1922" and the "Irish Free State" after the years 1937 are.
Fluffy - whose first edit to Wikipedia was to tell us that the "United Kingdom [was] not in existence" in 1916"[1] – needs to come down off his high horse and needs to recognise the fact that he is not infallible, has made his own share of mistakes and is rude to boot. --Damac 18:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
There has not been a "King of England" since 1707. Since 1801 the monarch's title is "King of the United Kingdom". "British king" is an adequate substitute. "King of England" is 100% wrong. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Failing to see the point doesn't validate the change to King of Britain or British King or "whatever" backs up Damac in his flame war.
- Accuracy in this matter lies in reporting how the congressmen & media of the time referenced the "Russell case". That is what is being laid out in the article- not the pedantic rights and wrongs of the title assumed by monarchs throughout history. Should I reference Eire as the Republic of Ireland despite Hoare's understanding of it as 'Eire'? According to your logic that would also make sense.
- Certainly I can make mistakes, and its fine if Damac chooses to correct inaccurate spelling/punctuation to accurate, but I do stick to what I know. What speaks volumes to me that the articles on IRA/German intelligence & S-plan have laid untouched by Damac since he signed up. He has only shown interest in them after I corrected his work. Fluffy999 19:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
You are being grossly unfair to Damac. And no, just because some constitutional ignorant fools at the time use the wrong term does not entitle an encyclopaedia to replicate such ignorance. They could make fools of themselves. We cannot do so. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Fine, change the goal posts to suit. No problem. Considering the support he can whip up for his agenda, i'll do my best to make future contributions "Damac proof" before posting. Just don't be suprised if more of his bogus edits of serious contributions cause problems. Fluffy999 19:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)