User talk:Sarah777

**Wise words: "A key determinant of "Irishness" is support for separation from Britain." **

One is on a Wiki Strike'

Online

Picture of the day

Réunion stonechat

Photograph credit: Charles J. Sharp

• Archive
• More featured pictures

Hi folks....I'm back now! wassup?!!(Sarah777 15:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)) They're threatening to ban you for an entire bloody year at Arbcom. Absolutely f**k*** outrageous! Show them your article creation list, Sarah, I think you probably have the record. Sure you lose your rag from time to time - but don't we all, especially when faced with extreme provocation and wind-up merchnats....Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 17:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Ireland Wiki State of Play - Aug 16 Ireland articles Importance Top High Mid Low None Total Quality FA 4 4 A GA 5 5 B 5 2 7 3 39 56 Start 2 3 25 122 237 389 Stub 8 160 317 485 Assessed 7 5 40 285 602 939 Unassessed 0 0 0 1 286 287 Total 7 5 40 286 888 1226 Category:Ireland articles by quality WikiProject Ireland stats - August 7 Ireland articles Importance Top High Mid Low None Total Quality FA 5 6 11 6 28 A 1 1 GA 5 4 15 9 33 B 29 167 256 288 1 741 C 4 8 16 28 Start 17 304 1566 5542 7429 Stub 29 816 11943 1 12789 List 9 75 365 449 Assessed 57 523 2747 18169 2 21498 Unassessed 2 2 Total 57 523 2747 18169 4 21500 Junk Science (cur) (last) 02:41, 30 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) (167,755 bytes) (RM Junk science from lead ---> moving to talk) (undo) (cur) (last) 02:39, 30 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) (168,760 bytes) (Partial RV:undoing collateral damage) (undo) (cur) (last) 14:14, 29 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) (168,804 bytes) (→Defining science: This should do, but man this is a messy section) (undo) (cur) (last) 14:08, 29 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) (167,799 bytes) (Rm junk science from lead to reinsert) (undo) (cur) (last) 02:30, 28 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) (168,804 bytes) (argument--->assertion in "advocates of ID argue that..." seems to be a better use of the vocab) (undo) (cur) (last) 17:21, 27 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) (168,803 bytes) (certain --> A group, fix linebreak) (undo) (cur) (last) 18:58, 26 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) m (167,787 bytes) (commentag-whoops) (undo) (cur) (last) 18:58, 26 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) m (167,787 bytes) (commentag) (undo) (cur) (last) 18:57, 26 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) m (167,786 bytes) (linebreak) (undo) (cur) (last) 18:55, 26 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) (167,785 bytes) (Undid revision 241170089 by Orangemarlin (talk) + clip unequivocal, redundant and polemic, AAAS was quoted twice, now once) (undo) (cur) (last) 18:38, 26 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) (168,142 bytes) (RM: Junk science line. I'm going to sandbox revise the whole lead at some point in the future, but the junk science line is redundant and weasely.) (undo) (cur) (last) 15:49, 26 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) m (169,129 bytes) (→Religion and leading proponents: +space) (undo) (cur) (last) 15:48, 26 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) (169,128 bytes) (→Religion and leading proponents: eliminate most weasel word, rearrange denomination for increased accuracy. Roman Catholics are NOT evangelical, other wording and linking specifications (inclGod)) (undo) (cur) (last) 19:28, 25 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) (169,642 bytes) (Empty edit: Do not continue reverting, that constitutes edit warring, don't make us drag out RFPP, that will only end stupidly.) (undo) L Roads Thought I might rise to the challenge and write about an L road, L3205 It's difficult to get info on these roads are they listed anywhere other than signposts or have they appeared on the latest editions of maps? Rigger30 (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC) I don't know - I can't even figure the system of numbering they are based on. Anyone out there know?? They appear in all manner of Local Authority documentation. Sarah777 (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Rigger! You can't call a roads article L3205 road, County Tipperary, Ireland! What if it crossed a few counties? (Can they do that?). I've moved it to a better place :) Sarah777 (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC) I accept your point that a road could cross county boundaries. However that particular road doesn't and if it did I would have chosen a title which reflected that fact! I called it that because of the possibility that a road was called something similar somewhere else in the world. (That said I don't have a problem with it being moved). I feel it might be an idea to start an article listing L roads in each administrative county with basic info on the R and N roads they link to. I know that recently in parts of North Tipperary signs have appeared at the ends of roads giving their numbers. On that point it seems that roads which link to other roads be they R roads or N roads or indeed other L roads seem to have four digit numbers preceeded by an L. Less important roads and the ones I've noticed so far are all cul-de-sac rural laneways have five digit numbers preceeded by an L. It appears that the number is higher depending what part of the country you are in as it seems that L3xxx seem to be predominantly in North Tipperary. Rigger30 (talk) 11:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Strike Why are you striking, Sarah? And what can be done to tempt you back? Rockpocket 03:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Sarah, come off your strike, please. You just missed a grand party on my talk page, the other day! We would've enjoyed your company.--jeanne (talk) 05:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC) You're missed. --HighKing (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC) I thought you were abducted & converted into a unionist. I had no idea what became of ya. Please return soon, it's lonely on Wikipedia without ya. PS- I miss ya. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC) If I got down on one knee & sang Danny Boy, would ya then return? GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC) No, I think she'd probably prefer the Dubliners singing Whiskey in the Jar.--jeanne (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC) I'd prefer U2 - more my thing! (Or Phil Lynott singing Whiskey in the Jar) Sarah777 (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC) The Thin Lizzy version is excellent, the only problem is the woman in the Dubliners version is correctly named Jenny which happens to be my nickname, whereas Lynott named her Molly. I prefer Jenny for obvious reasons!!--jeanne (talk) 08:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Slight Strike Break Hi folks - I'm checking in here to see what's going on. My strike is a protest Rock, against the defiance of normal Wiki rules in the naming of Ireland and the imposition of the legal British name on the Wiki article about Ireland, based primarily on the voting strength of the British majority hereon. And than calling that imposition "consensus" - which is the biggest joke of all. 'Cept I don't find it funny. Also peed off with that Admin who brought "civility" into a ruling, specifically mentioning me while making no mention was made of the vast torrent of "incivility" flowing from the folk who were actually involved in the dispute (I wasn't!). At least this way they can't call me "disruptive", "uncivil" etcetera. I'm quiet as a little mouse here in the corner :) Sarah777 (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Believe me there are far more disruptive, uncivil editors than you-and they get away with it. I had a fierce battle with an extremely uncivil one last May. Do come off your strike, Sarah, and don't continue to be a little mouse. It's not convenient. My cat Tony likes mice. And he's far more uncivil than any editor at Wikipedia.Bet you can't guess who Tony was named after?--jeanne (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC) I had to give up on the Ireland name issue, Sarah. I was having better luck, nailing Jello to the wall (and the IPs were bugging me). GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Could I ask, Sarah, what your proposed solution to the Ireland (island) and Ireland (state) article naming conundrum is? I understand why the current situation may be galling, but I'm not aware what the preferred alternative is. Rockpocket 18:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC) The preferred alternative is to use the common, legal and internationally recognised name of the country, "Ireland". At the top of the article we could have "This article is about Ireland, the country. For the island of Ireland see The Island of Ireland (or Ireland (island) or [Ireland (the island)]] or some variant thereof. Sarah777 (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC) I see. I think that is acceptable enough, except someone would have a hell of a lot of incorrect links to fix. Rockpocket 18:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC) That is a task I agreed to carry out myself about two years ago when I first became involved in what was already a long-running dispute. I could pass the long Winter evenings fixing links - what could be more exciting?? Sarah777 (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC) The problem is that everytime someone suggests or supports that (which is the obvious solution) we get swamped by editors who want to pretend the GFA did not happen. I think it needs to go to Arbcom --Snowded TALK 00:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC) GFA? (Oh, I see what you mean by GFA now) No, the real problem is that this solution, while perfectly reasonable, is no more inherently obvious that the alternative. We could equally have the island under the title, Ireland, because it is the common, legal and internationally recognised name of the island too. The country could go under the title Ireland (country) or Ireland (state). I don't really see why one is better than the other, or why ArbCom would would get involved in expressing a preference. Rockpocket 01:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Not the same thing re 'legal' and 'internationally recognised'. Type in America - you get a dab page; the Continent does not get preference; nor should the island. That is the correct analogy. Sarah777 (talk) 09:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Well, thats because the correct name of the continent is North America, the country is The United States of America and the hemisphere is the Americas. "America" is ambiguous because its a shortened version, but the not the actual name, of all. Its a poor comparison to "Ireland" Rockpocket 17:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Having Ireland (state) and Ireland (island) might be a compromise. However we have a group of editors who are absolutely intent on keeping ROI (look at the history) and are using "consensus" to sustain that position, Its happened several times and their is an air of smug satisfaction everytime they bring any proposal to the change to the ground by constantly ignoring summaries of evidence or proposals for compromise. When a dispute goes on and on it needs to go up. --Snowded TALK 01:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Perhaps, but there is evidence of politicization of the issue from editors on all sides. My experience of ArbCom is that, when it comes to the Irish/British issues, the remedies rarely favor the Irish perspective. Rockpocket 02:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC) I'd put it much less politely than that but sure t'would only be gettin' me in more trouble ;) Sarah777 (talk) 09:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Sarah, I don't always agree with your opinions, but you surely have the right to express them. I think people are a bit envious, because you are so articulate and have such a splendid command of the English language, and you are also very humorous. I am curious about one wee thing. On the BI talk page you suggested that my reading matter was boring. Which of my listed favourite books do you find boring (please don't say ALL of them)?--jeanne (talk) 09:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Did I?! I must have been in fightin' mood - I'll check out that list right now. Sarah777 (talk) 09:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Re humour; I've discovered the hard way that humour doesn't always travel well on Wiki - there are essays on the subject. It's a pity I didn't read them sooner! Sarah777 (talk) 09:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Seeing as you've returned; here it goes: 'Oh Danny Boy, the pipes they are a calling' Oh Danny, oh Danny.... GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Ta G'day. But I'm only partially returned. Note I am not adding any content to the encyclopedia (just like an Admin) - so I reckon I'm still on strike. Sarah777 (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC) 'Tis alright, I'm not big on adding/subtracting content. I'm usually into minor edits (dates, years etc). GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Make all your edits minor And all your dates put right No contribution's finer I bid G'Day G'Night Sarah777 (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC) The readings of Ms Boleyn Jeanne, just read your page - wow! You have a very comprehensive list; I like your musical list and you show excellent taste in putting Liam Neeson up there:) Of your Top Ten books I've read only three but I can find no fault in the list. Guess which three? - and remember I always judge a book by the cover...Sarah777 (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC) I would hazard a guess that you have read Trinity, The Trial, and Ceremony of The Innocent. If you have not read the latter, I strongly recommend it-powerful stuff and sad.--jeanne (talk) 09:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Thanks for complimenting my musical taste and as for Liam Neeson, I couldn't leave him out. He's not only georgeous but he's an excellent actor. Very versatile like De Niro.--jeanne (talk) 09:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Two out of three ain't bad! (Wilkie Collins rather than Ceremony of The Innocent) - and you even part-guessed that. I'd reckon there are substantial grounds for a good donnybrook in your list of "Things I support and oppose" though. En guard! Sarah777 (talk) 09:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Wilkie Collins is brilliant. The Moonstone is also a favourite of mine. Woman In White was far more gothic, which is why I included that on my list. I believe it's one of the first gothics written. As to my list of Things I Support and oppose, uh-oh, I believe I've fallen into hot water. I can probably presume without too great a hardship on my part that you dont approve of McCain, the death penalty, the abolishion of EU.--jeanne (talk) 10:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC) The monarchy I think you do support deep down LOL--jeanne (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Correct, correct, correct and...wrong! Sarah777 (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC) I was only joking. I am certain, however, that my stance on feminism does meet with your approval. I am sure you do not take male chauvinism or aggression lightly.--jeanne (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC) I'd not take any aggression directed at me lightly Jeanne! I was amazed to discover that many female Wikipedians use male handles because they find themselves less targeted; including at least one long-standing senior Admin (who now posts under her own name). I am amused to be then constantly threatened for alleged "incivility" and "agressivness" and so forth and so forth and so forth. It's hard to win, eh?! Sarah777 (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC) I wouldn't want to get on your bad side, I'll admit. One thing at Wikipedia I have learned is that if you accuse someone of sexism they immediatly throw in the bit about "usernames being sans gender". Come on now, Jeanne is clearly the feminine form of Jean, what's more, one can see in my photos that I am FEMALE. So when they deny sexism, their genderless usernames dog definitely won't bark! Another thing, people try to sneer at my belief in astrology in order to gain the upper hand and make me feel stupid. If beleiving in astrology makes me stupid, then I'm in good company (Ptolemy, Isaac Newton, Napoleon, Jung, Churchill, Catherine de Medici, Elizabeth I). I wonder if these editors who deride astrology realise that astrology is the mother of astronomy? Then there is the fact that I'm a Tarot reader- do they have a hooley with that one!!!--jeanne (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Re Republic of Ireland I just read your comments here, and the very same issue is being discussed on this request for move here. I will be raising the whole question on RoI when this request is out of the way. --Domer48'fenian' 12:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Is this canvassing? Mooretwin (talk) 09:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Good Lord! I didn't realise the article on the flag was moved; but if this doesn't convince the slow-learners in Ireland of the hazards of calling the country "RoI" then I guess nothing will. Frankly that move is so absurd that I'm tempted to be WP:BOLD and simply reverse the move. Sarah777 (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Wow! I didn't see that one coming. I actually agree with you concerning the naming of the article, if you look at the talk page you will see that. Yep, two days on wiki, so please give me time to learn the ropes on editing articles before judging my contributions. There was me trying to be nice, welcome to wikipedia indeed. Cheers! Titch Tucker (talk) 04:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC) TT, I didn't get where I am today (!) by being nice. I am forever watchful for trolls and socks and as you are such a quick learner I was a bit suspicious. Now I can see that you are actually a very upstanding but exceptionally bright Wikipedian and I look forward to your next 90 edits :) Sarah777 (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC) I have forgotten it already. I never have been the type that storms off feeling all offended over a few words. I shall leave you now to create a literary masterpiece never before witnessed by mere mortals. Alternatively, to avoid being shouted at, I shall play dumb and pretend I am an illiterate fool who doesn,t know his apostrophe,s from his comma,s. Time will tell. ;) Titch Tucker (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC) POV alert! To anyone interested there is a move afoot to move "Counties of Ireland" to "Counties of RoI" here. It seems that making changes that would come under the Arbcom rulings are now being carroied out without any notification of the usually interested parties. Sarah777 (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Isn't there a similiar move afoot to move Flag of RoI to Flag of Ireland? GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC) There are multiple hits changing Ireland to ROI (lists etc.) I think I have tracked down and reversed most of them. --Snowded TALK 14:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Actually Sarah, IMO all related article should be at or moved to RoI. At least until (if) Republic of Ireland is moved. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Or alternatively, Republic of Ireland should be moved to Ireland until (if) all related articles move to Republic of Ireland. Just a quick comment, I'm off again. :) Titch Tucker (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC) !Vote See WP:!VOTE, point 12. Rockpocket 16:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC) I see. But so long as the Wiki-Gods describe a 6-4 majority as "consensus" then, logically, a !vote is a vote. Elementary my dear !Watson. Sarah777 (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC) It rather depends on what the !voters said when they !voted. 6 well reasoned responses alongside 4 canvassed WP:IDONTLIKEITs could well be adjudged to be a reasonable consensus. Thats not to say that is what happened in this case, but is a reason why we should always consider responses to be !votes. Rockpocket 18:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC) I guess we'll have to disagree on that one. The brain-bead are usually counted as votes rather than !votes - so long as they are voting for some Admins preferred way. Of course I !wouldn't say that's what happened here either. Sarah777 (talk) 22:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Yes, well there is always the temptation to count !votes when it suits your POV and !count votes when its doesn't. Which is why one shouldn't close discussions when one has a POV on the subject. Moving on, I was wondering how long it would take for you to notice Domer's predicament. You are aware, as well as I, that if anyone can mount a vigorous defense of himself (with all the diffs he can muster!) it is Domer. I'm sure he is busy planning his ArbCom case as we speak. My point is that, as always is the case of privacy issues, the information will not be released to you on wiki. There is no point demanding the details be explained to you, because it will not be. There is nothing to be gained by arguing the pros or cons when we don't know all the facts (and I include myself in that, I know a little but not the whole story). Therefore can I suggest, for your own sake as much any anything, you hold comment until a formal case is brought? I shall be doing likewise. Rockpocket 23:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC) I guess if there wasn't a long record of the "community" blocking/banning/attacking Irish editors who are seeking to improve articles by trying to tone the rampant British POV then I could take secret trials more in the spirit of WP:AGF. Frankly, at this point Domer's plea of innocence is worth any amount of piffle from the Admin Community. Remember Rock; I've been a victim of the same "system". I know it can be pompous, self-righteous, ruthless and biased while also being totally wrong. Sarah777 (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC) "A key determinant of "Irishness" is support for separation from Britain." Wow. I never thought I would see your named signed to those words. [1] So You're either with us, or against us, eh? And there was I thinking Ireland was a civilized country. Rockpocket 00:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Well Rock I've often said the Irishness is a state of mind; not a race. And I certainly believe that you can only be Irish other than in the geographical sense if you support the idea of an sovereign country; so it isn't "with us or against us"; it's simpler - you are either Irish or British; you can't be both. It's the state of mind that defines the nationality. Sarah777 (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC) For example nobody would disregard a claim by a Northern nationalist from Belfast to be as Irish as the average Tipperary man; but a Unionist from Belfast self-defines as British and only geographically Irish (our like the Duke of Wellington they sometimes don't consider themselves to be Irish at all). The so-called "two communities" in the North are in fact parts of two separate nations - one is called Britain and the other is called Ireland. You can't agree to such widely acknowledged facts and get all politically correct about the implications. Sarah777 (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Any "nation of people" that requires you to have a shared political ideology to be accepted is not one I would like to be part of. The only others I can think of is the Nation of Islam, the Aryan Nation and, if Sarah Palin is to be believed, "Real America." [2] Not the best company to be in, I'm sure you'd agree. No, I strongly disagree with you. A Good Irishman does not need to share any geo-political view with you, or anyone else, to be good Irishman. You often claim Ireland is a civilized, democratic country (usually in comparison with the UK). Well, you can certainly be British and support a united Ireland (ask our friend ONiH about that), but apparently can't be Irish and support a divided Ireland? I know which I would rather be . Rockpocket 03:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Sarah, I have to disagree with you. I've genetically more Irish DNA in me than Eamon De Valera, yet I'm a monarchist. I also have some maternal English ancestry. There has never been a problem for me to have two warring nations occupying my body. Being Irish is like being pregnant: you either are or you're not, there are no qualifying factors. Politics do not alter a person's genetic make-up.BTW, I do oppose the move to name Counties of Ireland The Counties of ROI. Ireland is known as Ireland to most people. Nothing political involved at all.--jeanne (talk) 05:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Rock; I accept there are two 'nations' on the island; one Irish, the other British. And I didn't say you have to support a "united" Ireland; but certainly an Independent one. Absolutely. Jeanne - this has nothing to do with genetics or DNA or race - a state of mind, a political belief in an Irish nation. And being Irish unfortunately isn't any more "like being pregnant". We voted in a referendum a few years back abolishing birthright - to bring us in line with most of the rest of the world; though I didn't support it myself. So you can be born here and deported. That means there is a "test of Irishness"; just as there is of "Britishness" or any other nation. That actually breached the GFA; but the people decided that you are not Irish simply by virtue of being born on the island any more. Sarah777 (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Another thing I need to mention that I've noticed. Most people with partial Irish ancestry tend to be more fanatically Republican than those who are geneticaly more Irish. For instance, take a look at all the IRA men with planter surnames and there are a few Italian ones as well. The Beatles are another example. George Harrison, who had the most Irish ancestry of the quartet (his mother Louise Ffrench was Irish), never wrote or sang songs regarding Ireland, while John Lennon who was probably only about 1/8th or at the most 1/4 Irish, was highly outspoken on Irish issues.--jeanne (talk) 06:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC) I'm part Italian myself - and probably if I went back far enough I'd discover lots of English blood; my surname was Jewish originally (600 years ago) - so I don't hold with racial theories of nationalism atall atall. Other than that most modern nations evolved around cultures that were often fairly homogeneous. Sarah777 (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Please excuse me for barging in here, if you want, you can grab me by the scruff of the neck and throw me out, my only hard feelings will be my sore head as I'm thrown through the door. I have to disagree with you concerning the amount a person has in their DNA in relation to their nationality. For me there is more than one criteria to being Irish or any other nationality for that matter. In my part of the world there are first generation asians who are as proud if not more so than many who can trace their heritage back hundreds of years. If we start talking about DNA being related to nationalism I think you will find it is a very individualistic decision from people of all origins how they see their country and where they want it to go politically. Do you think you are more Irish than Eamon De Valera because you have more DNA? I would not be so presumptious as to tell you how Irish you feel, but it is rather less black and white as it may first appear. Bracing myself for ejection! Titch Tucker (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC) I assume you are from America titch? I believe birthright still applies there - it doesn't in Europe any more - I think Ireland was one of the few places it did before we rather stupidly abolished it. It was abolished as part of the Euro-project to stop hoards of Africans and Muslims overwhelming the place or some such nonsense; but it has clear implications for all people born in NI post the GFA - though our media and establishment would rather you didn't say that too loudly. Sarah777 (talk) 00:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC) You are missing my point completely. What I meant was that ancestry and politics are not mutually inclusive. I'm Irish by DNA, but I don't need to accept a certain political POV because of my Irishness, nor does the lack of such a POV make me less Irish. Irish is like any other ethnicity, one has it in one's genetic makeup it but it does not morally oblige one to a certain political viewpoint. Which has nothing to do with pride, that is a totally different thing.--jeanne (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC) I think Titch's point is that one's DNA does not make one Irish either. There are no doubt many people of a non-caucasian race, say immigrants from India, who were born and bred in Ireland, as were their parents and grandparents. By "DNA" they are Indian, but have as much right to be considered Irish as any white, red haired green eyed, Dubliner. You land/nation/island of birth has almost zero influence on your DNA. If anything, defining nationality by one's the content of one's DNA is more disturbing than defining it by politics. At least you can fake your political views, not so much your genes. Rockpocket 19:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC) More disturbing is putting it mildly - you cannot change you racial make-up. You can decide whether you are Irish or British, it being two free(ish) countries we are in. Your knee-jerk political correctness is leading you into 'Error' Rock :)Sarah777 (talk) 00:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC) I don't believe I've successfully made myself clear. I never wished for this to become a racial discussion. I only wante to point out that one's nationality/ethnicity/race/religion does not mean you must conform to the stereotypes or politics associated with the particular group. Let me use myself again as an example. I'm mainly Irish, yet I'm a monarchist which does not conform to certain expectations one associates with Irishness. It's ike a black person who prefers to vote Republican and is shunned by his peers for doing so, or a Mexican-American who prefers Formula One to lowriding. It's about freedom to be one's self irregardless of ethnicity.--jeanne (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC) On that we agree. Rockpocket 19:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC) It would be more like a Black person who beleives the US should become part of the Soviet Umion or the British Empire. Very un-American. Sarah777 (talk) 00:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC) I also agree with your above points Jeanne. My point was in response to your assertion that you had more Irish DNA than De Valera, which in my opinion has no bearing on ones Irishness. Let me ask you a question. A child is born in Dublin with 100% Irish DNA and his/her parents emigrate immediately never to return. On the other side of the world a child is born with 0% Irish DNA and his/her parents immediately immigrate to Ireland where they bring their child up alongside every other Irish person and are steeped in Irish culture. Which child (now an adult) is more Irish? Are they the same or different? Or could it be, as I believe, it is a state of mind. If neither or both want to be looked on as Irish then that's what they will be. Titch Tucker (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC) So, we are all agreed is that to be Irish you should live or have been born in Ireland and that should choose to support indepencence or else choose to be British? That was the essence of the GFA. Sarah777 (talk) 00:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC) I agree with your first two points Sarah. Is it not a fact you are either Irish or British? As I said above, I believe ones nationality is a state of mind. Ps; No, I'm not from the US, I'm from somewhere else entirely. Titch Tucker (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Sarah, Titch, I have lived in Ireland-in fact, I'm a legal Irish resident. And I will continue to call myself Irish, as I had grown up hearing myself described thus.--jeanne (talk) 05:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Another thing I must add is in regards to your statement about black people. It's highly unlikely a black American would support the Soviet Union seeing as black Americans are, as a rule, extremely patriotic. I worked on a US military base here in Sicily for several years, and I noticed that blacks did not take too kindly to Europeans criticising America or the American people.--jeanne (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Sarah, many Irish people think it an anomaly for an Irish or Irish-descended person to support the system of monarchy. Two things: Ireland once had a monarchy and during the English Civil War most of the Irish Catholics were Royalists. In fact the Irish were prepared to mobilise on behalf of King Charles I until the Papal legate butted in and ordered that the Catholics only support the King on condition that he abolish the Protestant churches in Ireland. This the King refused to do and thus Ireland was invaded by Cromwell. Had the Pope not interfered the outcome of the Civil War and indeed Ireland's history would have been drastically different. Sarah, it's not just the English who have had a detrimental influence on Ireland. Remember Pope Adrian had issued a Bull back in 1152 which sanctioned an English invasion of Ireland. This was as you doubtlessly know was to bring the Celtic Church in line with the Roman Catholic!--jeanne (talk) 08:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Hey Jeanne! I wouldn't say being pro or anti Monarchy defines Irishness; that defines Republicanism. If you want some descendant of Brian Boru (even a descendant of KC the first) in the Park I might not be very keen but I'd have to live with it (so long as they aren't actually ruling , as in the divine right sense. I must point out that pope Adrian was the only English Pope - so his Bull isn't surprising! But then I'm not a huge fans of Popes generally either - surely as a feminist you'll appreciate why :) Sarah777 (talk) 09:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Actually, I think I have problems with authority, period. Somebody has to have! Sarah777 (talk) 09:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Jeanne, I would never presume to tell you how Irish you are. As I previously said, Irishness is a state of mind, and you are obviously as Irish as anyone. Just one small point concerning black people being too patriotic to support the Soviet Union. I know its only one example, but there was a certain Paul Robeson who did in fact support them and lived there believing they treated blacks better there than in the US. Titch Tucker (talk) 09:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC) His Bull isn't surprising-now that's funny. I do have a problem with authority, especially civil servants and their ilk. I have major problems with dress codes, etc. In fact, my ex- husband (a Dubliner) always said my lack of respect for authority and rules stems from my Beyond the Pale Irish blood. Now Sarah, can you guess which part of the Ould Sod my grandparents came from?--jeanne (talk) 09:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Yes I did know that about Paul Robeson, Titch, but most blacks prefer America and are usually some of the most homesick Americans on overseas military bases.--jeanne (talk) 10:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC) I'm as powerful as the Pope; I just don't have as many believers. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Which Pope, GoodDay, Clement VII?--jeanne (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Benedict XVI as he's the current Pope. I was just as powerful as his predecessors, too. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Confession, I didn't know him, but I could have and did guess he was somehow associated with Anne Boleyn. I was right! :) Titch Tucker (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC) The problem with saying that an essential defining characteristic of Irishness is a desire for separation from Britain, is that when the whole of Ireland finally becomes united and independent, then the whole point of being Irish will fade away, leaving them with nothing to define themselves against. Hostility to a former occupying power is perfectly understandable, but at some point it has to be let go of. No one in Britain feels hostility to the Romans any more (though that is not the case with the Normans, who never went away). For these reasons, and because I don't think it's fair or indeed correct to say that the Irish have a "single-issue nationality", I cannot agree with the original thesis. ðarkuncoll 17:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC) I never realised there was still resentment against the Normans in England. Wasn't the Battle of Hastings fought in October 1066 (on William The Conqueror's birthday)? Well, there couldn't have been too much resentment seeing as the English have retained the Norman-descended nobility.--jeanne (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC) I don't think it's known what William's true birthday was. Yes, Battle of Hastings - Saturday 14 October 1066. England only retained the Norman-descended aristocracy because its people didn't have any say in the matter. The Normans have controlled England - then the British Isles - then half the world - ever since. English peasants were little more than cannon fodder, or arrow fodder, for Norman ambitions. ðarkuncoll 17:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Not so Tharky - here in the free South we still have a percentage of British folk - who'd like to undo our Irishness and make us British again; they'll never all be gone. Admittedly a pretty small number, TG. Anyway to say that when all Ireland is united that "the whole point of being Irish will fade away" isn't a logical follow-on! That's like say that the whole point of following Man Utd will be gone when they win the league! Think:) Maybe by the year 3000 it will cease to be an issue. (About the same time the English forget about the Germans). Unless of course Anglo-American Imperialism has caused WW3 and Armageddon before that. My money would be on a nuclear winter actually. I'm pretty realistic for a basic optimist. And it's snowing here in Dublin today; 29 October - never before in October - tell me that isn't a SIGN??! Sarah777 (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC) It won't matter anyway when we all become provinces of the EU. Thanks, by the way, to all the Irish who voted down that constitution. ðarkuncoll 17:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Heck Tharky, you're welcome! (I was one of them) Sarah777 (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Very glad to hear it! ðarkuncoll 18:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC) What happens to an Irish child with one Irish and one British parent? How does he juggle his conflicting loyalties? I really don't think one will worry about British dominion when the EU obtains complete Orwellian-like control over it's supine citizens. Remember the EU is the USSR without the hammer and sickle.--jeanne (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC) I'm no great fan of the proposed "Superstate" so no disagreement there. I strongly support the EU in its current form. But I think about the USA; when it was founded it was a bit like the EU. Yet 80 years later the greatest carnage in American history took place in order to stop some states from leaving. Think it couldn't happen in the EU? Under the guise of "security" it could happen any time. Sarah777 (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC) As far as I know, tell me if I'm wrong I don't live there, Ireland has prospered as a result of being part of the EU. I think as you do, the EU works as it is. Once they start suggesting having a combined military force then we should start worrying. In fact, if memory serves me right it was suggested at one time. Anyone else recall that? Titch Tucker (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Ireland has prospered while it was part of the EU; the extent to which that is attributed to membership, internal economic policy, American FDI or globalisation is generally judged according to the observers political prejudice. I'd go for a bit of everything plus there was a large "catch-up" to do. Ending "the troubles" was vital; by 1987 Ireland was no better off than when it joined the EU and NI was much worse off. People forget that when they take the "peace process" for granted. Sarah777 (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC) As an irregular visitor to your fair isle, I have noticed a marked improvement over many years, and as you say it seemed to improve quite rapidly at one point. No use crying over spilt milk, but its a pity the politicians did not get round the table a lot earlier. Who would have imagined Ian Paisley and Martin McGuiness having a cup of tea and a laugh together. Not me! Titch Tucker (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Sadly there were a lot of woodlice under the bark who didn't like the "chuckle brothers". A lot of people are still itching for a rematch. They may get it. Sarah777 (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Not something to look forward to. Sarah, you must have the longest talk page on wikipedia. I've been racking my brain to come up with a subject for a new article, I may have found it. Sarah777:The biggest talk page in the history of wikipedia. How does that grab you? :) Titch Tucker (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Well, they used to say on the British Telecom ads, "its good to talk" Sarah777 (talk) 00:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC) And they were right. Goodnight to you. Titch Tucker (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC) A pity that laugh over a cup of tea didn't come after theSunningdale Agreement. Think of all the lives that would have been saved. How much does membership in the EU cost? A pretty penny and it's not even an exclusive club-anyone can join.--jeanne (talk) 05:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC) The Cowardly Clement VII, the Sack of Rome (1527) and the Bay of Pigs Need a random break so I thought I'd give it a catchy title ;) Sarah777 (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Other than the Royal family, where are they. Where can we find these Normans masquerading as English people? Titch Tucker (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Yes Titch Clement VII was the cowardly Pope held prisoner by Charles V after the Sack of Rome in 1527. He didn't want to annul Henry's marriage to Catherine seeing as that would have been tantamount to calling Catherine a whore and she was Charles' aunt.--jeanne (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC) The Royal Family is mainly German not Norman. Princess Diana had a bit of Norman blood however. Also Norman- Irish (The Earls of Fermoy).--jeanne (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Those "English peasants" had their revenge in the guise of Cromwell. He went after the Norman-descended nobility then proceeded to slaughter the mixed Norman-Celtic Irish!--jeanne (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Sarah, thanks to Anglo-American dominated NATO, European soil has never been so bloodless. Never.--jeanne (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Also, the closest we ever came to WWIII was when Kennedy was in the White House.--jeanne (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Or was it in 1973 when it looked like the Egyptians were going to liberate Palestine? I've read that we were very close. Sarah777 (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Nah, the Soviets were experts at making veiled threats and the Americans knew how far they could push them. Titch Tucker (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Actually the Soviets were afraid of the Kennedy brothers. Bobby did nothing by halves.--jeanne (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure afraid is the right word Jeanne. The Cuban missile crisis ended with an agreement whereby the USSR would withdraw all nuclear warheads from Cuba and the US would withdraw all theirs from Turkey bordering Russia. If we are taking it from a starting point then the USSR got the better deal. Titch Tucker (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC) No they didn't. The Soviets lost a unique opportunity to have their missiles off the US coast while the US just lost their's in Turkey. Most people in Moscow wouldn't have worried about Turkey as much as Americans on the US East coast if there were enemy warheads in Cuba. The US still had their warheads in other parts of Europe aimed at the USSR. No comparison at all, the US thanks to Kennedy won the day.--jeanne (talk) 05:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Oh yes they did! :) They sure didn't frighten Castro with the debacle at the Bay of pigs. I'm sure if you were living in Russia at the time you would have looked at it with a different perspective. Sometimes you have to ignore all the propaganda. Titch Tucker (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC) The Pay of Pigs disaster was a calamity and probably was one of the factors which cost Kennedy his life. The Anti-Castro Cubans never forgave him for it. But Khruschev didn't trust Kennedy nor his brother Bobby. For the Russians the Kennedys were an unknown quantity. Castro probably is the only living person who knows what happened at Dallas 22 November 1963 and will take it with him to his grave. No, I don't believe Castro had a hand in it.--jeanne (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC) A fair anology for the cold war was the conflict between Carthage and Rome (without the elephants). There was only going to be enough room in the world for one of them. Of course, there was no direct war between the US and Russia, it was mostly a war of ideology. Titch Tucker (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC) The USA won the Cold War to be sure, but wasn't it really a Pyrric victory? The US is probably the most hated nation on the Earth, and the Americans are made to take the rap for every ill in the universe. May I inquire as to your nationality ,Titch? You are very well-informed and polite. It's a pleasure engaging in debate with you.--jeanne (talk) 08:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC) The Normans can be found in the House of Lords, among the aristocracy, and in most of the top jobs. It's true that in the 20th century the aristocracy gradually lost at least some of its power, but money still talks. When the British Empire was at its height, the Normans were still very much in charge. You're right though, I have to admit though that the only time that they weren't, temporarily, was under Cromwell, who - I believe - is not particularly highly regarded in Ireland, though in England he is justifiably acclaimed for asserting parliamentary sovereignty (for all his other faults, warts and all). ðarkuncoll 17:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Who will stand up for the poor old celts who were invaded by the angles, saxons and various other peoples. Titch Tucker (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC) The Normans can be found in the House of Lords, among the aristocracy, and in most of the top jobs. Huh; just like the Irish, eh? Just goes to show that when it came to extermination Cromwell lacked the gas chamber technology. And the nukes. Sarah777 (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Or indeed the poor old Neolithic and Bronze Age tribes, now nameless, who were invaded by successive waves of Celts? ðarkuncoll 17:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Ollie was so loved that when he died the English got rid of his son, Tumbledown Dick and begged Old Rowley to come back on his throne to reign o'er all. Charles with his French Bourbon mother and English blood which could be measured in an eye-dropper.--jeanne (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Tharky, I must beg to differ when you say the Normans were in power during the Empire. Many of the Norman nobility died on the bloody battlefields during the Wars of the Roses and a new nobility was created by Henry VII made up of wealthy English merchants who took aristocratic Norman wives. Thomas Boleyn, the father of Anne was one of these. Charles Brandon another.--jeanne (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Happy Hallowe'en I see the date is 31 October which means today is the ancient Celtic festival of Samhain. Sarah, I hope I spelled it right-alas, they didn't teach us Irish at Surf City High. Oh, GoodDay, go check out The Beatles singing Sexy Sadie on YouTube. The video shows the Maharishi Yogi-hee hee hee.--jeanne (talk) 08:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Halloween! that was one of the first articles I was involved (slightly) in editing. Ever eat colcannon? (I think Ali did the cooking!)Sarah777 (talk) 10:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Withdrawal Disappointing. -- Evertype·✆ 08:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Yes, but there was concern at the move while the Task Force was ongoing; losing key supporters of the move meant we were going nowhere. Sarah777 (talk) 09:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Where do I find the Task Force? -- Evertype·✆ 11:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Hoigh Regarding your move of the page... wouldnt Eire be better ? slan seat, iDangerMouse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.32.254 (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)