User talk:Red King/Archive 6

cf. There is a page named "Plan of Action" on Wikipedia

Hi, Redking can you have a look and help us out pls. When you search for "Plan of Action", you come to "There is a page named "Plan of Action" on Wikipedia, but when you click the first link = link "Plan of Action" on that page it brings you to a page on a music group. That must be improved. It must lead to a page with the different uses of "Plan of Action" imho, where you then can choose, ok Plan of Action in the meaning of Economists and Business Plans etc, and ... ok ... there's also a music group called "Plan of Action". --SvenAERTS (talk) 10:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Plan of Action - Agenda 21

Isn't it strange that Agenda 21, a plan of action laid out by the United Nations and well documented on wikipedia doesn't show up under the result page when one has done a search for "Plan of Action" ? --SvenAERTS (talk) 10:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Redking7 (talk · contribs)

Is this account in any way related to the above user? If so/not, can you please consider making a note of it on your user page, as you are both active editors apparently interested in the same topics, which makes discussion confusing to follow for others. I placed the same note on their talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Our user names have 6 characters in common and three that are different. That's as close as it gets. --Red King (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Dunmanway massacre

Hi red, haven't been in touch for a while. Hope all's well. If you have the time and inclination, I'd appreciate your opinion at Dunmanway Massacre article. There are a few issues around refs, layout and tone and we'd be grateful for some fresh eyes. See the talk page for (extremely!) lengthy discussion of the issues.

Cheers Jdorney (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your addition of a Fourth Opinion to this article. As I noted in my Third Opinion, with which you appear to concur, one particular editor has blind views on the subject matter. Despite his rather flimsy protestations to the contrary, he has imbued the article with many levels of POV and it is fairly difficult to acknowledge any objectivity in the piece. I found his response to me that I don't have a position on the subject matter, and therefore my position is neither "inflamed" nor "historic" to be one of the most delicious pieces of irony I have read on Wikipedia over the last several years.

When I offer Third Opinions I rarely make conforming edits myself (as often the protagnosists are mature enough to sort matters out for themselves) but here applaud your own moves in making the changes which you did. I suspect you will need to watch the article quite carefully as the editor in question seems quite cavalier in reinstating his own POV. Kind regards--Calabraxthis ^(talk) 08:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you User:Calabraxthis for your decidedly “neutral” opinions on me, as opposed to my edits. You would probable have a different view to me also on WP:NPA were were are advised to comment on content, not on the contributor. That you were both canvassed for your views may account for the colour and tone you adopted. In light of this, I will take both your comments on me and my edits as less than “neutral” opinions. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Rockall

Red, see [1] Ireland and the UK agreed a maritime boundary on the continental shelf here in 1988 but this is not accepted by Iceland or Denmark (on behalf of the Færoe Islands), which also make extensive overlapping claims. The four countries have met regularly since 2001 in an effort to resolve the issues arising from overlapping claims but have recently concluded that they are unable to reach agreement at the present time. Nevertheless, the four intend to keep the matter under regular review and, in the meantime, Ireland will proceed to make a national submission to the Commission in respect of the Hatton-Rockall Area by the deadline of May 2009. - regards ClemMcGann (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Your statement

Your statement contains touches on all of the problems , would it be possible for you to split it up in to the correct sub types? Gnevin (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Then post a statement to that affect :) Gnevin (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I know the amount of = is a bit much but that is the only way to render the statements correct. If you could split you statement up it might be easier to follow. Can you leave the = as I have it , Thanks. Just create a statement called Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyRed King (second statement) and say what part of problem 1 ,2.1 or 2.2 you find an erroneous assumption' Gnevin (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you move the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyRed King (second statement) and explain what you issue are . I feel if you split your statement in too 3 separate pages it would to cover the assumptions part and would be easier too follow Gnevin (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I appericate your efforts and you make your points well ,I would suggest that 1.1, 1.2 ,1.3 all deal with problem 1 and could be spun of to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyRed King (problem 1), that 1.4,1.5,1.6 deal with problem 2.1 and should go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyRed King (problem 2.1). You don't appear to deal with problem 2.2. Gnevin (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Euro

I have done a GA Reassessment of the Euro as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to not meet a few of the GA Criteria. I feel that the article is very strong and needs some detail work to keep it consistent with the GA Criteria. I am notifying the primary editors like yourself about this review which can be found here. I have placed the article on hold for a week. If more time is needed please let me know. If you have any questions please contact my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland (xxx)

A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- BigDunc^Talk 20:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland (xxx)

A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- Evertype·✆ 18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies

First a declaration of interest - I work for DIAS, so I am not too keen on the suggestion that its future is in doubt following McCarthy (and I honestly think this is an exaggeration).

I do agree that there should be some reference to the report, but can we agree a suitable text between us?

Luke.O'Connor (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and as a newcomer I apologise for not being fully up to speed on the etiquette of wikipedia. I am not aware of any coverage in the popular press of McCarthy's comment on the Institute and I would be very interested in seeing it if you can point me towards it.

Luke.O'Connor (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll do my best. Any comments/suggestions much appreciated. Luke.O'Connor (talk) 07:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Format of statement on Ireland naming

Hello Red King. I hope you don't mind, but I formatted your statement according to the style agreed upon by the collaboration. Rockpocket 01:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

RK, you said it better than I ever did [2], good job. Isn't it daft to have such sensible views plastered with templates that essentially say 'caution:this might be complete bollocks' lol. Although I like to think that this is not an "equality of misery" per se (although granted it will piss some people off), rather it is a positive step in producing an accurate and helpful encyclopoedia for a worldwide audience. Hopefully the poll will pick C as the best choice (or it will highlight it as the best second choice after Sarah's inevitable explosion if F wins). MickMacNee (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Article on c€, k€, M€ etc.

Dear Red King, cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Euro#.E2.82.AC.2C_.E2.82.ACc.2C_Euro_cents.2C_number_of_digitals_after_the_decimal_sign_and_..._k.E2.82.AC_and_M.E2.82.AC

do you advise me to copy the article part in the Euro article and the request for comments/reflections in the discussion part ? Or is it better to give the co-writers on "Euro" a chance to sniff the addition for a while in the discussion page? Who's then moving the section it to the article eventually ? --SvenAERTS (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Euros

A couple of those edits were OK, but the others I found to be controversial; further discussion on Talk please. -- Evertype·✆ 13:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Subsidiarity (Catholicism)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Subsidiarity (Catholicism), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Principle_of_subsidiarity. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) I note that you recently copied material from Subsidiarity (Catholicism) to the article Subsidiarity (Catholicism), and I just wanted to drop you a note to point out a few things about the procedure. As Wikipedia:Split and Help:Merge set out, when we duplicate material, we have to provide a direct link to the source article. This is necessary because Wikipedia's contributors do not release their material into public domain, but retain rights to authorship under the terms of our licenses, CC-By-SA and GFDL. This wikilink satisfies that requirement by allowing readers to access the history and see who contributed what and when. Usually, we put into the edit summary something along the lines of "Copied from Sourcearticle". Then, we note the reuse as well in an edit summary at the source article. That would read like "Material copied to destination article", in this case. This helps make sure that the article is not later deleted, as it cannot be as long as the article to which the material has been copied remains. We also have an optional template for the talk pages of both articles at {{Copied}} (instructions for using it found there). I have fixed the problems with this article, but I wanted to let you know for future use. If you have copied material from other articles, please be sure to make proper note of that. Thanks, and if you have any questions about this, please feel free to leave a line at my talk page. Theleftorium 21:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you know

I did some changes to the article discussed here. As you can see, I had some open issues when I was done. I am confident you can solve some of them. Thanks. Tomeasy _{T C} 10:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

SF 100 years

Hey RK,

You may be interested in these sources Sinn Fein's Bogus 100 year history Dail Debate on Sinn Fein funds Bill Sinn Fein Funds Act.

Turns out the High Court Ruled in 1948 that the original SF ceased legally to exist in 1922. Arising out of this, it seems to me that our Sinn Féin article needs to relfect the discontinuities as well as the continuities a bit more than it does.

It also occurred to me that an article on the Sinn Féin Funds Case might be an interesting project for editors interested in the topic?

Regards, Jdorney (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Article

It was more a) intended to answer anyone seeking to apply it to a particular post, b) to discuss the relationships between those posts and c) to mention the possible future of it. it was not a long article nor entirely on the theoretical possibility of it coming about. Don't care much either way as it is hardly essential btu at the time I felt it warranted more than a few lines given how people throw the title around so much - a clear delineation with associated explanation is needed to prevent reoccurrence.- _J.Logan`^t: 22:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Terminology of the British Isles

Just in case you didn't know - User:Britisher has been blocked for being a WP:SOCK of User:Mr Taz (also blocked). Shouldn't their nonsense be cleaned up? Daicaregos (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Trial of Knox and Sollecito

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Trial of Knox and Sollecito. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trial of Knox and Sollecito. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

re: Template Irish Places

Was not aware of this being an issue, i'll look into it see what i can do. Could pose a slight issue for redundancy in some instances to show doubles in the top corner however. --boothy443(r|e|c|t|o) 14:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It should be working now, articles will be to need refreshed in some cases for the changes to display, their should be no or minor issues in regards to it not displaying or changes needing to be made to individual articles for it to display. Just let me know if you see any issues. --boothy443(r|e|c|t|o) 15:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting back, i got sidetracked, and i just have been on here. Also not a problem, hopefully the change should help with increasing the coverage for the geotaging. Anything else just drop me a line, dont know how quickly i can get back to it, but i'll take a look when i can. --boothy443(r|e|c|t|o) 01:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Irish Brigade in Spain

Hi, I have removed {for|the Irish Brigade that fought on the Republican side|Connolly Column}}" from Irish Brigade (Spanish Civil War), as I don't think the Connolly Column was a brigade, but was a company in one of the International Brigades. If the CC was a numbered brigade then please replace your note, and we should have the number on the CC article itself.Red Hurley (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thx for reply. I'd be happier you could tighten up the CC page, as it is very inaccurate on IRA support (which divided) and the CC sources and refs are memoirs, not secondary sources - see WP:RS. Otherwise CC would read better in the "see also" section, beside an IB link of course. Other Irishmen took part in other Republican and Nationalist groups - do we include them all at the top as well?Red Hurley (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

My sources for the Spn Civ war are A Beevor and C Othen - the latter mentions the CC mutiny at Lopera in late 1936 I think. The CC memoirs make out that being there was the big thing, and they could not talk about the Int Brigades command system, which was mostly communist-led. As for Duffy's brigade, they were equally at sea. Neither group achieved a single useful thing. But I celebrate both because they show how far we have come. Obviously I don't want to put in the CC mutiny if some pre-teen edits it out.Red Hurley (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh and best for 2010.Red Hurley (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Golden ratio

I don't understand your edit of Golden ratio.[3] We don't normally have footnotes in image captions. The capital Phi notation is mentioned in a section of the article on the Golden ratio conjugate. Further, this notation, while not universal (that's why is said "Sometimes") is common knowledge and is mentioned in lots of the cited sources, including MathWorld (which is cited in the Golden ratio conjugate section). That aside, why did you say in your edit comment that the notation "looks like POV"?—Finell 21:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(copied from my talk page for continuity)

Ok, I withdraw. I couldn't see it in the text, I had never heard of it before, and it is a notation contrary to more common meanings for capitalisation. φ^-1 is not exactly difficult is it? (though in convoluted algebras, I suppose it might get wearing!).

There are problems in some articles with a few editors on personal crusades to introduce new notations that they in their infinite wisdom have decided ought be introduced. This looked like one. --Red King (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Frankly, if I and the other editors who try to keep the Golden ratio article accurate and neutral had our way (i.e., if we were writing on a clean slate), we would probably choose different nomenclature and symbols. We would probably pick capital phi for the golden ratio, use superscript notation for the reciprocal, and ditch the term golden ratio conjugate altogether. Regrettably, the published mathematical literature on the subject is not consistent about terminology or notation, and the non-mathematical literature is worse. The article uses the most common terminology and notation found in current sources. However, I still don't see how even an invented notation would imply a non-neutral POV.—Finell 22:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)(To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for any reply here on your Talk page.)

It would not have to be non-neutral to be POV, just off the wall. "POV-pushing" is the more common description.

Incidentally when I first heard of the ratio, the capital phi was the notation we used for it, so it is hardly surprising that I thought its use as the inverse to be at best very curious indeed and at worst some editor's private obsession. I would really question the wisdom of its remaining in the article, especially not in the infobox. --Red King (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

In the world out there, Φ is still the most common symbol for 1/φ. It is the notation used on Mathworld, which is a concise encyclopedia of mathematics that presents the up-to-date, mainstream view of the subject. We cannot help it that the notation and terminology for the golden ration and its family is less uniform than, say, π or e. It sounds like what you are calling POV is what I would call WP:OR, i.e., the invention of one or more Wikipedians that is not supported by a reliable source. Happy New Year!—Finell 01:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting that PlanetMath agrees with me, using only Φ and Φ^-1.... --Red King (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC) No it doesn't, it's just a font thing. --Red King (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sinn Féin

Have a read at this. Quite incredible. Scolaire is rejecting the 1970 sources because they don't meet a super-policy standard (he says he queries the veracity of the primary research upon which they were based), yet produces a feeble list of 1905 sources which wouldn't stand a change of passing his super standard. Why the insistence on ignoring the sources? Mooretwin (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to History of Sinn Féin. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.--Domer48_'fenian' 12:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

bathwater

Shame on you for comparing me to bathwater. Go back to when redking7 first started editing that article and see what it was then....and you call me bathwater....I am offended.

I see the reverts going on on the name article. They are 100% political. Be very careful Sir - if you revert their change again, you might well be banned like I was. Any work you have done will be forgottn pretty quick then. No one will bother to look into the reasons (if there were any) for you being banned. I was banned for some edits one or more of 12 edits I made concerning the List of diplomatic missions of the Republic of China. I insisted that France for example (see: Talk: List of diplomatic missions of France) did not have a diplomatic mission to the Republic of China. Any way, you probably won't hear again from me for a while as no doubt my ban will be tightened up again shortly. I am casting around for better ways to spend free time...but I do miss it sometimes (but not so much when I see pure politics taking over as on that article). Regards. 84.203.37.67 (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC) or redking7 as I was.

Oh yes, finally - You just won't accept the difference between "legal description" (your term) and "official description". The former is simply yours. The latter is exactly how the RoI Act puts it. oh and you also came up with the idea of "constitutional name" instead of simply "name". Once again, the former is what you have made up. The latter is exactly what is in the Constitution....Presumably, though, you are not interested in those sorts of subtelties... [-- Redking7 presumably].

The name used by the constitution is the constitutional name; the name used by the law is the legal name. One could say "the name used in the Constitution" and "the name used in the Act", but that means exactly the same thing and is just playing with words. Neither Constituion nor Act use the word 'official'. That is a WP:OR noise word that is only there becuase it looks, well, official - but in fact 'it means whatever I want it to mean, no more and no less'. --Red King (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I over-estimated you. I recall from a previous time when I had to teach you about the Dail courts how much there was you do not know....and unfortunately, I know you don't like to admit that.

You said: "The name used by the constitution is the constitutional name; the name used by the law is the legal name." This is profound ignorance. The constitution is law. The act is law. They are both law. They are both "legal". The Constitution is THE SUPREME LAW. An Act is a law made UNDER (below - it cannot overrule the Constitution or go outside it etc). The name used in the Constitution is THE name. No act made under the Constitution could give the State another name. What is in the Act is THE "official description". It is THE description, not THE name.

Can you actually disagree with any of that? And do you understand that a Constitution and Acts (made UNDER it, not ABOVE it as a law must be made within the rules of the Constitution)

People like you control Wikipedia and I need to find better hobbies. You do not even understand your own edits and you will somehow argue you are right. You won't admit you are wront. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.37.67 (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You mention "noise" words. Well, adding "constitutional" in front of "name" (because you are confused) is pretty bad. The word "official" is indeed not used in either. But its pretty silly to say it is a noise word. There are lots of names for Ireland....the emerald isle, the free state, the 26 counties, the banana republic etc....Only one name is OFFICIAL. Hence its a useful addition. Same goes for the description. Your "constitutional" in contrast is because you do not understand basic legal conecpts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.37.67 (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please Do Not Delete My Work on the Kercher Article

Red King, Would you please put back my work on Donald Trump in the Kercher article. I put a lot of time in and everything just gets deleted for POV reasons. Donald Trump is not a minor figure. He is a major player in the US and his opinion on things can move mountains. That he is taking a stand is big news. It looks like censorship, plain and simple to delete him. You don't agree with his views, so you delete them. I can't see any legitimate basis under the rules to delete the stunning comments of a major public figure in the US on this story. He is calling for a boycott and it is big news. I cannot revert because I may already be within 3 reverts from yesterday. So I ask that you please put my work back the way it was. Thank you. P.S. Are you Irish? My family is very much so as well. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Military of the European Union

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Military of the European Union. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military of the European Union (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Paul Stephenson and page on Open Europe

The user Paul Stephenson, whose first draft of "Open Europe" you suggested for deletion, is the head of research of Open Europe. see [4] He has modified only this page, but over and over again. He is now again trying to save the page from deletion. In such a blatant case of self promotion, what should we do? JanvonBismarck (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Thank you very much for looking into it. JanvonBismarck (talk) 11:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Irish Neutrality

You're right of coarse, and I should have spotted the good faith attempt. Good fix on your part. I'll drop a note. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"EU power over its members"

It is a bit messy, partly because the terms are politically laden. The whole "pooled sovereignty" thing, what does that mean in practice? It basically means they've transferred it but they said powers are granted through the member states and they have the right to withdraw. That's more symbolic and theoretical difference from a federation. It is not a classic federation because foreign policy and defence has not been transferred, but what has been transferred does not define the structure of a federation. Just like in the US, states confer specific competencies upon the federal government (which is the institutions of government) which have the right to make binding direct laws which apply to member states. All other competencies are retained by members. That is a federal system and the EU follows that in nearly all areas it has been given. Those institutions govern within their remit, not just in laws but in managing the CAP, implementing competition law, carrying out trade policy and so on. There is an EU government, but it is not as clearly defined and the words government and federal are avoided for political reasons (the word federal almost snuck into the constitution though).

It is not just the sum of its parts, it is far to intertwined through majority voting under different weights, led by various singular officials who have more influence than you imagine and large staffing of officials and an independent judiciary which hardly represents EU governments. And indeed if it was merely its parts, then all institutions would represent governments, with no direct elections or independent members in the Commission and Parliament would vote in national blocks, not political blocks. I suppose another question is, what makes the US have a federal government, rather than being a collection of state governments? There's not much difference besides which powers have been conferred - the EU has more power in many areas than the US President.

In terms of the article, you have on one hand the EU government's (Commission, Council, European Council and Parliament) being able to implement policy and pass laws which have an impact on the policy and law of its constituent states. On the other hand, by appointing the Bosnian SR/HR they have control over unilaterally making laws, scrapping laws and firing elected officials.- _J.Logan`^t: 09:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how the European Council, the Parliament or the Council of Ministers could be called the EU's government. They don't implement policies. I reckon the Commission is the government. The Council and the Parliaments are the legislative chambers, i.e. not part of the government. The European Council is a non-executive pseudo institution. I'm not an expert, but I guess the most essential difference between the US and the EU is that the EU isn't a sovereign state, thus many consider foreign policy and taxation the be unnatural tasks for the community level. But that assumption is of course political. There's probably no technical reason why a treaty construction like the EU wouldn't be able to have a sovereign-state-like foreign policy. After all, the EU, through its treaty competences, is already very good at imitating a sovereign state. - SSJ ^t 10:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I personally hate the word sovereign. What does it actually mean? Even if you have no legal power binding you, no country in the world has total control over its own affairs. And if you're merely meaning having legal control, well you could say a US state shares sovereignty with the federal government as it has loads of powers that belong to it by right that cannot be assumed by Washington. Sovereignty is an utterly unhelpful and meaningless word. But anyway, I am using it in the broad sense SSJ as the Council does have a major role in deciding policy, the power of the Commission has decreased over the years. So I am meaning government as in the governing institutions, rather than simply the executive. - _J.Logan`^t: 10:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The constitution of each country can divide the various areas of competence in an infinite number of ways between local and national institutional apparatuses. The real question is whether the national parliament has the power to amend the constitution and thus for example erase local governance. If the national parliament can do so, I reckon that is the traditional essence of being a sovereign state. If such a (re-)consolidation of legislative power is technically impossible, then perhaps the country(/geographic-political entity) is per definition not sovereign. My amateur analysis would like to conclude that the term sovereignty is connected with geography in the sense that a "level" (or the parliament of a "level") which has the power to consolidate exclusive competence of legislation in all areas of policy, in its geographical area, is sovereign. The word is meaningless if we attach it to de facto power, since competences, legal personalities (competence to sign treaties), and clearly even the concept of constitutions, flow around today through treaties. If Norway's parliament ratifies a treaty which says that person X has exclusive competence to legislate in all areas of policy in Norway, then person X has all the legislative power; Norway has no competence to legislate for the moment, yet retains its sovereignty. If we follow the previously mentioned analysis, then the term "shared sovereignty" is dangerously close to erroneously suggest that the EU is a sovereign entity, but it does successfully suggests that the the respective sovereignties of member state are pooled, with the result that the EU can achieve things politically. The term also relates to the fact that the competences of the Union affect all member states, but that does also make sense, since sovereignty and competence are two different concepts. The term "shared sovereignty" is helpful, because it correctly suggests something, but it shouldn't be taken literally. - SSJ ^t 01:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The intergovernmentalism might have gotten more coverage in the media than before. I don't know, I'm not very old. Barroso's office might have lost some of it's clout of PR conviction because of an intergovernmental focus, but I think it's meaningless to say that the Commission per se has lost power. On the contrary, the massively increased use of the co-decision method means that the European Commission has the power to drive through divisive legislation. - As opposed to having to keep every single member of the Council happy. The media's reflex of calling a vote in the Council a "decision of member states" is, as you know, much less correct today, as Lisbon effectively turns the Council of Ministers into a piece in a bicameral legislature. A vote, really, not a decision. In most instances the Council can't decide any more than the Parliament. And those 'decisions' are of course nothing more than suggestions on how the Commission might rewrite a law proposal, if it wishes to. - SSJ ^t 01:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I would find it very hard to map the EComm as a government, particularly since the EParl increased its powers. OK, the EComm has the much-vaunted 'exclusive power to initiate legislation' – but what does that mean in reality? Realistically, they can't introduce legislation that the ECoun hasn't signalled that it wants. It seems to me that this so-called exclusive power is no different from the practice in most legislatures, where in reality the civil service writes the draft and checks it for consistenct, both internally and with the existing body of law. Of course the relevant Minister presents it to Parliament, which is a marginal difference. It is telling that, when UKIP claimed loudly that 'most of Britain's laws are made in Brussels', that a Minister responded that the vary large majority of these 'laws' (Directives) would have been simple Orders in Council on foot of enabling legislation.

In national legislatures, the competency to set strategy remains exclusively with the government of the day, subject to the Constitution and the approval of Parliament for the resulting laws. I don't believe that [= I see no evidence that] the ECom has de facto or de jure such competence – it seems quite clear that the impetus is coming from the ECoun. Of course the ECom introduces directives and regulations but these are invariably a codification and a loop-hole-closing of the existing treaties and previous directives.

Anyway, returning to my original challenge, I believe that "the EU" does not control its members like the US Federal Government controls the US States (in matters outside States Rights). Members agree to have certain matters determined in common [aka, confer competencies] and to be held to account by each other to comply with those agreements. There are no 'orders from Brussels' to member states. There is nothing like the direct control that EU representatives exercise over Bosnia-H and (in my view) the comparison is specious and misleading. --Red King (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not against a wide and inclusive definition of "governance". In that sense, all the political EU institutions could be called e.g "institutions of governance". But if we seek to apply metaphors to the institutions, which mirror the typical state apparatus of a country, then I'd say that the Commission is what's closest to being a government (currently in the limited sense of being the executive). But I agree, the existence of the European Council complicates things. It's hard to define power when it comes to the EU, although as I said earlier, I think the Commission's power certainly hasn't diminished, due to the increased co-decision procedure. - SSJ ^t 11:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

SSJ, your description of sovereignty would be close, if it were not for cases such as where constitutional amendments have to be ratified by referenda or where ratification requires state parliaments as well as national parliaments (Ireland and Belgium). In the first case it is not the federal parliament that is sovereign, but the people as a whole and in the second case it is clearly split between the different entities. Furthermore, there are many federations where a member state has the right to secede - Yugoslavia for example. The right to reclaim sovereignty does not mean they sovereign and the federal state is not.

But back to the main point. Every EU law is an 'order from Brussels", as it is binding and enforced. Equally when an executive decision is made (such as on state aid) the member state must comply. Failure to do so would result in fines and being taken to the ECJ. If a state were to ignore the ECJ they would be violating their terms of membership and would - after a traditional "EU crisis" - end up being thrown out. In intergovernmental matters it does require a states consent, but otherwise a law could be made with the state outvoted. That law would have to apply regardless of their wishes. If Brussels did not "control" member states, then a state would only be doing what it wished to do and in that case, where would europhobia be? Or indeed, the single market.- _J.Logan`^t: 15:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Help needed please

{{adminhelp}} I've copied a large chunk from Irish Army into National Army to replace badly written, scrappy material with text from the better-edited article. I suspect that this [a crude copy] is not the best way to do it so I would welcome help to see how to do it properly. --Red King (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi! No worries; sounds like you may need a history merge - as that requires an admin, I have changed your request to an {{adminhelp}}. Hopefully, one will be along ASAP.

Meantime, any q's, [talk to us live, with this. Best,  Chzz  ►  00:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I don't believe a history merge is appropriate. You don't mean for "Irish Army" to disappear, right? Both articles are two different subjects. Instead, what you're looking for is attribution. You should place the template {{copied}} to provide that attribution. Unfortunately this is the best way we have; there are no in-wiki ways to copy revisions. Hope that helps; feel free to ask any further questions. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Shirik's amswer is the relevant one. Thank you. --Red King (talk) 10:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Ireland sporting flags

Ireland cricket team#Governing body would show that the Ireland cricket team has their own seperate flag for cricket team but thanks any way for helping. I haven't lokked at the hockey team yet but we will try and change the flag depending on the sport. Reply to me if you think we should not use the Ireland cricket flag for the cricket team. Mgt98 01:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Are you an admin?

Hi i'm not sure whether or not you are an administrator? If so your help may be needed soon to edit the Infobox Place Ireland infobox - as only administrators can edit it. I've resurrected an idea of yours you made several months ago during the county ledes "32-counties" debate, an idea that is logical and quite reasonable - stating the country that a county lies in. I've opened up a discussion about it here to see if there are any objections.

I don't think there will be any objections, a couple of editors might out of spite at such a distinction being made, but its hardly controversial or contentious and does make sense. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

Hello. I have just proposed Multi-speed Europe for deletion. Please join in the discussion if you care to. Jaque Hammer (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Partition of Ireland

I posted something in light of your edit on the talk page of the above. thanks. 84.203.65.99 (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Not quite sure whats going on here but others might. RashersTierney (talk) 01:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Already resolved RashersTierney (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

[Deleted own message] Martinvl (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

1641

Hi Red King, it's not me making that change at Irish Rebellion of 1641 but there was indeed a Conor MacGuire involved in the early stages of the rebellion Cited in this article, for example.

Jdorney (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, this should fix it. Should be able to see it now. http://www.theirishstory.com/2010/10/23/today-in-irish-history-october-23-first-day-of-the-1641-rebellion/ Jdorney (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

In fact, this is the guy, here on WP Connor Maguire, 2nd Baron of Enniskillen Jdorney (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

HRM

Or 90 years too early? RashersTierney (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

ECJ

Hello Red King, could you explain to me why a specialized think thank is not a valuable source and sources only can be democratically elected? It seems like a very weird point of view. What wikipedia rules enforces this? Carl D (talk) 10:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

EU directives in numerical order

Thank you for your kind welcome. I've heard that there are more words in the EU Custard Directive than in the entire Bible. Whether that is true or not, I'm not going to volunteer to immerse myself in EU directives! Tom Pippens (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Poll on ArbCom resolution - Ireland article names

There is a poll taking place here on whether or not to extend the ArbCom binding resolution, which says there may be no page move discussions for Ireland,Republic of Ireland or Ireland (disambiguation), for a further two years. Fmph (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I think what you reverted here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hiberno-English&action=historysubmit&diff=456062780&oldid=448464986 was an unexplained addition that the contributor had second thoughts about. In my opinion, it's not particularly scientific or encyclopedic anyway - maybe the article would be better off without it? ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Citation you requested on brown rot in Irish potato famine page

Greetings. I wrote earlier that the statement that late blight and leaf curl are the gravest problem for potato cultivation is wrong. I stated that leaf curl, or potato leaf roll virus PLRV is well controlled using seed certification standards and cultural practices and that brown rot is a much more serious problem. As citation, I offer the following that support a. That potato production is an important crop for feeding the world, b. That brown rot is a limiting factor for production in the subtropics and tropics.

In the 1980's it was noted that world wide production of potatoes had been increasing steadily, with the most rapid expansion in developing countries (CIP 1985). Part of the reason for the crops popularity is it's high per acre yield in calories and nutritive value compared pulses, wheat, rice and other cereals (Neiderhauser) (As an aside, this is why the Irish poor could survive as such a large population off their very tiny plots. The rest of Europe's poor relied also on rye, which limited population because of another plant disease, ergot. The latter caused miscarriages and lethal St Anthony's Fire.)

Bacterial wilt is a chronic problem in the tropics and sub-tropics and often limits production in those areas (French et al)

References: CIP annual report (anonymous) 1985 potatoes in developing country food systems pp. 133-143 Neiderhauser JS 1993. International cooperation and the role of the potato in feeding the world. American Potato Journal 70:385-403

French ER De Lindo L 1982. Resistance to Pseudomonas solanacearum in potato: specificity and temperature sensitivity. Phytopathology 72:1408-1412

I should say that brown rot (or bacterial wilt) is caused by Ralstonia solonacearum, which was formerly named Pseudomonas solanacearum

Regards, Plantpathphd — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlantpathPhD

Dear red king...

Yes, you are right! I should have read more attentively. Plant disease of potatoes were introduced later into Europe, some in an effort to breed for resistance against late blight! I withdraw my comments.

Best regards,

(talk • contribs) 21:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC) 

Replied for WP:IRE-IRL

I read your message and replied on my talkpage and raised it on IMOS.Murry1975 (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Reversion of my edit

Red King, I don't think you understood my contribution to the article Common Era, which you reverted. A neutral point of view is an important principle on Wikipedia. See WP:NPOV. You have introduced a contentious point of view by omitting the capital H for "Him" when referring to Jesus. This is a long-established grammatical feature of English. I was trying to avoid this controversial issue altogether by writing "Christ" instead of "him" or "Him" in the sentence. Perhaps you should learn more about English spelling and grammar. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC))

Following your reversion, I've changed it to "Him", which I know other editors will consider controversial, but you objected to the replacement of the word. Really, "Christ" is the best solution and I suggest you change it to that in order to end the issue. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents states:

Pronouns for deities and figures of veneration are not capitalized, even if capitalized in a religion's scriptures: Jesus addressed his followers, not Jesus addressed His followers (except in a direct quotation).

Jc3s5h (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I have called for deletion of Republic of Ireland (disambiguation). PatGallacher (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move for Ireland

• (Discuss) Should Republic of Ireland be moved to Ireland? Kauffner (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)