Talk:Dunmanway

message: This story about the Cox family is appropriate for the page, but needs some kind of citation:
"The Cox family were one of the chief families of the town in the 17th and 18th centuries and did much to develop the linen industry. One of the family, Richard heard that a preacher allied to John Wesley was due to visit the town and decided to give him a ducking in the local lake. To practice he went out in a boat but fell into the water and was drowned. The event was commemerated by the following verse:- "'Tis there the lake is, Where the duck and the drake is, And 'tis there the crane can have his fine feed of frogs. When night come's round it, The spirits surround it, For in it was drownded Sir Richard Cox.""
Dppowell 00:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi John--feel free to edit the article yourself (though it would be even more helpful if you could cite a source like a newspaper article to confirm those corrections). Dppowell 14:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anecdotes and local legends

message: I heard somewhere that a line of the verse is:
"When night comes around,
It's all changed ground "
Is this true? CahalanesDunmanway 15:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll ask my dad (an expat local) when I see him next. Dppowell 15:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verse correction? 

message: I have taken this to the talk page of the user involved, who was removed the discussion as "aggressive nonsense".  The republic of Ireland was not independent at the time.Traditional unionist (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion should take place here.  And she's right about independence having been declared by a democratically elected government.  At that point, the British forces could technically be called an occupying army, despite having been there for centuries.  I happen to think that going out of the way to describe them as such is unnecessarily inflammatory, but it's not strictly incorrect. Dppowell (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In 1918, all of Ireland was a part of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What was elected in 1918 was NOT a government.  It was a small group of legislators elected to a much larger body.  That a number of these elected chose to derive a different mandate than was on offer, and that this decision was, it can legitimately be argued, vindicated as the wishes of the electorate, is irrelevant.  There was no independent Ireland until 1949, backdated.Traditional unionist (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not personally interested in having this argument to support or oppose the presence of the adjective "occupying" in this article, but that certainly appears to me to merely be the opposing POV to Sarah's. Dppowell (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unsurprisingly, I believe you to be wrong.  These are facts, not opinions.Traditional unionist (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome to believe me to be wrong; I'm content to know better. :-) Dppowell (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great minds and all that;)Traditional unionist (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your claim that independence came only in 1939 or 1948 exposes your POV pretty well. My new-found civility prevents me characterising your claim in an appropriate manner. Sarah777 (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The republic was granted full independence with the Ireland Act 1949.  It gained what was de facto independence with the treaty.  1918 was a stage in the road, not the end of it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Traditional unionist (talk • contribs) 23:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Dunmanway was within the UK, in 1918. GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No it was not. Sarah777 (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Then where was it (in 1918)? GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As any fule knoe, it was in no man's land on the border between Zanzibar and Bolivia. Didnt u never go to skule? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the term was already there and was deleted to support Unionist pov. Sarah777 (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is leaving out that word automatically Unionist?  What does its inclusion accomplish, aside from flagging the loyalties of its author?  It's not as though it's going to sway someone who's learning about the conflict for the first time and is somehow on the fence about which side was "right." Dppowell (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Occupied" is not an issue of who is "right"; it describes the situation factually.
Sarah777 (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not. Ireland was occupied after the start of the War of Independence. Period. You are looking for collaboration in a lie in exchange for peace. No on. Sarah777 (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're missing (intentionally or otherwise) the point of the existence of the WP:NPOV policy. Dppowell (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. I understand it rather well actually. Do you though?Sarah777 (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The net effect being that we agree?Traditional unionist (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In agreement, the word 'occupying'? will only create havoc on this article. We don't need the Anglo-Irish conflict being re-fought on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On this issue, yes, I think we do.  I think it's probably clear, though, that our editorial motivations differ.  I'm just trying to prevent my dad's hometown article from being swept up in the unwinnable POV war being fought elsewhere. :) Dppowell (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: dandy.  Now I can concentrate on defending myself against an accusation of harassment.Traditional unionist (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

text: No way. Occupying goes back in. It is a simple statement of fact. Can't be ignored just because it will upset some pov pushers. Sarah777 (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not only are you wrong, you are against consensus.Traditional unionist (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Occupying's gotta go. We're not re-fighting the Anglo-Irish conflict here (on Wikipedia). GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no consensus and occupying will be restored. Why? Because its removal is blatant pov. Sarah777 (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're the only one who thinks so.  You're being very disruptive tonight.Traditional unionist (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Occupying is clear POV, given that the area was still officially part of the UK then. Valenciano (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No it was not. And TU, you have breached 3RR and I expect administrative action on the foot of that. Sarah777 (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it was, given that the Government of Ireland Act hadn't taken effect then. Oh and by the way, TU hasn't breached 3RR which says that "An editor must not perform more than three reverts in a 24 hour period." Valenciano (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. The "laws" of the occupying power don't take precedence over the will of the people as expressed in an election. And I see 3 reverts by TU. Sarah777 (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In International law they do which is why places like South Ossetia aren't officially "occupied". 3 reverts is obviously not "more than three reverts" so he's currently one away from breaching it. Valenciano (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: International Law? And there was such a thing in 1918 was there? WP:Synthesis I fear. And even after the establishment of the UN (1948 or something) it isn't a Wiki-law. Sarah777 (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Sarah, I don't want to see you getting into trouble. GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And, yes, TU is already one revert away from a vio, but he's right about the current consensus. Dppowell (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No he is not. Not enough consensus - all of you have pro-Unionist track records bar V whom I don't know. Sarah777 (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which WP policy are you pointing to there?Traditional unionist (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an observation. This incident ain't going to end here! Surely you realise that?!! Sarah777 (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: And now I'm a Unionist. Now I've heard it all. :-) Sarah, can't you see that no adjective here is preferable to an adjective selected by people on either side of the debate? Come on, now. Dppowell (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wanted to add that my wife got a laugh out of the fact that I've been accused of being a Unionist. Dppowell (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Why is it everytime Anglo/Irish disputes blow up on Wikipedia? somebody eventually claimes pro-this & anti-that PoV? GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wel, because it usually is. I mean, how could anyone imagine an editor styling himself "Traditional Unionist" could possibly be biased in these matters? Ridiculous notion, silly me. Glad you give your wife a laugh DP - my, eh, main man refuses to support me on Wiki but then he's foreign. And of course y'all know I'm xenophobic as hell. Sarah777 (talk) 00:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WEll I'm glad to hear I'm tarred as inherently and pathologically biased.Traditional unionist (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd prey to both St. Patrick, St. George and St. Andrews for peace; but I'm an athiest. GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too. Snap! Sarah777 (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I'm not sure why it's important to use that word, which (though I believe it to be technically accurate) is guaranteed to start an editing dispute wherever it's used on articles related to Anglo-Irish conflict.  Regardless of whether they are described as "occuping," some readers of the passage will see the British of this period as occupiers, while others will see forces with the support of law struggling against an armed insurrection.  Inserting it only flags the article as supporting an Irish nationalist viewpoint and creates a rallying point for the opposing POV.  Readers can examine the historical record and make up their own minds.  It's not the role of WP to steer them in one direction or another. Dppowell (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the term was already there and was deleted to support Unionist pov. Sarah777 (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is leaving out that word automatically Unionist?  What does its inclusion accomplish, aside from flagging the loyalties of its author?  It's not as though it's going to sway someone who's learning about the conflict for the first time and is somehow on the fence about which side was "right." Dppowell (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Occupied" is not an issue of who is "right"; it describes the situation factually.
Sarah777 (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not. Ireland was occupied after the start of the War of Independence. Period. You are looking for collaboration in a lie in exchange for peace. No on. Sarah777 (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're missing (intentionally or otherwise) the point of the existence of the WP:NPOV policy. Dppowell (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. I understand it rather well actually. Do you though?Sarah777 (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The net effect being that we agree?Traditional unionist (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In agreement, the word 'occupying'? will only create havoc on this article. We don't need the Anglo-Irish conflict being re-fought on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On this issue, yes, I think we do.  I think it's probably clear, though, that our editorial motivations differ.  I'm just trying to prevent my dad's hometown article from being swept up in the unwinnable POV war being fought elsewhere. :) Dppowell (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: dandy.  Now I can concentrate on defending myself against an accusation of harassment.Traditional unionist (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

text: No way. Occupying goes back in. It is a simple statement of fact. Can't be ignored just because it will upset some pov pushers. Sarah777 (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not only are you wrong, you are against consensus.Traditional unionist (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Occupying's gotta go. We're not re-fighting the Anglo-Irish conflict here (on Wikipedia). GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no consensus and occupying will be restored. Why? Because its removal is blatant pov. Sarah777 (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're the only one who thinks so.  You're being very disruptive tonight.Traditional unionist (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Occupying is clear POV, given that the area was still officially part of the UK then. Valenciano (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No it was not. And TU, you have breached 3RR and I expect administrative action on the foot of that. Sarah777 (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it was, given that the Government of Ireland Act hadn't taken effect then. Oh and by the way, TU hasn't breached 3RR which says that "An editor must not perform more than three reverts in a 24 hour period." Valenciano (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. The "laws" of the occupying power don't take precedence over the will of the people as expressed in an election. And I see 3 reverts by TU. Sarah777 (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In International law they do which is why places like South Ossetia aren't officially "occupied". 3 reverts is obviously not "more than three reverts" so he's currently one away from breaching it. Valenciano (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: International Law? And there was such a thing in 1918 was there? WP:Synthesis I fear. And even after the establishment of the UN (1948 or something) it isn't a Wiki-law. Sarah777 (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Sarah, I don't want to see you getting into trouble. GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And, yes, TU is already one revert away from a vio, but he's right about the current consensus. Dppowell (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No he is not. Not enough consensus - all of you have pro-Unionist track records bar V whom I don't know. Sarah777 (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which WP policy are you pointing to there?Traditional unionist (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an observation. This incident ain't going to end here! Surely you realise that?!! Sarah777 (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: And now I'm a Unionist. Now I've heard it all. :-) Sarah, can't you see that no adjective here is preferable to an adjective selected by people on either side of the debate? Come on, now. Dppowell (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wanted to add that my wife got a laugh out of the fact that I've been accused of being a Unionist. Dppowell (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Why is it everytime Anglo/Irish disputes blow up on Wikipedia? somebody eventually claimes pro-this & anti-that PoV? GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wel, because it usually is. I mean, how could anyone imagine an editor styling himself "Traditional Unionist" could possibly be biased in these matters? Ridiculous notion, silly me. Glad you give your wife a laugh DP - my, eh, main man refuses to support me on Wiki but then he's foreign. And of course y'all know I'm xenophobic as hell. Sarah777 (talk) 00:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WEll I'm glad to hear I'm tarred as inherently and pathologically biased.Traditional unionist (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd prey to both St. Patrick, St. George and St. Andrews for peace; but I'm an athiest. GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too. Snap! Sarah777 (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Occupying" forces 

message: The basic problem is that in the eyes of the Irish forces, the British were an occupying army in the unilaterally declared Republic. Simply because Britain and various other countries didn't recognise that (although Russia did) isn't that relevant, see for example 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. It's going to make this article rather convoluted if we include the full back story about the whole shenanigans, but I think Irish War of Independence is a better name in this article than Anglo-Irish War. Thoughts? One Night In Hackney303 01:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's an elegant solution.  No question then about who believed they were being occupied and who didn't (not that I think it required much clarification in any case). Dppowell (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it'll end the edit-warring? I'm for it. Whatever gets the traffic going. GoodDay (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I'd go with that as second-best solution. (So far as I recall it wasn't me who used the phrase "occupying" in the original text). Kosova is a hoot; I see EU reps talking about how the "International community" won't tolerate the partition of Kosova. Chutzpah at it's most extreme! Sarah777 (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.Sarah777 (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A fine compromise. Well done to all concerned. --John (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: Just wondering, what Irish name for the town should be used? The page currently says it's Dún Mánmhaí. But locals have always used Dúnmaonmhuí. That's the spelling we were taught in school, and some teachers went so far as to say to disregard the Dún Mánmhaí spelling. Dún Mánmhaí may be on signposts and the post office in the town etc., but just wondering does anyone know what's WP's policy on placenames (i.e. official vs. in actual use)? Dennisc24 (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No reason they can't both be in the article.  I've added the Dúnmaonmhuí spelling to the intro.Dppowell (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Slight problem here. I have no reason to doubt that Dúnmaonmhuí is the local usage (it wouldn't be the first time that suits in Dublin imposed a name rejected locally), but per WP:V,  Dennisc24 is not a reliable source. Any refs for the local usage? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't got one.  The only alternate Irish spelling for Dunmanway I've got is in a 2nd-rate biography of Sam Maguire, where it's rendered "Dunmhanbhui" (without any sinte fada). Dppowell (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I may be able to find one in some of the books produced by the D'way historical society, or any local publication really. It must be in a book somewhere because, as BrownHairedGirl put it Dún Mánmhaí is just a name imposed by Dublin, and Dúnmaonmhuí is used by virtually everyone else. I have seen Dúnmaonmhuíghe used on old signposts. And with the simplification of Irish in the 1940s, the silent -ghe would have been dropped leaving us with Dúnmaonmhuí, but I'm guessing we can't really use a signpost as a citation. Have to say though, I never saw Dunmhanbhui in use before. Dennisc24 (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't surprise me--this biography (written by a Kilkenny transplant and West Cork local, Margaret Walsh) was clearly a labor of love but is very rough around the edges. I bought it hoping to use it as a source for this article and for Sam Maguire, but after reading the first chapter, I became very uncomfortable with that idea. Dppowell (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name in Irish 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Dunmanway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120217095720/http://www.nisranew.nisra.gov.uk/census to http://www.nisranew.nisra.gov.uk/census
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Dunmanway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140313181554/http://census.cso.ie/Census/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=109559 to http://census.cso.ie/Census/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=109559
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825140808/http://thecorknews.ie/articles/lightning-sprint-dunmanway-6985 to http://thecorknews.ie/articles/lightning-sprint-dunmanway-6985
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160419221202/http://tidytowns.ie/u_documents/The_Tidy_Towns_of_Ireland.pdf to http://www.tidytowns.ie/u_documents/The_Tidy_Towns_of_Ireland.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified