• Hello, I think this is an interesting project; I have virtually no Irish myself I'm afraid, but as a wikipedian of Northern Irish origin I am eager to see what we the project can come up with!--feline1 15:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi all, I've been working (slowly) at providing Irish-language translations for place names - making my way systematically through towns and villiages by county. I created the new {{irish place name}} and other templates. My interest comes mainly from my girlfriend who worked for a time in a logainmeacha (placenames) project in Cork, and my own interest in wanting to improve my vocab. --sony-youth^pléigh 16:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi all. My name is Alison. I'm interested in the Irish language, ach tá ach Gaeilge Árdteist agam :) Working on geographical articles and providing Irish placenames using the {{lang-ga}} template is something I've done a lot of in the past. Would love to help out on the project here - Alison ^❤ 16:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Táim sásta cabhrú leis an obair seo.. ach conas an mbeimid í a dhéanamh? Go sistéamach? -- Evertype·✆ 17:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi. My job involves working through the medium of Irish on a daily basis. That is all I'll say. I don't want to blow my cover! I also have a basic grounding in Irish dialectology. Anyway, the most important task in my opinion is that placenames in Irish and correctly spelled and grammatically correct according to the official versions sanctioned by the Placenames Commission and the Northern Ireland Placename Project. The Gasaitéar na hÉireann/Gazetteer of Ireland is our primary source for most centres of population across the island of Ireland. The Placenames Commission can also be contacted directly for names of minor places such as townlands. Unfortunately, I don't get much time to do much on Wikipedia but I'm more than willing to offer any help I can. Also, might I suggest that we write anything here in English for the benefit of anyone interested in the task but not able to follow the contributions as GaelainnAn Muimhneach Machnamhach 18:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A Vicidoirí!

A great project and something that's been needed for a long while. I've added 400+ Gaeilge names to Irish articles since I joined.

If there's an Irish article in a different language, I'll try and add a translation to it as well. This project will help to give Gaeilge a little more exposure.

Irish place names and signage is something that has interested me for the past several years. It's disheartening to the see the increasing amount of misspelled Gaeilge and English-only signage in Ireland - it really doesn't help to promote the language.

I strongly believe that the following motion by Fingal County Council should be adopted throughout Ireland: Signage policy to apply to all new or replacement signs - Councillor D. Healy. It's a great idea and refects Gaeilge's status as our first offical language. I guess that's slightly off-topic but you can see where my interests lie!

I look forward to working with you all. Slán. Wiki01916 18:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks to Sony for the invite. I'm not really very proficient at Irish which is truly shameful but I'm very willing to help out in any way that I can. As Evertype says "Táim sásta cabhrú leis an obair seo... ach conas an mbeimid í a dhéanamh?". I think I recognise that as Connemara Irish! (Sarah777 19:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Hi, all. I've been a piecemeal contributor to Ireland-related Wiki-articles over the years, and have a particular, and professional, interest in (multilingual) toponymy. I contribute to a greater or lesser degree in eight languages (including, in a very small way, to the Vicipéid), and am also specially interested in Wales-related articles in both English and (as Jac-y-do) in Welsh. -- Picapica 21:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi. I've contributed to a few articles, mostly Irish related, and I'm interested in this project. I'm not great on the oul' Irish, ach, bainim triail as. --The.Q^(t)(c) 17:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, just noticed this and joined. Should be useful. Derry Boi (talk) 11:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Haigh, 'S mise Caitríona, agus tá mé ag foghlaim Gaeilge. I thought I'd introduced myself before this, but must have spaced it. I'm rather busy off-Wiki right now, but have spent a considerable amount of time fixing Gaeilge agus Gàidhlig in articles when I'm active here. As I am still learning, I usually need a dictionary or help from friends, but now that I'm finally studying in a more structured manner my skill level is improving weekly. I occasionally contribute a bit as I'm able on gd- and ga- Wikis, and hope to eventually be translating more en-Wiki articles to gd- agus ga-. Slán, - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evertype asked above how we are going to set about this work. I was working systematically (but slowly and intermittently) through Category:Towns and villages in Ireland by county. Maybe we could do up a table, then individual editors could "check-out" a county, go through it systematically, and when finished mark it off as being completed (with whatever additional notes). This way we could all work at our own pace, but still be systematic.

Also, is there any way of cross checking categories against each other? If so we could create categories of translated and untranslated place articles and run these against the whole places in Ireland category.

Anyhow, these are just for place names, are there any other ideas for work? --sony-youth^pléigh 18:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we ought to have a big table that can be checked and verified. I have a lot of place-name materials here at thou house... Joyce and the Onomasticon and lots more... but gods there are errors out there. An example is near me in Westport, lovely Bertra. There's a sign pointing to it. Barr Trá which is the worst of folk etymologies. The name of the place is Beartrach which is a sandy oyster bank. -- Evertype·✆ 23:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Been to visit Mallach Íde lately? Or the lovely Mála :-) Seriously - I've seen all these, and all have been council-endorsed. *sigh* - Alison ^❤ 00:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alison mentioned having a 19th century book but two official books that might be useful are Gasaitéar na hÉireann (Gazetteer of Ireland) published by the Irish Stationary Office and prepared by The Placenames Board of the OSI dated 1989 ISBN 0-7076-0076-6. It bilingually gives the names of principal geographic places of population and physical features with the county, national grid reference co-ordinates and pronunciations. Unfortunately no name derivations are given but the 30 page introduction is very interesting. The 1969 Ainmneacha Gaeilge na mBailte Poist (Names of Irish post towns) is also useful listing similar names but produced before the Irish language Commission (1973) from which the SI 133/1975 "Place-names (Irish Forms) (No. 1) (Postal Towns) Order 1975" was produced and the Irish version is online here.

The most recent publications of the Placenames Branch are listed here but their Gazetteer of Ireland / Gasaitéar na hÉireann, slated for 2003 has yet to appear though it states that 6 county books have been produced. I did not see them when I was in Dublin last, thought they did have one massive c €35 book for one county - I was not that dedicated to buy it nor do I remember which one. However look at the Legal Status of Ireland's Placenames for pdf versions of 7 county place names. Download them all and use them as they are the latest such documents being produced under one of Éamon Ó Cuív's agendas.

If you need anything from my other books, just ask. Cheers ww2censor 18:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I often use {{langx|ga}} for place names where no English translation is needed. Should we continue to use this template or should we change the relevant articles to {{Irish place name}}, regardless of there being a need to provide an English translation?

Also, would it be possible to provide a shorthand version of {{Irish place name}}? eg. {{lga|Baile an Bhóthair|Town of the Road}} (logainm ghaelach). Having to type Irish place name each time is a bit tedious, but if adding alias templates messes things up, best forget about it. Wiki01916 21:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - nothing like being BOLD :) - Alison ^❤ 22:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Booterstown (Irish: Baile an Bhóthair, meaning 'Town of the Road') - OK, that's great, but I'm worried this will mess up Sony's no_translate=true. Perhaps we could have something like {{lga|Rinn na Mara|t=f}}, where t= translation needed; and f = false? BTW, Sony, if you see a better way to implement these shorthand templates, please let us know. Wiki01916 23:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this project mentioned on a few user talk pages I've frequented recently, and I'm interested. I'd like to know the answer to your first question here, though, should we replace {{langx|ga}} with {{Irish place name}}/{{lga}}? --The.Q^(t)(c) 17:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say, yes, replace {{lang-ga}} with {{Irish place name}}/{{lga}}, that way we can have control place names that need translations etc. --sony-youth^pléigh 16:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I figured, I've changed one or two at this stage, and I'll add my name on here, and do a bit when I can. GRMA. --The.Q^(t)(c) 16:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed some of the pages I mentioned above I see the following statement concerning the use of placenames in English that seems to cover the use of English language placenames for places who now have legal Irish names as stated here (my emphasis): Where the Minister makes an Order in respect of a Gaeltacht placename, the English version of that placename ceases to have any legal force and effect. While this is without prejudice to any private use and most public use of the English version, the Act provides that the English version may not be used in future in Acts of the Oireachtas or Statutory Instruments, or road and street signs or on Ordnance Survey Maps (with the details of which maps are covered by this provision to be set out in regulations). So we are specifically allowed to use the English version of a town like Dingle. ww2censor 03:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem using the official name An Daingean. -- Evertype·✆ 08:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, under the common name Wiki-rule "Dingle" would probably be OK as even the inhabitants are divided. I have a personal preference for calling a place what most of the natives call it. In many cases, like Connemara, the local usage is either in Irish or as spoken in English sounds like the Irish name; I'd have no difficulty with "Irish only" in such cases. It will be very difficult to have a "one-rule-fits-all" for this issue. (Though I think we need to keep to recognised versions, we don't want articles about "Dunleary")(Sarah777 09:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I've just had a look down through the article entitled Place names in Irish and see that a bit of work needs to be done there correcting spelling mistakes and grammatical errors. While the material is on the whole accurate, the author seems to have taken some liberty with some names, particulaly foreign placenames, evidence for which I can't find anywhere. For foreign placenames, I think we should rely on focal.ie and the Atlas Bunscoile, both of which contain names sanctioned by the Terminology Committee of Foras na Gaeilge. I'll try and clean up the article when I get a chance. An Muimhneach Machnamhach 17:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'd like to welcome the establishment of this group and hope to be able to assist in any way I can.

I'd like to seek people's views on an issue which I think requires some kind of a policy and perhaps should be incorporated into the Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles). The issue relates to the provision of the Irish version of subject's names in articles. In many cases, this isn't a problem where we references/evidence can be provided that a particular Irish version of somebody's name was a. used by the subject during their lifetimes and/or b. was used by others in referring to them.

Recently I noticed how Irish names were provided for a number of Irish hunger strikers. I queried the accuracy and authenticity of some of these Irish names by requesting that evidence that these were actually used by the people concerned. As a result, I came under hostile attack by User:One Night In Hackney and User:Vintagekits on my talk page.

Apart from Bobby Sands, whose own use of Roibeard Ó Seachnasaigh is documented, I asked why, for example, the Irish name of Francis Hughes was Proinsias Ó hAodha and not Proinsias Mac Aodha. Do we have any evidence that Hughes used his Irish name, and if not, who decided that his surname in Irish was Ó hAodha and not Mac Aodha, as many people are called? Similarly, up until a few days ago, Joe McDonnell was referred to in Irish on Wikipedia as Seosamh Mac Domhnaill. When I requested evidence that this was so, User:One Night In Hackney cited this usage from a Republican Sinn Féin ard fheis programme, claiming this was a "perfectly reliable source".[1] Later in the day, User:One Night In Hackney emerges with another Irish version for his name, Seosamh Mac Dónaill.[2]

The McDonnell example shows the problem with providing authentic Irish versions of people's names. Here we have one political party referring to him as Seosamh Mac Domhnaill, and the other as Seosamh Mac Dónaill. I believe it is a legitimate point to ask just which one is accurate? Which one did O'Donnell use himself? And who gives political parties the right to determine how people should spell their names in Irish?

Since I raised my queries about these names, an article from An Phoblacht has been used as evidence for these subject's Irish names.[3] This article of course was written years after the 1981 hunger strikes and is not a contemporary source. Yet, a Google search on most of these names reveals that they have very little usage anywhere else. Indeed, two very reliable sources, the Irish-language newspapers Foinse and Lá Nua refer to the 1981 hunger strikers using their English names only. In this Irish-language Lá Nua article[4], for example, we read about Joe McDonnell, and not Seosamh Mac Domhnaill/Mac Dónaill. Similarly in Foinse, we have an article that refers to Bobby Sands as just that, and not Roibeard Ó Seachnasaigh.

For many months, the Irish for Seán McCaughey was given as Seán Mac Eachaidh. Again, I queried this as it seemed a very unlikely translation of the name. Since then, User:Vintagekits has come up with Seán Mac Eóchaidh, providing a source for this.[5] Now, I don't know what Vintagekits or his source knows about Irish, but the fada on an "o" seems very unlikely to me, and I've never seen the name Mac Eochaidh spelled like that. Compare with the Cathal Ó hEochaidh of Charles Haughey.

Apart from the names, a lot of nonsense and downright incorrect Irish has been added to a number of articles by User:EamonnPKeane. Here are some of his translations

• Home Rule = "rialú áitiúla"[6]. Speakers of Irish are well aware that the Irish term is Rialtas Dúchais
• Free Derry = "Doire Saor".[7] Again, anyone with a modicum of Irish should know that the Irish is "Saor Doire"

The current WP:IMOS states that: "If someone used the Irish version of his or her name, and this enjoyed and enjoys widespread usage among English speakers, this should be reflected in Wikipedia. Thus, we refer to Máirtín Ó Cadhain, not "Martin Kyne"; Tomás Ó Fiaich, not "Thomas Fee", etc." The inclusion of Irish versions of names in 9 or the 10 1981 hunger striker pages seems to be, given the fact that we don't know if they ever wrote their names in Irish and the fact that the Irish-language press refers to them by their English names, to contravene this guide.

I'm proposing that this token homage to and bastardisation of the Irish language stop on Wikipedia. The rules are clear: Irish versions of names should only be provided when there is evidence that these were used by the users themselves and others also used them. Wikipedia is about providing reliable information and should not be a medium in engaging in inventing names for people who never used them.--Damac 21:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When referring to WP:IMOS, you completely missed the second point, which states "In cases where someone used the Irish version of his or her name but this does not enjoy widespread usage among English speakers, then use the English version when naming the article but refer to the Irish version of the name in the first line". You came under "hostile attack" for a rapid mass tagging of articles clearly without any attempt to source the information in question, as was demonstrated. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you've missed the key part of the second point, namely: "In cases where someone used the Irish version of his or her name ..." I did look, and found no evidence for, nine of the ten hunger strikers using the names that RSF/An Phoblacht have given them. And for my efforts, I was accused of all sorts, including membership of RSF, for my trouble.

The fact remains that apart from Bobby Sands, you cannot prove that any of the other nine hunger strikes actually used the Irish form of their names. Under the MoS as it stands, then, there should be no Irish versions provided.--Damac 21:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. It's a well known fact the the protesting prisoners used Irish in prison. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How well known? Where's the evidence? And even if they did use Irish, where's the evidence that they referred to themsevles and others with the Irish names that have been provided for them? Was it Seosamh Mac Domhnaill or Mac Dónaill? That's the point here.

Indeed, neither the Blanket protest or the 1981 Irish hunger strike make any reference to the "well known fact" that the prisoners spoke Irish on the protest. How strange.--Damac 21:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because it was spoken in limited circumstances that isn't that relevant to the articles? The evidence is in practically every book written about the protest, it's how the prisoners communicated with each other when they were in different cells. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The prisoners", i.e. all of them, or just some of them. I'm aware that Irish was spoken, but I really doubt that all of the prisoners communicated solely through the medium of Irish. The fact is that very few of the prisoners had a functional command of Irish going into prison, and an even fewer number of these emerged as fluent Irish speakers upon their release. As the articles on nine of the ten hunger strikers stand, there's no evidence to suggest that they a) spoke Irish, oe b) wrote their names in Irish. That's the issue here.--Damac 17:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps the issues is with you moving goalposts? For example the initial flurry of tagging without looking for sources was done with a summary of Irish name: please provide evidence that subject has either used this name or has been referred to as such by others. So the source was provided, and you decide to move the goalposts. Also did I say the prisoners communicated solely through the medium of Irish? Don't think I did, I made it very clear under what circumstances Irish was used. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not moving the goalposts, but one thing has led to another and that is perfectly legitimate. The whole incident has exposed a situation where made-up names (either in APRN or by RSF) are being attributed to people who most likely never used them. And since reading the relevant section in the MoS, which I drafted more than two years ago, it is clear that under the existing guidelines, none of these Irish names should be provided. I didn't remove or delete the Irish names as I wanted the people who provided them a chance to enlighten us. As I also maintained last week, I don't consider either RSF ard fheis programmes or singular references in APRN to be a reliable source in this regard, especially considering the variations in the names they provide for the same people.

As it now transpires, we've had Seosamh Mac Domhnaill become Seosamh Mac Dónaill and Tomás Mac Giolla Bhuidhe become Tomás Mac Giolla Bhuí. Why? Because An Phoblacht says so, even though the McElwee headstone is engraved with Mac Giolla Bhuídhe. (Note: that's three different spellings in the space of a week: Mac Giolla Bhuidhe, Mac Giolla Bhuí, and Mac Giolla Bhuídhe.) The fact is that until we get reliable evidence that the subjects used these names themselves, the Irish names provided will have to go.--Damac 19:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. Here's some research I'd like you to take on board, a Oíche Amháin i Hackney (I may as well attribute an Irish name to you seeing that it's in vogue around here)

• Mícheál Ó Gaibhtheachain, also supposedly known as Michael Gaughan. Number of reliable online sources (excluding sites which mirror Wikipedia content): 0.[8]
• Ciarán Núinnseann, also supposedly known as Kieran Nugent. Ditto, 0.[9]
• Breandán Mac Pharthaláin, also supposedly known as Brendan McFarlane, Ditto, 0.[10]]
• Liam Mac Aoidh, also supposedly known as Billy McKee. Ditto, 0.[11]
• Domhnall Ó Muirgheasáin, also supposedly known as Danny Morrison, ditto, 0.[12]
• Éibhear Mac Ghiolla Mhaoil, also supposedly known as Ivor Bell, ditto, 0.[13]
• Proinsias Stagg, aska Frank Stagg, ditto: 0.[14]

Any ideas on how I should reference these non-sources?--Damac 19:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Hughes' Irish name is on his grave [15], along with his cousin Thomas McElwee. Derry Boi 14:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but again no evidence that he used this himself. I'm also amazed at the number of mistakes on the headstone, as follows:

• "Ó hAodha", not "Ó hÁodha"
• "I ndíl chuimhne ar", not "I ndíl cuimhne ar"
• "Óglaigh na hÉireann", not Oglaigh na hEireann
• "I measc laochra na nGael go raibh a n-anamacha", not "I meac laochra na geal go raibh a n-anamacha"

This headstone cannot is an unreliable source, especially considering that every attempt at Irish on it is flawed. Irish is a living language, not a political plaything.--Damac 15:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the hunger strikers, I must agree with Damac. From the view point of WP, giving them (posthumous) Irish-language names is flawed and unsubstantiated. From my own view point, politicizing the Irish language in this was is abhorant, deeply flawed, counter productive, and disgraceful. They should be removed immediately. --sony-youth^pléigh 17:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this being applied to biography articles? I could count hundreds and hundreds of non-biography articles where there's unsourced translations, but you're suddenly picking on the sourced articles? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suddenly "picking" on anything or anyone. The subject of the Irish translations in the hunger striker articles was brought up. Nothing else to it. --sony-youth^pléigh 17:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to put Oíche Amháin in Hackney's mind at rest, the issue is far greater than the names on the hunger striker articles. These made-up Irish names can be found on all sorts of Irish-related biography articles. Actually, the first made up name I noticed was the one provided for Ivor Bell, and then later going through the categories, became aware of more.

Today, I found some right gems, including

• Prionsias Ó Fiacháin, akna (also supposedly known as) Frank Feighan, a Fine Gael TD. The Irish version has zero hits on Google.[16] Name provided by User:Snappy56
• Críostóir Mac Andriú, aska Chris Andrews (politician). No hits on Google.[17]
• Seosamh Ó Beacháin, aska Joe Behan. No hits on Google.[18]
• Riobard Aileart, aska Bobby Aylward. No hits on Google.[19]
• (Interestingly, "Riobard Aileart's" brother is listed as Liam Aighleart (Liam Aylward, showing just how contrived these names are).

There must be hundreds of examples out there. It's not just an anti-H-Block thing, even though Oíche Amháin in Hackney accused me of being a member of RSF when I first raised the issue. All these names will have to be removed.--Damac 18:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do Google searches have to do with anything apart from inherent laziness? "Proinsias Stagg" returns no relevant results on a Google search, yet it can be sourced on the internet as I have done. And that doesn't even take into account offline sources. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should that not be Oíche Amháin i Hacnaí? (sorry, I'm getting cheeky now Hack) --sónaí-uadh^pléigh 11:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to concur with Sony-youth - wiki policies are clear - retrospective Irish names should not be added to articles to make political points - the hungerstriker example appears to falls foul of WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY, WP:POINT and probably more... There is an Irish language wikipedia site where such things can be indulged to editors' hearts' content...--feline1 12:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the fact that the hunger strikers Irish names are sourced, so they don't fail any policies. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but apart from the Bobby Sands article, which shows that he used the Irish name attributed to him, all the other hunger striker articles fail the Ireland MoS as they do not provide any evidence that these people used the Irish names provided for them.--Damac 20:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you learn what a policy is then. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I mention policies? I'm fully aware what a policy is. However, you being an Irish editor, I would point out that the WP:IMOS is "a generally accepted standard that all editors should follow". It has worked very well for certain issues, including that of the Derry/Londonderry, and should not be dismissed out of hand. Indeed, you've been known to refer to it yourself.[20]--Damac 21:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you bringing up irrelevant points in an unrelated part of the discussion then? And the only thing I've dismissed out of hand is your discredited Google search, I see you didn't reply to that debunking for some reason? Oh and IMOS says what you can do, it doesn't say what you can't do, so you're not backing a winner right now. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discredited Google search? One of the problems was the variety of names out there (e.g. Joe McDonnell). You provided one reference; I provided another, which you removed.

Yes, discredited Google search. Why does "Proinsias Stagg" return no relevant results, yet the source is available online? And that's ignoring offline sources. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saoirse, what a great source: The term "Proinsias Stagg" appears in an English-language article with no byline! It provides no evidence that the writer is a speaker of Irish nor does it doesn't quote anyone referring to "Proinsias Stagg" while speaking in Irish. I understand Irish to be more than token cúpla focalism. This "source" is no more reliable than something you read in a blog in that somebody has taken it upon himself to name someone Prionsias who was actually called Francis/Frank by himself and everyone that knew him. Relying on something like this suggests to me that you too also see Irish as a few words to be whipped out every once and a while to impress. I see it as a living language.

With this "source", of course you're taking the RSF route, even though you prefer the Provo-Irish for Joe McDonnell over the Conty-Irish version. Over in the SF camp, they've called the same "Proinsias" "Prionsias Stagg" here[21] and "Proinsías Stagg" here.[22] Should we provide all the variations just to be inclusive?

Níl foinse ach focal amháin in alt Béarla bolscaireachta! An bhfuil Gaeilge agatsa?--Damac 22:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, though. The IMOS as it stands is a bit unclear. It's time to propose some changes, and judging from most of the responses above, I think it won't be a problem.--Damac 21:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find reliable verifiable sources, and add references to them to the articles, then there is no problem.--feline1 14:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In ainm na déithe uile, an gá do dhaoine argóint a dhéanamh i gcónaí faoi chúrsaí mar seo? -- Evertype·✆ 08:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"From my own view point, politicizing the Irish language in this was is abhorant, deeply flawed, counter productive, and disgraceful. They should be removed immediately." Just who is "politicizing the Irish language," and can this accusation be backed up with Diff's? Could editors please read up on talk page discussions, and stop trying to create differences among editors. --Domer48 09:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question. Is it that Irish names are used, or is it their spelling? If it is the spelling, then we go with what is there, and if alternative sources come up, we raise it on the talk page. If it is that Irish names are used, I would point to WP:IMOS, "In cases where someone used the Irish version of his or her name but this does not enjoy widespread usage among English speakers, then use the English version when naming the article but refer to the Irish version of the name in the first line" seems like a fair solution. --[[User:Domer48|Do--sony-youth^pléigh 15:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)mer48]] 09:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And a fair solution it is. I've absolutely no problem with Irish names being mentioned. The key problem here, though, is that there's little or no evidence to show that the Irish names attributed to people were ever actually used by them. In other words, many of these Irish names have been made up, in cases long after the subjects died, which is demonstrated by the confusing variation of spellings out there. Even for some contemporary figures, Google searches on the Irish names provided for them produce no results.--Damac 10:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that it is the case the names were "made up." My own name for example, some use "Mc" others "Mac." In addition, you have things such as Pádraic and Pádraig. Region and dialect have a lot to do with it also. I have no big hang up with the names and the spelling, and if there is a problem, use the talk pages to raise it. As to your main point though, "the Irish names attributed to people were ever actually used," is another thing. I would again raise WP:IMOS, "In cases where someone used the Irish version of his or her name but this does not enjoy widespread usage among English speakers, then use the English version when naming the article but refer to the Irish version of the name in the first line" seems like a fair solution.--Domer48 13:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of what the IMOS says as I drafted that section two years so. Names have been made up especially for Wikipedia and I've referred to many examples above. It's not an issue of Mc/Mac (indeed, only Mac is legit in Irish) or Pádraic and Pádraig. It's the process, firstly, of Wikipedia editors who never knew the people they are writing about conjuring up Irish names for them as they please, even though there is no verifiable evidence that the subjects used them or would have even recognised them. Secondly, it's about assuming that a particular character's Irish name is what An Phoblacht/RSF have decided what it should be. And thirdly, it's about making a fuss about adding Irish names for people in Wikipedia, even though the Irish-language media (Foinse, Lá Nua, RTÉ Raidió na Gaeltachta, TG4) almost always refer to people by the names they used, i.e. English if they used English and Irish if Irish.

Why some people on Wikipedia, who probably couldn't string a sentence together in Irish if you asked them, feel the need to add these contrived names all over the place is beyond me.--Damac 15:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heavens above. This should not be such murder to resolve. Are there sources to show that these guys went by their Irish names or by their English names? That's all that's to it. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argh. OK. There's an article about me in the Wikipedia. Someone once asked "Does Michael Everson have an Irish name?" And here is the response:

• Yes, it's Michael Everson. Irish speakers often use the Irish form of my first name, Mícheál (vocative a Mhichíl). Everson is not an Irish name, and is possibly Old English Eoforssunu 'boar's son'. That could be literally gaelicized as Mac Toirc which is usually anglicized as Mac Turk, a name rarely found in Co. Down and originating from Galloway in Scotland. One could invent things, like Mac Eabhair 'ivory's son' or Mac Eibhir 'granite's son' but those aren't attested Irish names either. Pádraig Ó Snodaigh, owner of the Coiscéim publishing house, calls me Mac Síorraí 'eternal son', a translation playing on 'ever', which is rather Peter Pan-like. But really, it's Michael Everson in Irish, gaelicized a bit in An tEversonach 'Mr Everson'. On my mother's side we know of one Irish name, Doran, which is Ó Deoráin. Evertype 10:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the article were to state that any of the Irish names above were the Irish form of my name, it would be wrong. I have no Gaelic name (and the occasional Mícheál doesn't count). I think our policy should be only to use Irish names which were actually (and verifiably) used by the person concerned. And we need to agree a policy in this WikiProject or this kind of argument will plague us go deo. -- Evertype·✆ 16:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The editorial consensus within the project seems pretty clear, and the project should be bold and start as it means to go on - because wikipedia really does not need another forum for edit warring and POV point scoring about the "irish problem". :-/ --feline1 16:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's my view to. I never go by my Irish name. My girlfriend, on the other hand, very definately does. Yes, I have been called, and answered to my Irish name, and if someone shouted it out right now, I'd answer to it, but it wouldn't belong in an article. Likewise, my girlfriend, has been called and would answer to her English name, but that wouldn't belong in an article. If ever an article is written about either one of us, it will be quite plain what our names were. English in my case, Irish in her's, and it's like that with most people. If a person went by one name or another, or in and out between the two, then that will be verifiable. Otherwise, it's just mocum. --sony-youth^pléigh 17:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick, someone go and remove "Pádraig" from the Patrick Pearse article, after all he never used that name himself. Yeah, right! Bottom line, if WP:RS exist they should be used, otherwise names shouldn't be manufactured. I can think of hundreds and hundreds of articles that aren't sourced at all, yet people are arguing over removing the sourced ones. Says it all.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pearse never called himself Pádraig (the article notes this), but he is famously known by that name (see book search). It's the use of Pádraig Anraí Mac Piarais that needs to be settled. --sony-youth^pléigh 17:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just get the old "rolla" out and it will have their names on that (assuming they are "Staters") - to be fair I understand Damac point to some extent, I have a "non standard" second name and I had possibly 5 different versions attributed to me - but if I am forced to go around and take photos of grave stones and "rolla"s then I will! --Sárbhliain trealamhí 17:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So that's it? Every 'Stater' will have "(Irish: Cead Ó Leithreas)" after their name? If that was the case, I could probably live with it ... but it marks a break from reality, don't you think? --sony-youth^pléigh 18:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am just making a point - oops! I'm not breaking WP:POINT am I? Rock will have me hung for that! The point I am making is that every Stater, like myself, will have had the Irish version of his/her name used at least once if not several times per schoolday - "occpuieders" on the other other hand would be a different issue - assuming they wernt subjected I mean attend a gaelscoilleana. --Vintagekits 18:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is clear, Feline? What is that consensus? I don't see it. We need an agreed and written policy. -- Evertype·✆ 08:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol I meant that it seems to me that the consensus of editors who've formed this nascent project is clear: it is not intended to be a cabal for scrawling irish nationalist propaganda on every page it can get a toehold in: it is instead intending to conduct its business in a scholarly and rigorous way, using the expertise of its members to increase the accuracy, quality and quantity (completeness) of where Irish proper names are used within the English language version of wikipedia. And that the project intends to do this within and according to existing wikipedia policies and guidelines. And yes, I agree that the project would do well to summarize those policies as they pertain to its activities, and set them out in its own guidelines/MoS. --feline1 09:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was there consensus reached here? --Domer48 23:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let people know that I began the process of removing unsourced Irish "names" from a number of articles last night. I only removed those names for which a Google search produces absolutely no evidence that a name has ever been used. However, Domer48 has now undid a lot of these changes and is using the following website[23] to "produce" Irish names which he has inserted into the articles, without providing any evidence that these names have ever been used by the subjects themselves or by others.

Apart from the fact that this constitutes original research, this website is highly problematic in determining someone's name in Irish. Although I use my Irish surname (it's on all my official documents and has been for most of my life), I've looked up my own English-language name and the "translation" is absolute codswollop in that it completely defies the laws of Irish grammar. Other names I've checked are similarly arbitrary. I know people by the name of Jennings who under no circumstances would use "Mac Sheoinín" as they consider it offensive.

This page is clearly serves the requirements of the GAA that Irish "versions" of players' (again, from my experience, usually conjured up without any consultation with the players themselves) names be submitted to the match officials before a game, but does not satisfy the requirements of an encyclopaedia. What you provide are subjective renderings of what can only be objective facts. This GAA list provides no guarantee that the "translations" it provides are actually the used surnames of the people concerned.

Domer48 is of the opinion that no consensus has been reached here on this issue. I would like to think that the majority of people who have commented on the question feel that these names should be removed. We really need to sort this one out once and for all.--Damac 11:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damac you said the names were the product of WP:OR, so I provided a reference. If you are saying that the reference is not WP:RS please let me know, and suggest a source that you would consider would be WP:RS. You also have suggest assumptions of bad faith, and I have left posts on your talk page, please stop. You have also said there is consensus, and will not show me where this consensus was reached, please do so now. --Domer48 12:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable. There are no sources for these names! Take each one you've generated and do a Google search to see how many hits you get. I've checked and they have never been used by the individuals concerned, which had they, would allow for their inclusion under the Ireland MoS.

An unacademic list of names like this is not a reliable source. As I've already pointed out, many of Irish "names" provided for surnames that I know only so well are incorrect and/or not those by people of that name. How unreliable can you get? The list is not sourced either. We've no information on the authors and their competency in the area. Indeed, as regards my name, they seem completely unaware of the Genitive Case in Irish.

The next thing we will have is fantatics adding Ulster-Scots-, and Yola-, Shelta-, Mid-Ulster- and Fingalian versions of names. All they need to do is conjure up a list and then use it to "translate" names as if they were just a few loose words rather than facts.--Damac 12:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I have said, suggest a source that you would consider WP:RS. I only use that source because you suggested that it was WP:OR. Please be a little constructive and suggest ways around the problem. --Domer48 12:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not for me to suggest a source; it's the duty of the person who claims that a particular Irish name is one used by the subject to provide it. I cannot provide any written sources where none exist. If you really want to pursue this, the onus is on you or whoever else provides these names to attest to their authenticity. You need to do the research, not the person removing unsourced/original research.

Perhaps you should write to all these people and ask them what they consider their Irish names, if any, to be. A few years ago, someone actually emailed Éamon Ó Cuív to ask how his grandfather wrote his name in Irish. With that information, we were finally able to name the Éamon de Valera article correctly, which for months had been named Eamonn de Valera, among other incorrect variations. Similarly, a long time before you and others came to Wikipedia, and in the face of some opposition, I and other editors ensured that the articles on Dáithí Ó Conaill and Seán Mac Stíofáin were named using the names that the subjects used themselves. That's the requirement on Wikipedia and its editors. The onus is on you to back up information that you provide! I can't believe that needs to be spelled out to someone who's been on Wikipedia for quite a while. An dtuigeann tú é sin?--Damac 13:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I thought this was a joint effort! All I ask was that you might suggest a source. Now there are a number of web based sites for this, would you like to check them out, and see if any would suit our purpose? By the way, I'm well aware of WP:PROVEIT, and was responding to your suggestion of WP:OR. In addition you accused editors of "making up" names, and the source I used proved that not to be the case. Might I suggest that you lose the negative attitude towards this and be a bit more positive. We all want to improve the articles, so why not work together? --Domer48 13:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've said it enough, but here it is again: unless you can confirm that the person used a particular form of the name, you cannot prove that it is their "name" in Irish. Names are names and cannot be translated by third parties as if they were a few words. A Charles Murphy, member of the 2nd and 4th Dáileanna, referred to himself as Cathal Ó Murchadha. Yet, in many books and even until a few months ago the List of members of the 2nd Dáil, as Charles Murphy. Using your method and any of the many Irish name websites, most people would back-translate his name to "Cathal Ó Murchú". Indeed, with the passage of time and general indifference shown to Irish names, many sources, including republican newspapers, began referring to him with this incorrect back-translated name.

This example, and there are hundreds more, show that back translations do not work. Were I to give you my name in English and ask you "translate" it, you would be likely to come back to me with 3-4 back-translations, which may or not, depending on your "sources", contain the spelling of the name on my passport and bank cards and every other official document I have.

I never said I was interested in working as a team to blanket provide Irish names for people. I have, in the past, provided Irish names where I know these were used by the subject concerned and will continue to do so. My aim here is to seek people's views on the matter with the intention of modifying the Ireland MoS to prevent the addition of third-party back-translations to biography articles.

As for the charge that the names were "made up", it still stands. "To make up" means to invent, and here is how one of these names was "made up". (Please note that the person who came up with this name does not even know what the word Ó means in Irish surnames.) Removing third party back-translations is not an expression of negativity in my book, but is a sign of willingness to build Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia.

The Irish-language media does not engage in back translating of people's names. Wikipedia should be no different. This represents best practice and standard convention within the Irish-speaking media in Ireland. Why don't you take your cue from this rather than promote a procedure that most Irish-speakers rarely engage in?--Damac 13:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is just ridiculous stuff. Absoltely shambolic. Damac, a word of advice - do not engage Domer48 in argument. He is a troll. Don't feed him. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This type of comment is no longer acceptable, and will not be accepted by anyone. You have been also told on your talk page now also. --Domer48 14:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, asking for someone to provide sources for information that he didn't contribute and furthermore asking for help in finding non-existent sources might appear to be some as engaging in pointless discussion.--Damac 16:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not misrepresent my intensions. I’m attempting to provide sources for information that I did not contribute. I have asked for suggestions from you, as to how we address the situation. You have taken it upon yourself to remove large amounts information, despite an ongoing discussion. When for example are you going to move on to place names? That is the logical extension to what you are doing now. As to it being a pointless discussion, in responding to uncivil comments and personal attacks, I would have thought you would join me in not condoning such remarks. --Domer48 18:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not obliged to provide sources for unsourced material provided by others and in removing this information am following WP policy completely. I was being WP:BOLD and in removing unsourced information, was engaging in something that two of the people who've been adding these names have been very adept at doing in other contexts, and rightfully so.

You might need to have a look at your powers of logical analysis-cum-crystal-ballism. I have no intention of moving on to place names, the overwhelming majority of which have referenced Irish versions and translations, found in typographical reports and analyses, histories, road signs, tourist guides. Indeed, a growing number have, with Minister Ó Cuiv's Placenames Commission, full legal status.

Personal names are a different kettle of fish altogether in that a Minister cannot pass a law determining the legal version of someone's name.

You're knowledge of some WP rules stands in contrast to your seeming inability to grasp the concept, evident in your approach to the names issue, that we don't produce information in Wikipedia; rather, we record verifiable information.

I don't hate the Irish language; I hate token cúpla focailism. I love it and teach it to an enthusiastic class of Greeks every week. Indeed, although they've only been learning for a few weeks, I can imagine that their Irish far surpasses that of many of those who have been adding these made up names over the past year.--Damac 18:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that your declared interest is in Irish language names, but you might like to have a look at the edit history of Amhrán na bhFiann. No fewer than 15 edits have been made to the lyrics, virtually all of them substituting the "correct" words for words that are equally correct (and one of them with the charming edit summary of "Orthography corrected. CAN'T YOU GUYS GET SOMEBODY WHO DOES KNOW THE F***ING LINGO FOR CHRISSAKE!"). Words such as atá/a tá and fé'n/fén/faoin are changed back and forth continually. Would it be worth putting together a 'task force' to decide on a definitive version, which could be printed on the talk page, and any future change could be reverted with a pointer to the talk page? Scolaire 11:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the part used in the national anthem, this is a simple one to answer - go with the version prescribed by law: here. For the rest, if anyone has access to published sheet music version, then it would be great. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sony, the page you linked to has three verses and chorus, so I see no reason not to use the whole lot as it is in the article, unless and until somebody comes up with a sourced alternative. Thanks. Scolaire 20:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! I didn't see anything except the usual "anthem" part! Yes, it would be ideal as the "valid"/"official"/"authorized" version. Unless someone wants to take it to the Dept. of the Taoiseach. --sony-youth^pléigh 10:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out someone's going to have to take it to the Dept. of the Taoiseach. The whole thing is riddled with spelling errors! Fadas are added and omitted at random. The first four words: "Seo dhibh a cháirde" should be "Seo dhíbh a chairde". "Gunna" is spelt "guna" (at least it's not spelt "gúna") etc. As far as I can see, the version that's in the article at the moment is right, but I'd like to have it validated by a real gaeilgeoir and then, as I say, maybe put it on the talk page to discourage any future fiddling with it. Scolaire 11:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So which is which? Were these the "original" Irish-langauge version published in An tÓglach? I'll email the Dept. of the Taoiseach and ask. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sent the following to the Dept. of the Taoiseach:

Sir/Madam,

I am a volunteer working on the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia. A dispute has arose among editors concerning the 'correct' version of "Amhrán na bhFiann". This dispute concerns the correct spelling and grammar of the Irish-language lyrics.

It has been pointed out by some that the version posted on the Dept. of the Taoiseach web side (http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/index.asp?locID=194&docID=241) contains some 'mistakes' e.g. should "Seo dhibh a cháirde" not be "Seo dhíbh a chairde", and should "guna" not be "gunna", among other similar 'errors'? Errors like these are common among all versions of the anthem that we can found.

Our question are thus:

• Is this the "correct" version of the anthem? Or is there an "official" version?
• Were these the spellings used in the origianal Irish-langauge version published in An tÓglach in 1923?
• Does a version exist that uses standard contemporary spelling?

With thanks,

XXX

--sony-youth^pléigh 15:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed the webmaster at the address on that page. I got the following reply:

Many Thanks for your email. We are currently undertaking a review of the

website and will be correcting such errors.

Many Thanks,

Fiona White

Librarian

Department of the Taoiseach

Scolaire 19:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Give it a few years and a massive budget and it might be done!--Damac 20:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Discussion at Talk:1981 Irish hunger strike#Irish language is relevant to this taskforce. jnestorius^(talk) 10:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a number of months, I have raised questions on the legitimacy of editors "translating" people's names into Irish and including these in biographical articles on Wikipedia.

I should point out that I do not object to the inclusion the Irish-language versions of subject's names. I believe that if someone used the Irish form of their name, even if they generally went by their English-language name, that this should be reflected on Wikipedia. What I am concerned about is the method used by one editor in particular, User:Domer48, who has engaged in original research and syntheses to produce what he claims to be are the Irish versions of people's names. Frequently using self-published and unreferenced sources, such as Your name in Irish - both surname and christian[sic] and Irish first names, he has added synthesised material to articles that is, by definition, not "directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources", as is required under reliable sources.

To give an example, I refer to the article on Matt Devlin. Today, I removed what was the purported Irish name of this individual, Máta Ó Doibhilin, as the cited source does not state "directly and explicitly" that this is the Irish version of the subject's name. Indeed, this particular Devlin is not mentioned on that page. In my edit summary, I justified my action by providing a link to Talk:Raymond McCartney, [24] where I had earlier outlined by objections of Domer48's methods and sources.

Some hours later, Domer48 inserted[25] a new version of Devlin's Irish name, Máta Ó Dobhailein (note the change in the spelling of the surname), and bases this on the synthesis of three new sources.[26] One is a published source, which judging by its title, provides Irish-language versions of surnames. The other two are again self-published sources, one[27] claiming that "Máta" is the Irish for Matt, the other[28] providing a different rendering of the Devlin surname in Irish.

The problems for Wikipedia are obvious. Allowing people to translate names and present these as fact only contributes to the dissemination of false information by Wikipedia. As the Matt Devlin article has shown, original synthesized research has led to two different names being provided for the one person: User:Derry Boi's "Máta Ó Doibhilin"[29] and Domer48's "Máta Ó Dobhailein".[30] Needless to say, neither Irish version of the name surfaces anywhere else on the internet (apart from Wikipedia mirrors).[31][32]

In one case, three versions of one man's name (Dermot Ahern, Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs) have been provided by Wikipedia, one provided today by User:Domer48:

• Diarmuid Ó Eachthairn, (User:AjaxSmack)[33]
• Diarmuid Ó hEichiarn (ditto)
• Diarmuid Ó hEachthigheirn" (Domer48)[34]

This issue affects a number of style issues. The relevant section on the use of Irish names of the Ireland MoS states that: "If someone used the Irish version of his or her name, and this enjoyed and enjoys widespread usage among English speakers, this should be reflected in Wikipedia." Domer has rarely, if ever, provided evidence that the subjects he has provided Irish names for, ever used them themsevles.

I have raised this issue with User:Domer48 time and time again, but to no avail. I have pointed out the problems of his approach, highlighted my objections to one "source" in particular,[35] but he continues to believe that his flawed methods are supported by the Ireland MoS.[36] Today, he has contributed nine names using his flawed methods to Wikipedia:[37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45]

This is the second day running that Domer48 has engaged in what I can only call disruptive editing. Yesterday, over a number of hours,[46][47][48] he frustrated my attempts to add information from a perfectly legitimate source (the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography) to the J. F. X. O'Brien article. (To date, the response to a RfC on this matter has been unanimous in favour of my position.)

This most recent episode as well as frustrating encounters with him in the past had led me to believe that User:Domer48 fills all four definitions of a disruptive editor. I would like to hear the community's views on this particular dispute first before deciding on whether I should progress to Request for comment on his general conduct.--Damac (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surnames in Ireland by Seán E. Quinn, published by Irish Genealogy Press, Co. Wicklow, Ireland, ISBN 1 871509 39 4. Seán E. Quinn, B.A. (Hons.), H. Dip. In Ed., M. Litt., Barrister-at-Law. He is also the author of An Introduction to Irish Ancestry, now in its third edition, also published by Irish Genealogy Press, ISBN 1 871509 44 0. Now I think the crux of this editors problem is summed up in their own edit summary here. Basically they were going to remove names in retaliation to what was happening on another article. Now if editors look at the links, a citation tag was added by the editor looking for a reference, and I added one, here, here, and here. Now you will notice I did not reference this and this, because they, according to the author, the name derives from Greek. Now this editor has been stalking my edits for a while now, juvenile I know, but there you have it. Edit summaries like this, this and this would support such a view. Now there is a whole host of talk page links which I could produce if requested, to show what this editor is like, but I really do not want to engage with this editor any more than is necessary.--Domer48 (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you've served to highlight the very problem central to my concern. Using Quinn's book, you've concocted Diarmuid Ó hEachthigheirn as the Irish for Dermot Ahern.[49], a complete invention on your part. Dermot Ahern doesn't use that name, nor has anyone ever referred to as that. Irish government websites provide Diarmuid Ó hEachthairn[50] (and sometimes, mistakenly, Diarmuid Ó Eachthairn[51]) as his Irish name.

There is no stalking going on here, on my part at least. You followed me to the J. F. X. O'Brien yesterday, and also followed me to a number of pages, which you've never edited before, today.--Damac (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The very fact that you could have provided a reference yourself, and instead chose to place a fact tag, shows exactly what you’re at. You set out to disrupt wiki because you thought you could annoy ONIH. Thats it in a nut shell! --Domer48 (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" states the first line of WP:PROVIT, which also says that "any edit lacking a reliable source may be removed" or tagged with a request that a source be provided. Indeed, Jimmy Wales has said:

Clearly, neither I nor any other editor is obliged to waste our time looking for sources for unreferenced Irish names. I've been more than cautious in tagging these; the guidelines clearly authorise their immediate deletion.--Damac (talk) 00:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: User:Domer48 has entered new territory by adding what he refers to as "Scottish names" for Irish people. Thus, thanks to Domer48's recent edit,[52] Wikipedia now claims that Irishman Raymond McCartney is known as "Réamann McCartney" in "Scottish". This is getting even more absurd.--Damac (talk) 10:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damac are you just pretending to be stupid? Surnames in Ireland, Seán E. Quinn, Irish Genealogy Press, Dublin, 2000, ISBN 1 871509 39 4, pg. 56 (from the Gaelic meaning son of Artan, a diminutive of Art). Now thats the reference attached! They speek Gaelic in Scotland. While it is somewhat amusing seeing you run around the project drumming up support, it is slightly tainted by how pathetic it makes you look. --Domer48 (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name Devlin in Irish can be spelt either as Ó Dobhailein or Ó Doibhlin both of these are correct.--Padraig (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Padraig. And Matt can be Mait, Maitiú, and, apparently, Máta in Irish. So with three forename and two surname possibilities, how many Irish-language varieties could an editor engaging in original research synthesise and apply to this particular Matt Devlin?--Damac (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are my long-standing concerns and objections, outlined above, to the methods used by one editor to produce Irish-language versions of subjects' names, valid?--Damac (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An explicit threat to another editor (not me by the way) to disrupt wiki by removing Irish names. I think you hung yourself. --Domer48 (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If editors would like to follow up on this threat, and divine its true motives scroll through this little dialog. Notice how it has nothing to do with the article they were actually on. This has noting to do with Irish name! --Domer48 (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Response: Coming back to the essence of this debate: this is en.wikipedia, not ga.wikipedia. It should not include random gaelicised versions of names because an editor thinks it looks nice/is tidily consistent or other reason. The gaelic form of someone's name should be listed if and only if they themselves used it routinely (for example, the famous RTÉ sports commentator, Micheál Ó hEithir) and that usage of it can be cited reliably. A citation that simply reports what a book of Irish names says is the 'correct' translation is not a valid citation, it merely confirms that the editor has offended WP:OR and/or WP:SYN. In my opinion, User:Damac is correct and the additions made by User:Domer48 should be reverted. Both parties should cease and desist from personal attacks and petty bickering, no matter who started it. --Red King (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"offended WP:OR and/or WP:SYN"? By using a Verifiable and reliable sourced reference? Read the links I provided, its not me the threat was aimed at. --Domer48 (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Response:

• I have to agree with Damac on this. Using a dictionary to provide translations for proper names is not acceptable. There are different ways of rendering names in English (Smith, Smyth, Smythe, etc) and the same is true in Irish. If a dictionary lists one Irish form, that does not prove it is the correct one for any particular person who has the corresponding English name. You must quote a source specific to that individual.
• There is the wider question of which persons' articles ought to have an Irish name listed at all. That has not been addressed yet by this project or WP:IMOS and I caution against overenthusiastic rushing in. As a first rule of thumb, if you can't find a cited source for the Irish version of somebody's name, maybe they never use one, and maybe you shouldn't try making one up.

jnestorius^(talk) 21:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Response: The question is what is somebody's name. Using a name dictionary to "translate" a name is unacceptable - it is a definite synthesis. I agree that we need guidance on when to employ Irish versions of names in articles. I also agree that a minimum should be a published source referring to the person by that name. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Response: I agree: the artificial gaelicization of people's names is nothing more than Original Research. I am the subject of a Wikipedia article. My work in Ireland and with the Irish language is (evidently) notable. Am I to be saddled with a gaelicized name too? If I were, it would be incorrect, as I do not use one. I agree with User:Red King: User:Damac is correct in this matter and the additions made by User:Domer48 should be reverted. -- Evertype·✆ 09:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Response: I agree that translating names is not the right thing to do. For instance, my real name is "David". This is *actually* Hebrew - if people called David are mentioned in articles, should their names be "translated" into English as "beloved" instead? Clearly this would be daft. Names are used an things-in-themselves, to signify a person - their literal meaning is not relevant and should not be used for "translations" of the name.--feline1 (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Response: I agree with what has generally been said above. When a people have used the Irish version of their name themselves, they should clearly be included. Barring this, it is certainly not Wikipedia's place to give new names to people when they themselves never used them. -R. fiend (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Response: I would like to address a couple of points which have been raised during this discussion. The first obviously being the motivation behind this discussion, and why Damac invited some editors here. Having threatened to disrupt the project because an editor pulled them on how they apply arbitrary standards in a clearly biased way. Like throwing the rattle out of the cradle if you will.

Feline 1, your point though interesting, is on a completely different subject. We are not discussing the meaning of the names, but the Irish equivalent of their name. On the subject of WP:OR. I do not believe the author of the book is engaging in original research, and using the book as a referenced source, is likewise not WP:OR. This would be true also of synthesis. This would also address Evertype point on artificial comment. They are referenced to a source which meets our policies on WP:V and WP:RS.

The most pertinent question though is asked by Jnestorius, which is the wider question of which persons' articles ought to have an Irish name listed at all? I also agree with Sony when they say that we need guidance on when to employ Irish versions of names in articles. Now I consider both of these questions would be better discussed on the appropriate talk page on WP:IMOS.

Now I sure Damac can invite the same editors to that discussion, which would then be conducted in a more productive fashion, and not based on the above temper tantrum. --Domer48 (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Response 2 No, you still don't get it, do you? I am quite happy to accept that someone has written a book that creates gaelicised names - even if it is de Bhlaire. He is perfectly at liberty to conduct original research, but Wikipedia editors are not. The point at issue here is NOT whether the 'translation' is valid in general, but specifically whether Tony Blair ever called himself (or indeed any notable source writing in English) ever called him Antón de Bhlaire. If not then you have assembled disparate sources to create a novel synthesis and that is what makes it synthesis. And just to avoid doubt, if somebody translated Mairtín Ó Dinín as Martin Dineen, then exactly the same opinion would apply. --Red King (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, the RFC procedure is exactly designed for an issue such as this. If I disagreed with Damac and agreed with you, I would have no hesitation in saying so. Your wild accusations merely serve to confirm that my opinion is correct. --Red King (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will attempt to unscramble the gibberish that you have put forward. On second thought, maybe not! --Domer48 (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's far from gibberish. It's perfectly clear to me and corresponds with most of the responses to this RfC.

The fact that you seem incapable of seeing where the problem lies with your edits suggests that base stubbornness or a basic literacy difficulty is at work on your part. That may sound harsh; yet numerous editors, in different words and ways, have shown how you have engaged in original research and synthesis. Here are some quotes:

• "the editor has offended WP:OR and/or WP:SYN" (User:Red King)
• "you have assembled disparate sources to create a novel synthesis and that is what makes it synthesis" (User:Red King)
• "You must quote a source specific to that individual." (User:Jnestorius)
• "Using a name dictionary to "translate" a name is unacceptable - it is a definite synthesis" (User:Sony-youth)
• "the artificial gaelicization of people's names is nothing more than Original Research" (User:Evertype)
• "it is certainly not Wikipedia's place to give new names to people when they themselves never used them" (User:R. fiend)

You seem impervious to them all.

In continuing to defend your original research and synthesis, (and I really believe that you don't really understand what the latter term means), you are engaging in disruptive editing on three counts, as you:

• are being tendentious
• cannot satisfy verifiability (on a number of counts)
• are "rejecting community input"

Just on the off-chance that you perhaps have understood what our concerns are, I'd like to ask you if can you provide a single, reliable source that states, in unambiguous terms, that Matt Devlin, born on 30 April 1950 and who died on 28 December 2005, was called "Máta Ó Dobhailein" in Irish?--Damac (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surnames in Ireland by Seán E. Quinn, published by Irish Genealogy Press, Co. Wicklow, Ireland, ISBN 1 871509 39 4. Seán E. Quinn, B.A. (Hons.), H. Dip. In Ed., M. Litt., Barrister-at-Law. He is also the author of An Introduction to Irish Ancestry, now in its third edition, also published by Irish Genealogy Press, ISBN 1 871509 44 0. Thats the source I use! An explicit threat to another editor to disrupt wiki by removing Irish names. All can see were your coming from.

• This issue "has not been addressed yet by this project or WP:IMOS and I caution against overenthusiastic rushing in." Jnestorius
• "we need guidance on when to employ Irish versions of names in articles." Sony-youth
• "The most pertinent question though is asked by Jnestorius, which is the wider question of which persons' articles ought to have an Irish name listed at all? I also agree with Sony when they say that we need guidance on when to employ Irish versions of names in articles. Now I consider both of these questions would be better discussed on the appropriate talk page on WP:IMOS." Domer48.

You set out to to disrupt wiki, and thats the be all and end all of it. --Domer48 (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, can you provide the quotation from Quinn's book that says that the Matt Devlin born on 30 April 1950 and who died on 28 December 2005 was called "Máta Ó Dobhailein" in Irish. Does Quinn provide a source for this?--Damac (talk) 09:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the following text to the Manual of Style:

1. If someone did not use the Irish version of his or her name, it is neither appropriate nor encyclopaedic for Wikipedians to "invent" such names. Books about Irish surnames are interesting and useful, but making use of them to devise Irish names for subjects of the Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, as it constitutes original research.

I trust it will solve some of the problems we have had of late. -- Evertype·✆ 11:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NO IT WILL BE DISCUSSED FIRST.--Domer48 (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered a bombing campaign, Domer? That might help? (If it was legitimate, of course...And valid.)--feline1 (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of comment is that to make, suppose it is typical of the mob recruited for this RfC. In case you need to be reminded read WP:CIVIL and stop with the ridiculous comments. BigDunc (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, while it wasn't quite WP:CIVIL to YELL OUT YOUR ENTIRE SENTENCE EITHER... I have to agree, with Dunc and Domer on one thing, and that's the comment about a bombing campaign being over the line, Feline1. Do not make such a comment again, as you could be blocked for such intemperate comments. SirFozzie (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little satire, my dears. No controlled explosions necessary. And please don't insult the intelligence of editors here. We've all been very patient, supplying factual reasoning on this RfC... but we all know full well the issue remains, ultimately, asinine sectarianism. --feline1 (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sectarianism is not at all at issue. Assine maybe. Certainly obstinate in the face of the fact that the text proposed by Evertype expresses the clear consensus among every regular editor of Irish articles. Not a single editor has supported Domer48's position. It's time to move on. Meanwhile, to sling a very smelly red herring into the debate is unwelcome and unproductive.--Red King (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After three discussions on this issue, once in April 2006, again in November 2007 and, more recently, this month, a proposal has now been made to modify the relevant section of the Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles).--Damac (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get this idea from? Eog1916 (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelic-medium education (Scotland), Irish-medium education (Ireland).

The Gaelscoileanna article covers Irish-medium education. The GME article covers Gaelic-medium education. Wiki01916 (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GME refers to Gaelic Medium Education. Given that there are three distinct forms of the language Irish, Scottish and Manx, I find the sole use of Gaelic in the context of only one of these, namely the Scottish variety of Gaelic, to be perjorative, spurious and insulting. People who speak the various forms of Gaelic, in the main, view their identity as Gaelic and also their language.

The deletion of Gaelic from 'Irish Gaelic' or 'Manx Gaelic' is at best a purile exercise and would seem to be advocated by those from a non-Gaelic background, people who don't want to or try to understand the feelings of attachment that Gaels have for their common linguist heritage. Monoglot English speaking Irish Nationalists/Republicans have a lot to answer for in this regard!

It is notable that the revival of the language at the end of the 19th Century was initiated by the foundation of The Gaelic League ( not the Irish Language League or the Irish League) The foundation of the Gaelic Athletic Association was also a case in point...there was no Irish Athletic Association you may note!)

Ar scor ar bith bheinn sásta an cheist seo a phlé leat arís eile.

EOG1916 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eog1916 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bhuel, féach ar na torthaí cuardaigh thíos. Tá IME in úsaid in Éirinn, agus GME in Albain amháin. Cad a cheapann tú?

• irish-medium education - Torthaí faoi Gaeilge (Irish) amháin
• gaelic-medium education - Torthaí faoi Gàidhlig (Gaelic) amháin

Wiki01916 (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you did not care to engage with my arguments!

The following quote accurately reflects my own views on this matter (Is í an Ghaeilge teanga bheo bhríomhar de chuid na hÉireann, Mhanann agus na hAlban;

It was the Irish Gaels, known as the Scoti, who migrated into Scotland from the 5th century and gave it its name. The most famous artefact from Ireland’s golden age, the Book of Kells, originated on the Scottish Island of Iona. It was the Gaels who united Scotland in the 9th century and made Gaelic the language of the medieval court. The ‘Irish’ Gaelic culture in the Scottish Highlands survived that in Ireland by a century and a half……..The interwoven pattern of our separate histories continues and the Gaelic language remains our most potent living link. The models of modern Gaelic language development in Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic have all been different and there is everything to be gained from sharing experience and collaborating on future development. Malcolm Maclean in his introduction to the ‘An Leabhar Mór’ (August 2002)

The understanding that Gaelic is inclusive of the Irish, Scottish and Manx varieties, is illustrated in the following three sites;

http://celticcountries.com/webmagazine/society/columba-initiative/

http://www.erinsweb.com/gae_index.html Gaelic Languages http://babel.uoregon.edu/yamada/guides/gaelic.html Gaelic Dictionaries Online

http://www.ibiblio.org/gaelic/canan.html What is Gaelic and who are the Gaels?

Of course one can search Google for ‘Irish’ or ‘Gaelic’ but one can also search for Irish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic and even Manx Gaelic! So what? It is more usual for the Irish Gael and non-Gael to call the native tongue Irish instead of Gaelic, when speaking in English, in a purely Irish context. This does not deny the fact that it is Gaelic, on the contrary, it is simply a verbal shorthand. In Ireland the Gaelic language and those that spoke it were synonymous. An Irish person and a Gael were once ‘one and the same thing’! The situation in Scotland was much more complex and the Lowlanders attributed various names (some perjorative..eg

'mí-rún mór nan Gall'…Erse/Irish) to the language spoken by the Gaelic speaking Highlander. Gaelic speakers in both Ireland and Scotland (not sure about the Isle of Man) would refer to the language as ‘The Gaelic’ when they spoke in English.

More Google searches…what do they tell you?

• Irish Gaelic Medium Education
• Scottish Gaelic Medium Education
• Manx Gaelic Medium Education

Eog1916 (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Gaelic language of Ireland is called 'Irish', and the Gaelic language of Scotland is usually just called 'Gaelic'. It's just the way it is. I reverted your changes because I believe that GME - Gaelic Medium Educacation, refers to Gaelic only, ie, Scots Gaelic. I suggest you comment on Gaeilge Task Force if you wish to discuss it further. Wiki01916 (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eog1916 (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was recently asked for an opinion on whether the Russian Wikipedia should go with the Anglicized versions of town names in Ireland or the Irish/Gaeilge versions. My response is here but I really think they need more input so I've posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland and I'm dropping messages to a few of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Gaeilge taskforce members in hopes that some of you might be up to helping on this. Slán, Pigman☿ 20:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone be horribly offended if we changed the color on the border of the userbox? I would prefer something more green-ish, or any other color, really. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been told that the article entitled "George Best Belfast City Airport" cannot have an Irish language version (Aerfort George Best Chathair Bhéal Feirste) diplayed at the top of the page because it is not an official translation and is not recognised. Is this correct? If so, why so? As nowhere in Northern Ireland has legally given Irish language versions. Should Béal Feirste, Dún Pádraig, or Latharna be removed from their respective pages (Belfast/Downpatrick/Larne)??? Go raibh míle! Many thanks. D.de.loinsigh (talk) 21:38, 05 May 2008

Just be WP:BOLD and add a name. I'll certainly support you. Sarah777 (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to WP:VER, Sarah777? jnestorius^(talk) 09:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without wanting to sound overtly arrogant ... I KNOW for a fact, beyond ant shaddow of a doubt that that is the Irish language term for the airport. I speak Irish and I live in Belfast, and we NEVER refer to the name of the airport in its (official) English name. In exactly the same way that we do not say Tá cónaí orm i Belfast. Admittedly the "George Best" element is ommitted in common speach (as it is in English), but an official translation would be Aerfort George Best Chathair Bhéal Feirste. Despite this, Ben W Bell told me that only an official version could be used, with a citation. (VERY unusual considering the official linguistic policy in Northern Ireland as it currently stands me thinks.) The article's talk page is here. Many thanks again. D.de.loinsigh (talk) 20:49, 06 May 2008

Someone has added some Irish road signs to Comparison of European road signs, and my best guess is that they've run the terms through Google Translate to get the Irish versions. As a result, they've also ended up including terms that aren't relevant, such as "priority road" (IIRC Ireland, like the UK, doesn't have this concept). Much appreciated if someone could go and fix them up with the correct terms (ideally from whatever your answer to the Highway Code is). Thanks, 92.27.136.232 (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Gaeilge taskforce interested in articles about the Irish language, such as Irish phonology and other articles in Category:Irish language? The defined scope doesn't suggest it is, and Category:Gaeilge task force articles is empty anyway. But maybe people are interested in expanding the scope. Thoughts? Angr (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Badb#Representations in legends

I put in the OI of "The Morrígan's Prophecy" from CELT: Cath Maige Tuired: The Second Battle of Mag Tuired. The English translation has been shared around for years, with a variety of people tweaking it. I think it's pretty straightforward, but would appreciate someone with more OI to check it. What had been there previously was a modern English version (translated from a Modern Irish variation) that, while creative and poetic, diverged pretty significantly from the original Irish. Go raibh maith agaibh, - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. I was so free as to change your https link to an internal link since not everyone can or wants to use https. Angr (talk) 20:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response! - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could use some eyes on the language issues in the Ogham article. For instance: diff. See also the talk page of the article, and the history. This has been going on for a while. I don't think mispronunciations of Irish words should even be included, let alone be given priority in the lede. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It seems that many Gaeltacht Placenames on English Wikipedia are listed under the anglicized place name. I feel that it would be more appropriate for Gaeltacht areas to be listed under the official Irish version of the place name, with the anglicization mentioned in the lead paragraph. In many cases the Irish version is commonly used in English when referring to these places. Also, in relation to the name likely to be found in reliable sources in English, given that the state no longer recognizes the English version of the name, state produced documents/reports will refer to the Irish version of the name. This practice is also used in academia, a good example of this practice is Dr John Walsh's work, 'Contests and Contexts - The Irish Language and Ireland's Socio-Economic Development', in which the Irish version of Gaeltacht place names are used when referring to the place in English. I was wondering if there would be any support for amending the Manual of Style/Ireland Related Articles to reflect this? Gaelmise (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is the English-language Wikipedia. The policy we use is WP:COMMONNAME, because we're writing for the reader, not a tiny minority of authors. On the English-language Wikipedia, the vast majority of readers will look for Ring, Co. Waterford, not "An Rinn, Co. Waterford", Spiddle, not "An Spidéal, and Dingle, not "An Daingean" or "Daingean Uí Chúis", regardless of what the government mandates be put on road signs to confuse non Irish speakers and visitors.

This is the third place I'm aware of that you've raised this issue. Can you please leave it centralised in one place? I would suggest WP:IMOS. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion Bastun and your entitled to it, but don't try to pass it off as fact. The reality is that like it or not, many people use the Irish version of the name when talking about Gaeltacht places. That is why you often get as many or more hits for the Irish name on Google as the Anglicization. The WP:COMMONNAME policy is important, the point however is that this policy does not preclude the use of the Irish version of Gaeltacht place names. The emphasis in that policy is on the common name used in reliable English language sources. As I pointed out above, in both government publications, and in many academic works, the practice is to use the Irish Language place name rather than the anglicization when it comes to the Gaeltacht. When it comes to the Gaeltacht, quite often the Irish language place name is in common use in English and there is a clearly established practice to use the Irish Language place name when writing about the Gaeltacht. As mentioned before, Dr Walsh's 'Contests and Contexts - The Irish Language and Ireland's Socio-Economic Development' is a prime example of this, you could hardly hope to find a more reliable source written about the Gaeltacht. In that source, written in English, it is the Irish place name that is used and I suggest that we should do the same here on the English-Language Wikipedia. Gaelmise (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So a book about the Gaelteacht uses Irish-language placenames... that's hardly surprising. I still see the vast majority of the English-speaking world referring to Spiddle rather than An Spidéal, etc... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, its not surprising in the least. That's essentially the point. Its the Gaeltacht, is perfectly natural to use the Irish version of the place name. People routinely use the Irish version, reliable sources use the Irish version, local businesses use the Irish Version (I was there over the weekend and saw this first hand). You may choose to believe that 'the vast majority of the English-speaking world' use the anglicisation, that's your opinion and your welcome to it, but you will have a hard time backing it up. In any case, the naming convention is supposed to reflect the use in reliable sources, reliable sources use the Irish version. Gaelmise (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, and you were told this numerous times before, Wikipedia uses the most common name, not the official one. The Banner talk 22:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Eamon O Cuiv can annoy locals and visitors alike with whatever he deems to be the "official" name, but we, like the locals, will still use the common name. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could use more eyes. Especially from those with Gaeilge and/or OI. GRMA. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]