Talk:Ruth Dudley Edwards

Catholic categories

per WP:BLPCAT, I'm not sure that this would really be public self identification with Catholicism, she sounds more like an ex (or lapsed) catholic. Valenciano (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

According to the "Irish" or the "Vatican" definition, perhaps, but according to the "English" definition (and she lives in England, not Dublin), she is most definitely a Catholic. The Daily Telegraph, for which she writes for, has almost as a tradition been a "pro-Catholic" newspaper for quite some time, with owners and proprietors who are Catholics since Lord Black the Canadian (along with a somewhat disproportionate number of columnists of Roman Catholic and Irish backgrounds, atypical for a newspaper in England – even in London). And this (at [1]) disproves your claim somewhat. A so-called "lapsed Catholic" is still a Catholic (and a Catholic who eats meat on a Friday is also still a Catholic)! Stop splitting hairs! -- KC9TV 03:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Dudley Edward's nationality

There seems to be some non-NPOV de-categorisation mischief-making going on (and a clumsy attempt at times too, if I may say so!), but anyway, isn't the categorisation of Dudley Edwards as "Irish" slightly misleading, when she has been living in England (rather than Ireland) for many years, if not decades, and in all likelihood probably also has British citizenship and a British second passport? Her personal site for example uses the ".co.uk", rather than the ".ie", domain. -- KC9TV 03:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

And this (at [2]) also suggests otherwise (" I am .... a British subject .... "). -- KC9TV 05:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It is curious that you deliberately left out the crucial "I am an Irish citizen" bit. From your reference, she clearly identifies as both an Irish citizen and British subject. The lead as you have now framed it avoids this for no good reason, and instead purports to tell us where she works, in an odd mixture of geographical terms ('island of Ireland' and 'UK'). She is no less British or Irish, or a journalist when working in the US. RashersTierney (talk) 10:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

ROI/UK vs. IRL/GB

Murry, if you're using 'Ireland' to refer to the Republic, perhaps you ought to specify this or even pipe it. When I see an unlinked reference to 'Ireland', I immediately think of the island and I'm sure I'm not alone in that. People will then wonder why you're using a mix of geographical and political terms. Gob Lofa (talk) 11:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Gob. I'd say Ireland and Great Britain (physical geography) or Irish Republic and United Kingdom (political geography). --Flexdream (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:IRE-IRL-

"Use "Ireland" for the state except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context. In such circumstances use "Republic of Ireland" (e.g. "Strabane is at the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland").

An exception is where the state forms a major component of the topic (e.g. on articles relating to states, politics or governance) where "Ireland" should be preferred and the island should be referred to as the "island of Ireland" or similar (e.g. "Ireland is a state in Europe occupying most of the island of Ireland").

Regardless of the above guidelines, always use the official titles of state offices (e.g. "Douglas Hyde was the first President of Ireland").

Per the Linking guideline of the Manual of Style, the names of major geographic features and locations should not be linked. If it is thought necessary to link, in order to establish context or for any other reason, the name of the state should be pipelinked as Ireland.

Political geography is Ireland and the UK. Irish Republic is a non-runner. If you feel like linking, link away. Great Britain and Ireland is geographically correct, but out dated usage do we use Iberia for Spanish writers? Murry1975 (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I certainly don't agree with misleading pipes, no matter how popular they are, but if you don't link it it will have to be changed as right now it's too ambiguous. Great Britain is outdated? And Ireland? I really don't think so. They're certainly the most common terms for those islands. Do you really believe they're out-dated? Iberia's a bit of a red herring, isn't it? I certainly don't see the relevance. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes two islands, well done Gob, but we dont use islands mainly on here, do we. A recent edit of yours to the NSA, the article uses the US not North America, maybe you should edit articles consistently, using the same logic for all, in general terms we use states, geo-political names, not geographic. Murry1975 (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

"Yes two islands, well done" - what on earth are you on about now? Either political or geographical works for me, but if you're writing Ireland when you mean Republic of Ireland then you'll have to pipe it to avoid confusion with the island, à la IMOS. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Just in case you have failed to see, in your strom in a tea cup, Ireland is mentioned before your pointy edit. And can you clarify why we need piping? Murry1975 (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I still have no idea what your "two islands" comment is referring to. Neither stormy nor pointy on this end mate, fret not. Yes, Ireland is mentioned, but it's not clear how big that particular Ireland is. I don't believe we need piping at all, but because of the preponderance of people who want to refer to the Republic of Ireland article by another name and have managed to get their predilection into the Manual of Style, unless we want confusion about what Ireland is being referred to in this instance, if you don't link it, we'll have to specify it. Gob Lofa (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Gob, is English your first language, because I am having a hard time following what you are trying to convey. And you havent conveyed why it needs to be piped, but if it does it should be the first mention. Murry1975 (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Are you sure they're not two different Irelands? I didn't say it needs to be piped; I'm happy to specify exactly which Ireland is being discussed. Gob Lofa (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

"Use "Ireland" for the state except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context." Thanks for that Murry. I'd say when talking about both RoI and UK together, then as it is part of the UK "Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context." The context being defining an area. In this case that area includes both RoI and NI.--Flexdream (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Anything to add, Murry? Gob Lofa (talk) 11:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Murry? Gob Lofa (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes Goba Lof? As per IMOS as it is at the moment. Murry1975 (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Apparently not; see Flexdream's last comment. Gob Lofa (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I have seen, and I have seen your edits, and both are not in-line with IMOS. If you like you cane bring it up there. Murry1975 (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

We disagree, a consensus you seemed to accept for four months. Please respect BRD and stop reverting while you make your case. You can do it here or at IMOS. Gob Lofa (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

No not really, no case was shown against INOS. NI isnt mentioned it's your continued edits to the islands naes in nthe lead even after Dublin, Ireland is mentioned. SO it is you who have to make the case. Its state name then island name your way with an explanation or link to show the difference. Murry1975 (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The Orange Order is based in, and the Omagh bombings took place in, Northern Ireland. Gob Lofa (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The island of Ireland and Northern Ireland do not feature at all in the this article so per IMOS we use Ireland for the state, though the first mention should be pipe-linked to Republic of Ireland, which I've now done. Obviously Ruth was born in the Irish Free State, so if you'ns would rather pipe it to Irish Free State then by all means go a head. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Did you read my last comment before you wrote yours? Gob Lofa (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Mabuska? Gob Lofa (talk) 23:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Murphy

The article consists of 27 lines. Of those, 5 lines, almost 20 per cent, are devoted to a contentious quote from the elderly Catholic nationalist and former senator John A. Murphy, b.1927 (who in 2015 denounced gay marriage as 'grotesque nonsense'), and this lengthy and largely irrelevant quote explains how Protestants are evil and Catholics are good. Bit of a problem there. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

'Irish Unionist' in the lead section

Describing Dudley Edwards as 'an Irish Unionist' in the lead sentence is misleading, and mentioning her political allegiance in the lead section is overweight. I am discussing ComradeKublai's partial revert of my edit:

• remove Unionist from the lead section, her personal political views do not merit mention in the lead section as she is not a politician and they are not related to her noteworthiness [3]
• Can we try not removing cited material? Thanks [4]

I did not remove the cited material completely, I only removed two of the three mentions of it. ComradeKublai may not have noticed that we also mention it in the 'Unionism and anti-Irish republicanism' section, citing the same source.

The Manual of Style indicates that the lead sentence of a biographical article should include Context (location, nationality, etc.) for the activities that made the person notable (MOS:LEADBIO). This is usually implemented by giving the subject's nationality, and in an Irish context this might be extended to the cultural group or community. There are of course many shades of meaning, but my immediate interpretation of 'Irish Unionist' in the lead sentence was that she is a member of the Ulster loyalist community. She is not. Even where the words can be parsed to give an accurate meaning, we should aim for clarity and avoid the risk for misunderstanding.

In the cited source Dudley Edwards is discussing her political opinions:

• I'm still primarily the historian who believes in telling the unvarnished truth, but in my political loyalties, the awfulness of Sinn Fein and many of their weaselly fellow-travellers have succeeded in making me embrace unionism.

My second issue is whether we should mention her Unionism in the lead section. MOS:LEADBIO says "The lead section should summarise the life and works of the person with due weight". Dudley Edwards is not a politician, and her political views are not relevant to her notability. MOS:CONTEXTBIO does not mention political allegiance, but the examples it gives suggest that we should not normally include this in the lead section. We should only mention her politics in the body of the article. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Dudley Edwards is primarily known for her contrarianism so I don't see how it wouldn't be worth mentioning. StairySky (talk) 11:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

You appear to have misunderstood what I have written. Please read it again. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

He didn't misunderstand you, he's saying that her Unionist perspective (which is contrary to the Irish mainstream) is the primary feature of her public persona and accounts for the bulk of her notability. Most of the citations in this article are about either her explicit political positions and her Unionist historical perspective, not about her fiction writing or apolitical commentary on her books.

Dudley Edwards is not famous for being a historian and writer, she's famous for being a Unionist historian and writer. This is a well-cited fact and belongs in both the lead and in the first sentence. ComradeKublai (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

In your opinion what have I misunderstood? StairySky (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

'Unionist historian' or 'Unionist, historian'

I'm not trying to revive an old discussion here but whether or not she should be described as a 'Unionist', she is not a 'Unionist historian'. I'd like to put a comma between 'Unionist' and 'historian' but am not sufficiently skilled to do this without messing with the formatting. 95.44.48.119 (talk) 14:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)