Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:03, 29 May 2018

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics of the United Kingdom This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. More information: /  This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Irish republicanism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Irish republicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish republicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish republicanismIrish republicanism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ireland High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Biography / British / European This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force British military history task force European military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Northern Ireland This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. Gaelic games This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gaelic games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gaelic games on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Gaelic gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Gaelic gamesTemplate:WikiProject Gaelic gamesGaelic games ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Neutrality: All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on August 22, 2007, August 22, 2008, August 22, 2009, and August 22, 2014.

Archives

2002–2008 2009–2010 2011

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Irish name

The initial spelling issue was rapidly resolved. Thereafter ... well, it seems that someone was having a bad day, and it all went downhill. Any further concerns about the article can be raised in a new discussion when the dust has settled, and everyone refocuses on WP:TPG, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Collins's Irish name Mícheál has been incorrectly spelled as Míceál since December, sourced to a 2010 story in the Irish Times. I corrected it yesterday, with a ref to Meda Ryan's Michael Collins and the Women Who Spied for Ireland. I hope users will agree that WP:RS would rate a book by an acknowledged expert on the subject above an article by a couple of journalists with no known expertise. At the same time, I removed a ref sourcing the fact that Collins's middle name was not James, for the good and simple reason that there is no mention of a middle name anywhere in the article. My edit was reverted by Squatch347 with the edit summary, "User removed description of Collins. Please discuss proposed changes on the Talk Page given this page's inclusion in remediation protection". So now I'm discussing it here. Please state what "description" was removed, or why my edit was otherwise wrong.
tl;dr addition: The Irish Times story concerned a 1922 document, which was probably signed "Míċeál Ó Coileáin", which is nowadays rendered as Mícheál. The Irish Manual of Style states that the dot should be replaced with a "h". Scolaire (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, nothin wrong with what ya did.80.111.164.98 (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes agree with changes. Ceoil (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting. Now I don't have to worry about "remediation protection", even though it's over 24 hours since my previous revert. Scolaire (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I changed the spelling in December as there was no h in the source that was present at that time. Your source is superior, thanks. Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

For a change that fundamental, at least a few sources should have been cross-checked beforehand. This is why competence matters. Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Is such a comment necessary or in any way productive? You are implying I am incompetent because I conformed the spelling to the source present at the time? Incompetence is citing the ch spelling to a source which contradicted it. In any case, you are free to add to the article if you wish; the article would benefit from your competence in these matters. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Its a statement of fact. A significant political figure, and you, wading in, obviously lacking in pre knowledge, changed the spelling of his native name based on a single 1922 newspaper source. All I am saying is that "at least a few sources should have been cross-checked beforehand", either you consider that diligence or not. Note all the fuss created here now as a result; please be more careful. Ceoil (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I think what Hrodvarsson did was absolutely right. The guideline says be bold, not "cross-check a few sources before doing anything as major as correcting an apparent spelling error based on the pre-existing cited source." "All the fuss here" was not created by that edit, but by someone else's knee-jerk revert when I fixed it. I think an apology might be in order. Scolaire (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I dont think so. Being bold shouldn't mean dragging up decades old newspaper sources to make fundamental changes to the native names of historically significant figures. You may have different standards, both wrt reliable sources and as to how we treat drive by people under misunderstanding. Your actions here, playing both sides, are most hypocritical. Ceoil (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, Hrodvarsson didn't "drag up" anything. The source (less than a decade old) was already there. It was there as a citation for Mícheál Ó Coileáin, but in fact it didn't say Mícheál Ó Coileáin, it said Míceál Ó Coileáin. Secondly, a one-letter edit is not a "fundamental change". If it was so fundamental, why did it take three months for anybody to notice? If it was that fundemental, why didn't you find a proper source for the correct spelling of his name years ago? Finally, I am not "playing both sides" – I was never on your side and I never had any problem with Hrodvarsson. In fact, I commend Hrodvarsson (and I "thanked" him), for bothering to explain his edit, while on the other hand I found your attitude very unpleasant. Just saying "I agree" in answer to my post does not entitle you to take the moral high ground and lecture somebody on how to edit – especially when what you say goes directly against Misplaced Pages guidelines. Are we to rename WP:BOLD as WP:Drive-by and say it is disruptive? I take back what I said earlier; it is not the person who reverted me, it is you that have created all the fuss. Scolaire (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow, but fine, I have the measure of you now least there was any doubt before. I earlier took you on the strength of argument, seems I was wrong and an unfocused belligerence was more at play. Water under the bridge man. Ceoil (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The belligerence was all on your part. It was a civilised discussion before you went off half-cocked. Scolaire (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Ha ha, you are were looking for reassurance and validation, having come off badly as you often do on many other articles. So tell the rest to somebody that cant see through such transparent behavior. "half-cocked", yawn, some self reflection please, maybe also read "wp:comptence". Ceoil (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Have read through the article and edited; dear god help us all if you and Hrodvarsson are setting the standard of what wiki is capable of. It's frankly, terrible, barely connected to reality, going half cocked in several directions with scant regard to historical record, or in places, achievable human ability; swiftly claiming the British were right all along (with no evidence), or no hang on the Irish are somehow gods c. Scolaire you are giving the impression of - its all under control, I have this, but from a scan of the article, and digging into your claims of authority, could not be less impressed. I am leaving this self reinforcing disaster. Ceoil (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

God! Come down off your high horse, will you? It wasn't me or Hrodvarsson who wrote this article. Out of 4,500 edits, 41 were by me, nearly all of them removing crap, and 23 were by Hrodvarsson, mostly minor but some of them adding useful content. Yes, the article was terrible – that's why I never attempted a major edit. We could hardly be said to be "setting the standard", and I most certainly neither said nor suggested that it was "all under control", that I "had" it, or that I had any "claim to authority". And yes, your edits of last night improved it some, and you are to be thanked for that, but "copy-edits" that introduce words like "recordes" (later changed to "recorde") and "amature" – I'm not impressed. Taking out "The Collins family were part of an ancient clan" with an edit summary of "an ancient clan? pff", but leaving in the equally ridiculous and equally unsourced "for the 20th century, the long hidden Ó Coileáin clan of Uí Conaill Gabhra, once the most dominant sept of the Uí Fidgenti, produced Michael Collins, or Mícheál Ó Coileáin" – not impressed. But worst, for somebody that lectured another editor on the need for "at least a few sources to be cross-checked beforehand", you didn't add one single source in your 31 edits, either for what was already there or for what you added. Sure, competence is required, but that includes not looking at the mote in your brother's eye. Happy editing. Scolaire (talk) 10:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

See below Scolaire. The more I look, the less I am impressed, blatant POV, blatent copyvio, blatent sock puppeting, etc etc. We seem to have different views of article integrity, certainly "high horse" stuff, certainly worthy of wider investigation. Ceoil (talk) 10:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the guy below. You are accusing me and Hrodvarsson of blatant POV etc etc. on the basis that if we made a few edits, we must be the vandals and the trolls, have low standards and a warped view of article integrity. Your personal attacks on me are becoming more and more unacceptable. If you continue this will be going to ANI. Scolaire (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I have already escalated. If you now suddenly have such low involvement, why have you been so shrill and hysterical on this talk. Because you have not put in real investment or due dillegince, flitter about with unfounded opinions just so you can be heard, and lack character and are just that way? Might make sense. Nonetheless, there is a major issue with this article, no matter what ye say, and it needs eyes. Ceoil (talk) 10:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mass deletions of sourced information

User:Ceoil has removed a lot of sourced information from the article in what perhaps appears to be a drunken tirade. I do not see any reason not to include this so I have readded it.80.111.164.98 (talk) 09:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Apart from being loaded and hardly based on cold historical assessment, terms such as "spirit of self-sacrifice", "Intensely hard-working", "His personal warmth and charm", which you restored, indicate a romantic flowery view, very dated, not at all today's language, and as such indicate a major copyvio problem with the article, and it should probably be opened for wider investigation. My impression so far today of it and its gaurdians; walled garden. Ceoil (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

It is sourced using reliable sources. Misplaced Pages should report what reliable sources report. Who are you to decide if it is based on "cold historical assessment"?80.111.164.98 (talk) 10:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources cherry picked from about 1930? No you miss the point. Also, there is evident close copying going on, which seeps through in the dated language employed here. Sorry, but those are the fact. Ceoil (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

How do you know they are cherry picked? That's a weird assumption to make. I had a look at the sources and they are from 1980, 2003 and 1990, not 1930. If you have a reliable source that contradicts the information you have deleted please present it.80.111.164.98 (talk) 10:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I've challenged you on specific claims. Its not for me to prove a negative and find sources that say Collins was not "intensely hard-working" etc; the burden is on you to (a) defend this as a general historical consensus (b) prove that its not whole scale copyvio, not a cut and paste job from a rather dated web source. Until either of these are satisfied, I'll be reverting. Also, (c) please have the stones and integrity to use your regular username here, rather than hide behind an ip. We have the wiki-blame tool, remember. Ceoil (talk) 10:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

You are the one who made the assertion that the sources were cherry picked. Back up that assertion.80.111.164.98 (talk) 10:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

No, thats not how wiki works; the burden of proof is on you. I'm one inch from opening a major investigation on Scolaire‎, who probably should be blocked, given what a surface skim has revealed here re his approach to adding "content". I'm assuming the IP is you Scolaire‎ based on DUCK, as ye have woken up at the same time, use similar <hear no evil> language, and your first response was also to discredit the messenger, in very similar word patterns. Ceoil (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Please see burden of proof 80.111.164.98 (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Looking at these contested segments - the first and second segments come across as grossly floury and not of encyclopedic tone at all. The third and fourth segments are also...effusive...and could be written in a more NPOV tone, that is, if they need to be there at all. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Items of contention

Okay folks - need to get consensus on these segments. I request that BrownHairedGirl please fully lock the article until we resolve this. And invite wider opinion. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Casliber: if you want the page protected, please ask at WP:RFPP. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, the page is under sanctions and the IP has just made two reverts to Ceoil's one revert...and you're the admin watching it..you gonna look at that then? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

80.111.164.98 you are already aware this page is under 1RR sanctions. Stop edit warring. Bastun 12:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support Ceoil's edits in their entirety. Everything that he removed was unencyclopaedic. I do not believe that the IP is interested in improving the quality of the article. Scolaire (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, 80.111.164.98 has been proven to be an evading editor. GoodDay (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Now blocked, so I don't think any further discussion is needed. Scolaire (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to reopen some of the discussion of Ceoil's edits. Quite a few of the changes are excellent and have updated the language to a more NPOV. A few though do seem to be unwarranted. Below is a summary of the edits I think should be discussed, the rest of his edits I support as well.

This is an edit that I believe both Ceoil and Scolaire have put forward, though I could be mistaken on the latter. It alters the meaning of the text here (Scolaire fully removes it) to imply that Collins himself is described at brainy, rather than that he "comes from a brainy family." This reference is sourced (though the source needs to be updated to page 106) and is warranted, imo, for a biographical entry. Family origin and characteristics cited by British intelligence officials would seem an apt addition to understanding the background and life of he individual.

I'm not sure why this was removed. "WTF" doesn't give us much to go on for rationale. Tim Pat Coogan uses the same language in his biography on page 6, so I'm not sure there is a warranted rationale for removing it. I'm open to a more detailed defense though.

This edit removes an entire paragraph with no accompanying explanation. That paragraph is also sourced and verified in TPC's biography as well. I'm curious as to the reason it was removed.

I'm not sure this is editorializing, it was an expressed policy of the IRB to drive out the RIC so it could establish its own institutions.

I initially thought this paragraph should be included, but reworded, but doing a bit more research I can't find where the source, Chrissy Osborne satisfies . She appears to be a podcaster without any formal training. Fully support this paragraph's removal.

How is this section specious? His plans definitely seem to have been put on place by the civil war, and it is relevant to the flow of the article as it detracts from efforts to nullify the border commission.

Agree with this initial removal as it was an uncited section. However, it is present in Coogan's work on pgs 372-377. Given that proper citation, this section should probably be restored.

I'm curious why you removed the section on plenipotentiaries?

The first section's removal seems unwarranted, it is a sourced description of his behavior during the negotiations. Fully support the second removal for the same reason as above, overly hero-worship language and likely not a valid source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squatch347 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to comment on the content on its merits. Just having a citation is not enough to include something:

1. I've taken out the "brainy" sentence altogether. Regardless of whether it was him or his family, a comment by the British secret service (which secret service?) describing him/them as "brainy" is not sufficiently relevant.
2. Again, a claim that he came from an ancient clan, whether or not Tim Pat said it, is unencyclopaedic. You won't find it in any other biography of Collins (by the way, the edit summary was "pff", not "wtf").
3. Same again. His father's death-bed prophesies belong in hagiographies, not encyclopaedia articles.
4. "In turn, though, the retreat of the RIC drove the British towards more radical and violent responses" does sound like editorialising to me. I'm not bothered one way or another about the paragraph generally, though. Maybe a more straightforward text could be re-added (though a citation would be good).
5. Since you support removal, there's no need to comment.
6. There is no 6.
7. Yeah, " put Collins's plans for the north on hold; he was killed before he could pursue them any further" looks rather like a secondary school essay. Not needed.
8. A bit problematical, because you linked to the current article, not a diff. Did you mean this? If so, I would support some well-researched discussion of Collins's involvement or not in the assassination, but not the restoration of the paragraph as it was.
9. I would agree with adding back the "plenipotentiary" paragraph.
10. I can't see anything about his behaviour during the negotiations in this. It's in the "Personal life" section. Did you mean to link to something else?

Hope this helps. Scolaire (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Indeed it does, and that is very clear rational, and it seems I owe you something of an apology. Sorry, you evidently know the sources are far from taking the approach from that the IP was agitating from. I was taking it from all sides this morning, though thats not good enough. Ceoil (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

First, I am still not an expert in wikipedia linking, so I might well have screwed up some of the edit links, apologies for where that has caused some frustration.

1) The reference to his family being brainy as written in British intelligence files I thought was an interesting insight into both the level of British intelligence collection at the time and as a good foreshadowing of his importance and success later. The page reference is 106 in Coogan's work, and he has a primary source citation as well. Agree with not taking him as gospel, though I think in this case it might be worth inclusion given the original citation.

2) Ah you're right, the wtf comment was related to the first edit I was referencing, not the second. Great catch, thank you. I think the addition of the family information presents an excellent picture of the family's perception of themselves, and frames how Collins interprets his own place in Irish history as he is growing up. It ties in exceptionally well with the views others had of him while in London, his brash arrogance and willingness to overreact to any perceived slight. Though, if the concern is that we are turning an encyclopedic entry into a biography in that sense, I sympathize there. Perhaps a much, much shorter version of that paragraph (one sentence or so) leading into the next paragraph would be more appropriate?

3) Fair point, it also does seem out of place now that I read it within the updated context. Agreed.

4) The word "radical" certainly doesn't fit. The British escalation of violence in response to RIC failures should be easily supported. Perhaps something like, "In the early 20th century this permanently armed police force was, in effect, the principal representation of the British state in large parts of rural Munster and Connaught. It was a principle aim of republican forces to establish independent Irish institutions following the eviction of RIC elements in local regions. This aim was countered by more direct and violent British actions in an effort to retain control over these regions." I'll track down a better citation than TPC if this works. Unless that citation directly discusses alienation, the last part should probably go given both of your concerns.

7)I'm not sure I agree, if anything it could be expanded a bit to discuss the decrease in material and financial support flowing north and Collins (and the government in general) focused on internal matters. Without this tie in, the section on Northern Ireland doesn't coherently finish, it ends with volunteers coming south.

8)I did yes, sorry about that. I'd be fine putting it back in as is with an appropriate reference, but if both of you feel (and it seems that way) that it would be better expanded/edited with some additional references, I can take that on and get back to you hopefully soon.

9) Unless Ceoil has any objections, I'll add back in a few days.

10) The source discusses those attitudes in context of his activities during wartime and negotiations, I didn't add that elaboration in my question. Given that it is describing his interactions with others and personal traits, I think it is warranted in a biographical description of the man.

Thanks for the reply,

Squatch347 (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The best part Ceoil was that the initial post that prompted all the problems was based on a misunderstanding and error in my attempt to undo an edit made conflicting with his. Squatch347 (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

There are more ironies than that at play here Squatch347. Its *very* unfortunate that Scolaire was mistaken for the IP, and his credibility was called into question, thats on me. But am most glad to see the close eyes I was hoping for. Ceoil (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I've edited to address (4), (9) and (10). My views on the other points haven't changed. Let's see what other people have to say. Scolaire (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Good edits so far. Agreed on letting people digest a bit, I'll wait maybe a week or so and see if I can come up with language that addresses your concerns on the issues. Thanks. Squatch347 (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree with this approach also. For the record, the removal of dated sources, obviously closely paraphrased; the language seeped through, was a big factor behind my edits. Ceoil (talk) 10:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Death section removal of content and lack of citation

Check these series of edits by the same IP: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Michael_Collins_%28Irish_leader%29&type=revision&diff=803570227&oldid=802815825

The Death section was greatly modified without being properly cited - please restore this section back to what it previously was, and remove inflammatory 'conspiracy theory' type suggestions. If it's not cited, looks like it probably breaches rules against original research. Arfed (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with @Arfed on all counts. Additionally, the writing itself is clunky and needs to be refined. Squatch347 (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• Unknown-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• B-Class Irish republicanism articles
• Top-importance Irish republicanism articles
• WikiProject Irish republicanism articles
• B-Class Ireland articles
• High-importance Ireland articles
• B-Class Ireland articles of High-importance
• All WikiProject Ireland pages
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Mid-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class biography (military) articles
• Military biography work group articles
• C-Class British military history articles
• British military history task force articles
• C-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• C-Class Northern Ireland-related articles
• Unknown-importance Northern Ireland-related articles
• Automatically assessed Northern Ireland-related articles
• All WikiProject Northern Ireland pages
• Unassessed Gaelic games articles
• Unknown-importance Gaelic games articles
• WikiProject Gaelic games articles
• Selected anniversaries (August 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (August 2008)
• Selected anniversaries (August 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (August 2014)