Talk:Ireland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Ireland has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Ireland:

TRANSPORT! the new terminal 2 has been finished!! could someone add information and add a photo? thanks

  • Communications (broadband coverage, etc.) - add to Economy section

+ Any chance of someone contributing approximate rainfall too to the Geography section? Thanks. + may as well delete the economy section now.


Emergence of Celtic Ireland[edit]

The section "Emergence of Celtic Ireland" urgently needs to be trimmed and re-written.

It's based on a theory that has long been rejected: the theory that Iron Age Ireland was 'colonized' by waves of invaders from mainland Europe. This theory was popular for quite a while, but was based mainly on books such as the Lebor Gabála (a medieval Christian pseudo-history), rather than archeology.

The section presents that theory, and a lot of wild speculation, as if it's truth. Most of the section is taken up by details of each supposed 'colonization'. Here's one paragraph as an example: "The Priteni were the first to colonize the island, followed by the Belgae who invaded Ireland from northern Gaul and Britain. Later, Laighin tribes from Armorica (present-day Brittany) are believed to have invaded Ireland and Britain more or less simultaneously. Lastly, the Milesians (Gaels) reached Ireland…"

As anyone familiar with the topic will know, there is simply no evidence for these mass invasions or migrations. Today, the mainstream view among archeologists and historians is that Ireland's population stayed largely the same amid gradual cultural change. This mainstream view only gets one line, which is followed by this biased and mistaken claim: "However they have no explanation as to routes by which Celtic cultures and languages came to Ireland".

Myself and Fergananim hav tried to change it to reflect the mainstream view, but our changes hav been undone by Setanta Saki.
I suggest we go back to this version for the time being. ~Asarlaí 00:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The fact that it may not be the current favorite mainstream theory does not mean it is defunct. Both are theories neither has been proven or disproved as yet. Nobody is preventing you from adding however much you wish to the section about the your preferred alternate "mainstream" theory, but it is not for you to claim that all previous historical authors claims prior are incorrect. The other author you mention was actually destructive and was making wild unfounded point of view deletions here and elsewhere such as Gaelic Ireland. Once again by all means add to the section and state previous assertions are disputed but do not simply delete information of a long time established theory that may have simply fallen out of favour with some but not all. Although i am not opposed to a tidy up of the section if required just not a mass deletion. Setanta Saki (talk) 02:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
My version doesn't call one theory 'right' and the other 'wrong'. It explains both theories and tells how the older one has fallen out of favor. The current version has six paragraphs about a minority theory and treats it as if it's 'right', while the mainstream theory has only one line. This section of the article is only meant to be an overview of Ireland's history; the detailed information belongs on articles such as History of Ireland, Prehistoric Ireland, O'Rahilly's historical model, and so forth. The section could be summarized in a paragraph or two. I suggest something like this:

During the Iron Age, a Celtic language and culture emerged in Ireland. The traditional view, once widely accepted, is that Celtic language and culture were brought to Ireland by waves of invading or migrating Celts from mainland Europe – specifically Gaul and Iberia. According to some proponents of the theory, such as T. F. O'Rahilly, these waves were: the Priteni (who arrived in the 7th century BC), the Iverni (a branch of the Belgae who arrived in the 5th century BC), the Laigin (who arrived in the 3rd century BC), and the Gaels (who arrived in the 2nd century BC). However, this view has fallen out of favour, as there is no archeological evidence for any large-scale immigration into Ireland in this period. Today, the mainstream view among archeologists and historians is that Ireland's population remained largely the same amid changes of culture, brought about by cultural diffusion. The traditional view is that Celtic languages emerged in the central European Halstatt culture, but recently it has been suggested that they originated in the Atlantic Bronze Age cultural zone that included Ireland.

In the meantime, I've re-worded the section to make it more neutral, while leaving most of the content. ~Asarlaí 03:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I have altered the section to include your proposed cut down of the traditional theory and have extended the section on the alternate diffusion theory and added some journal references to support. Setanta Saki (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
While I am sorry to hear that any edits I have made have been seen as "destructive and was making wild unfounded point of view deletions", they were all based on sound archaeology from the past thirty or foury years. So, to quote from the experts:
  • "It seems almost heretical to conclude that a Celtic invasion of Ireland never happened. … Perhaps there was, indeed, a migration of 'Celts' to Ireland. The only problem is, that archaeology cannot prove it." Professor Barry Raftery, "Pagan Celtic Ireland", 1994, p. 228.
  • "The archaeological data needs to be studied in its own right, free of ethnic 'Celtic' labels and preconceptions. Presumptions about a modern common Celticity have tended to impose a similar and equally questionable construction on the ancient 'Celtic World'." Professor John Waddell, "Celts, Celticisation, and the Irish Bronze Age, 1995, p. 158. He also states that "For the island of Ireland … Celtization, as an instance of language shift, was not an event but a process." p. 167. The sheer lack of finds in Ireland that can be associated with the Celts of Gaul has troubled archaeologists as far back as the 1920's, something Waddell recognises: “Here we have an early recognition that the archaeological record in this island [Ireland] did not offer convincing evidence for intrusive Celts on any scale.” (p. 159). Read the full article here - http://www.nuigalway.ie/archaeology/oldsite/documents/jw_celts.pdf
  • "But it is essential that we do not transfer the definition in the modern world, where the modern Celts are defined by their language, to the ancient world as it causes considerable confusion in our attempts to interpret what was going on – in the Classical world Celtic was an ethnic concept, and possibly in some cases geographical or administrative (e.g., the Roman name of the province). When ancient authors use the term celtice, they are referring to the language spoken by ethnic Celts, not a language belonging to the Celtic language group as we do today.” "Re-defining the Celts", John Collis, 2010, p. 35.
  • "Are .. the Irish, Celts? The answer is no in term of our remote origins as we cannot establish any significant racial, ethnic or cultural connection to those Iron Age groups on the Continent called 'Keltoi' by the Classical writers. The Celticity of the Irish lies in later cultural associations connected to the perceived origins of the Irish language and the mythologising of national identity in the modern era. Our direct ancestry lies not in the 'Celtic' Iron Age, but in the history of an indigenous population who origins extended back to the earliest post-Glacial settlement of the island." Professor William O'Brien,"Iverni:A Prehistory of Cork", 2012, p. 249

I likewise point out that genetic genealogy finds no intrusive DNA - either Y-DNA, or mtDNA - from the homeland of the Celts during the Irish Iron Age (nor after or before). However I cannot recall the link. Have to leave some work for you young ones! Fergananim (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)This

The section currently neutrally deals with the theory of cultural diffusion as it does with the long standing invasions theory. You personally may be convinced one way via your interpretation of the data/evidence and thats fine, but "you" can not claim that another longer standing proposed theory is now void because "you" are convinced, many others crucially academics are not. For example with regards to the Celtic immigration/invasion theory "At the same time, many archaeologists and a seeming majority of historians retain the traditional view with some vigor (Megaw and Megaw 1996, 1998)" [1]. As stated in the section (from valid journal sources I added) large migrations are notoriously difficult to prove archeologically and nearly all proponents of the diffusion theory accept that a steady "migration stream" was very likely, also historical linguists who are just as important from a historical evidence aspect, find it very difficult to give credence to the diffusion theory with respect to the absorption of a language, so it has its flaws as does the traditional theory. As for the genetic investigation element that may require a separate paragraph, I am versed in the genetic profiling area and you are incorrect in your claims regarding "No" DNA from the "homeland of the celts" which is in itself incorrect language. The data is still emerging and is not in any way as black/white as you suggest, sample numbers are low in my opinion but with regards to Ireland evidence can be conflicting. One study [2] showed no large significant differences in mtDNA between Ireland and large areas of continental Europe in contrast to parts of the Y-chromosome pattern. When taking both into account it in effect states that the evidence suggests modern Celtic speakers Ireland etc could be thought of "rather as European “Atlantic Celts” or just not "substantially" "central" European. That conclusion is a million miles away from the claims which you are trying to impose.

Also my phrasing about some of your previous edits only in this area of course was slightly harsh. There is no harm in you promoting an established theory that you believe, but I think it becomes destructive when in the doing so you concurrently erase others of equal legitimacy. A crude example would in the theory of light as a wave or a particle, you wouldn't start deleting information on the wave theory as you were adding information on the particle theory, neither is perfect. The same approach should be used in this area, neither academic theory is definitive and each has flaws. User:Setanta Saki|Setanta Saki]] (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Fair enough. I understand your point of view much better now. Can we not then agree to give equal space to both? All I can add to this is - having read a large amount of the Irish source material in the original and in translation, the one word you never encounter in it is "Celt". We may describe them so, but our ancestors had no awareness of the term. Its application is entirely modern, and its obvious that in popular terms most people have no understanding of the linguistic defintions in which it is meant. Because of this disconnect, I have moved away from using the term with enthusiasm to avoiding it. It brings too much baggage. Fergananim (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
    • P.S: Much if not all of what the Megaws have written has (from my point of view) being convincingly rebutted by the likes of John Collis. It concerns me deeply that neither they, John Koch, or Barry Cunliffe, have even bothered to address those concerns. This seriously undermines their credibility, and makes their published work seem more faith-based that objective. Fergananim (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you information on both should be equally included because as you rightly point out there is an ongoing academic debate that some would say is overly vigorous between "Celtophiles" "Celtosceptics", that is why i attempted to create a tempered neutral section addressing both theories equally detailing some strengths and weaknesses, I hope it appears that way. Again on the different point of the term Celt and its creation and application, another interesting string (for me it makes sense why it wouldn't appear) but it is almost universally accepted nomenclature even by many detractors (rightly or wrongly) today despite having baggage for some.Setanta Saki (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2014[edit]

Source #23 is now considered quite out of date. The population of the British Isles and Ireland is now well established through genetic testing to be of northern Iberian origin with the strongest genetic ties to the Basqes. Even the NIH document cited in the Ireland article says, "The affinities of the areas where Celtic languages are spoken, or were formerly spoken, are generally with other regions in the Atlantic zone, from northern Spain to northern Britain." This article is reaching for a reason to tie Ireland to a Celtic genetic heritage rather than a generally agreed cultural conquest such as that which occurred in Mexico.

Your own Wikipage on "Irish People" says "That there exists an especially strong genetic association between the Irish and the Basques, one even closer than the relationship between other west Europeans, was first challenged in 2005,[27] and in 2007 scientists began looking at the possibility of a more recent Mesolithic- or even Neolithic-era entrance of R1b into Europe.[28] A new study published in 2010 by Balaresque et al. implies either a Mesolithic- or Neolithic- (not Paleolithic) era entrance of R1b into Europe.[29] However, all these genetic studies are in agreement that the Irish and Basque (along with the Welsh) share the highest percentage of R1b populations."

Please be consistent. 24.55.0.106 (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sam Sailor Sing 17:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • A problem I have with the above, and the previous issue of Celticity, is that we give away all the credits in Irish history to people who are not Irish. The Basques, the Celts, the Christians, the Vikings, the Normans, the Scots, the English ... It creates this sense that Irish people never had any role in their own history. Fergananim (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Life sciences and pharmaceutical industry[edit]

For the editors of this article - here is an article that discusses the international life sciences and pharmaceutical industry within Ireland, and has some really good coverage.

It is a 2008 article so, hopefully, it is not outdated. Here it is : Pharmaceutical and Biopharmaceutical Manufacturing Advances in Ireland. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This is an all-island article and your source refer to the Irish state, so might be more appropriate to the Republic of Ireland article. ww2censor (talk) 08:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2014[edit]

Please change: A period of rapid economic expansion from 1995 onwards became known as the Celtic Tiger period, was brought to an end in 2008 with an unprecedented financial crisis and and economic depression in 2009. To: A period of rapid economic expansion from 1995 onwards became known as the Celtic Tiger period, was brought to an end in 2008 with an unprecedented financial crisis and an economic depression in 2009. Because: 'and and' is incorrect and should be 'and an'. Mrmmaclean (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done I'm guessing this is already done because I just searched the whole page for " and and " and got no hits. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 23:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


"Republic of Ireland" de-capitalisation in running text[edit]

Editors are invited to participate in a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration#.22Republic of Ireland.22 de-capitalisation in running text. All input welcome. Thank you. walk victor falk talk 16:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2014[edit]

Ireland is it's own free state and is not just an island near Britain therefore it is not in the British Isles it is recognised as a country and not a colonised area of Britain

46.7.201.82 (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the island not the state. Mabuska (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)