Talk:United Ireland

Requested move 3 February 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED. Clear consensus against the proposal. (non-admin closure) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

United Ireland → Irish reunification – The entity known as Ireland was united until the year 1921. For it to unite again would therefore be its RE-unification, it would not be the islands first time as a united polity. At a disregard of politics and/or controversy, the title for the unification of the island of Ireland should be "Irish reunification" as it is what the combination of the two entities of the island is called, since it is not the first time the land would be united as one. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. It was united previously under British rule. A title of Irish reunification could lead many to believe it wishes to return to that state, which I'm 200% certain is not the intent. Canterbury Tail talk 01:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. As stated above, the only time Ireland was unified was under British rule. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ignoring the (historically dubious and otherwise irrelevant) notes about Ireland "only ever being united under British rule", it is WP:COMMONNAME that applies here. And the current title reflects that. "United Ireland" is, by any objective measure, the most common name for the topic. Guliolopez (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Agree. Even if it was united under the British, it was still united as one entity, with a paliament, the king being the king of Ireland, etc. Martin m159 (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. As stated above, WP:COMMONNAME policy should be respected. -- Wendylove (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose A highly political proposal. WP:COMMONNAME policy should be respected. The Banner talk 20:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC) And I seem to remember one Brian Boru.

---

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.

Opinion Polling Section Makes no Sense

The section has a lot of data and a nice chart that says "Yes" or "No," but there is no information within that section explaining what those yes or no answers correlate to. For example, is it "yes" to a United Ireland or "yes" to a divided Ireland. Someone coming to this page for the first time would not really know what any of that information is supposed to mean because it is not curated and allows for two different readings of the same data/presentation. The person who's keeping up with, and interpreting, the polling data and knows what the results mean should provide additional clarification. --CarlsonC (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

---

short desc

Hey @Johnbod:, could you explain further your comment about my short desc revision? My main goal is to shorten the number of characters to 40 or less, per WP:SHORTDESC, and I'm not sure what issue you had with the phrasing I introduced.--Cerebral726 (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I imagine you are new to the subject. Why not read the article? Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I have read the article. "Proposition to form Ireland into a single state" and "Proposition that all of Ireland should be a single sovereign state" are both phrases that imply Ireland is not currently a single sovereign state, so I'm unsure how your comment "According to some it already is" only applies to the shorter, closer to 40 character version. --Cerebral726 (talk) 14:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't follow the problem either. Neither sentence is totally satisfactory in its precision, but that is to be expected when trying to compress it toward 40 characters. The important point here, I assume, is whether the proposed shorter version is communicating essentially the same notion as the present longer version. Each reads identically to me as a proposition for one state to comprise the island of Ireland. The only notable word lost is "sovereign", but sovereignty is implicit in being a state, so I don't see how it affects the meaning of the sentence. --Scuoise (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a fairly large body of opinion that Ireland is already "a single state", & has been since 1916/18 etc. Since the readers of this article are disproportionately likely to hold this view, I see no reason to needlessly piss them off just for the dreadful WP:SHORTDESC. "Proposition that all of Ireland should be a single sovereign state" does not prejudge this issue, but the other does. I can't agree each "reads identically ". Johnbod (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not understand the reading of "Proposition that all of Ireland should be a single sovereign state" as meaning Ireland already IS a single sovereign state except in the most contrived of interpretations. Regardless, the lede specifically states "At present, the island is divided politically; [...] Ireland has been partitioned since May 1921[...]" and the short description should reflect this understanding of the current situation. I believe it already does (but needs to be shortened to meet WP:SHORTDESC), but even if you don't think it already meets that understanding, it is clear the article considers that Ireland is currently NOT a single sovereign state and "United Ireland" is the concept of forming it into one. Ireland clearly does not meet the definition at Sovereign state of " a political entity represented by one centralized government", so there is no need to leave the short description ambiguous just to not bother someone with a specific political leaning. --Cerebral726 (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Yawn! Of course Ireland is not now "a single sovereign state" in reality, but quite a lot of people think it is in a notional, theoretical sort of way. What is the "ambiguity" at present? Don't you think "form" an odd choice of word? Why should a short desc needlessly upset people with a "specific political leaning" when there is no need? Johnbod (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not think there is ambiguity, which is why I wanted to change it to the phrasing "Proposition to form Ireland into a single state" which to me is unambiguously synonymous but less wordy than "Proposition that all of Ireland should be a single sovereign state" . However, you seem to think the current form has a level of ambiguity that allows people who already believe Ireland is a "notional, theoretical" single state to be satisfied. I think that is not the case, and am looking to shorten it down to around 40 characters per WP:SHORTDESC. Do you have a suggestion that is better than "form", which does not strike me as odd. Perhaps "Proposition to merge Ireland into a single state"? --Cerebral726 (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

That is even more POV to old-school Nationalists. The advantage of the current wording is that it takes no position on whether Ireland currently is or is not a single state, which imo in a shortdesc is different from being "ambiguous". If any reader is puzzled by this, reading the first para of the article will soon set them straight. How many characters is it currently? Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused why you think the shortdesc should be neutral on the issue (though I still strongly disagree it is) while the article is not? The short desc should match the judgements of the article, which clearly is about a proposition to form Ireland into a single state, a state of being which is not currently the case. The current shortdesc is 66 characters, the proposed is 47 characters. What verb do you suggest better fits than "form"? We should avoid "unify" since it is part of the title. Perhaps "join" is sufficiently neutral. --Cerebral726 (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I've taken out "sovereign" as not really needed. There is now barely any length difference. A flat 40 char limit is just silly, & frankly you should be doing something useful with your editing time, rather than WP:SHORTDESC stuff. The article is neutral - it has the space to be, and is written by people (not me) who understand the subject. I think we have discussed this enough now. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not think it is appropriate for you to tell me how I should spend my editing time, it really is quite poor WP:ETIQUETTE and reads to me as condescending, even if that is not the intended tone. In hopes to wrap this up, a quick summary: my understanding of your argument is that you think the short desc is neutral in its stance on whether Ireland is a single or multiple states, a position I and Scuoise have disagreed with, and that this neutrality is an advantage. My argument is that if that is true and the short desc can be read either way, than it should be edited to unambiguously take the position of the article, which is clear that Ireland is not a single state. If the short description can only be read that Ireland is not a single state, than the two proposed short descriptions are identical. I'm not sure which aspect you disagree with. --Cerebral726 (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Irredentism

How exactly is Irish 'unification' not irredentism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.123.130 (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you referring to a certain edit or revert? The page is in fact contained in the categories of "irredentism" and "Irish irredentism".

I assume it is contained in those categories as a case of potential irredentism. Take the following definition (from Siroky and Hale's 2017 piece) typical of political-science/IR literature on the topic: "[irredentism is] defined as a state's use of military force to advance a claim of ownership over territory in a neighboring state on the basis of coethnicity, and to create a greater congruence between the ethnic group and the state (Gellner 1983, 1, 57; 1992)." Depending on how much coercive pressure one requires a state to apply before qualifying their behaviour as irredentist, Ireland's attitude toward unification with Northern Ireland could be categorised as potential or actual irredentism. Although, it would be very difficult to argue it falls on the actual side compared to the clearest cases of irredentist action (e.g., Russia's military invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine on irredentist claims) considering the generally cooperative relations between Dublin and Westminster for decades.

Irrespective of my speculation there as to why the article is currently contained in irredentism categories, use of the term will ultimately be guided by whatever WP:RS say or do not say about the term. If you believe sources discussing Irish unification and irredentism are being overlooked, you're always welcome to present the material here for encyclopedic contributions.

Lastly, if your comment was not referring to a recent edit or a specific item in the article, then just remember WP:NOTAFORUM. Scuoise (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

My point is, as with other forms of irredentism, it should really be included in the opening of the article, so that there's no ambiguity.

I don't think the lack of military action on the behalf of the Republic of Ireland really absolves the irredentist nature of Irish unification supporters, particularly considering there's been a pervasive history of terrorist origanizations and violent militant action attempting to advance those exact aims. 88.110.123.130 (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I mean your point about Ireland's lack of military action regarding this issue would absolve a lot of other types of irredentism such as the concept of a Greater Israel, Greater Albania, Greater Greece etc. etc. since the official states representing the ethnic groups from which the irredentist ideas spring haven't taken any kind of military action historically, or at least in a long time.

I'm not really sure what your point was regarding that, that other types of irredentism are more aggressively sought after? That other types of irredentism are taken to more extreme lengths? How does that stop Irish irredentism from being a thing that exists?

Again, the concept of a United Ireland is blatantly irredentist, it has been openly and officially supported by the Republic of Ireland since its inception (and the states preceding it), it has led to terrorist organizations and violent militias attempting to forcibly implement it upon a population that overwhelmingly does not want it (and that's not just the non-Irish majority population of Northern Ireland that doesn't want a United Ireland, by any stretch of the imagination as polls consistently have shown).

It's an irredentist concept, it doesn't stop being irredentist just because it's a fairly impotent incarnation of it. 88.110.123.130 (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the term as useful here, any more than relating to, say, the Spanish claim on Gibraltar. The ROI support has been for several decades subject to the process in the GFA, rather than absolute. Johnbod (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Why do you not see the term as useful here, exactly? I think using it for the Spanish claim on Gibraltar is perfectly justified, but are Spanish claims on Gibraltar rooted in the idea of reuniting the 'ethnic Spanish' population of Gibraltar with the Spanish state? I thought it was more about trade and taxation, but I'm not particularly well versed in the situation.

If there is some heavy ethnic motivation and emphasis behind Spanish claims on Gibraltar then by all means I'm happy to hear it.

Calls for a United Ireland are, and always have been, absolutely rooted in ethnic irredentism, however. 88.110.123.130 (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

"The ROI support has been for several decades subject to the process in the GFA, rather than absolute."

The State of Israel also has unequivocally denounced the idea of a Greater Israel, even going so far as to claim the idea of a Greater Israel is 'dead' (in the words of a former recent Israeli PM).

In fact as far as I know the idea of a Greater Israel has never experienced ANY endorsement from the Israeli state and has NEVER been pushed for or condoned or supported by any Israeli government.

And yet, oddly enough, the Wikipedia article on Greater Israel mentions its irredentist nature in the opening SENTENCE, I believe.

Weird, it's almost like some editors perhaps think Irish irredentism isn't irredentism and shouldn't be called it... because you feel it's different, like maybe you support the idea and thus don't really want a term like irredentism to be slapped on it, because that makes it look kind of ugly, doesn't it? It doesn't make the political idea of a United Ireland look all that justified.

But I'm sure that's not the case now, is it... 88.110.123.130 (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and wouldn't you know it, the article on the Status of Gibraltar literally features the word irredentist in the opening sentence too, regarding Spain's claim to it:

"Gibraltar, a British Overseas Territory, located at the southern tip of the Iberian Peninsula, is the subject of an irredentist territorial claim by Spain."

What a shocker. So that leaves Irish irredentism as the ONLY form of irredentism on Wikipedia which, for some bizarre reason, is still not explicitly stated to actually BE a form of irredentism in the opening sentence. 88.110.123.130 (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)