Talk:Irish nationality law

Automatic vs. Entitled

I have added a brief statement stating that the pre-1999 Irish nationality law was incompatible with international law, in particular for the purposes of diplomatic protection. This is because automatic citizenship, when applied to individuals living outside of the State's territory, has no effect under public international law. I know that the Irish government claimed the North, but from an international law perspective, the North was not part of the Irish State. Note that this is not the same as saying that Irish citizenship was invalid, but only that it would not have been recognised in some instances by international tribunals. --Heatley (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What you are referring to appears to be the Master Nationality Rule. JAJ (talk) 05:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The article states that a person born on the island of Ireland is an Irish citizen if born before the 2004 Act came into force. This appears to be incorrect as the 2001 Act provides that 'Every person born in the island of Ireland is entitled to be an Irish citizen'. Therefore, it would appear it is only those people born before the 2001 Act came into effect who are Irish citizens solely through fact of birth on the Irish island. The precise cut-off date is the 2nd December 1999 as a footnote in the Irish government's unofficial restatement indicates: 'Repl. 15/2001 s. 3(1): deemed to have come into operation on the 2nd day of December, 1999, being the day of the making of the declaration by the Government under Article 29.7.3o of the Constitution (15/2001 s. 9(3).' As the 2001 Act also provides that 'Nothing in this section shall ... deprive of Irish citizenship a person who immediately before its coming into operation was an Irish citizen' person born on the island of Ireland before 2nd December 1999 are Irish citizens. I have accordingly edited the article. --Heatley (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The distinction between "an Irish citizen" and "entitled to be an Irish citizen" is one that has not yet been tested in any court and may not survive challenge if it ever becomes important. It could be raised in a foreign court in the context of countries that revoke citizenship upon acquisition of another. JAJ (talk) 05:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

Is it correct to say that both:

   * Born on the island of Ireland (including its "isles and seas").
   * Born to at least one parent who is, or is entitled to be, an Irish citizen.

Are required to be a citizen? A person born abroad to an Irish parent is also a citizen. Seabhcán 16:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Persons born outside Ireland and Northern Ireland may be granted Irish citizenship under legislation, however this is not constitutionally protected and could be changed by a future government without a referendum. Same goes for those born in Ireland with British parents, long resident non-citizen parents etc JAJ

Further sections required?

I think the article needs a section on Legal History - a discussion on famous court cases on nationality and citizenship in Ireland. Also the diaspora section could do with some wikification and further detail. Any other suggestions? Seabhcán 16:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

80m?

The number of 80 million is very spectacular, but

• quite meaningless without a clear definition of "Irish descent"
• if no source is mentioned, it should better be removed
• 80 million seems better than 80m

Piet 14:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, we need a source for that number. I got it originally from the Irish diaspora article. Here is one external source which puts the figure at 40 million Irish Americans, and 10 million others [1]. However, I think this particular source is an underestimation: there are certainly more than 10 million Irish decendents in Australia, Canada, Mexico, South Africa, etc. Give me a few days to track down a reliable source. Seabhcán 15:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

1.2m Irish Born Abroad?

I would query what the Minister meant here - was he just referring to Irish born passport holders? I seem to recall reading that there are 1 million residents of Great Britain (excluding NI) who were born in Ireland - that would make the above figure an underestimate.

--Sf 19:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

This detail can be found in the Irish Government's now rather old (1996) White Paper on Foreign Policy, Chapter 6, 'The Irish Abroad'. Facts are that there were in 1996 1.2 million Irish-born overseas, along with a further 1.8 million Irish citizens (presumably the children of emigrants and grandchildren on FBR) who had been born abroad. If memory serves, there were two million in Britain, half a million in the US, 213,000 in Australia, 75,000 in Canada, and 35,000 in New Zealand. Given that there has been large scale return migration of Irish emigrants and their citizen children to Ireland north and south since 1997 (120,000 to the south alone as at 2001), and a greater interest abroad in applying for Irish citizenship amongst those eligible under various rules, this figure is no longer accurate. But it is the only one we have. According to the 2001 Census, there were 869,000 Irish-born (north and south) in Britain. Doire 21:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

British Nationality

How British nationality law affects the Republic of Ireland is complex and subject to a lot of myths. I've put a link in to a new article giving details.JAJ

Entitlement to Irish citizenship

I've removed the comment "The Republic of Ireland grants citizenship to any person who has at least one parent who is a citizen or is entitled to be one." as it doesn't cover situations where people are born in the ROI/NI with non-Irish parents. Nor does it cover the complexities of Foreign Birth Registration for the third and subsequent generations. JAJ

A further comment removed:

"The only difference is that those born in the Republic who are Irish Citizen by birth, achieve this citizenship automatically; those from Northern Ireland need to specifically declare themselves to be Irish Citizens in order to be so, unless they have parents or grandparents who are already Irish Citizens. Those from Northern Ireland have the exact entitlement to Irish Citizenship as those born in any other part of Ireland."

This was true under the pre-1999 laws, however now the key question as to whether one is a 'full' Irish citizen at birth or just 'entitled' to be an Irish citizen is based not on whether one is born in the ROI or Northern Ireland, but on whether one has another citizenship at birth.

Most people born in Northern Ireland do have another citizenship (British) but the law applies equally to those born in the Republic of Ireland who acquire British or another citizenship (by descent) at the time of birth. It's a grey area if the 'other' citizenship requires registration, in the case of Australia, for example.

All that said, the distinction between someone who is 'entitled' to be an Irish citizen and an Irish citizen proper is a grey area. It is unlikely that it will be tested in the Irish courts, however it may become an issue in a foreign court (if entitlement to citizenship of another country depends on not having Irish citizenship). One one construction, the distiction is merely a political statement that certain Irish citizens will not be treated as having that citizenship unless they wish to. JAJ 14:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The entitlement to Irish citizenship for a son or daughter of an Ireland-born Irish citizen is stated in the article without qualification. But I've noticed in listings of the process for obtaining an Irish passport that one of the required documents for submission by a person born outside Ireland to an Irish parent is a copy of the parent's marriage certificate. Does anyone know if the need for one's Irish-born Irish citizen parent to be married constitutes an actually legal limitation on the right to Irish citizenship of their non-Ireland born child? Or 1) is the issue of being a citizen and being granted a passport two seperate issues? Or 2) is the need to submit the parents' marriage certificate to obtain a passport a request but not a requirement? Or...???...anyone know??? Nuclare 03:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, it does not matter (in terms of eligiblilty to pass on citizenship) if parents are not married. This was made clear (retrospectively) in section 5 of the Status of Children Act 1987. JAJ 04:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I did a bit more research today and at the Irish Dept. of Foreign Affairs site, the request for the submission of one's parents' marriage certificate is followed by "(if applicable)," so I take that to mean its not a necessary factor. Nuclare 01:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Definitions?

The Irish nationality code is extended to Northern Ireland in many instances, however in some cases (eg statelessness and naturalisation) it is not.

In particular it's not always clear whether 'Ireland' means the Republic of Ireland, or is a collective term for the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland as one. JAJ

Honorary citizenship of Ireland

Would this subject fit in this article, or should it go elsewhere? There are several prominent people who have been awarded honorary Irish citizenship -- Jack Charlton, Alfred Chester Beatty to name just two.

Demiurge 16:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

'Honorary' citizenship is legally full citizenship under s12 of the 1956 Act, so it does belong here, now added. JAJ 02:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Irish Government webpages

I've removed a recent edit with an extract from the oasis.gov.ie website as a lot of the information is inaccurate to the point of being misleading. There's a link to the consolidated Act and this needs to be the refence.

The Irish nationality law is much more complex now than it used to be at it will take some time for public servants in Ireland to get used to that. JAJ

Passports for investments

Does anyone know details on the "Passports for Investments" scheme from the dark days of the 1980's? It was in the news recently: [2] Seabhcán 10:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC) More links: [3] [4] [5]. 143 people were given passports between 1988 and 1994, including Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, brother in law to Osama Bin Laden, and 10 members of his family. IR£90m was invested in Ireland under the scheme. Currently, Victor Kozeny is in prision in the Bahamas under an extradition request by the US. He holds 6 Irish passports. Seems like a lot of dodgy people became paddified under the scheme. Seabhcán 10:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

What sort of things did you want to know? Basically if you gave USD1000,000 to the Irish state for the purpose of economic development then they thanked you with citizenship. Thr Irish nationality law provides for the granting of citizenship for those who make anoutstanding contributions to the Irish state - I'm sure hard cash was not what they had in mind when that law was drafted :)

"Passports for investment" was not grant of citizenship as an honour under s12 of the 1956 Act. Rather it was waiving the criteria for naturalisation (on the basis of "Irish associations") under s15 of the Act. Although the scheme was stopped in 1994, it was not until 2004 that legislation tightened the wording of 'Irish associations' to prevent the scheme from being reintroduced by ministerial discretion. There is still nothing to stop residence being granted based on investment and the investor subsequently becoming a naturalised citizen but normal residence periods must first be fulfilled. JAJ 09:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Do you know when the policy started? What caused it to be reversed? Seabhcán 09:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Didn't it start informally at some stage during the 1980s? As to why it was reversed, perhaps because of revelations about some of the persons being granted citizenship. An overly lax naturalisation policy can lead to other countries withdrawing visa-free travel rights from passport holders of that country (it's happened to countries like Grenada). JAJ 14:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I suspect a lot of people took up the offer in recent years as a way to live in other EU nations. The wealthy of nations that have restrictive visa problems would probably find an Irish passport useful too. Robertbrockway 08:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Ireland Act 1949

There's a comment in the article that I feel is incorrect:

"The Ireland Act 1949 is the most significant act in the United Kingdom that deals with Irish nationality recognition and has a number of effects in British law on employment, residence, voting and related law."

The Ireland Act 1949 says very little directly about these subjects. Most of it was concerned with:

• recognising the withdrawal of the Republic of Ireland from the Commonwealth with effect from 18 April 1949
• assuring the status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom
• making provision to treat the Republic of Ireland on a par with other Commonwealth nations (even though it was not a member). This involved consequential amendments to other laws.
• conferring UK & Colonies citizenship on certain people born in the Republic of Ireland prior to 6 Dec 1922 who left before that date

Rights of Irish citizens to vote in the UK are based on the Representation of the People Act 1949, and the right of Irish citizens to live in the UK is based on the Common Travel Area orders made under the Immigration Act 1971. JAJ 04:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The Ireland Act states "the Republic of Ireland is not a foreign country", this in effect means that a citizen of the Republic of Ireland is not a citizen of a foreign country, therefore no need to have to go through the usual registration that foreign citizens must. These few simple words had a substantial effect on practice afterwards and even today the Ireland Act has the effect of giving Irish nationals rights beyond those that they would be entitled to in European law. Djegan 19:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

No Commonwealth country is "foreign" under UK legislation but that means little or nothing in immigration terms. The only immigration concessions left are the Working Holiday visa and Ancestry Visa. Plus the right to vote in the UK. Commonwealth countries (and by extension Ireland) are de-facto foreign countries even if the law has not been brought up to date to reflect this. JAJ 06:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The commonwealth of 1949 and the commonwealth of today are almost unrecognisable because of fundemental changes to the law over time, once expected consessions on immigration and travel to the UK are distant memories, so I would not get hung up on them. De-facto or not the Ireland Act and in particular section 2 Republic of Ireland not a foreign country [6] should provide interesting reading and this does, to the best of my knowledge, have full force of law and I am quite sure that any court in the UK would construe accordingly as to its obvious meaning. Djegan 19:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

No-one is arguing with the fact that the Ireland Act 1949 is the piece of legislation that ensures the ROI is not a 'foreign country' as far as the UK is concerned. At least until the UK decides to bring the law back into line with reality. Pakistan, Mozambique and New Zealand (among many others) are also not 'foreign countries' (technically at least) however their citizens do not have automatic rights to live in the UK. Which comes back to the original assertion that the Ireland Act is the reason ROI citizens retain the right to live in the UK - maybe true in 1949 (as this was a generic privilege given to all Commonwealth citizens), but that has been superseded by later legislation. As far as the right to live in the UK is concerned, the Immigration Act 1971 is the governing piece of legislation today. JAJ 02:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

A bit off topic but it is interesting to note that the High Court of Australia has explicitely ruled the UK to be a "foreign power" for purposes of interpreting the Constitution of Australia. This is despite the fact that the UK could not have been a foreign power when the constitution was enacted. The specific issue was whether a dual British/Australian citizen could sit in the Australian federal parliament (those with a foreign citizenship are prohibited from doing so). The UK and other commonwealth realms will probably be not far behind in making similar determinations. Robertbrockway 08:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Ambiguity

• I couldn't determine from the article whether someone acquiring Irish nationality via The Grandparent Rule would still retain their original nationality as well. Does taking up Irish nationality replace your old one? Or complement it? Jdcooper 11:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It complements it usually, but it depends on your original citizenship (see multiple citizenship) Most countries allow multiple citizenship (including Ireland, UK, Austrailia, US, Canada, etc) However, some don't, including Germany which requires you to give up your German citizenship if you aquire another. Under Irish law, an application to the Irish Government for citizenship is treated secretly. However, German nationals living abroad who attempt to renew their passport must prove that they have not become a citizen of the host country. So, as far as Ireland is concerned - you can have as many other citizenships as you like - however other countries see things differently. Seabhcán 11:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

A German could ask for permission to take out Irish citizenship (and keep German). See German nationality law. Those from the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom can freely take Irish citizenship, as can those from certain European countries (eg France, Italy, Sweden, Malta) JAJ 04:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Jus soli

I changed the comment regarding "abolition" of jus soli to "modified" - the fact that children of legal residents are generally citizens by birth means that jus soli is to a large extent still in place. JAJ 21:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Fair cop. I had the application of Jus soli as an absolute right in mind rather than as a principle. It was the absolute right which was abolished, but I guess the principle still remains. I've changed the text to reflect this position. Caveat lector 20:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

1956 Act - Retrospective

Was the 1956 Act retrospective or not? I would suggest that it was, because for most purposes there is no reference in the Act to its provisions only applying to the time after commencement (17 July 1956). There is also no reference in Irish Government forms and booklets to a different set of rules applying to those born before 17.07.1956, which one would normally expect from non-retrospective legislation. JAJ 04:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Hey JAJ - As far as I know there's a general legal presumption against retrospective effect of statutes. The absence of a textbook on Irish nationality law makes it difficult to be absolutely clear about retrospective effect in the particular, however the reason I was so quick to revert your edit was that section 24 of the 1956 Act provides that:

"No person shall be deemed over to have lost Irish citizenship under section 21 of the Act of 1935 merely by operation of the law of another country whereby citizenship of that country is conferred on that person without any voluntary act on his part."

There appears to be an assumption that people who lost their citizenship willingly would not regain their citizenship automatically. Moreover section 6(3) of the 1956 (as enacted) provided that citizenship gained under the act would only apply as and from the act's enactment, so precluding retrospective effect. Since the act applies prospectively no special rules are required to differentiate those born before and after 1956, even though some of those born before were only citizens as and from 17 July 1956. (btw thanks for correcting the dates) -- Caveat lector 06:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Section 6(2), citizenship by descent, is clearly intended to apply prospectively (but retrospectively in the sense that some people born before 17.07.56 became citizens on that date). However the limitation in section 6(3) does not apply to section 6(1), citizenship by birth, and it seems that as far as policy is concerned, section 6(1) has been interpreted retrospectively. Same goes for loss of citizenship under the 1935 Act, it appears that under policy there was never any attempt to look-into pre-1956 naturalisations overseas. Only if such a policy was instituted would there have been any chance of a court challenge. JAJ 12:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

True to a point. 6(1) applies equally to people born before and after 1956. However it says they are Irish citizens from birth, not that they are Irish citizens on the enactment date. Someone who was an Irish citizen on the date of his birth before 1956 and who had voluntarily lost that citizenship before 1956 under section 21 of the 1935 act, would not have regained his citizenship just because the 1956 Act states that he was a citizen from birth. -- Caveat lector 15:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying your point of view is technically incorrect, but that does not appear to be the way the Irish Government sees it. They do not ask passport applicants about naturalisation in another country prior to 17 July 1956, for example. JAJ 16:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

On reflection I can't come to any clear conclusion on retrospectivity and the 1956 Act. The Government do seem to have the opposite view. I removed my previously inserted reference to section 21 of the 1935 act. If we can't come to a clear conclusion as to its modern relevance (whether it was just discontinued or completely overturned) we probably shouldn't mention it at all. -- Caveat lector 23:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ireland Act 1949 (again)

In footnote 3 the text says: "Re Logue (1933) ILTR 253. The decision resulted in changes being made the the British Nationality Act 1948 by the Ireland Act 1949, to ensure that people who were domiciled in Northern Ireland on 6th December 1922 would not fail to become citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies merely because they were also Irish citizens."

I think this misinterprets what the British Nationality Act 1948 and Ireland Act 1949 set out to achieve. The 1948 Act conferred UK citizenship on all those British subjects who were connected with the United Kingdom by way of birth, descent (father's line, first generation) and naturalisation, plus women married to men who became UK citizens. All the other Commonwealth countries agreed to enact similar laws conferring local citizenship on persons connected with that country. In order to ensure that every "British subject" acquired a citizenship, the 1948 Act contained "mop-up" provisions in sections 12(4) and 13(2) that conferred UK citizenship on anyone who was a British subject before 1949 and did not acquire citizenship of any of the Commonwealth countries (Republic of Ireland was treated as Commonwealth).

Under the 1948 Act, a person born in Northern Ireland acquired UK citizenship automatically on 1.1.49 even if that person also acquired citizenship of another Commonwealth country at the same time.

The Ireland Act, in section 5, ensured that certain persons who were British subjects connected with the Republic of Ireland could become UK citizens without specific UK connections, even if they also had Irish citizenship (which would have excluded them from the "mop-up"), provided that they had left the Republic of Ireland before 6 Dec 1922 and had not made any specific application for Irish citizenship. JAJ 12:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, I've removed this paragraph. It was based on the house of Lords debate on the Ireland Bill but I think I'll have to go back and check my research again. -- Caveat lector 22:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• • I've re-inserted the footnote. It now makes clear that the the group whose citizenship was in doubt were those born in Southern Ireland, not those born in Northern Ireland. The citizenship of the latter group never having been in doubt. Caveat lector 19:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Conflicting information

A couple of years ago, I inquired at the Irish Consulate in Boston on whether there was any method for me to obtain Irish citizenship. Me, my parents, and grandparents were all born in the US, however three of my great-grandparents were born in Ireland. I understood that the law of Irish citizenship by descent only reached back two generations, therefore my parents could become Irish citizens but not me. I asked if there was any way that their becoming Irish citizens would allow me to become one, and was told NO. It would seem that what the consulate staffer told me and what is claimed here on Wikipedia are in conflict. I really hope that the information here is correct, and even that if it is correct, I do not need to hire a lawyer to get my rights. I am asking my parents if they would apply for Irish citizenship and they appear to be willing but fearful of a lot of paperwork. Just in case you are interested, I would more than likely take up residence in Ireland were I able to obtain this citizenship - I am not merely after it as a trinket to flash around on March 17.

The information from the Consulate is correct. The article (on citizenship by descent) says the same thing. Where do you see the inconsistency? JAJ 01:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but perhaps the article isn't as clear as it could be. The term 'Irish-born citizen' is arguably vague and the line saying where the Foreign Births Registry is, seems a bit superfluous. Caveat lector 14:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've clarified this section and changed the date for the change in the registration regime from 1 July 1986 to 1 January 1987. From reading the ministerial speech on the introduction of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1994, it appears the old registration regime continued for the length of the 6 month transitional period provided by the 1986 act. Caveat lector 20:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. The 1986 legislation did include transitional provisions whereby anyone who was prevented from applying for citizenship by the change could do so for a continued 6 months. However it does not alter the fact that anyone registered as Irish under FBR from 1 July 1986 is a citizen only from the date of registration. JAJ 01:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The present situation is a bit messy but it appears to work like this:

• The new regime came into force on 2 July 1986, that being the day after the passing of the Act on the 1st. This is quite clear from the consolidated version which states that, "the Irish citizenship of a person who, after 1 July 1986, is registered under section 27 shall commence only as on and from the date of such registration". (my emphasis) (section 7 as inserted by the 2001 Act)

• Owing to section 2(2) and 2(3) of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1994 the registration of anyone registered between 1 July 1986 and 31st December 1986, is deemed to have actually taken place on 1 July 1986, that is to say prior to the introduction of the regime brought in by the 1986 Act.

This also appears to have been the interpretation prior to the 1994 Act given the content of the Minister's speech and the surge in applications for registration it refers to.

(I previously omitted the link. Here it is http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0140/S.0140.199404210005.html). Caveat lector 18:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The following Parliamentary question reinforces the 1 January 1987 date http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0142/S.0142.199504040010.html Caveat lector 15:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Just to clarify for the OP in this section. Based on the information you have provided, had one of your parents acquired Irish citizenship prior to the 1986 act then their citizenship would be taken to have been from birth, thus your parent would be an Irish citizen at the time of your birth and you would be allowed citizenship via the Foreign Births Register. In 1986 the law was amended so citizenship was no longer back dated to the person's birth on acquisition - this if your parents acquired Irish citizenship now this would not help you as they were not Irish citizens when you were born. I'm in exactly the same situation BTW. Robert Brockway 01:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue of the transitional period in 1986 needs to be revisited. The facts are as follows:

• The 1986 Act became law on 1 July 1986.
• The Interpretation Act 1937 states, in section 8(3): "(3) Every enactment contained in an Act of the Oireachtas shall, unless the contrary intention is expressed in such Act, be deemed to be in operation as from the end of the day before the date of the passing of such Act."
• Hence it is clear that the 1986 Act was operative on 1 July 1986
• The transitional period in the 1986 Act did keep open the pre-1986 regime, but only for those who made applications at the time (or with applications pending). After the transitional period ended, they were deemed to have acquired citizenship on the registration date, not retrospectively.
• The 1994 Act in section 2(1) only affected those who lodged applications for citizenship between 1 July 1986 and 31 December 1986
• Section 2(3) of the 1994 Act does provide that any registration between 1 July and 31 December 1986 will be deemed to have been registered on 1 July 1986. But this only benefits those who had applications lodged at the time, or a case where a child was born in the second half of 1986 to an Irish citizen also registered in the same time period, but after the birth of the child.
• In other words, the 1994 Act is limited in scope mainly to those who were applying for citizenship at the time. It did not amount to a generalised extension of retrospective citizenship for a further 6 months.
• I will wait a few days and then change the 1 Jan 1987 deadline back to 1 July 1986 if there are no objections. JAJ (talk) 05:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I object. (I'll forget about the 1994 act for a moment as it confuses matters.) The transitional provision of the 1986 act extended the application of the pre-1986 regime to the 31 December 1986. Anyone whose foreign birth was registered on or before that date is deemed to have Irish citizenship from birth. Hence the act gives 1 January 1987 as the state date of the new regime. This date is fully referenced. Blue-Haired Lawyer 08:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

What section 8 of the 1986 Act says is: For the period of six months commencing on the passing of this Act, any person who but for this Act could become an Irish citizen may continue to do so. You are correct that it kept open the pre-1956 regime (for 6 months) in respect of becoming an Irish citizen. However, it does not provide that anyone becoming an Irish citizen in that period should be treated as being so in a retrospective fashion. In other words, persons who registered during the transitional period still only became citizens from the date of registration (again leaving aside the 1994 Act, which does not materially affect this issue). JAJ (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The pre-1986 regime you talk about was the possibility of retrospective citizenship. There was a rush for registration for this precise reason. The minister's speech on the debate on the 1994 act is quite clear on this:

"Before the end of 1986 the Department of Foreign Affairs realised that the backlog of applications could not be dealt with by the statutory deadline of 31 December 1986. It therefore sought legal advice. The legal advice was to the effect that applicants could not benefit from the more favourable regime provided for in [135] the transitional provision of the 1986 Act unless the applications were actually registered by 31 December 1986. This was of vital significance for many fourth generation applicants whose right to citizenship was dependent on registration of their parents' births by 31 December 1986. These fourth generation applicants would not be entitled to Irish citizenship unless their parents' births were registered by that date. They are adversely affected by the failure to register their births by 31 December 1986." [7]

The point being that if the parents were registered before 31 December 1986 their citizenship was retrospective and their children could claim citizenship as well. If registered after that date only any children they might have subsequently to registration could be themselves registered as Irish citizens. The minister continues:

"I understand that in a small number of cases where there were family applications by parents and their children, the parents, on learning that they had not been registered by 31 December and that their existing children were not therefore eligible for registration, insisted on their own registration proceeding. The result was that the parents were registered but the existing children could not be registered because the citizenship of their parents was not backdated." [8]

My other source also unambiguously gives 1 January as the date of entry of the new regime:

"The 1956 Act was amended by the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1986. One of the main provisions of the new Act was the fixing of a date — 31 December 1986 — after which the birth abroad of a great-grandchild could be registered in the foreign births register only if the birth of a father or mother was registered before the great-grand-child's birth. A period of grace of six months from 1 July to 31 December 1986 was allowed during which the foreign births registration provisions of the 1956 Act continued to apply. ... Since 1 January 1987 births abroad of great-grandchildren can be registered only where the birth of the relevant parent [1731] was registered before the grand-child's birth." [9]

I can't imagine the sources could be clearer on this point! Blue-Haired Lawyer 09:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

All of your sources refer to cases where the applications were submitted in the transitional period. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that someone now, registered in October 1986 for example, could make an application for a child born before the middle of 1986. Why don't you address the specific points made above? I don't intend to get into an edit war with this but will take it to arbitration if necessary unless there is some hard evidence (not shown above) that what I am saying is wrong. JAJ (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

In fairness you haven't responded to the ministerial question I quoted above. When it says: "One of the main provisions of the new Act was the fixing of a date — 31 December 1986 — after which the birth...", is it wrong? Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

In our previous discussion I said that the 1986 act came into force on the 2nd of July rather than then first. I was wrong, but this doesn't fundamentally change matters. Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's where the 1994 Act is relevant as it clarifies what the 1986 Act actually did. Section 2(1)(b) of that act allows people who lodged a valid application during the traditional period of the 1986 Act but who were only registered after 1986, to re-register and be given an effective registration date on 1 July 1986. What you appear to be suggesting is that this provision would allow someone to backdate his/her citizenship from the actual registration year, say 1987, to 1986. Correct? Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I had previously believed that the new post-1986 regime started on 2 July 1986 (one day after the passing of the 1986 Act, that was before I checked the Interpretation Act) so in that case, the provisions in the 1994 Act backdating registration to 1 July 1986 would have fully preserved the pre-1986 provisions for those who did apply at the time. I don't think the ministerial speeches are wrong but there is confusion about two matters - the 6 month extension of the 1956 provisions is one thing, but that did not in itself provide retrospective citizenship for anyone registered in July 1986 or later. In other words, the extension given in Section 8 of the 1986 Act gave people 6 additional months to claim Irish citizenship to which they would have been entitled under the 1956 Act, but did not then make that citizenship retrospective. It was only a partial extension of the 1956 provisions. You are correct that the 1994 Act does allow a person who applied during the transitional period but was only registered in 1988 (for example) to apply to backdate their registration to 1 July 1986. It would benefit children born to them between 1 July 1986 and their original date of registration, however would not benefit children born before 1 July 1986. JAJ (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You're basing too much of you opinion on your own (literal) interpretation of the 1986 Act. The reason there was a rush for registration was because citizenship was still retrospective for the first 6 months of the acts operation and not just backdated to 1 July 1986. It would be very difficult to justify the rush for registration and the subsequent need for the 1994 Act otherwise. Yet another parliamentary question justifies this interpretation. It repeats my point that once the third-generation parent was registered on or before 31 December 1986, the fourth-generation child can be registered "at any time". Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Part of the reason for the "rush" for registration was third generation persons wishing to register their own children at the same time. It does seem that there is, or at least has been, a divergence between some administrative interpretation and the literal wording of the Acts concerning the retrospectivity issue. We'll only really know the interpretation if someone is refused registration for this reason and goes on to challenge it in the Irish courts (only the courts can definitively interpret the legislation). I will try to put together some wording, probably a footnote, that documents this grey area. JAJ (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

There is in fact very little or no grey area over all of this at all. The parliamentary question mentions nothing, even when given ample opportunity to do so, about the supposed requirement of fourth-generation children to register before the end of 1986. in order for the fourth-generation to gain citizenship citizenship, their parents must have been citizens at the time of their birth. The 86 Act didn't simply give people retrospective citizenship only take it away again at the end of the transitional period. This is clearly not the interpretation given by the Irish government. I agree that only courts can definitively interpret the law, but as far as an encyclopedia is concerned an official statement given by the appropriate minister in parliament is more than sufficient. Unless you can back up your own interpretation with something of equivalent authority, (academic commentary for example), I'll have to label it as original research. Blue-Haired Lawyer 09:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's one, from the Irish Embassy in South Africa : "If you obtained Irish citizenship through FBR before / on the 30th of June 1986, your children may apply." JAJ (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The Irish government's website says the same thing but a website isn't the same as a official statement by a minister in parliament. I did say something of equivalent authority. Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you are putting far too much emphasis on statements by ministers, which may or may not reflect a correct understanding of the law. In any case, the 2001 Act definitively re-enacted the law with the 1 July 1986 cut off. JAJ (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Several points:

1. For better or for worse, in the absence of court decisions, it's civil servants who apply the law. The same people who write ministerial responses to parliamentary questions. When the minister says something about how the act is interpreted, this is how it's interpreted in practise, even if the interpretation is wrong. Blue-Haired Lawyer 08:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

2. If you're interpretation is right, you'd have to find not just something giving the last date as 30 June 1986, but also explaining the effect of the transitional provisions. Blue-Haired Lawyer 08:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

3. I'll have to any you again: is it your position that retrospective citizenship was granted during the transitional and then taken away afterwards? Blue-Haired Lawyer 08:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

4. Side point: shouldn't the act say "as of 1 July 1986" or "on or after 1 July 1986", and not just "after 1 July 1986"? Did the 2001 Act inadvertently (or intentionally) change the date? Blue-Haired Lawyer 08:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion. My view is that the 2001 Act definitively established the 1 July 1986 deadline and it is entirely possible that the retrospective nature of citizenship that may have existed before that date could be cancelled. The Act specified that no Irish citizen would lose citizenship as a result, but did not protect a change in definition on reciprocity. However the 2001 Act does clearly say after 1 July 1986 (rather than "on or after") and then the provisions of the 1994 Act are quite relevant. Any registration under the 1994 Act is deemed effective from 1 July 1986 and all the registrations effected between 1 July and 31 December 1986 are also deemed to have been registered on 1 July 1986. Looking at the 2001 Act in this context, it appears that any registration done before 1987, or any registration/re-registration under the 1994 Act, is retrospective in effect under the terms of the 2001 Act. Incidentally, and I was surprised to find this out, the 1994 Act was not repealed by the Acts of 2001 or 2004 and hence appears still to be in effect. The only consequence of that is that a person who was registered as an Irish citizen between 1 Jan 1987 and 30 April 1994 (where application was made in the second half of 1986) can still apply for a re-registration of citizenship with an effective date of 1 July 1986, and hence apparently retrospective under the 2001 Act. JAJ (talk) 04:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

British Isles (terminology)

Could one of the regulars here keep an eye on (even improve) British Isles (terminology)#Political distinctions, specifically the last paragraph of the section on Ireland [the state]. A naive editor insists that possession of a passport confers citizenship! I've reverted it twice (perhaps three times) so someone else will have to take over. Frankly I don't think it is possible to express the nationality law in three short sentences and it would be better to have nothing, but he insists. --Red King (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Intro

The intro needs to clarify that the article relates to the law of the Republic of Ireland, and not Ireland as a whole. This is particularly important, given the extra-territorial nature of the law in question. Mooretwin (talk) 09:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Djegan (talk) 10:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What about moving the article to Nationality law of the Republic of Ireland ? jnestorius^(talk) 10:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Djegan (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be the best solution, avoiding all possible confusion, because British nationality law - as it relates to Northern Ireland - is also Irish (in the geographic/cultural sense) nationality law. Mooretwin (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

disagree strongly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchlistac (talk • contribs) 10:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? Mooretwin (talk) 10:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Do remember that this article is part of a series of articles entitled "X nationality law". Once we say it's the law of the Republic of Ireland in the lead, I don't think we'll have any problems. Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

How does that precedent work with Korean nationality law, or Taiwanese?Mooretwin (talk) 12:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• I thought the naming standard for subclasses of Category:Categories by country was "Things of country" rather than "Countryish things", precisely to reduce such problems. Apparently not.
• In any case, Category:Nationality law is not a subclass of Category:Categories by country and has lots of extraneous articles.
• Many of those categories have an Ireland category with Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland subcategories, which is clearly inappropriate here. In fact, there is no consistency in the naming of such Irish categories: a possible job for WP:IMOS if it's worth the trouble of establishing a standard.
• Conformance to a standard implicit in the names of similar articles or categories is a useful default principle, when there is no better way to choose among a range of possible alternatives. However, there often is a better way, as some more important principle may take precedence over the default; I think "Republic of Ireland" will often be such a case. jnestorius^(talk) 12:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Err surely if The law extends extra-territorially to people born in Northern Ireland. then nothing needs to be changed!Watchlistac (talk) 13:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think that? Mooretwin (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well tell me what the issue is then. You claimed there was a problem because it doesn't relate to Ireland as an island, when it does. Watchlistac (talk) 13:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Re. the intro Watchlistac has just reverted from ROI to Ireland, without discussion. Mooretwin (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Just put it back to the stable version. Your changes weren't agreed.Watchlistac (talk) 13:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The stable version had been "Republic of Ireland" for a long time before it was changed. The change to "Ireland" wasn't agreed either. Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus needed for a change. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 12:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to direct this primarily to Blue-Haired Lawyer (if I can - Hope so, as I know the others have made up their minds). First, I know you have done a lot of good work on this article, particularly around referencing. Well done. Second, I am sorry we do not agree on the intro. Third, Most people tend to make up their mind and then stick to it so I doubt I will change yours – but I will try once! :- The intro as amended reads “Irish nationality law is the law of the Republic of Ireland governing citizenship.” If it read once again as “Irish nationality law is the law of Ireland governing citizenship.", do you think that would be ambiguous?; do you think people would think an island was making nationality laws? [My answer to both questions: No]; do you think it is ever appropriate to use the state’s official name on WP?; [My answer: Yes, except where it would cause genuine confusion]; do you think the fact that “Ireland” is the state’s official name in its constitution and is its internationally recognised name carries any weight? [My answer: Yes. I would also point you to Names of the Irish state but I expect you have read it already.]

I have read you call the state’s name simply a “misnomer”. That disappointed me. For completeness - I would apply the same sort of logic in defending use of the name “Northern Ireland” for that part of the UK (even if some in Donegal might argue that name was a “misnomer”!). Finally, we are not talking about moving the "RoI" article here - that is a separate matter. That’s my piece. Hope I changed your mind. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The intro should clarify that the law applies to ROI only. Mooretwin (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, I've thought about this for a while. Here are my answers:

You are quite correct that Islands don't have nationality laws. Nonetheless both jurisdictions in Ireland do have nationality laws. There is a genuine possibility that the systematic use of "Ireland" to mean the republic could cause confusion. Few people, even in Ireland (state) or Ireland (island), know that the official name of the republic is Ireland. This article oughtn't be written for people who already know everything about Ireland but rather for those who know next to nothing. Consistently calling the state Ireland would lead to confusion among the latter and worse may lead them to think that Northern Ireland isn't part of Ireland and/or that people from Northern Ireland aren't Irish. Given the different rules in the nationality acts that apply in the state first, Northern Ireland second and everywhere else third, the possibility of confusion is particularly acute here.

Frankly I'm left hollow by the whole official name thing, and I take almost the precisely opposite view on its use in Wikipedia as you do. As far as I can see, its main use should be in the first line of the "Republic of Ireland/Ireland (state)" article. I have yet to see a good argument for its more general use. The fact that the Irish government use the official name domestically and insistent on its use internationally with indifferent foreigners, hardly counts as a good argument. We're writing an encyclopedia here, not drafting treaties. I would be less forceful here if I had seen more arguments along the lines that using Ireland to refer to the state would improve the encyclopedia but as it happens I haven't seen that many.

For the case of point, both "Ireland" and "Northern Ireland" are misnomers. While of the latter may mislead readers as to the position of the border, use of the former may lead some people to think that the latter doesn't exist at all. I'm not sure why stating the obvious should disappoint you.

I'm going to try "republic [sic] of Ireland" as a compromise. Even if the "Republic of Ireland" isn't the state's official name, it is in any case a republic. (Btw, I wrote a good chunk of this article as well.) Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the whole thing because it became ridiculous. I would like to ask Djegan and Redking7 (respected editors of longstanding) to have a look at the discussion here and to suggest specific edits which might express what consensus there is. Mooretwin has been edit-warring, including labelling the edits of every unregistered user as a "sock" which means that he undoes edits simply because he does not like them (that's POV). (You oughtn't accuse an IP address of sockpuppetry without saying who you think is the puppeteer.) I do NOT want to see MooreTwin and Blue-Haired Lawyer tinkering with this until consensus has been achieved. In particular, Blue-Haired Lawyer's "experiment" of lowercasing republic was NOT a good idea, and should NOT have been made in the article absent of consensus on this talk page. -- Evertype·✆ 08:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

For your info - the Irish articles have been assaulted recently by a sock puppet under various guises, all making edits to substitute "Ireland" for "Republic of Ireland". Mooretwin (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested in this report. --Setanta747 (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This is beyond tedious. I think it's appalling that some of you have nothing better to do than to try to insert "Republic of" in every other sentence having to do with Ireland in the Wikipedia. It's not encyclopaedic. It's POV pushing on your part. -- Evertype·✆ 11:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This is beyond tedious. I think it's appalling that some of you have nothing better to do than to try to substitute "Ireland" for every other referring to the Republic of Ireland in the Wikipedia. It's not encyclopaedic. It's POV pushing on your part. Mooretwin (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Evertype is now edit-warring, and I am not dangerously close to 3RR - you need 4 edits in 24 hours - I only have one. It is not the flag of Ireland - merely that of the Republic. Mooretwin (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Mooretwin I see you have been banned many times for 3rr. If you don't stop reverting to push your pov in order to show the incorrect name of a country then I will be forced to report you to one of the previous admins who banned you. You do not have to break 3RR to be banned, with your history if yu just even show intent to revert and edit war you will be banned. Do things by the book.213.202.148.7 (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Less of the personal, please. There's no POV involved - unless this is your motive for insisting on an ambiguous name? The "correct name of a country" does not need to be used (it's not for United States, United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland, etc.) Mooretwin (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Fact is behind my edit. Ireland is the name of the country. ROI isn't even a name. You are putting in something incorrect as you think someone will find it confusing. There is no references to back you up - therefore it's your own personal POV.213.202.148.7 (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

ROI is the official description, as legislated by the ROI parliament. It is not incorrect. ROI is not POV - if anything, "Ireland" is POV on the part of the Irish state, implying as it does jurisdiction over the whole island. "Ireland" is a misnomer and ambiguous. It is important for readers to understand the article does not relate to all of Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That is ridiculuous you cannot accuse a sovereign country of that, especially as the name is accepted by the internatioal community. This is an international encyclopedia and your political motivations for this edit are wrong and unwanted here. Irish is the official nationality and Ireland the official name of the state. Accepted fact. To input an incorrect colloquial name which was once used in the UK is just wrong. 213.202.148.7 (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"That is ridiculuous you cannot accuse a sovereign country of that" - why not? Are you suggesting that a sovereign country, its government and people, cannot have a POV? Really? I didn't accuse anyone of POV - you have accused those people preferring ROI of pushing POV. I merely point out the irony of that accusation.

"This is an international encyclopedia and your political motivations for this edit are wrong and unwanted here." - Really? And what are those "political motivations"? The only motivation is ensuring clarity. What is wrong with Republic of Ireland? You haven't explained.

"Irish is the official nationality and Ireland the official name of the state. Accepted fact." - no-one's disputing that!

"To input an incorrect colloquial name which was once used in the UK is just wrong." - it's not colloquial, it's not incorrect, and it's not wrong. Those - ironically - are your POVs! Mooretwin (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow. No no one's disputing the facts but me insisting on using the facts corrrectly are also my POV? As I said wow. To explain again for you. ROI is incorrect and is wrong. It is not the name of the country and to use it misleadingly suggests it is. Wikipedia doesn't want that. What's so special about the island that a nationality law or an internatinal flag (ie the law and flag of a country) would suddenly apply to an island? There is no case ever of flags or nationality laws applying to islands or peninsulas or mountains or whatever. They are used by countries. Ireland is the only name officially of the country in question and the law described on this page applies to that country. There isn't anything else to it.213.202.148.7 (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow. No no one's disputing the facts but me insisting on using the facts corrrectly are also my POV? - Insisting on "facts" which are ambiguous is not appropriate or helpful.

ROI is incorrect and is wrong. - On the contrary, it's neither incorrect nor wrong.

It is not the name of the country and to use it misleadingly suggests it is. - it's a commonly-used name for the country and it's the "official description". Using an "official name" is less important than using one that is understood and unambiguous.

Wikipedia doesn't want that. - Wikipedia uses "Republic of Ireland" - check it out: Republic of Ireland.

What's so special about the island that a nationality law or an internatinal flag (ie the law and flag of a country) would suddenly apply to an island? - readers may believe that they apply to the whole island, given that the name "Ireland" is used, which is the name of the island.

There is no case ever of flags or nationality laws applying to islands or peninsulas or mountains or whatever. - well, of course there are. The St Patrick's Cross, for example, is used to represent the island of Ireland. A flag has been used to represent the Korean peninsula at the Olympics. Mooretwin (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

213.202.148.7, why don't you register instead of editing anonymously? Mooretwin, evidently you have been editing only since June of this year. As such you are a newbie. You are reacting to every edit, to every comment, and even now accusing me of reversion offences although at every point I have said that we should get consensus on the Talk page. It is clear that you are pursuing a POV; the Irish government surely does not need you policing these articles so that people will not be "confused" by this article. The name of the State is Ireland whether you like it or not. I have Irish citizenship, not "Republic of Ireland citizenship". I'm sorry if you find that disturbing, but that's the truth. Your behaviour here is shrill, and aggressive. Such behaviour is not courteous. Chill. Relax. Enjoy the Wikipedia. Go and edit other things you know about. Please. -- Evertype·✆ 14:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What "POV" do you think I am pursuing, and in what way is it "clear"? No-one has disputed that the "official name" is Ireland. The point, however, is that the "official name" is ambiguous, hence the need to disambiguate and use the "official description" instead. I'm sorry if you find that disturbing. Mooretwin (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the title of this article. Clarifications of the type you want may be made in the first sentence (and only the first sentence) if the article. Job done. Festooning every sentence with a "republic of" or a "Republic of" is unnecessary, contentious, and tedious. You're not contributing in a positive way. You're being endlessly reactive, aggressive, and answer every criticism defensively. This isn't fun. It doesn't make the Wikipedia or this article better. -- Evertype·✆ 15:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I never mentioned the title of the article. It's only the intro where the change is occurring, which you appear to acknowledge is ok. But I've been banned from editing - probably because you or someone else on here complained - so you win. You get to keep ambiguous names to serve whatever, presumably political, purpose you have. Congratulations. Mooretwin (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Whilst you may judge the "ambiguous name" to be inconvenient, it is, in fact, the fact. An Encyclopaedia is a place to document facts. Your presumption that my motives in resisting the edits you have been making are political is incorrect. I have no strong view on whether this island should be one or two jurisdictions. (I wish the UK would join the eurozone however as it would be more convenient visiting IKEA in Belfast...) But at the same time after many years here at the WIkipedia I am sorely weary of all the fighting that goes on about the name of the State whose constititution is Bunreacht na hÉireann, and what "British Isles" means, and so on. -- Evertype·✆ 09:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

For the nth time, no-one's claiming the "official name" isn't "Ireland". But the "official name" is ambiguous, hence it's better to use the "official description". If a state has an ambiguous name, then disambiguation is required. Mooretwin (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Evertype, you have more or less managed to prove my initial suspicions correct. Using the lowercase republic of Ireland was part of a proposed package deal on renaming the Republic of Ireland article, based on the current practise of Encyclopedia Britannia. My initial impression was that the idea was a bit of a stalking horse and that once the RoI article was renamed the words "the republic of" would begin disappearing for articles. Subsequently I had seen some merit in an idea on the basis that while the state is a republic it's official name is Ireland and not the "Republic of Ireland". While not necessarily intuitive, it would have been a great improvement on the term "Ireland" used without explanation. It would appear however that my original impression was correct. Blue-Haired Lawyer

Btw, there is no hierarchy of editors on Wikipedia so please don't come up with patronising statements about "respected editors of longstanding", newbies, requiring permission to edit articles, or asserting that you have a neutral position while actively engaging in an edit war. Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Francis Bacon (painter)

I am hoping some members can take a look at the Francis Bacon page. Bacon was born in Ireland, the child of an Australian father and an Irish mother, all grandparents were English. He was raised in Ireland till age 16 when he ran away to London. He is listed on Wikipedia as a British artist, which I am disputing. My arguements are listed here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Francis_Bacon_(painter)#Evidence_that_Francis_Bacon.E2.80.99s_Nationality_was_Irish