Talk:Republic of Ireland

For the revolutionary republic of 1919–1922, see Irish Republic.

What is the justification for this Qexigator? Source referring to that state as "the Republic of Ireland"? Rob984 (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

If there is a problem, please clarify. It is not mine. Qexigator (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Uh, you reinstated it after I removed it. I don't see how it's necessary. Rob984 (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Please explain what you see as the problem. Qexigator (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The title of this article is not ambiguous, yet we a disambiguating the title. See WP:NAMB. Rob984 (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The content of this and other articles (and Talk discussions) shows that there is more than one way in which "Republic" is combined with Ireland or Irish. Readers (and editors) can find this unclear or confusing. To some extent, any given usage may even be considered contentious. The hatnote helps to clarify for the reader in the simplest way where to look for this or that, with a direct link instead of going via[1], and this is especially helpful for any reader who is not aware of the use of "Irish Republic" in connection with the revolutionary republic of 1919–1922. Whether or not any editor of one or more of the articles would find this "necessary" (perhaps in some pedantic sense) it is not contentious. Why not let it alone, instead of making it into a problem? Qexigator (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The Irish Republic was sometimes rendered as the "Republic of Ireland", therefore there is a potential ambiguity. I doubt that many people, if any, will search for the revolutionary state under this name; on the other hand, the disambiguation does no harm. I'm not bothered whether it stays or goes. Scolaire (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

An example: "Dail Eireann: The Minutes of Proceedings of the First Parliament of the Republic of Ireland, 1919-1921 (Official Record)" (quote from comment)[2] It should not be forgotten that the first Dáil was illegal and sat while the Ireland was still under the rule of Westminster politicians and the administration from Dublin Castle. This fact is highlighted in the Minutes of the Proceedings time and again. For example, on 11th March 1921, the penultimate session of the first Dáil, ministers were informed that a bilingual curriculum for primary schools had been developed by the Minister for Irish, Seán Ua Ceallaigh, was unable to comment as he had been arrested a few days previously. (unquote) Also, related instances such as "Irish Republican Army"[3]. Readers could do with some help to find their way around. Qexigator (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I know why we disambiguate titles in hat notes :P I was asking for a source that implied 'Republic of Ireland' needed disambiguating. Thanks, Rob984 (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I read the discussion chain. You've already been given one example Rob of the "Republic of Ireland" being used as a title for the "revolutionary" state. I don't see you have any argument. Interestingly, the best example for me is the 1916 Proclamation. To show how fluid terminology was at the time...At its very top it starts with the words "Poblacht na hÉireann" which is the description used in the Irish translation of the ROI Act. That isn't "Irish Republic". It is "Republic of Ireland". "Poblacht Éireann" would be "Irish Republic" I think (though some Irish scholar might catch me out on something there, but not the substance). Of course, personally, the big problem of course is the Article is unambiguously wrong in the way the Ireland is given the ROI slot on Wikipedia...but that discussion has been had ad nauseum before. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

History in the lead

The body of the article is about 11,000 words long, of which the History section makes up about 2,000, or 18%. Of approx. 460 words in the lead, 155 words, or 33%, is "history". Of that, a full quarter concerns the 1921 Treaty and the "Ulster month", as compared to 38 words on the Republic after it was declared a Republic!. Virtually all of the paragraph concerns the constitutional status of the state(s) from the perspective of another state: it was a dominion of the UK, it was granted legislative independence by the UK, the remaining duties of the king [of the UK] were removed in 1948, etc. Did nothing actually happen inside the country in all that time from the signing of the Treaty until now?
What is to be done? First of all "very important historical points", such as the name given by a statute that was never implemented (in the south) to a political entity that never existed in fact, should not under any circumstances be added to the lead. Second, what is there at the moment should be pared down to the minimum ("The Irish Free State was created as a result of the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1922; it effectively became a republic, with an elected president, under the constitution of 1937; and it was officially declared a republic in 1948"). Including things like the "Ulster month" in the lead of an article on the Republic of Ireland is undue weight on a major scale. Finally, the Recent history section, i.e. the actual history of the Republic, should be summarised in the lead. The history section itself is poor, but that's another day's work. Scolaire (talk) 12:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

That looks like a good way to let the article be improved. Qexigator (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

When Ireland was partitioned the resulting two areas were named Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland. The territory that is now the Republic of Ireland was called Southern Ireland. Many, many people: Irish and non-Irish, Unionists and Republicans, Catholics and Protestants, still refer to the Republic as Southern Ireland when distinguishing it from Northern Ireland. Even in the UK parliamentary debates, Southern Ireland is commonly used in reference to the Republic. This fact should be acknowledged. I feel the term Ireland should be reserved for the whole island. AlwynJPie (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The Ireland article is reserved for the whole island. That is why the article on the state is titled "Republic of Ireland". The term "Ireland" cannot be reserved for the whole island, because it happens to be the name of the 26-county state.

The fact that the state is referred to by many, many people as "Southern Ireland" is acknowledged. Whether or where it should be stated in the article is a different question. The clear consensus from preceding discussions is that it should not be stated at all, it is not important enough. In any case, it most definitely should not be in the lead, which is intended to be an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects (italics added). Please stay on-topic. Scolaire (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

So this 'important point' it is just some silly POV pushing. I'll remove it. Already done so I don't have to. Dmcq (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd have no objection to a bit at the end of the Name section saying something like: Southern Ireland was the name given by the British government in 1921 to a short-lived home rule region covering the same area, it is sometimes used colloquially particularly in the United Kingdom to refer to Ireland. And give as citation John Furlong (2006). Ireland – the Name of the State. Legal Information Management, 6, pp 297-301. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/S1472669606000934 as inNames of the Irish State. Dmcq (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

As I see it, the article would be improved by adding a bit at the end of the Name section as Dmcq proposes. Qexigator (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Don’t you think “…occupying the former autonomous region of Southern Ireland” is clearer than “…occupying about five-sixths of the island of Ireland”? AlwynJPie (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The article's opening passage is descriptive of the simple fact that, in respect of extent and location, the (Republic of) Ireland occupies "about five-sixths of the island of Ireland". The information that, before the Irish Free State was established, this area had been "the former autonomous region of Southern Ireland" is part of the more detailed description of the complex set of events of that earlier time, and is not in any sense "simpler." Qexigator (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Besides which, the "region" was not autonomous since it never existed except on paper, so the phrase is a nonsense. Scolaire (talk) 11:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Nobody says that. It is something you made up. This whole business has zero weight as far as the lead is concerned. Dmcq (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Since nobody has raised any objections, I have edited the paragraph on the lines that I proposed above. If anybody has a problem with the edit, please feel free to discuss it here. But please do not continue to use this section to discuss red herrings. A new discussion can be started in a new section, but bear in mind that a previous discussion on the use of "Southern Ireland" was closed and collapsed with a header added saying "Wikipedia talk pages are not places for general discussions". --Scolaire (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

"Making things up"

Dmcq, I have no reason to "make things up". What ever I have said can be verified. The political status of the part of Ireland that is the independant state (the 26 counties) was origionally named Southern Ireland when Partition happened. The term Southern Ireland continues to be used when referring to the independant state. Even in debates in the UK parliament. Here is a link to one of many examples of UK parliamentary verbatim available on line where the term Southern Ireland is used for the independant state: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmniaf/886/6020107.htm AlwynJPie (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Citations noted, but zero weight as far as the lead is concerned per Dmcq above; and previous discussion on the use of "Southern Ireland" was closed per Scolaire above. Qexigator (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

By making it up I mean WP:OR, something you thought of in the morning rather than something a book says. There's lots of places which say ROI occupies about 5/6 of th island. There aren't any I know of describing Ireland which says something like Ireland is a state occupying that part of the island of Ireland which is practically the same as that occupied by the region called Southern Ireland by Britain in 1921. Dmcq (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Move bits to other article?

In the body of the article there are a lot of snippiets about events that occured before Partition that would be better placed in the article Ireland. Also there are some general geographical pieces that concern the whole island, for example about climate and natural history, that would also fit more appropriately in Ireland. AlwynJPie (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Please be specific and quote here what parts of the article you consider would be better in Ireland. Qexigator (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

As regards the History section, I do think that the two sections Home-rule movement and Revolution and steps to independence could and should be combined into a single "Background" section and drastically reduced. Its only function should be to show how the 26-county state came to be. Likewise, the Civil War section does not need to be so detailed, especially when there is also an Irish Free State article. There is no need to add any of this to the Ireland article, since the details are all in History of Ireland (1801–1923) and (in the case of the Civil War), History of the Republic of Ireland. On the other hand, the history of the state from 1923 onwards needs to be considerably expanded.

As regards geography, there is naturally going to be overlap between the state and the island, since the state takes up most of the island. That is not to say the content should not be included in both articles (and in the Northern Ireland article as well). It does not help inform the reader simply to say, "for climate, see Ireland." Having said that, I concur with Qexigator: if there are specific suggestions for encyclopaedic edits to improve the article, they can be discussed here. Scolaire (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with ...only function should be to show how the 26-county state came to be... Qexigator (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Here are some examples of bits of information under various sections that could be moved to Ireland or in some instances be in both articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland#Geography "The western landscape mostly consists of rugged cliffs, hills and mountains. The central lowlands are extensively covered with glacial deposits of clay and sand, as well as significant areas of bogland and several lakes. The highest point is Carrauntoohil…" "Before the arrival of the first settlers in Ireland about 9,000 years ago, the land was largely covered by forests of oak, ash, elm, hazel, yew, and other native trees…" "The Atlantic Ocean and the warming influence of the Gulf Stream affect weather patterns…"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland#Literature "Ireland has made a significant contribution to world literature in both the English and Irish languages. Modern Irish fiction began with the publishing of the 1726 novel Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift…"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland#Architecture "Ireland has a wealth of structures, surviving in various states of preservation, from the Neolithic period, such as Brú na Bóinne…" "Castles were built by the Normans during the late 12th century, such as Dublin Castle…" "Gothic cathedrals, such as St Patrick's, were also introduced by the Normans. Franciscans were dominant in directing the abbeys by the Late Middle Ages, while elegant tower houses, such as Bunratty Castle, were built by the Gaelic and Norman aristocracy…" AlwynJPie (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

As I see it, at least two of those passages do not belong specifically or exclusively to the article which is about the republic as established and recognised from 1922, and in that respect may seem out of place. This article should have something in it about the country's literary and architectural heritage, while leaving the bulk to linked special topic articles, as usually done in the case of other countries. To my mind, given the links to topic-specific articles, the Literature and Architecture sections should be trimmed down, but the the Geography section pertains to how things are now in this part of the island, affecting the lives and livelihoods of the population, and belongs here. Qexigator (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Alwyn for providing those examples. It was quite shocking to me to see that all of the detail that he referenced is virtually absent from the Ireland article (current version). I propose to cut the content and paste it to Ireland, replacing it with summary information in this article. How exactly I'm going to do that with the geography content I'm not sure, because as Qexigator says all the content is relevant to the article on the state. But at the same time, it's wrong that an article on the part should have far more information than the article on the whole. Scolaire (talk) 09:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that would improve this and the other articles. Qexigator (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

When was Ireland established?

Above there is some discussion about shifting things out of article where they don't relate to events during the life of the modern State. When was the current State established? What date? I think its fair to say it wasn't before 6 December 1922 but was it that day or some other day? Do people have any sources around this. We'd have to decide what is the relevant date to decide what to carve out of the article....Note for example, how detailed UK history begins from 1707 in the UK article, not 1801, 1922 or 1927 etc. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

This isn't so black and white. And neither is it the case for the UK.

The UK article, for example, traces the foundation of the state to 1707 and back to 1603. Yet, the current state itself was created in 1801. Cutting the pre-1801 material out from the article, however, would be artificial. And similarly it would be artificial here.

In the case of Ireland, the modern state is traced to 24 April 1916. The first Dáil was held on 21 January 1919. It ratified the 1916 proclamation and the current Irish parliament dates its proceedings to 1919. The Irish Free State was founded on 6 December 1922 - having operated provisionally for 12 months before then. It ended when the current constitution came into effect on 29 December 1937 (after a referendum on 1 July 1937).

If you were to nail down one date for the coming into effect of the current state then it would be 29 December 1937 (in the same way that 1 January 1801 corresponds to the UK). But ignoring the formative events before then would be artificial (just as it would be for the UK). The UK article doesn't do it. We shouldn't do it here either. --Tóraí (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Torai - that was an excellent summary, albeit of things I already knew. Although, frankly, the idea we could trace the State to 1916 wasn't one I'd had in mind. That too is an interesting date. I certainly agree it's a minefield...The UK article goes with 1707 and tells the history since then, which does have some clear sense in that the UK has had a continuing legal existence since then. Getting back to the central point, when do you think the history should run in this article? What date? Agreed its not easy to pick.

To digress a tad for fun: "the Irish Free State was founded on 6 December 1922 - having operated provisionally for 12 months before then" is not quite right; that was Southern Ireland which had a provisional government for a time chaired by none other than Michael Collins. Frenchmalawi (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Article Introduction

The introduction to this article, as shown below, can be confusing to anyone who knows little about Ireland:

"Ireland (/ˈaɪələnd/ ; Template:Lang-ga [ˈeː.ɾʲə] ), also known as the Republic of Ireland (Template:Lang-ga), is a sovereign state in western Europe occupying about five-sixths of the island of Ireland. It starts off describing Ireland even though the title of the article is Republic of Ireland"

I would rather see:

"The Republic of Ireland (Template:Lang-ga), is a sovereign state in western Europe occupying about five-sixths of the island of Ireland. Officially known as Ireland (/ˈaɪələnd/ ; Template:Lang-ga [ˈeː.ɾʲə] )."

Does anyone else share my concerns? AlwynJPie (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Would this be acceptable:

"The Republic of Ireland (Template:Lang-ga), constitutionally known as Ireland (/ˈaɪələnd/ ; Template:Lang-ga [ˈeː.ɾʲə] ), is a sovereign state in western Europe occupying about five-sixths of the island of Ireland. Officially known as Ireland (/ˈaɪələnd/ ; Template:Lang-ga [ˈeː.ɾʲə] )."

--Qexigator (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes Qexigator, that sounds perfect. AlwynJPie (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, meant to put as now deleted above, which is as revised version. Qexigator (talk) 09:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted this edit. Apologies, but it was contrary to a consensus which had been reached on this topic. I recommend that users observe the comment above the introduction on the Edit page, and read previous discussions about the introduction. 217.112.145.202 (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes it was against a clear consensus. The state is called 'Ireland'. The title is 'Republic of Ireland' as the title 'Ireland' is used for the island and disambiguation is needed. Republic of Ireland is a recognized description for the purposes of disambiguation from Northern Ireland but it is not the name of the state. AlwynJPie has been pushing to stop the Wikipedia article referring to the state as Ireland for a while now and knows that the proposal was against consensus. Dmcq (talk) 11:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Why revert? It did not alter the name of the article and it makes better sense for any reader who is no party to that "consensus" and knows nothing of it. Do not revert merely out of dislike for another editor who has been seen as "pushing" something else (and which I too have opposed). Qexigator (talk) 11:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion referred to by 217... can be found here and here. It went on from 11 June until 17 July 2012 and centred largely on the necessity or otherwise of going into the whys and wherefores of the "description" in the opening sentence. Formal proposal 4, i.e. the current wording, had almost unanimous support in the end (I myself changed from "oppose" to "support" for the sake of consensus). There is no reason to think that consensus has changed in the meantime.

I wish that AlwynJPie would stop tinkering with the lead. The justification, that it is "confusing", is specious to say the least. "X, also known as Y" is a very common introduction to articles, and not only on Wikipedia. It states a simple fact: that the state whose name is "Ireland" is also known as the "Republic of Ireland". Scolaire (talk) 11:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Scolaire: not sure whether "edit conflict" message means your comment is replying to Dmcq or my last at 11:45. Anyhow, I do not see that the points you make suffice to rebut my comment, or the version The Republic of Ireland, constitutionally named "[Éire] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)", or in the English language, "Ireland", is a sovereign state in western Europe occupying about five-sixths of the island of Ireland. First, this too, is of the form "X, also known as Y", so no contest. Secondly, it is awkward for readers coming here for encyclopedic, unpartisan, information (and not interested in agonies of two year old "consensus" discussion) to see the article name "Republic of Ireland", and then find that come in second as an alternative to "Ireland". Of course it is all explained later in the article (to the satisfaction of "consensus") but, in point of style and readability, that is no good reason to get off to a bad start in the opening words. My view is not influenced by earlier edits by the said AlwynJPie. Qexigator (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)