Talk:Economy of the Republic of Ireland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Economy of the Republic of Ireland is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 11, 2005.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
November 17, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted
August 13, 2006 Featured article review Demoted
April 11, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former featured article
WikiProject Ireland (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Economics (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Version 0.5 (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  Quality: B-Class
 ???  Importance: not yet rated

The Welfare State - health service[edit]

Please review the edits re: the health service. They are accurate, though they may need presented in a more NPOV way. This is difficult, as essentially the health service in Ireland is a disaster by all accounts and absolutely diabolical. I mean, 170 patients on trolleys in corridors awaiting A&E treatment without any kind of national emergency (apart from the situation itself) is fairly appalling. This was the situation a day or two ago.

while still being one of the best in the world. Relative to most countries, though it isn't perfect, we're guaranteed treatment, which is the primary concern of everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.131.66 (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The two-tier health system is also well documented - it exists. How one describes it in any kind of neutral way without hiding that fact, I do not know. zoney talk 21:17, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed that their is a severe problem with the health service in Ireland ("The Eleven Kingdoms") but it is important that it should not outweight an article on the economy. Djegan 21:36, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The health section is still a bit POV; it could do with a bit of international perspective instead of sounding like a shrill TV3 news segment. The article does not distinguish between elective and non-elective procedures in public health; the former are free to everyone. Also, while the description of the medical card system mentions a figure of a million people, it seems to describe the system as being available to only the completely indigent. In fact almost 40% of the population is covered by the medical card system. jimg

FAC objections[edit]

These objections need to be addressed by someone with more competence than I possess. Filiocht 13:34, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. Certainly not bad, but I have some issues: 1) The article is called "Economy of Ireland", but appears to be only about the Republic of Ireland. This should be corrected (either the title should change or the contents should reflect it is also about Northern Ireland). 2) The history has almost nothing on the early history. Everyting up to 1848 is covered in a single sentence, and 3/4 of the section is about the 20th century or later. This trend is noticeable troughout the entire article; the present and recent past are getting most of the attention. I understand this is the period for which most information is available, but a better overview is really needed for an encyclopedia. In addition, this makes the article read rather "dated" at times: "In 1999, trade between Ireland and the United States was worth around $18.5 billion, a 24% increase over 1998." looks like the last information on this is already 5 years old. 3) Some additional figures for the history section (or elsewhere) to compare would also be nice. I can think of graphs or tables with the GPD or inflation (or other indicators) every so many years (10, 20). 4) "Recent economic circumstances" should be merged with the history. 2000-2004 is as much part of history as all years before. 5) I don't think there is a reason to keep all of the information that is left over from the CIA book. Some of this information is really not very useful (such as the historic exchange rates in US$), others are duplicates of the information in the table. The rest could probably be integrated with that table as well (I like the table). Jeronimo 19:33, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The Republic of Ireland didn't exist before 1922. I've moved content from prior to that to the Economy of Ireland article. Nicely divides the content and gets around the "not enough pre-20th century content". Also we can later work on Economy of Ireland. zoney talk 11:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm not entirely happy with this solution: strictly speaking the Republic of Ireland came into existence in 1949 (or 1916 for the romantically inclined). 1922 has nothing to do withthe founding of the republic. This article should really be Economy of the Irish Free State and Republic of Ireland now. I personally would have preferred a real Economy of Ireland article: all the island from early modern period on. As it stands, a summary of this article will have to be incorporated back into Economy of Ireland now. Filiocht 12:32, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
Also this sentence: 'The country has a total of 36 airports and airfields, of which 4 - Dublin Airport, Shannon International Airport, Cork International Airport and Belfast International Airport are of a substantial size.' needs changing. How many of the 36 are in the republic? and the 4 becomes 3? and Belfast airport goes? Filiocht 12:35, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
Ah. Good arguments. Perhaps we need to rename this to Economy of Ireland in the 20th century?
Quite obviously, my actions were a result of the ill-fitting title of "Economy of the Republic of Ireland". Evidently this is (still) an inappropriate title for the content on the page. How are we going to organise things? zoney talk 13:16, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Moved from defunct split, comments may or may not be valid:

The Republic of Ireland did not exist prior to 1922. So with the main economy article being moved to Economy of the Republic of Ireland, it doesn't make sense to have (much) pre-1922 content there. The pre-1922 content is somewhat awkward to classify as "Economy of the Republic of Ireland", not to mention pre-1949. And this article has all-island content post-1922 also.

Also this is the ideal page title under which to write about the economic effects of partition, as the final section.

This new article needs a lot of work - Ireland's 19th century in particular was noteworthy. I think the relevant section here is not accurate in its depiction of Ireland at that time - I think we did have more industry, albeit concentrated mostly around Belfast and to some degree in Dublin.

But economy is more than industry, and the article does not go into depth on the agricultural economy of the time. All the market towns of Ireland for example, how they came about.

Going back earlier, what about the Vikings? They had economy. What about Ireland's coastal cities? Galway for example was rich from sea trade.

Much work to be done. zoney talk 12:18, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Education[edit]

This sentence sounds weird to me, I can't really place the context or meaning of it. "The Institute of Technology system has recently overtaken the universities in terms of first year enrollment numbers and this trend appears to be accelerating; this is the realisation of the binary system's strength in Ireland."

That last part in bold seems to be misusing the phrase "binary system", especially since there is a link to Binary. --rimbaud 15:54, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

As you pointed out it is linked to the Binary page which states:
In higher education, an education system that includes both polytechnic, or college, and university style institutions. These institutions are often intended to complement each other and form an important basis in the overall education policy and infrastructure of a country or region.
Applying that meaning to the word binary in the sentence you quoted allows the sentence to make complete sense (now thats a mouthful!) CGorman 17:40, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Ireland has a positive future and a wealth of highly educated people, I cant see this mentioned in the article.

Ireland demographics are positive, with the youngest educated workforce in Europe http://www.idaireland.com/why-ireland/young-talented-workforce/ Can we add this to the intro? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.251.160 (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Economy of the North[edit]

Can anyone tell me the situation of the economy in the North in terms of growth, strong sectors, contribution to British economy and budget surplus(if applicable). All I know is it's doing better after the troubles. I'm trying to improve the articles on Ireland in the French wikipedia and they're missing info on the North. Thanks in advance.- Dalta 15:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can't find any figures newer than 1997-98, but the NI economy has actually been hit badly, not impoved, since then. Loss of Harland and Wolf, most of Bombardier, call centres fleeing, etc has reduced the jobs, etc
In 1997, Northern Ireland took £3.4B in direct subvention from Great Britian. It didn't have a budget surplus, obviously. This isn't even taking into account whatever proportion of the UK's military spending goes into NI... --Kiand 15:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Infestructure[edit]

There ar many incroct facts in this section. The M1 only goes from the border toDublin, Not along the whole east cost and Brodband coerage is nowhere near 50%, eiter Geograpicly or poplation wise

The article says it is 'available' to 50% of homes; not 'in' 50%... theres an ennormous difference. CGorman 21:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

State ownership detail[edit]

The "State ownership and deregulation" section says several times that the government controls "much" of a given industry. I think it's important to be more precise, giving numbers with references. This section needed a lot of copyediting just now, so I'm also not sure I trust its qualitative judgements, so some research is probably in order. -- Beland 03:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Health care section[edit]

This section sounds like a disgruntled citizen trying to convince us of what bad shape the country's health care system is in. Maybe it is, but the point could be made in a less flimsy fashion by substituting more details for broad generalizations - or at the very least, reliable sources to support those generalizations. Toward the end, it is less like a coherent description and more like a list of half-remembered horror stories.

What does it mean that anyone with "a medical reason" can get free health care? How many people in the country don't have any health insurance? Are people in Ireland healthier or sicker than those in other European countries?

This section also contains information which is not in the "main" article, Health care in the Republic of Ireland, so these two pages need to be re-synchronized, with the overall summary here and more details and background there. -- Beland 03:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)



            • Okay at the very end there is a </ref> that is visible. I fixed everything else (where as the education and economis section had been really mixed up with the healthcare one - i can't believe no on noticed) but i have no idea how to fix this. ha. so if someone could that would be great!

Featured status[edit]

This article was not in a state I would call worthy of featured status. However, the Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates procedure requires that notice of defects be posted here and then left for a time. If you think it's been long enough and the problems noted above haven't been fixed, feel free to continue the removal procedure (or continue fixing the article!) -- Beland 03:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

$[edit]

why is the gdp calculated in $ instead of euro


External debt[edit]

Is this using a completely different concept of External debt than the rest of the world uses? Theres no way in hell the state owes over a trillion to -anyone-, particularly as our (comparatively negligble) national debt is under 40 billion. CIA Factbook puts the states actual external debt at 11B.

If someone has a different meaning for external debt than what everyone else uses, I'd like to hear it... --Kiand 21:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ignore what I had hear earlier... RedHotHeat added it to the template (I forgot old revs of pages show the current template) from the CIA fact book. This is clearly erroneous, so I've reverted to the 1998 figures, as these are at least accurate, for 8 years ago. External debt cannot be higher than total public debt. Might drop the CIA an email, though I doubt they'll even read it... --Kiand 21:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
And I've acquired National Treasury Managment Agency figures [1] which show that our external debt is 0. Nothing. Nada. I would guess the CIA updating had some issues here, I'm sure you'll find the $1.049Tr is in fact the external debt of another couuntry. --Kiand 21:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The CIA's response is that they are World Bank figures that cover personal debt also. Which means they're completely useless for the purpose of this article, and indeed fairly useless for what the CIA Factbook reports in the first place. --Kiand 13:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

IDA Ireland[edit]

I'm wondering if perhaps we should make more of a mention of the IDA in both the development and continuance of the growth of the Irish economy? I think it's an important point (particularly given the number of countries trying to emulate the model) and is perhaps a little underplayed in this article. Thanks. Lochdale 21:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Poverty level[edit]

The figure in the info box of 10% is now 9 years old, any one know where this figure comes from and if there is a more upto date figure? Fabhcún 18:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

GA failed[edit]

The article currently has 12 citation needed tags. Please either remove the information until sources are found or begin adding sources as soon as you can. Go through the rest of the article and make sure any other statements that may be questioned over their verifiability has inline citations as well. The article is well put together, but with a quick glance, these citation tags need to be fixed before a full review is given. Feel free to renominate once the inline citations are added. --Nehrams2020 03:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead and Structure of the article[edit]

The lead contains much statistical information about the economy that isn't mentioned elsewhere. Perhaps this could be moved to a "nature of the economy" section and the lead more accurately summarise the article.AleXd (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Updates[edit]

Maybe it could be time to update some of the information and statistics in this article? Many figures such as that of the Population below poverty line and the GDP growth are certainly outdated. For example, it mentions a GDP growth of 4.7% (2005 est.) when the ESRI has estimated it will be -0.4% in 2009. That is a huge difference!). I would update it myself but I lack the knowledge of economics to actually know what I'm doing! 86.42.204.52 (talk) 13:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be normal practice to give the latest published figures, which I think are probably for 2007 when the rate was 5.1%, so updating it might actually increase the gap between the "official" figure and the current speculation about the 2009 rate. Also as the poverty line is relative, not absolute, the "poverty rate" might actually be reduced if average earnings fall. Sarah777 (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Broken link[edit]

The reference no 9 is broken. I have found the same document here: http:// workforall.net /IRELAND_The_wealth_of_the_nation.pdf

I am not sure why but workforall.net is blacklisted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.132.124 (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent "news" needs summarisation[edit]

Recent updates to reflect the current state of affairs (while possibly neccesary) are fast becoming a "news" section. As a suggestion, the anon who has done a lot of good work recently and added much of this may want to consider summarising/integrating content. Instead of adding in a new section for each piece of "news" in the past weeks. It would make for a much more appropriate structure and make for a more readable article. That represents a longer term view... Guliolopez (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, however, the situation is developing so fast that it is difficult to maintain an accurate up-to-date representation that is well-summarised. In my opinion, seriousness of the situation warrants regular updates asap. Of course, once things settle down, it will be much easier to consolidate the "news". It may appear negatively biased - but that is the nature of the news that is being reported in the press, including some newspapers that had a notably positive bias on the economy and property prices in the past. Official company financial reports are historical in nature(some more so than others!) and are only now beginning to "catch up" with events. The stock markets would seem to agree. As you pointed out in your edits, some references still need to be added... 85.53.12.158 (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
OK. The other point to note however is that (when I made the statement above) all I was advocating was a little bit of summarisation and reorganisation. (To perhaps include some of the new developments in context in the main body, rather than adding "news" down the end.) Now however the problems are different. Frankly I'm not sure if it was you or another anon, but the inclusion of uncited statements and commentary like the following are not at all appropriate. In fact, it's the very definition of the type of original research and analysis that our guidelines strongly advise against:
  • "[the solvency issue] is unacknowledged by management of Irish banks, the financial regulator and the government" Surely this is opinion? What cites for such a claim?
  • "it is now probable that [the bailout will] encourage bank executives to engage in riskier activities, [leading] to more financial crises in the future" This is at best educated (if uncited) speculation and at worst crystal ball reading
  • "Yet more capital is being artificially directed to support over-inflated property prices" Who says? In what context? Cite?
  • "It is now likely that the crisis will be prolonged as market prices for property will take much longer to return to long term sustainable levels rather than allowing the re-adjustment to take place. A swifter adjustment would have corrected the imbalances more quickly" Who's opinion is this exactly? And what's it doing here? This is not an economics blog for proposing alternative proposals.
  • "Considering the rapidly deteriorating fiscal situation, the government could be ill-prepared to honour its guarantee of the entire financial system in Ireland in the event of bank failures occurring." Again, this is an opinion synthesised based on the sources. We don't do uncited speculation here.
Please have a think about addressing these issues. Or the whole thing may be summarised or culled drastically to simply remove this stuff. (FYI - Please don't take this the wrong way. There's a lot of good stuff here on the current state - that needs coverage. And personally I happen to agree with much of the section's conclusions. However, "opinions" and "conclusions" [mine or yours] have no place on a mainspace article in this form.) Guliolopez (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Several statements including those about future crises and honouring the guarantee have been removed along with other minor revisions as I agree with you that these are opinions. I've left the statements in the section Government-backed mortgages because I have seen many references to this and there appears to be a consensus about this from a variety of sources (which I need to find again). It does need citations and perhaps also rewording. I'll try to get back to that... 85.53.12.158 (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Recession of 2009[edit]

Do we need this section? Despite Sarah777's efforts it is still full of conjecture and inaccuracies. Since the recession started in 2008 why not a Recession of 2008 section (most likely) followed eventually by a Recession of 2010 section etc? From the first sentence it is poor: "Ireland has been in recession since second quarter of 2008 and some commentators have claimed it is entering a depression, [38][39] with GDP down over 10%[40][41] and unemployment up 87.5%[42] to 11%[43][44]." GDP down and unemployment up since when? The 2nd quarter of 2008? None of the refs support this. "Influential American economist Paul Krugman has stated that Ireland faces the worst economic outlook in the world[45]. Ireland has the world's highest external debt at 811% of GDP[46] due to excessive Government borrowing and the financial bailout and Nationalisation of Ireland's banks[47] which were loaded with debt due to the Irish property bubble." Complete conjecture as to the cause of the external debt. I doubt it is even accurate. Ireland's external debt at close to 2 trillion must have long predated the current crisis. I could go on but the rest just consists of 'most economists think' without any references for support. Did the author poll the world's economists? Surelay anything salvegable from this section could be added to the next section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.181.78 (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC) they really like soup —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.113.131 (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This is an article on the economy, we don't need unsubstantiated opinions. Title should read Global Recession, Banking Crises, or even Credit Crunch IMO.

Are you willing to re write? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.181.191 (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Reading this whole article one gets the impression that Ireland is currently a wealthy state with just a bit of overconsumption... It is not. I have lived here for 2 years (it is today June 15, 2011), and the economy is totally dysfunctional. In this period net income has dropped by 1/3. Cuts and savings are being made constantly, in order to show Europe 'we can handle the situation'. Fact is, all cuts and reductions to welfare state has saved €289 million over last year. Year-on-year budget deficit (not including interest on loans from ECB/IMF etc) is €18 billion (18000 million!). Write it as it is - Ireland is in fact a default country; counting GNP per capita it is on same level as Greece [that as this is written is negotiating its second bail-out and/or default]. Page really needs proper revision, and correct figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.59.228 (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Reassessment downwards[edit]

Hello

Unfortunately I feel that this article does not meet the criteria for a b-class article: it is incomplete and inaccurate in places, as noted by other editors on this page. It is full of disputations and missing citations and overall not worthy of B class, especially for such an important topic. Best,--Ktlynch (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

What are the B class article standards? 70.62.142.66 (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The 2nd citation - disputed[edit]

The second citation[2] says that the GDP fell 1.2%, not is -1.2%. But Google Public Data says that GDP is -5.99, which is more accurate because on second citation[3] says that it fell, not is. 70.62.142.66 (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge "Natural resources of Ireland" with this article[edit]

The majority of nations have natural resources included in their Economy article - does Ireland really need a separate page? The "Natural resources" article has a lot of issues which I feel would be better handled on this page.Gymnophoria (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not true, many more have natural resources either under the country or under geography of the country. That so many countrie have it either under geography or economy indicated to me that it should be factored out and the Natural reources of Ireland article has got the split right. 20:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
To judge by its name, "Natural resources of Ireland" should include Northern Ireland, though at present it doesn't really. jnestorius(talk) 20:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Disagree with a merge. There's enough of a separation of materials to keep both pages. Agree with Jnestorius that Northern Ireland should be include on the natural resource article.--Patrick (talk) 13:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

No mention of tourism[edit]

I was a bit surprised to see no mention of how much tourism contributed to the economy. Then again I had to search a bit too before I found farming as a part of agri-food so perhaps it is there but under something I don't recognize :) Anyway I thought tourism contributed something like 5% so I'd have though it was big enough to have a mention. Dmcq (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)yes but i still think there is tourism in ireland and that is my finial statement...

Export and import citation[edit]

There's no link to the source of the numbers about export and import. Can the person who wrote those please refer to his/her source.cause i mean like you dont even know if thats true, so its not really reliable!!!

Merge[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was to complete the merge (2012) - which was then completed in 2013. Guliolopez (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Two merges (recruitment/resources) were proposed some time ago. Per my related note on the "recruitment" page, I am strongly in favour of a merge/redirect from that article. (The recruitment article was originally a very broad and unencyclopaedic opinion piece. While this has been improved somewhat, I can see no reason to keep it separate. It should ideally be merged into a small sub-section here and a redirect left at the existing article). In terms of the "resources" article, per my related note several years ago, the resources article has had several problems. While some improvements have been forthcoming, the resources article still has problems (scope isn't clear, includes outofdate lists of mining companies, and awkward references to related legislative artefacts). If those can be addressed somewhat, then maybe the resources article can/should remain separate. However, if it can't be salvaged as a whole, then the salvageable pieces should likely be merged here. If there are no objections, I am going to merge the recruitment stuff soon. Would welcome more discussion on the resources article. Guliolopez (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. Seeing as there hasn't been any objections to the above in the last 4+ months (and no objections since the merge was proposed 6 months ago), I have merged the "recruitment" content from Recruitment in the Republic of Ireland. I have removed anything that was tagged as problematic RE cites before merging. However several issues remain. (The whole section frankly is still a bit of a fluff piece). At some point we need to address the other merge proposal (natural resources). Guliolopez (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I have an objection. Why do we have 6 lines in an article about the Irish economy devoted to recruitment agencies? It's ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.98.43.9 (talk) 09:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Hiya 89.98.43.9. Thanks for your note. Given that it is seven years since the issues with the merged article were raised, two years since the merge proposal was made (and discussed), and more than a year since the merge was completed, then then I'd suggest that it probably doesn't make sense to discuss the remaining content in the context of the original merge proposal. If there are issues with that content (and undoubtedly there is), then I'd suggest maybe talking about whats wrong and how you suggest improving. (I'll mark the discussion as closed, so can take it forward from a different place... Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External link to tariff data[edit]

Hello everyone, I am working for the International Trade Centre (ITC), a UN/WTO agency that aims to promote sustainable economic development through trade promotion. I would like to propose the addition of an external link (http://www.macmap.org/QuickSearch/FindTariff/FindTariff.aspx?subsite=open_access&country=SCC372%7cIreland&source=1%7CITC) that leads directly to our online database of customs tariffs applied by Ireland. Visitors can easily look up market access information for Ireland by selecting the product and partner of their interest. I would like you to consider this link under the WP:ELYES #3 prescriptions. Moreover, the reliability and the pertinence of this link can be supported by the following facts 1) ITC is part of the United Nations, and aims to share trade and market access data on by country and product as a global public good 2) No registration is required to access this information 3) Market access data (Tariffs and non-tariff measures) are regularly updated

Thank you, Divoc (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion[edit]

Please do not merge Celtic Phoenix with Economy of the Republic of Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.28.102 (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Why not? Present your reasons.
This is the main article on the Irish economy. You (and/or DylanMcKaneWiki - are you the same person) seem to be involved in writing a personal essay at Celtic Phoenix. The topic of Ireland's nascent kind-of-recovery is best dealt with in this article, rather than in a hidden, owned article that will be seen by few people.
Also, can you please stop removing the merge template? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not want the Celtic Phoenix article to be merged or deleted. Please give the article more time to allow for the article to be expanded, which you could help by doing so. I know that there is already information on other articles, but this article give more information and references . Let us all agree that the article only needs to be expanded, not deleted or merged. Also, Please do not keep putting up the merge template on the article. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanMcKaneWiki (talkcontribs) 17:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Probably best if any continued discussion on the "merge" proposal take place at Talk:Celtic Phoenix (where most of the consensus discussions would appear to be taking place). Guliolopez (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Merged Talk:Celtic Phoenix[edit]

NPOV[edit]

Just a light-touch reminder on the WP:NPOV guidelines - as they relate to ensuring that any "positions" on a subject are fair and represented without bias. I note this as I had made some additions to highlight the existence of "other" opinions on the Celtic Phoenix concept. My additions were (IMO) quite "light" relative to WP:UNDUE guidelines. I'm sure it was just an oversight, but my additions were removed, and replaced with "balancing" statements from government sources instead. I have put these back. Other thoughts are obviously welcome, but I wouldn't have thought we should ONLY be representing a government "line" on this subject - as per the related guideline on relying on single or limited sources. Guliolopez (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Just reverted a whole series of blatantly editorialised/PoV edits, added by an anon(?) IP on 21st May. Not even a semblance of balance, very editorialised editing. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I am calling on anyone to help with expanding the Celtic Phoenix article.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanMcKaneWiki (talkcontribs) 17:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

"Ireland-stub" added to article to show the article needs to be expanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanMcKaneWiki (talkcontribs) 17:12, 20 May 2015‎ (UTC)

More information had been added onto the article. Please do not remove! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanMcKaneWiki (talkcontribs)

If you add accurate, sourced information in a WP:NPOV manner, it is far less likely to be removed. Unfortunately, most of your edits tend to be hyperbolic and read like a statement from a government party's HQ... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Specific examples:
Why did you change the heading from "Growth" to "Strong economic growth"?
Why not just leave the reported fall in unemployment figures? Why editorialise with your unsourced interpretation that "There was a large fall in the unemployment rate in 2014, as this was due to strong growth in job creation." Might not this also have been due at least in part to, oh, I don't know, immigration?
The problem with your "property price increases" section has already been outlined.
Dylan, nobody is trying to silence or censor you, but you seem to completely miss the point of WP:NPOV and other aspects of Wikipedia's Five Pillars. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I added factual information (with references to sources and websites) to it onto the article to help expand the page. I used good research to get more information and facts about the recovering economy. Please do not remove the information, OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanMcKaneWiki (talkcontribs)
And once again, you don't address any of the concerns raised. That means you'll be reverted. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi DylanMcKaneWiki. As Batsun and other editors (myself included) have pointed-out quite a few times in recent weeks, Wikipedia editors are supposed to avoid overly flowery language and adjectives. The facts are supposed to speak for themselves. Overuse of adjectives and the addition of commentary is not appropriate under the WP:NPOV guidelines, and is not what the project is about. Persistently ignoring consensus will not only impact you (as you have already seen), but will ultimately impact the "merge" discussion. (An article which has significant problems relative to project norms is considerably more likely to be deleted or merged - than one which stands-up on its own merits). You really should try and address the points that other editors are raising: Properly engaging is the only way forward - anything else is not helping the case. Guliolopez (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Information added detailing property price growth outpacing Dublin property prices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.4.116 (talk) 12:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Dylan - please remember to log in when editing. There's even a tickbox - it says "Keep me logged in for 30 days". Secondly - just as in the article itself - you do not need a new section heading for each thought you want to share. Keep discussions together. All of your recent additions here could go under this 'NPOV' heading. Lastly, do not simply copy-and-paste from your sources. That's a copyright violation and will be reverted. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

LEAVE MY ARTICLE ALONE PLEASE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanMcKaneWiki (talkcontribs) 15:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

An Fhionnuisce Ceilteach[edit]

Removing this - it seems to be original research. There are three Google hits for the term, total. One is to this very article, two are from a thread on Reddit where someone aptly points out that "I'm no expert but isn't Fionnuisce completely wrong here? The 'Phoenix' in Phoenix Park in Dublin is just an anglicisation of Fionn Uisce and bears no relation to the bird that rose from the ashes." BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Actual Irish translation?[edit]

What is the actual Irish translation for Celtic Phoenix? --DylanMcKaneWiki (talk) 11:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

That's not how it works DylanMcKaneWiki. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we only use titles and labels that are already in common-use. This is exactly the type of concern that other editors have raised about this article. That the phrase (in Irish and in English) is used in this article in a way that is perhaps ahead of itself relative to the neologism and OR guidelines. In short however: Unless someone else is using the term as Gaeilge/in Irish elsewhere, then it is not our place to invent/translate/create a label! Guliolopez (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't see where there's an article on ga.wikipedia to parallel it. I was able to find ga:An Tíogar Ceilteach to parallel Celtic Tiger, but the economic history coverage is thin there (yet more robust than my Gaelic skills :) ). —C.Fred (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Merge or delete?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to Merge to Economy of the Republic of Ireland. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Right now, this article is pretty much one person's slant on the so-called "Celtic Phoenix" (a rarely used term) that's better covered elsewhere (with additions from Guliolopez that the OP tried to remove). As the term is a neologism and as the Irish economic recovery-of-sorts is better covered elsewhere, I would be happy for either my deletion proposal or Aronzak's merge proposal to go ahead. Unfortunately, DylanMcKaneWiki and his various IP's seem unwilling to engage on any talk page. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Merge per WP:COATRACK. AfD is a better process than PROD with some of these things that have possible controversy. It's better to merge to large articles to let the quality improve, and then only split out if there is extensive coverage that necessitates a split for readability (see WP:LENGTH). WP:NEO means that the word can be covered in a single line as part of discussion of the recovery. -- Aronzak (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not want you to delete this page as I created it and people have come along to add more information on. The page still needs more information as it is a new page. I would like if you contribute to the page by helping to expand it rather than delete it. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.198.251 (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

But, as was pointed out above, does it needs its own page, if the topic can be covered thoroughly in another article? —C.Fred (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The Celtic Phoenix page covers more information on Irish economic growth than any other page or article. There are more references as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanMcKaneWiki (talkcontribs) 00:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, you're finally engaging on a Talk page, DylanMcKaneWiki, rather than just ignoring everyone else. That's progress. Can you please sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~? And make sure to log in when you're editing - are you also the IPs 93.107.198.251 and‎ 109.79.25.190?
"I do not want you to delete this page as I created it" - that's called WP:OWN and isn't allowed, for obvious reasons. The question you have to ask is, is the topic "Celtic Phoenix" (which is itself a rarely used neologism, also not allowed!) covered better by itself; or would Ireland's economic recovery be better covered as a section within another article (such as the proposed Economy of the Republic of Ireland. The latter has dozens of contributors, rather than the handful of people who've stumbled across this article (some of whom, it has to be said, followed you here because of your troublesome editing history (did you not see the multiple requests to not do any more page moves?)).
Please remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative work. You have to work with other editors, rather than just reverting things like merge templates; and you need to work within Wikipedia's policies. Regards, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Celtic Phoenix has more information !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanMcKaneWiki (talkcontribs) 13:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

You do understand the word WP:MERGE? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I put a lot of hard work into creating this page. Please respect my work !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanMcKaneWiki (talkcontribs) 13:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Merge per nom and WP:COATRACK. If this article is to be about the term (as should strictly be the case), then it would just be a few lines (mentioning that a few media outlets used the term a few times), and hence best dealt-with in a relevant "parent" article. If this article is to be about "economic recovery 2014/2015", then it should be relabelled, and even then probably best dealt with in a parent/existing article. (Otherwise, as has been seen and noted, it would fast become a COATRACK for semi-related content (for example the "Irish Water" content that was added. Granted it's been removed since, but had very little to do with either of the possible titular subjects). Guliolopez (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The article is not that old. Please give it more time to allow for the article to be expanded, which you could help by doing so. I know that there is already information on other articles, but this article give more information and references to the Celtic Phoenix. You can help contribute to the article by helping to add more information to it. Please do not consider deleting or merging this article again. Let us all agree that the article only needs to be expanded, not deleted or merged. Agreed? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanMcKaneWiki (talkcontribs) 14:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

No. Here's how this works, Dylan. 1. You stop removing the merge template, or you get reported on the Administrators' Noticeboard and probably pick up a block. 2. Editors discuss the merge proposal, their arguments are judged on their merits, and a consensus emerges. The consensus gets implemented. Regards, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dylan. Apologies if it seems like your work isn't being respected or appreciated - obviously that is not the intent. In fact, project norms expect that all editors involved in a discussion should be coming with the best of intentions for the project. As Bastun notes however, while it may be difficult to be completely dispassionate about these things, we need to be careful that we don't assume "ownership" of an article, subject or section. (It isn't what the project is about). While the editor who affected the redirect in the first place may have jumped the gun a bit, Bastun's short summary of the situation is correct: If an editor has made an improvement suggestion, the community would normally have a discussion about it, and agree what would be best for the project. In this case - in honesty - it may not be a question of "waiting for the article to improve" before deciding what might be best to do. (Not least because the discuss is around whether this topic should in fact become a sub-topic summary at all). I hope you've read and recognised some of the arguments that other editors are making here, but in essence there is a concern that we've taken a relatively new term (that is in limited use), and associated a number of semi-related events to the topic. What I might suggest is that you let the other contributors know why you think the article should remain as a "standalone". We might start by talking about the topic we're trying to cover - are we trying to cover THE TERM "Celtic Phoenix", or are we trying to cover THE CONCEPT the term describes. (If it's the latter, and we're talking about a period of growth in 2014 and early 2015, then - personally - I think it's a small sub-set that could be covered in the broader economy article. At least until there's more water under the bridge and we can even tell if there's even a concept/event to be covered.....) What do you think? Guliolopez (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I object. Just leave the article alone and move on. Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanMcKaneWiki (talkcontribs) 16:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Warning issued for continued removal of the merge template. If you revert again, you will be reported and blocked. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dylan. RE "I object". This isn't a court of law. And, even if it was, the advocate who declares "I object" is expected to cite the reason for their objection. Please help us understand the reason for your "objection". Other than "I just don't like it". The issues that other editors have with this article are that:
  • The term is a new one, that isn't really in common use (outside the article itself). Wikipedia has some guidelines on this type of article. See WP:NEO. Can you explain why you don't think this is the case or should be applied?
  • Even if the term wasn't a new one, and was in common use, the article doesn't actually deal with the term - it talks about "economic growth in late 2014, early 2015", and therefore is a bit of "coat rack" for loosely related content. Per WP:COATRACK. Can you explain why you don't think this guideline applies?
  • This type content is already dealt-with (as it is argued it should be) in the existing article(s) about the Economy of Ireland. And this sub-page takes a potentially "slanted" view of the sub-topic. Per WP:CFORK. Do you not think this guideline applies? If so, why?
  • And finally, an issue which I personally think to be the case, we've taken a very short-term snapshot of time, and held-it-up as if it's done/dusted and can be viewed as historical or concrete fact. There is another guideline which suggests that we shouldn't create articles until the dust settles. Again, this is covered in the WP:TOOSOON guideline.
Can you please (please) talk to the community about why you don't think these things are relevant? Guliolopez (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

THIS PAGE WILL BE MERGED[edit]

I am left with no other choice but to MERGE this article with the Economy of the Republic of Ireland article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanMcKaneWiki (talkcontribs) 17:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I CHANGED MY MIND[edit]

I decided to bring back the Celtic Phoenix article as I believe it deserves an article, like the Celtic Tiger. This article too much will NEVER be merged or deleted!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanMcKaneWiki (talkcontribs) 19:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi DylanMcKaneWiki. Before suggesting that you perhaps support this position (with a response perhaps to any of the concerns raised by other editors), I would respectfully point you to the policies relating to avoiding using capitals for emphasis, signing posts, and those relating to "ownership" of articles. Given the latter, and as several editors still lean in favour of the merge proposal, you really have to explain what positives you see - that would outweigh those concerns. Guliolopez (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Making ultimatums or what will never or always will happen, is never a good sign of a collaborative editing. Liz Read! Talk! 21:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Merge/CFORK[edit]

As per my other notes on this topic, I still have significant concerns that, while this topic remains a "standalone" article, it seems to serve only as a POVFORK for more "upbeat" opinions on economic "news". It also remains a COATRACK for loosely related developments in the area. (By this I mean that the article largely coins a term (or extends a recently coined and infrequently used term), and then we lump anything that supports that term/concept into it - even if the original publisher or source didn't actually associate the concept with the term itself). In that sense it seems to skirt the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH guidelines. If this article is to remain a standalone, it should be moved to a summary style sub-article that uses a different subject title. But I am still in a merge camp on this... Guliolopez (talk) 12:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Largely agreed, though I don't see the point of a sub-article, to be honest. Have you seen the AN/I case? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Merge to Economy of RoI article. This article is a pov fork from an editor who know nothing about NPOV. Snappy (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
No arguments made to retain. Can anyone do a merge, or does it need to be an admin? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Apparently no, it doesn't need to be an admin. In the absence of any reasons not to merge being presented, I propose doing the merge tomorrow, 6th June. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Economy of Ireland[edit]

The title here is wrong. The constitutional name for Ireland is "Ireland" not the Republic of Ireland. See [1]


— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.83.253.13 (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

References

While true, Wikipedia refers to Ireland, the country, as Republic of Ireland, and Ireland, the island, as just Ireland. —C.Fred (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 11 October 2015[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) sst 09:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)



Economy of the Republic of IrelandEconomy of Ireland – Unnecessary disambiguation. The proposed new title already redirects here. There is no separate article for the economy of Ireland (the island). Also, the term "Economy of Ireland" is used throughout the article. A hatnote may be useful to redirect readers to Ireland#Economy if this move request succeeds. sst 11:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Economy of the Republic of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)