Jump to content

Talk:Foreign relations of Ireland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Non Aligned Movement

[edit]

Was the Republic of Ireland ever a member of the Non Aligned Movement? If so, when did it leave? JAJ 22:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Border with Northern Ireland

[edit]

The border with Northern Ireland was accepted by the Irish Free State government in 1925. See Boundary Commission (Ireland). The same agreement that resolved the border also absolved the Irish Free State of any responsibility for payment of the United Kingdom public debt, part of which it would normally have been expected to take responsibility for as a successor state.

Only the adoption of the Constitution of Ireland in 1937 re-opened the question, until amended in 1998/99. But it appears that other countries never recognised this claim. JAJ 22:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legally your prob correct but i would say that in those years (1925/1937) it was a bid uneasy, particularily after 1932. Djegan 23:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Present government more pro-US?

[edit]

In Horgan v. Ireland, the government argued that they were simply maintaining what they called "the longstanding arrangements for the overflight and landing in Ireland of US military and civilian aircraft". So I've added a {{Fact}} tag to this statement. Demiurge 17:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can Someone help me with a question: Soviet veto on Irish membership of the UN

[edit]

It says here that the Soviet Union originally blocked the membership of Eire (as the 26 county Irish nation-state was than known) from U.N. membership? Why would they have done that, it makes no sense to me. Didn't the USSR, amongst other Communist nations have sympathy for the Irish nationalist and republican cause??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadianpunk77 (talk • contribs) 17:58, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Good question and I don't think the citation supports the claim. More relevantly, the Soviet Union was the only state to recognise the revolutionary Irish Republic in 1918, so it really seems unlikely that they blocked its membership. I'll slap a citation needed on it. In the meantime, you should regard it as dubious. By the way, in 1945 (and today), the state was and is "Ireland" when speaking English and "Éire" when speaking Irish. From 1922 to 1948, it was a Dominion like Canada, but since 1948 it has been a Republic (see Republic of Ireland. So I really can't see any reason for a Soviet veto. Except perhaps that it was neutral during WW2 and (after losing 8 million citizens in that war) the Soviets might not have been feeling too friendly? Speculation! --Red King 23:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found a better citation and put it in yesterday. Robert Brockway 21:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what the reference says on the topic: "The USSR had blocked membership applications from countries such as Ireland, Italy and Finland in counter-response to the USA’s objection to the admission of Outer Mongolia, which it believed to be little more than a Russian colony." Robert Brockway 21:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

actually it was the US that intially blocked Irish membership, two primary reasons the Irish hadn't been even nominal part of the UN alliance, and they Irish government had offered condolences on the death of Hitler but not FDR, it was the British government that convinced the americans to let the Irish join. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.70.60 (talk) 05:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Technicalities

[edit]
Step 1 — Add move template to talk page
Enter {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article, or add {{moveoptions}} if you are unsure of the best title for the article.

They are the guidelines....I have tried but do not appear to be able to get the formatted logo etc to show up...Wonder where I went wrong...Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They used tlp|move to show just the text you need to enter. All you need to enter is move|new name (with the {{}} braces). 199.125.109.88 (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to move article 2009

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was wait for WP:IECOLL to finish its work. Aervanath (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed that this article be moved to "foreign relations of Ireland". This accords with the name of the state which is "Ireland" not "Republic of Ireland" - (See Names of the Irish state). There is, in my view, no room for confusion with the island of Ireland in this case because islands do not have foreign relations. The move is currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Irish Wikipedians' notice board. Please support this move.

THE ARGUMENTS CONCERNING THE MOVE

The following is an excerpt from the sort of discussions that are likely to be raised (again) regarding this proposed move:

This following is a very long (possibly dull and unavoidably repetitious) comment. As is apparent from the above, I have proposed the three moves under discussion. This is a serious response to a comment that I needed to “step back and actually read other users comments [rejecting the three moves] and not just ignore them””. It is an attempt to build consensus.

Overview: The name of the Irish State is Ireland not the Republic of Ireland. This is discussed at length at: Names of the Irish state. Sometimes people say that confusion can be caused by using "Ireland" instead of "Republic of Ireland" because it is the same name as the island of Ireland – what I will call the “Confusion Argument”. Sometimes, that argument is genuine and makes sense. Other times it stems from a POV where people do not accept the name of the State; do not regard the name used as important; and/or are not concerned that use of other names are inaccurate and misleading.

Several attempts to use the Confusion Argument against the moves have been made. The central response to each is that these particular articles concern the civil service, the public service and foreign relations. Islands do not have civil services, public services or foreign relations. If a reader comes to the article, the reader could not possibly think that these were institution or foreign relations of a geographical entity. They necessarily have to be institutions of a political entity, i.e. the State. There is no potential for any confusion. Rather than repeating this point over and over, I will call this counter-argument the “Islands Are Not States Response".

CONFUSION ARGUMENT

The following is a response to each particular Confusion Argument raised:

  • “ [the moves will] plainly [lead] to a confused encyclopedia (sic)” – No they will not. See: Islands Are Not States Response; in addition, use of the “RoI” is inaccurate, misleading and itself causes confusion about the name of the State.
  • There are “civil and public servants working for north-south bodies" - Yes there are but there is no island civil or public service, just as representatives of many states work in the UN but there is no 'earth civil service'.
  • “RoI serves as an accurate disambiguation for the articles in question” – There is no need for a disambiguation. See Islands Are Not States Response above. If notwithstanding this, something to address disambiguation is required, there could be a disambiguation notice at the top of three pages. As I don’t know what ambiguity there would be, I don’t know what would go in the notice – possibly a message directing the readers to Foreign relations of the United Kingdom if they wish to read about the foreign relations of Northern Ireland.
  • ”The proposed title "Foreign relations of Ireland" is ambiguous. It's unclear from the title whether the article covers the relations between Ireland (IE) and Northern Ireland (NI), between IE, NI and the rest of the world, or some complicated combination of both.” Firstly, see Islands Are Not States Response above; Secondly, the ‘complicated combination’ you refer to is not even a possibility: The island of Ireland (that is IE and NI) could not possibly have a “foreign relations” policy with other countries because IE is a state and the other is a part of another state. This argument is exactly akin to saying that the title “foreign relations of Luxembourg” is confusing. After all there is also a region in Belgium called Luxembourg: (See: Luxembourg (Belgium)), indeed that region is much larger than the Luxembourg state. Nobody seriously thinks that the Luxembourg article causes confusion just as the “foreign relations of Ireland” article would not cause confusion.
  • “The existing title doesn't suffer from [problems of ambiguity], as its clear which state's relations are in question”. See the response immediately above. The existing title suffers from the serious problem that it uses the wrong name for the State (For brevity, I will not rehash the arguments for the moves but summarise them below).

CONSISTENCY AND OTHER ARGUMENTS

  • “[the articles] should remain at their RoI names for consistency " and [the existing names] are consistent with the other titles”. -There are numerous articles concerning the state that use the name "Ireland", not "RoI" so consistency point is a red herring. Each proposed move should be looked at on its individual merits.
  • WP uses the official description of the state (RoI) for its article names on Ireland" - No. Numerous articles refer to Ireland, not RoI. The main article is "Republic of Ireland" because the island of Ireland article already has the name "Ireland" - not because WP will not allow the correct name of the state to be used.
  • "Republic of Ireland" is the agreed name for the article that deals with the state, notwithstanding the constitution and thus articles should primarily flow from that.” – No this in no way reflects WP philosophy or rules. Lots and lots or articles cannot be given their “correct” names because another article is located under that name. There is absolutely no rule (or in the case of these three moves) against using the name Ireland for the state.
  • "There should not be any “piecemeal moving” of articles concerning the state one, or two, or three at a time." - No. Every article move should be considered on its individual merits. Moving individual articles is an ordinary part of editing. These particular three moves are appropriate. Others may not be. I would not support moves if they would cause confusion.
  • “[the current article names] meet COMMONNAME”. In fact, this is not correct. I do not know how one measures use of the RoI v Ireland names but, I think most people would agree simply Ireland is used more often. Perhaps more importantly, in official contexts such as at the UN or EU, only Ireland is used for the state.
  • ”Their (sic) is no need to deliberately confuse generic articles”...e.g. President of Ireland... "lowercase" letters etc. "Consistancy (sic) in naming is not nit-picking -- its good policy and practice” - Republic of Ireland is uppercase. Ireland is uppercase. President of Ireland would hardly be lowercase just as Monarchy of the United Kingdom is uppercase. Whatever argument underlies this upper-case/lower-case point, it does not undermine the strong arguments in favour of the three moves. It appears to be a consistency argument but it is more important that the name of the articles concerned are consistent with the name of the State.
  • The moves would be “messy and amaturish (sic) at best”. No, there are a range of important reasons why these moves should be made.
  • “we need to face the fact that the partition of Ireland is a reality”....and discussion re all-island movements etc. - Three article moves are proposed so that they accord with the name of the state as no confusion will be caused by the moves – nothing more. It is unfortunate these moves may be the victims of much broader issues to which they have nothing to do with.
  • The ”[s]obering fact is people that if we move these three articles this week then next week it will be another three and the week after another three, then followed by a similar run on categories and templates over an extended time.” – Three articles are proposed to be moved. If other articles in the future are to be moved, they too will need to be discussed just as things always are on Wikipedia. Every move must be assessed on a case by case basis.

SHORT SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS FOR THE MOVES

  • RoI is not the correct name of the state, Ireland is. WP should be accurate.
  • The moves will not cause any confusion.
  • The concerted practice of using the RoI description rather than the name, Ireland, even where there is no possibility of confusion is offensive.
  • Ireland is accepted as the name of the State by every country and international body. Where no confusion will be caused, WP should reflect this.
  • The moves will mean that the articles will be consistent with the name of the state concerned and with other articles on the foreign relations of other states (where descriptions such as "Republic of" or "Kingdom of" etc. are generally not used - even where those descriptive terms are parts of the official name of the states concerned).
  • The concerted practice of using the RoI description rather than the name causes confusion about what is the name of the State.
  • The burden should be on those opposed to using the correct name of the State to show good reasons whay it should not be used - not the other way around.

In conclusion, please Support this move. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose wait for WP:IECOLL to conclude it's business Gnevin (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this move is a good idea but I also agree that you should wait for the Arbcom thing to play out.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How long will WP:IECOLL take? I do not know the ins and outs of the various procedures etc...but they have been looking at it for months, haven't they....the last decision made was to make no decision (and reopen discussions)....I hope you are right and that a real decision will be made soon. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IECOLL has only really started taking statement about 5 days ago, this problem is years in the making and won't be solved by rushing to a quick conclusion. Have faith Gnevin (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It will take time, but let's wait. The Republic of Rome wasn't built in a day. :-) If it looks like people are trying to bring change about by the back door, then more trouble than is needed will ensue. Fribbler (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Fribbler. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 01:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose move, pending the outcome of WP:IECOll. It's a great pity that this requested move was opened while IECOLL is underway, and I hope that the nominator will withdraw this proposal. The arguments which the nominator raises wrt this move are broadly the same as those raised at WP:IECOLL. There is no advantage in having the same discussion in dozens of different locations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just because the article about Ireland has an incorrect title is no reason to apply the same POV to every article about that state. Sarah777 (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, hiding Republic of Ireland across Wikipedia will only harden the opposition to changing the maine article. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely support the move. I have already commented on WP:IECOLL why I don't endorse the term Republic of Ireland.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, while various arguments (all misguided imo) are advanced for the incorrect name RoI, how can an island have 'foreign relations'? none of the excuses apply. It has to be the state. ClemMcGann (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • An island could have foreign relations if it were also a state. In the case of Ireland, however, the island is not a state, hence the current title makes sense. Do not presuppose knowledge on the part of the reader. Hence Oppose. Mooretwin (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for many reason already given--Rockybiggs (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- I logically support the move for the reasons given, but I Oppose moving any article until Arbcom processes have been completed. Perhaps it would be productive to create a list of articles that might be affected by any Arbcom ruling that changes the current status quo? --HighKing (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move for the reasons given and agree that a list of articles that might be affected by any Arbcom ruling be created? I Oppose moving any article until Arbcom processes have been completed and changing links such as "Ireland" to "Republic of Ireland" for the same reason. --Domer48'fenian' 18:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; Ireland must be called by its proper name. About time Wikipedia put an end to these wasted debate, and use proper names. PurpleA (talk) 03:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, Purple Arrow.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dubious

[edit]

The article says "By 2004, China (including Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macau) had become Ireland’s 7th largest trading partner." The source provided is "Speech by Mr Dermot Ahern, TD, Minister for Foreign Affairs at a business lunch co-hosted with Enterprise Ireland for His Excellency Huang Ju, Vice Premier of the People’s Republic of China, 17/11/2004 (Department of Foreign Affairs Website)", but there is no link given so that the text of the speech can be verified. Did the Minister actually specify that his statistics were including Hong Kong, Macau and even Taiwan? Did the Minister actually go out of his way to insult Taiwan like that? If this information is correct, the Citation needs to include the quote that shows this is what the Minister actually said. Readin (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba relations

[edit]

Should Cuba be added considering 1) Cuba has an embassy in dublin 2) A high profile visit to cuba recently by the govt.

I'm pretty new to wikipedia so if anyone else wants to do it I'd be happy to step aside but if no one does it or has anything against me doing it I might add a section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lookingthrough (talk • contribs) 00:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

20,000 Armenians in Waterford

[edit]

This article says that there are 20,000 Armenians living in Waterford!!! Considering that there are less than 50,000 people in Waterford City and another 57,000 in Co. Waterford (outside the city), it would mean that the population would be about 19% Armenian. I've checked the Census results for 2006 and there were between 51 and 200 Armenians living in the entire country at the time. So, unless there's been a mass exodus from Armenia to Waterford in the last four years, this claim is way off. I'm removing that figure from the page. If anyone has a valid source that can claim those 20,000 people really live there, then by all means add it in! :-) Dennisc24 (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flags removed

[edit]

I'm wondering why were the flags removed from the tables? They are in place on pages for most other countries in the world, so why were they removed from the Ireland page? I see in the annos that it was done apparently in line with MOS:FLAGS. If this was standard procedure on Wikipedia, should it not be visible on a large percentage of pages relating to other countries already? I for one think that the flags should be put back in the table - not just for their aesthetic value, they do assist when scrolling through long lists. Dennisc24 (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

could someone add flags to the countries please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.12.218 (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per consensus discussion, this can trump other guidelines in accordance with IAR and OSE. So if anyone wants to, go ahed and it to the page per the consensus here.Lihaas (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

>> Column: Ireland is reviewing its foreign policy – but it’s asking the wrong questions(Lihaas (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Foreign relations 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Foreign relations 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 28 external links on Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 November 2018

[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. No objections after over 9 days. Cúchullain t/c 20:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland → Foreign relations of Ireland – Guidance on the use of "Ireland"/"Republic of Ireland" is at WP:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles##Use_of_Ireland_and_Republic_of_Ireland (shortcut: WP:IRE-IRL). (Note that this guidance has been stable for 9 years, having been agreed in a massive structured discussion in 2009 and survived several challenges since.) The guidance says:
Use "Ireland" for the state except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context. In such circumstances use "Republic of Ireland" (e.g. "Strabane is at the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland").

An exception is where the state forms a major component of the topic (e.g. on articles relating to states, politics or governance) where "Ireland" should be preferred and the island should be referred to as the "island of Ireland" or similar (e.g. "Ireland is a state in Europe occupying most of the island of Ireland")."

This is clearly one of the exceptions set out in the second of the two paragraphs above from WP:IRE-IRL. In international relations, the country is known by its constitutional name "Ireland", rather than by the description "Republic of Ireland": the United Nations and the European Union (EU) both use "Ireland", as does the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the Universal Postal Union (UPU), etc etc.

There is no ambiguity here with Northern Ireland, because Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom. As such Northern Ireland is not a sovereign state and like Texas or Bavaria or Queensland it does not conduct its own diplomatic relations or hold its own membership of international organisations. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.
[edit]

Category:Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland, which is relates to this article, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Foreign relations of Ireland. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"16,000 Andorrans in Ireland?"

[edit]

Considering that data for resident Andorran nationals are absent from the 2016 Irish Census, which even records the 47 Luxembourgers resident in the State, this would appear to be clearly false. [1] Culloty82 (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All these figures seem completely made up. 15,000 Irish in Belarus but 4,000 vice-versa, 15,000 in Denmark but 900 vice-versa, 5,000 in Albania but 1,000 vice-versa. The fact that they're all round numbers as well, seems like someone was just spitballing or deliberately trolling. Hopefully someone with more time can go through them and add references and years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.167.57.0 (talk) 01:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://data.cso.ie
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Foreign_relations_of_Ireland&oldid=1207267361"