Talk:Rome Rule

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Ethical matters[edit]

The article currently states:

"All major Christian denominations have very similar views on ethical matters related to human life and press that view whenever possible."

I think this last sentence needs rephrasing for clarity and NPOV: Are we referring to abortion? the death penalty? euthanasia? contraception? war and peace? stem cell research? Please believe me, I don't want to start a polemic; I just think we should be more specific. QuartierLatin1968 El bien mas preciado es la libertad 20:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems a complete Non sequitur to me. Why is that sentence there? What does it have to do with anything? I will delete it: the editor responsible may reinsert it if he provides a context and clarity. --Red King 00:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Gavan Duffy judgement[edit]

I suppose it would offend NOR to comment that Gavan Duffy's judgement (in which he applied Ne Temere cannon law rather than the law of the land), had it been take to the Supreme Court, would have been found repugnant to the Consitution. Despite great pressure at the time from the Catholic Church (which had succeed [I believe] in inserting such clauses in the Spanish and Italian constitutions), de Valera specifically refused to include any special place for that Church in the constition. So, whereas it was certainly true in the 1950s that the RC Church was revered in the nation de facto, it was not so de jure. --Red King 00:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The Tilson case (1948-50) did reflect the law of the land, and at the time the 1937 Irish Constitution did have an article (44.1.2) reading - "The State recognises the special position of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church as the guardian of the Faith professed by the great majority of the citizens." This was repealed in the 5th Amendment that became law in January 1973. However Tilson came decades after the Rome Rule arguments had been made, and so it is not essential to the main page, plus the Free State constitution (1922-37) had no special position for any church. (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


Could someone reference this? I could not be assed with it. It should be referenced, or the content removed. --Domer48 (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that it's notable enough to be an article. I'm not going to prod it just yet, until I see if somebody can make an article of it, but if it hasn't been substantially expanded in the next week I will. Scolaire (talk) 07:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree totally, and support your reasonable suggestion. --Domer48 (talk) 07:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
If it's not going to be an article it at least needs to be a redirect. It is (or was) a common enough term that someone looking for what it means should be given some basic information. The article as it stands now is pretty weak, but it is neutral and accurate. A merge/redirect to Irish Home Rule bills might work, but I generally don't like redirects in which you have to read3/4 of the article to find the redirected term. I'm sure there's enough information on Unionist religious opposition to Home Rule, as well as the Catholic Church and the Free State government for an article on this. -R. fiend (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Rome Rule[edit]

I have removed the reference as it clearly dose not reflect the source cited. It dose not specify who said it, when and how much used it enjoyed then or now. It is devoide of context and therefore distorts is meaning. For example, was it used because of the Protestant Church’s Disestablishment by the British Government, something the Fenians were also accused of causing?

The sentence dose simply not reflect the information the source is being used to support. --Domer48 (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

As per my comments above, I have reverted factually incorrect information, and an erroneous use of a source. --Domer48 (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ammended sentence to reflect source. Removed comment / opinion, with no supporting source --Domer48 (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion[edit]

I am proposing that this article be deleted for the following reasons:

  1. It has not been possible to expand it beyond what it is now i.e. there is not enough in the subject for an encyclopædia article.
  2. "Rome Rule" on its own is not even a proper phrase. A search for "rome rule" -"home rule" in Google will produce more results about the Roman Empire than about Ireland.
  3. The entire phrase, "Home Rule is Rome Rule", is nothing more than a slogan that was used by certain people at a certain point in time. In the last hundred years it is more common as a catchphrase used by writers of popular history (like Kee) than an actual expression of policy or philosophy. Its use in WP is invariably accompanied by weasel words like "many felt that..." Other, arguably better known, slogans such as "Ulster will fight and Ulster will be right", "a protestant parliament for a protestant people" or "No surrender" do not have their own articles (although No Surrender does have a dab page). Why should this?
  4. Little or nothing is actually known about the origin of the phrase or its use in speeches in the 19th and early 20th century. This article cites a source saying it was coined by John Bright, yet the John Bright article doesn't mention it. On the other hand, the John Tyndall article says that it was him that coined it, while Partition of Ireland says it was Randolph Churchill.

In short, the topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject i.e. it is non-notable. Scolaire (talk) 09:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't argue with the above, it was simply a catch phrase. --Domer48 (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
If it's not going to be an article it should be a redirect. It's well known enough. We have plenty on articles on other slogans and phrases. Scolaire's second point above is useless. If you remove "home rule" from searches of course you're not going to get many relevant results (you might a well say "rome rule" - "ireland" gives more results about ancient Rome). Even Citizendium has an article on this. -R. fiend (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm very disappointed that you would remove the {{prod}} without discussing it first. By saying "if it's not going to be an article it should be a redirect" you are more or less admitting that it can't be an article. That means it's non-notable. "Well known enough" has nothing to do with notability. And as for Citizendium - you're not going to tell me that's some sort of standard of quality, are you? That article is even worse than this one! You have shown no grounds whatever for keeping the article - the only possible grounds for keeping it is that you can make an article of it, and after seven days we have been unable to get beyond those lame two sentences. And redirect to what? Do we have an article on "an institution or person who is heavily influenced by the Roman Catholic Church"? If we do, we shouldn't. Scolaire (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not saying at all that it can't be an article. In fact, it is an article, just a very short one. If we deleted every substub from wikipedia we'd lose about 10% of our articles. That's no reason to delete. And it is a notable phrase. It's appeared in many books, and, as you've pointed out, it appears in several articles. My point about Citizendium is that they have about .5% as many articles as WP, and even they have an (admittedly poor) article on this. And they do allegedly have higher standards than we do. You've given no strong reasons for deletion. But you're right, there is no ideal place to redirect this to, which is why I prefer it on its own. I just think that if someone searches for this term, they should get some sort of result explaining it, not a "nope, never heard of it. Probably made up" which is what deletion would seem to imply. This whole discussion smells to me of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Take it to AFD if you like, but I doubt it will succeed. -R. fiend (talk) 06:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
You shouldn't quote Wikipedia essays without reading them first. I have given four reasoned arguments at the start of this section, none of which express any personal dislike of the subject. Now read WP:ILIKEIT; substituting the subject of this article we have: "In other words, [the use of a catchphrase] may well be the greatest example of what they do in the history of everything, but if no other reliable sources have written about them, they cannot be included. Maybe they will be written about in the future, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and articles can only be added when the subjects have been written about elsewhere." Now, the fact is, "it is a notable phrase; it's appeared in many books" does not mean that other sources have written about it. I haven't found a single source that has written about "Rome Rule"; if I had I would have expanded the article. I don't believe you have found a single source that has written about "Rome Rule"; if you had you would have expanded the article.
While you're reading that essay, take a look at WP:INTERESTING, WP:LOSE and WP:ALLORNOTHING. When you take out those arguments, what is really left of your case?
I fully intend to take this to AfD. You can forestall me at any time by properly establishing notability and starting to expand the article. Scolaire (talk) 08:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, you did give reasons for deletion; I just happen to think they're not very strong. Sure, no one's written a book about the term "Rome Rule", but it is covered in other sources. As for your other arguments:
  1. I think it can be expanded. Just because it hasn't in several days doesn't mean it can't be. Sure, it will never be a featured article, but I think there' the potential for a couple short paragraphs, which is sufficient.
  2. I think your reasoning is flawed here. Rome Rule is almost always mentioned in the context of Home Rule, so removing it from a search will of course give skewed results. That does not necessarily mean that it has never been used outside of the phrase "Home Rule is Rome Rule", nor does it matter that much if it were the case.
  3. The term generally was used as part of a slogan, but that's not a reason for deletion either. And despite your assertions, it doesn't use weasel words. That other slogans don't have articles is neither here nor there (should the entry on the No surrender dab page be removed because it is unlikely to ever be an article? Have sources written about it?). For what it's worth, Rome Rule is more brief, and therefore more likely to be searched for, and, more importantly, unlike the others it isn't completely self evident and warrants some explanation. There are many people who do not immediately associate the Catholic Church with any mention of "Rome", and who could easily be unsure of what it refers to, or how Italians enter into the situation. "Ulster will fight and Ulster will be right" is pretty straightforward.
  4. We seems to have one reliable source indicating the origin of the phrase. But again, that hardly matters. Many notable terms have mysterious origins. The uncertainty here just demonstrates that its use was widespread enough that it wasn't associated with a single individual.
We have two independent reliable sources covering the term and its use, which, for a two sentence article is pretty damn good. (BTW, I'm unsure what an non-independent source would be, is the term going to write about itself?) Anyway, I'm going to remove the template again. Removing them is the procedure for contesting prods, and they're not supposed to be put back. This isn't AFD, and shouldn;t be treated as such. -R. fiend (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the template should not have been replaced. We need to go to AfD if we want to progress this. Thank you for answering my arguments in detail. I have taken what you say on board and I'll post a reply later. Scolaire (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be deleted. There are other examples on Wikipedia of phrases being articles (here and here) and the relationship between resistance to Home Rule and a fear of Catholic domination has the makings of a lengthy article.--Johnbull (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"fear of Catholic domination," was a ploy used by very few (minority term), and nothing to do with the real issues surrounding HR. This stub is going no where, and should be deleted. --Domer48 (talk) 08:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
No. A fear among Protestants that they would be in a permanent minority in an Ireland with its own parliament, dominated by a Catholic majority, was very real. This is why Randolph Churchill deployed the "Orange card" because he knew it would be so effective. Ireland was on the brink of civil war because this division was real. To deny it is quite bizarre. Here is one example from 1892: "The point of the Ulster opposition to home rule is, of course, the fear that, if it be granted to Ireland, the Protestant minority will not receive justice at the hands of the Catholic majority". Even in the 1930s there was still a fear amongst Protestants in Northern Ireland that unification with the Irish Free State would mean Catholic domination. This article could be considerably longer.--Johnbull (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think many people would deny that that fear, or concern, or belief did exist. The problem here is that, of itself, it doesn't seem to have been written about. Your link is fascinating, and thank you for drawing it to our attention, but the quote you have taken from it is not not the main thrust of the newspaper story. The story is about Prof. A. V. Dicey, and Dicey's article on WP suggests that he was not himself concerned with Catholic Church influence in Ireland, but rather with the constitutional position of Ireland. As I said to R. fiend above, all that is needed here is to establish notability by pointing to sources that have written about this topic, rather than mention it in passing or re-cycle an old cliché. Once that is done the deletion debate ends. Over to you. Scolaire (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
If all that is needed to end the deletion debate is, as you say, to point to sources that have written about "Rome Rule" then I have some examples. Studies devoted to "Rome Rule" are Joseph Hocking's Is Home Rule Rome Rule? which claimed that Home Rule would mean "Rome Rule". The Irish Nationalist leader John Redmond's Does Home Rule mean Rome Rule? offered a contrary view.--Johnbull (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The Orange Card was to promote sectarian division, and encourage a fear among Protestants. Who were the Unionists threatening to fight against Home Rule, the British Government? So how can you suggest there was going to be civil war in Ireland? You I would suggest, have a very bizarre view of history. As to the salient point of this discussion, like I have said above, it was a minority view based on ignorance. Ignorance in this case being the real motives of those promoting and encouraging this fear. All of which could and should be covered in the article on Home Rule. The term is not notable, the article is not likely to be expanded, and the source used to support it i.e. John Bright is dubious and I suggest should be checked, since his own article makes not mention of it. As to how often it is used in relation to this subject, please cite sources. I replaced the {prod} tag, simply because the arguments for keeping it were in my opinion spurious, and not based on any of our policies, but on opinion only. --Domer48 (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The first part of your argument is irrelevant to the deletion discussion. The extent to which fear, or perceived fear, of an Catholic government existed, and whether or not it was based on ignorance or fearmongering, have nothing to do with the relevance of the term or the accuracy of the article. In fact, this sort of information could be used to expand the article, rather than delete it. The second part, about the notability of the term, merely gives your opinion about its notability. If it is as non-notable as you claim, why is it still being mentioned in books written many, many years later? And do you really want to question a footnote to a specific printed source simply because another Wikipedia article doesn't mention it? I don't get that. The article, even in its current brief form, is both accurate and verifiable, is it not? And it explains a term whose meaning is not completely self-evident. This isn't fancruft, or anything. It's a term relating to an important part of history. Someone could easily come across it in their reading, and wonder what exactly it means. Why should Wikipedia not tell them? -R. fiend (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Domer48 I think your reading of history is bizarre if you believe that the Irish Volunteers were armed for no reason and that their aim to fight for Home Rule would not lead to civil war in Ireland. The motivation behind a fear of "Rome Rule" is irrelevant to whether it existed: what is relevant is that such a fear certainly did exist and existed among a large number of Protestants in Ireland. The source for who coined it is not dubious, it is published by the Oxford University Press and the book is part of the New Oxford History of England and authored by an experienced historian. I'm not surprised the Wikipedia article doesn't mention it: it is a poorly sourced article with only one footnote. I know who I would rather believe out of the two.--Johnbull (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the whole issue of civil war is more complex than that, but that's an entirely separate issue. But to the point, it seems if people do want this deleted, they should initiate an AFD. The prod is out (it was never a serious prod candidate anyway; it was pretty clear this was not going to be an uncontroversial delete). Continuing the discussion here doesn't seem worthwhile. -R. fiend (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


Requested AfD as this thread seems to be going nowhere let the community decide. BigDunc (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, as evident by the above discussion, it's not going anywere. --Domer48 (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely NO WAY should this definition be deleted just because it is regarded as a red rag in certain circles. If only for that reason it needs to remain actively defined, but in particular because fear of it was one of the key issues in resistance to Home Rule, and indeed to any kind of Irish independence, right from 1886 through to 1914 and later. For Unionist the question was not simply unionism for its own sake, but deep down a fear of, and a need to protect themselves against Rome Rule, which ultimately led to partition, remaining at the root of sectarianism, ultimately leading to partition within partition. If this AfD goes ahead the definition will be reinstated as a foot note in the articles it is mentioned in.Osioni (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, Osioni, if you're going to contribute to a discussion you should read it first. Firstly, nobody ever suggested the article should be deleted "just because it is regarded as a red rag in certain circles"; the reasons were clearly stated and discussed on their merits. Secondly, the AfD is already closed and the result was "keep". At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, what's needed now is somebody to write the article instead of telling us why there should be one. Scolaire (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, sorry Scolaire how very right you are, apologies, my alert button triggered on seeing "the discussion is not going anywhere" and interpreted imminent deletion. Will see what I can turn up. Osioni (talk) 09:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
This article has grown hugely since my last visit in April 2008.Red Hurley (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Reflection 2011[edit]

Following section was deleted on 00:37, 12 September 2011 by "" on the grounds that:
"I'm removing this because it seems to be an improperly cited quote from one journalist whose reputation is, let's say, "questionable" (e.g. tinyurl dot com/3w8jz) If not, although I agree with it, it's clearly more opinion than objective analysis."

Protestants didn’t make waves, they didn’t cause a fuss, they got on with their lives, and endured whatever degree of Catholic governance that Dáil Éireann wished to impose upon them.[citation needed] The Ulster Unionist warning had turned out to be accurate: Home Rule was Rome Rule, as draconian censorship, a ban on contraception and divorce and a special constitutional position for the Catholic Church all became state law.[citation needed] Into the 1960s, many Irish restaurants refused to serve meat on Fridays, the National University made Catholic feast days into holidays, and RTE even broadcast the Angelus twice-daily: all incompatible with a secular republic. Myers, Kevin: Irish Independent p.28 Comment, 4 May 2011.

I am preserving the deleted text here because I am not in agreement with the anonymous deletion for the reason given - "alhough '' agrees with it!" Osioni (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Douglas Hyde's funeral[edit]

Douglas Hyde died in 1949, the first president of Ireland, and was buried from St Patrick's cathedral; the cabinet did not attend but waited at the railings outside because they could not enter a protestant church. See - Hard to believe now in very different times. (talk) 11:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)