Wikipedia

Talk:History of the Republic of Ireland/Archive 1

< Talk:History of the Republic of Ireland
Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1

Request to move

Latest comment: 19 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion
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.
Moved

From History of the southern Irish state back to History of the Republic of Ireland.

My reading of the comments below is that there is a broad consensus for a move, with a non-trivial minority. I have therefore entered a formal vote for move. --Red King 23:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support, for the reasons I gave in the previous discussion below. The Republic of Ireland is not really a exceptional case here.--Pharos 22:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 19:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Title of this article

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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.
Not renamed

I'd like to suggest that this article be renamed to History of independent Ireland, or maybe something else if anyone has a suggestion. It makes sense to have an article that deals with the history of the state since its creation but the "Irish Free State" must be used until 1937 and "Republic of Ireland" is only really appropriate after 1949.

Would anyone object to renaming the article?

Iota 18:21, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That would require including all of Irish History pre-British invasion and also would be confusing as only 26 counties got independence after the War of Independence while all 32 were independent before the British.

There were no counties before the Normans arrived, 32, 22 or 2.86.42.232.96 18:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I, therefore, object.

The current title is much better than the suggested alternative.

--IceGunner 20:34, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Bear in mind though that there was never anything that could be understood as an independent Irish state prior to the Anglo-Irish War. Before the English invasion the island was divided into a collection of competing kingdoms. The term independent usually applies to states but maybe we can talk about pre-invasion Ireland as "independent" anyway, I don't know. What about
  • "History of the Irish state", or
  • "History of the modern Irish state"
On a separate subject: Please don't create articles at suggested titles for renaming this article or turn them into redirects. This is not necessary (there was no article linking to History of independent Ireland before you put a redirect there) and will make it harder to move this article if agreement can be reached. It goes without saying , of course, that no-one should attempt to move this article from its current name without a consensus. Iota 21:55, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Moving this article to History of the southern Irish state strikes me as a rather poor idea. Why shouldn't this be like the articles on the history of other states? The history of the United States and the history of the United Kingdom both start considerably before they were called by those names.--Pharos 03:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would agree with Pharos that this article should be called "History Of The Republic Of Ireland" as it is the current internationally accepted name. Would we have such heart-searching regarding Sri Lanka or Kampuchia? The Republic Of Ireland Act should be our guide in this "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland." What the area was called in history is surely a mute point. If the question of 26 / 32 counties arise then the article should be named "History Of The Republic Of Ireland and Northern Ireland"

This is an absolutely horrible title for this article. Can we move it back to History of the Republic of Ireland? john k 19:40, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Djegan 20:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'll second or third the motion. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 20:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In defence of the current title, the issue is not really that the state has gone by a few different names. More important is that it was established as a constitutional monarchy in 1922 and only indisputably became a republic in 1949. So to me History of the Republic of Ireland for an article that begins with the war of indepedence is a bit anachronistic and odd. We could also move to "History of the Irish state". "The Irish state" is a common way to refer to the state and "southern Irish state" is admittedly a little clumsy. Iota 03:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you brought up the republic argument before in defence of the move, or some one did. Now that i think about it, i belive your proposal looks good, and i would be willing to support it. Just as an alternative, not that i would put it up, would be to seperate into, pre and post republic artciles. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
History of the Irish state would, at least, be better than the current title. john k 04:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quite frankly i think "the Irish state" and similar bizarre madeup terms are nothing more than made up inferior nonsense and anything less than "Republic of Ireland" is simply unacceptable in a professional encyclopedia, start the article with "The state now known as the Republic of Ireland..." or something similar to clear up any uncertainty and explain the terms clearly and consistantly. Djegan 18:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. "the Irish state", "the Southern Irish state" seem to me to be a very local perspective. I have never, ever, heard anyone itrw refer to it as "the Irish State" (or "the Southern Irish State" for that matter). Where would somebody from (a) Cyprus (b)Sri Lanka (c) New Zealand expect to find it? To be brutally honest, the History section of main article Republic of Ireland is a lot better than this article. Contributors seem to have voted with their feet. --Red King 23:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Do we have a consensus for History of the Republic of Ireland, which is the state that exists today and links naturally from main article Republic of Ireland. --Red King 23:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
History of the Republic of Ireland gets my vote, no matter how anachronistic. Iota has done a good job with articles all over Wikipedia, however, I think it was an unwise decision to move this article from the prior name. I vote for returning this article to History of the Republic of Ireland. --ℬastique▼talk 15:31, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arbitrary reversions

Iota has reverted my additions without any explanation here or elsewhere. Before we start an edit war, would you please justify your actions. These are the changes under dispute:

  • The de jure Irish state was founded in 1922 as the "Irish Free State". Iota reverted back to the incorrect de facto. The term for 'exists in law' is 'de jure'. Please consult a dictionary.
  • Main article: Anglo-Irish War reference removed - why? Wiki has many such references to a more detailed analysis of a sub-topic. What's wrong with this one?
  • I wrote Ireland's neutrality in the war against fascism is difficult for many to understand. It must be recognised that, in 1939, practically every member of the Irish government was a veteran of the War of Independence and so to side with Britain would re-open the scars of the Irish Civil War. The threat was not unreal: both sides in the Spanish Civil War had its own Irish Brigade of volunteers. This is a very important issue - I have been challenged repeatedly on it my English friends. I can accept debate about how it should be phrased, but it is outrageous to ignore the question.
  • I wrote "Implicit Catholic values controlled the new state from the beginning (and indeed the Catholic Church was accorded a 'special position' in the 1937 Constitution). The control was made explicit in 1950/51, when opposition from the Church (and the medical profession) to Health Minister Dr Noel Browne's caused the Government to withdraw his "Mother and Child Scheme" and caused him to resign. " and can accept that this is maybe too much a PPOV, but Iota's "In the 1950s, opposition from the Church and the medical profession to Health minister Dr Noel Browne's Mother and Child Scheme caused the Government to withdraw the scheme and caused him to resign. The controversy surrounding the scheme raised questions relating to the relationship between church and state in the Republic." is also a PPOV that elides the interfence of the Hierarchy in the affairs of state for a very long time. To pretend that the State was not de facto "a Catholic State for a Catholic people" (despite nominal protections to the contrary) for at least the first 75 years of its existence is to fly in the face of reality. The "Mother and Child Scheme" was only the most extreme case. Ok, it was in the McCarthyite 50s, but the "X case" is very recent. An NPOV is needed, so I invite a third party to write it.
  • "was jailed on charges of corruption" reverted to "was gaoled on charges of corruption" - the word 'gaol" is a particularly English and archaic spelling. Readers from outside these islands are more likely to mis-read it as "goal" and be totally confused.

Ruadhraigh

Ruadhraigh, sorry for not explaining my changes. These were my reasons:

  • The stuff about neutrality and the Church was not written in NPOV language. I've tried to put back in some of this information but to reword it. A detailed section (or article) on the relationship between the church and state would be good but for the moment the stuff about Noel Browne is in the "national scandals" heading so is only relevant as a bit of context, so I've kept it brief. The stuff about neutrality should also be kept to essentials because the Emergency has its own article.
  • I chose the term de facto carefully. The Irish Free State was the first de facto state. The earlier Irish Republic established some working institutions but couldn't be called a full, de facto state. On the other hand the question of when independence began de jure is much more complicated. Many have, and still do, maintain that the de jure state was established in 1919 (or even 1916).
  • The problem with the Main article: Anglo-Irish War thing is that these are only ever put directly under section headings, rather than in the middle of blocks of text (the war and its background are currently run together as one section and I think its best that way).
  • Wikipedia doesn't have standardised spellings and contributors are free to chose whichever they prefer (as long as Irish topics are written about in Hiberno-English, US topics in US English, etc). Personally I think this diversity is a strength.

Iota 02:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gaol is both uncommon and archaic. You chose to use it over a more common synonymous word because... it adds character? Encyclopedia != Museum. 68.19.125.93

The Emergency

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

An anon editor this text to the section on the war years.

The Irishmen also transported to the Allies reports about watching in submarines and on activity of the IRA peoples (who stood in a temptation to join Hitler in his war in England). Pilots from the Allies who were fell in Ireland permitted to escape to the British area in Northern Ireland, while German pilots were incarcerated until the end of the war. During the war de Valera refused to Winston Churchill's and Franklin D. Roosevelt's insistent pleadings to permit to the Allied armies to use the ports of Ireland. Despite the official line of neutrality many Irishmen fought in the war.

I am happy to help correct the language, but I've reverted for two reasons (a) this reads to me as "everybody knows" and needs sources if it is to remain. (b) the para is getting too long and too detailed for a summary. Additional material should go into The Emergency. --Red King 17:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

This entire section reads like an apology. Jkelly 06:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I created an article based on an old college essay of mine. Its at Irish neutrality during World War II. This article may also be of interest. --sony-youthtalk 23:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Request that someone knowledgeable deal with this line

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
"...Nevertheless, between 1911 and 1926, the Free State lost 34 percent of its Protestant population.)"

It would be nice if something more specific was added here. I am unable to determine from the material provided whether figure refers to refugees or casualties (although I decided to give me forefathers the benefit of the doubt, and assumed it meant people who fled). It would be nice if the language was clearer, or if more specific numbers (X% killed, Y% fled, Z% turned into sheep and molested by Scotsmen) were provided. Danke. 68.19.125.93

There are a lot of problems with the claim

1) the question of what was a protestant in the pre-independence Ireland. 2) I remember reading an interesting article nearly twenty or so years ago which looked at this from a statistical point of view and it pointed out that the British Army forces in Ireland would have accounted for a very high percentage of the 'protestants' in Ireland and they couldn't really be considered part of the Irish nation as they were from England, Wales and Scotland and were posted there - going home to their families on leave etc. Post independence they left and the number of protestants in the 'south' declined as well. The native protestant population (that is those people who were protestant and were born in the south and lived there normally) were hardly touched by this emigration (not being members of the Crown forces). My bestman's wife was an Anglican minister in Southern Ireland (in an area thought of as 'nationalist'. The protestant community was flurishing in the area, as much as in most areas of Enland or Wales). I attended a rememberance day service with her (she is not from Ireland but moved there as a priest) and explained aftwards that I felt uncomfortable with the emphasis on the dead who died in 'service' in the first world war but glossing over the war of independence. I pointed out that there had been Anglican members of the Irish Volunteers in the local area (indeed I understand that some attended that very church) and that one 'Anglican' Volunteer Officer ejected from his churh (not that one) for wearing his volunteer uniform and he said if it was alright for British officers to wear their uniforms it was alright for him to wear his. The Anglican community in many parts of Ireland provided officers and members of the IRA during the war of independence and they didn't feel the need to flee (other than as republicans who had lost in the civil war). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.170.4 (talk) 02:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Irish neutrality during World War II

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article Irish neutrality during World War II has been nominated for deletion. Please add your opinion to the discussion on AfD. --sony-youthpléigh 22:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

'1922-1973'?

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Republic was based on the Free State but was declared in 1949. Surely a break is needed or perhaps 1922-37 / 1937-1949 to include the constitution and whether it was a quasi-republic after 1937. 1949-73; then 1973 to date. All the Peter Hart / Meda Ryan / Dunmanway stuff does not relate in any way to the Republic declared in 1949 and needs to be removed. A section on the Free State as precursor would still be needed, with links off to the pages concerned.86.42.232.96 18:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Relationship with NI

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Which party is being referred to in the 2nd paragraph of this section? It just says 'this party', but doesn't specific which party this is. Also, shouldn't this section mention the changes to the Irish constitution? --Helenalex (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Irish history series

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have opened a discussion on a reorganisation of the series of articles dealing with Irish history at Talk:History of Ireland#RFC: Irish history series. --RA (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Intro

Latest comment: 14 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

The introduction was recently changed, with the first sentence as follows:

The Republic of Ireland formally came into being in 1949 when it removed the last official functions of the British monarch from its laws (thus also automatically removing itself from from the British Commonwealth

This is statement is correct in a sense, but I think it has problems: (1) the topic of this article is the history of the state since 1922, but that first sentence suggests otherwise, (2) saying the current state came into being in 1949 is a bit too strong given only a small change was made then, the key dates are really 1922 and 1937, (3) I don't think the introduction paragraph should go into too much detail about the complex process by which the state went from a dominion to a republic.

I changed to a revised version of the old intro. It now begins with "The Republic of Ireland formally seceded from the United Kingdom on 6 December 1922. On that day it became a dominion in the British Commonwealth called the Irish Free State." and ends with "In 1949 the state was formally declared to be republic".

I think this makes clear that the article is about an entity that began in 1922. It uses the term Republic of Ireland, as found in the title of the article, but makes clear that it has only been described as this since 1949.

Iota (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The introduction as you've changed it to is confusing for readers and incorrect in its terminology as the Republic of Ireland never came into being in 1922 so it couldn't have suceded. Yes it states it was known as the Irish Free State upon sucession but it wasn't a republic. The terminology of Republic of Ireland should not be used prior to its actually creation in 1949. And as the article is called "History of the Republic of Ireland" the introduction was quite adequate in declaring when it was actually created and a brief description of what preceeded it and i reverted your change to reflect this. You also did say that it was correct so it isn't wrong. Northern Star (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with most of what you wrote, iota. As I noted in my edit summary, I think the article kicked off very strangely by leading with the ROI Act. However the purpose of my edit was to correct errors in what was written not to change the direction of the lead.
I don't believe that just because the article title contains "Republic of Ireland" that we need to limit ourselves to 1949 onwards - the article is about the history of the independent part of Ireland - but I do wholly agree with Mabuska that we cannot say that the "Republic of Ireland" seceded from the UK. It didn't.
The the intro in general is a mess tho. We really don't need to go into all this in the first paragraph. It should be wholly re-written based on the content of the article with a fresh start. Never mind trying to fix what's there. --RA (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not hinting at limiting the articles range by stating it must be 1949 onwards - only in reference to Republic of Ireland. I'm not oppossing usage of the term Irish Free State to describe the steps it took to becoming an actual republic in international law. The introduction downsizing could maybe start like:
The Republic of Ireland originally came into being as the Irish Free State, a dominion of the British Commonwealth having succeeded from the United Kingdom in 1922. Constitutional changes throughout the history of the Irish Free State led to its full independance and the establishment of the Republic of Ireland in 1949.
It cuts it down greatly and gives a good general jist of the Republics origin. You could expand on it more naturally to add in other stuff. Northern Star (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
That sounds fine. The ins and outs can be left to the article itself. Although often assumed, an article such as this does not need to have the title repeated in bold in the introduction (see Wikipedia:LEDE#Introductory_text). So you could say something like, the "The majority of Ireland succeeded from the United Kingdom in 1922 as the Irish Free State, ..." (Strictly not true since it was all of Ireland that succeeded on 6 December 1922, with Northern Ireland exercising its opt-out and returning to the UK at the earliest possibly opportunity: 6 January 1923.) --RA (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that would only lead to confusion seeing as it isn't exactly true as you state. On the intro and page title, it doesn't really repeat the article title - it leaves out the "History of" and goes straight into a very very brief history of the Free State and Republic. New proposed revision then:
The Republic of Ireland originally came into being as the Irish Free State, a dominion of the British Commonwealth having succeeded from the United Kingdom in 1922. Six counties would opt-out and rejoin the United Kingdom in the form of Northern Ireland. Constitutional changes throughout the history of the Irish Free State led to its full independance and the establishment of the Republic of Ireland in 1949.
Northern Star (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Northern Star's wording is good. It's easy to understand and avoids unnecessary detail. I'm going to be bold and revise the intro accordingly.

I think we should leave out anything about Northern Ireland "rejoining" or "returning" to the UK. This is an obscure detail because NI was only a part of the Free State in the most formal and legalistic sense. As you're probably aware, the Treaty provided that for the whole period when Northern Ireland was notionally included in the Free State

the powers of the Parliament and the Government of the Irish Free State shall not be exercisable as respects Northern Ireland and the provisions of the Government of Ireland Act 1920, shall, so far as they relate to Northern Ireland remain of full force and effect.

We shouldn't give the impression that NI was actually government as part of the Free State. And the intro is not the place for the level of detail that would be required to clarify this technical point. By all means lets discuss it in the body of the article. Iota (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point Iota, i concur. I minor tweaked the last sentence intro as it was still a bit bad on the grammer:

Constitutional changes throughout the history of the new state led to its full independence and the re-establishment as the "Republic of Ireland" in 1949.

Has been changed too:

Constitutional changes throughout the history of the new state led to its full independence and its establishment as the "Republic of Ireland" in 1949.

"and the re-establishment as the Republic of Ireland" is bad grammer in its context here and also the Republic of Ireland didn't exist before this so it couldn't be re-established in the meaning of the word so i changed it to established as originally proposed. Northern Star (talk) 09:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Before i forget, Iota i didn't like the way you just went and altered the end of the proposed lede which had already been agreed as fine by RA and yourself and stuck it into the article without discussing your alterations. We are suppossed to be after all looking for a consensual lede that is agreed by all of us. Your alterations had to be edited as stated by myself above as they had problems in terminology and grammer. Northern Star (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Northern Star, with respect I don't think your remarks are warranted. I wanted to make a small tweak to the wording but didn't think it important enough to write a paragraph justifying it. Sometimes it's simpler be bold and let people revert if they so wish. I slightly prefer "re-establishment" but I don't think it merits having a debate. Iota (talk) 08:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I meant no offence so my apologies if any offence was taken. Yet the definition of the word "re-establishment" doesn't work in this instance and could be seen as debatable and POV by some as it hints that there was a recognised Republic of Ireland already in existence at some stage prior to the current one. Northern Star (talk) 10:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Northern Star. No offence was taken :) Iota (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Article title

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Any article entitled Republic of Ireland is completely incorrect. It is true that in 1948 the Government declared a Republic. This was because there was an ambiguity about whether the then King of UK or the President of Ireland was the Head of State.

However, the internationally recognised name of the territory of the Republic of Ireland is "Ireland". This is the name of the sovereign state of 'Ireland' at both the United Nations and in the European Union and in all treaties. Indeed it is the case that if ever the name Republic of Ireland is used the Irish Government will hold that there is no such legal entity as the 'Republic of Ireland" and the name "Ireland" must be used on all occasions. This is a matter of International Law. While the term Republic of Ireland is sometimes used incorrectly by the British to refer to Ireland, the title has never been used by the Irish Government or the People of Ireland in its Constitution - the sovereign Law of Ireland.


Wikis own section on the name of Ireland is instructive:

"There have been various names of the Irish state, some of which have been controversial. The constitutional name of the contemporary state is Ireland,[1] the same as the island of Ireland, of which it comprises the major portion. However, in 1949 it formally declared itself a republic and was described in statute as the Republic of Ireland.[2]

The United Kingdom objected to the name Ireland on the basis that it may be confused with the entire island.[3] (Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom, occupies the remaining one sixth of the island.) However, that name was internationally recognised by the early 1960s and since the end of the 1990s has been accepted by the United Kingdom also.[3]"

If this name is accepted by the UK, it is unclear how you can have a reference on this site declaring the name of Ireland to be the "Republic of Ireland"

At the United Nations the name plate reads "Éire - Ireland". At all meetings of the Member States of the European Union the name plate is "Éire / Ireland". In all international treaties the name of Ireland is Ireland. The 'Eire' is a politically expedient appendage added recently with the introduction of Irish Language legislation in Ireland, previously name plates were "Ireland". However, the name plate is only indicative.

The legal name of the territory of the Republic of Ireland is as stated above set out in the Constitution of Ireland and is "Ireland". This is the case in both Irish and English versions. The Irish version takes precedence and reads "Ireland" as the name.

However when Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom invited the 'President of Ireland' to visit her some years ago and the matter lost its constitutional bitterness when the The Irish Peace process promulgated the 'Good Friday Agreement'.

It is unacceptable to incorrectly portray the name of a sovereign country as something which it is not. It is not acceptable to have a page on entitled Republic of Ireland as there is no such legal entity in the world. Indeed such a reference has no correctness at all in International Law but rather makes the web site the subject of unnecessary political controversy and inaccuracy. The declaration of a Republic did not change the name of Ireland. That would have required a change to the Irish Constitution.

I would suggest the removal of the page entitled Republic of Ireland and that it should be replaced with a page titled Ireland. Appropriate references to the fact that Ireland declared a Republic in 1948 are important. All other references to Republic of Ireland should be changed to “Ireland” or the state of “Ireland” as appropriate. Such editing would bring Wiki’s references into line with International Law as recognized by the UN, the EU and perhaps most importantly to some readers the position of the UK since the 1960’s!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishbxl (talk • contribs) 13:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Replied to at Talk:Republic of Ireland#"Ireland" or "Republic of Ireland "? RashersTierney (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Needs a lot of Work

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

This important article isquite poor and needs a lot of work.

The first thing I'd say is that it concentrates primarily on constitutional issues surrounding Irish independence while neglecting arguably more important areas such as political and economic history.

Specifically:

  • The Section on the war of independence is too long and the section on the civil war, mroe directly relevant to this article, is too short. The quality of the latter section is also poor.
  • There is nothing on inter-war politics -for instance the rule of Cumman na Gael, teh ascent of Fianna Fail, the Blueshirts, the economic war etc.
  • We need a section on the post-war coalition government and such important events s the mother and child scheme. Economic stagnation and then the 'Lemass revolution' in opening up the economy are also absent.
  • The 1980s and the budget crisis of those years is not mentioned, nor is the 'Tallaght strategy'.
  • The section othe boom years needs to be re-written
  • We need a new section on post-slump Ireland. This recession is undoubtedly an important moment in the history of the Irish state.
  • The section on relations with Northern Ireland is poor and lacking in detail. We need mentions of things like the arms crisis of 1969, Sunningdale, the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the peace process etc. Mention of the Real IRA here is also irrelevant as they did not exist throughotu the period of hte Troubles.

Other suggestions are welcome. It does seem as if this topic is not as 'sexy' as our nationalist history, but for those of us who live in the Repulic, it is arguably more important. We really need to improve it.

Jdorney (talk) 11:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Right, it's been a long time coming but I;m starting work on re-writing this article now along the lines outlined above. Contributions/criticism/whatever welcome! Jdorney (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Very long time lol. I'll help in any criticism that needs given ;-) Mabuska (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Instead of changing it bit by bit here, I've decided to re-write it here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jdorney/History_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland Thoughts appreciated. Jdorney (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Elaborate? Jdorney (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Didn't mean to sound totally dismissive. I'll respond at the workpage TP tomorrow. RashersTierney (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It did take a while, but have finished re-writing the article. Per Be bold, I'm putting it up here now. I hope people will agree that it is an improvement, but comments/criticisms are of course welcome. Jdorney (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories

Latest comment: 12 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

There are attempts to place this article in cats like Category:History of Europe; this does not follow the convention of those categories, whereby the head articles are *not* placed in the parent. If there is a change warranted, it should be discussed by consensus at Category:History of Europe and others; but for now convention seems to be to only put articles in the head that do are not already part of a sub-category per wp:diffuse. --KarlB (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I restored the full set of parent categories to this article, per WP:EPON. Unfortunately, these categories were removed by another editor, so I reverted that removal.

Per WP:EPON, "Articles with an eponymous category should still be categorized in the broader categories that would be present if there were no eponymous category (e.g. the article France appears in both Category:France and Category:Western Europe, even though the latter is the parent category of the former)."

The "History of the Republic of Ireland" is clearly one of major topics in Category:History of Ireland, and a reader browsing Category:History of Ireland should not have to go to a subcategory to find that article. Similarly, the Republic of Ireland is one of only 2 sovereign states in the so-called British Isles, and a reader browsing Category:History of the British Isles should not be forced to go to through a sub-category to find a major article which belongs in Category:History of the British Isles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The editor who removed the parent categories has done it again. :(
He has even gone so far as to remove this article from Category:Republic of Ireland. Why on earth would anyone other than a vandal want the history of a state not to be one of the main articles in the category on that state? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Please go easy on the bogus accusations of vandalism. History of Ireland is not present in Category:Ireland, nor are many other important topics about Ireland. In fact, this is much more common, if you look across the tree, for 'history' articles to not be bubbled up to the parent, and with good reason; why history and not politics? or culture? or health? WP:EPON is unevenly applied, and with good reason; because if applied globally, there would be a massive number of articles now bubbled up to their parents; there are literally squillions of eponymous categories. Having the articles *not* in the parent makes it easy to identify which articles are not part of a lower-level category, and makes further diffusion easier. Before changing conventions of a given category tree, you need to get consensus from the editors involved. For now, consensus is clear on Category:History of Europe, Category:History of the British Isles, Category:History by country, etc. --KarlB (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Diffusion is a matter for editors rather than raeders, and Wikipedia exists for readers not editors. I do a lot of category diffusion, so I am a lot more familiar with the issue than Karl, who is a recently-active editor. It is actually very easy to identify which articles already have eponymous sub-categs and do not need diffusion, because the eponymous cats are listed above the articles on the category page.
The head articles on health, culture, politics, etc should all be in the parent category, because they are all the major sub-topics of the category. They represent the first level of split of the parent topic, and should not be hidden away behind a double door.
EPON is widely applied without problem, and if it were applied globally, there would be some cases where a large number of additional articles were bubbled up to their parents, but in most cases the number would either be small (because of a limited number of subcats) or the articles would be quite manageable. A few hundred "History of Foo" articles listed directly in Category:History by country would cause no more problems than are caused by the large number of sub-categories: it wuld simply be a long alphabetical list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
In any case, this is probably the wrong place for this discussion; I'd suggest the talk page of category before proposing such a wide-ranging change; or in any case, the talk pages of the various sub cats in question (e.g. Category:History of Europe) - if you make this change for ROI you should make it for all other countries - so perhaps try to seek consensus at the head cats first before making these changes which will potentiall impact hundreds of articles.--KarlB (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
There is a long-standing guideline on this: WP:EPON. If editors want to challenge that guideline, the place to do so is at the talkpage for the guideline, not by creating dozens of near-identical discussions for different categories. See WP:MULTI: centralise discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Given that there is currently a discussion about changing this guideline, in which you are participating, I would suggest that you stop trying to make additional changes to the category tree in advance of consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Eponymous_categories. Thanks! --KarlB (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Fully protected

Edit warring about categories makes me sad :(. As such, you'll all stop for 3 days. I'm sure I've protected the WP:WRONGVERSION. Please try to work out the issue either here or at the Categorization talk page in the mean time. Once the protection expires, please don't start edit-warring again. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Tag

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Now that the URLs have been formatted can we remove the unsightly tag please? Jdorney (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Robinson radical feminist?

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Was Robinson really a "radical feminist senator"? Feminist sure, that seems reasonable enough. Radical feminist seems like a wee bit of a stretch. I don't remember many of her speech's quoting Dworkin or claiming that all gender norms are constructs or that the patriarchy was the source of all the world's problems. Ive found one LA Times article from the 90s that uses the phrase and that is about it.

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-10-21/news/vw-273_1_president-mary-robinson

Are there any other sources for this? I found one interview from Vanity Fair where she seems to vaguely allude to the subject.

“I wanted the book to be encouraging of all strands of feminism. I am totally committed to the equality of girls and women,” she told me, “but I want change from what it is,” not to “start with a feminist analysis—a more radical analysis.”

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2013/03/mary-robinson-pope-francis-reform

Unless there is some better evidence of Robinson's radfem credentials can I just change this to regular old feminist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.51.76.190 (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

ROI

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Republic of Ireland to describe the state since independence? Really? Gob Lofa (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History 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) 16:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History 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) 16:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History 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) 10:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland/Archive_1&oldid=1142763688"