Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Irish nationality law/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 May 2023 [1].

Irish nationality law

edit
Nominator(s): Horserice (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how it's almost St. Patrick's Day, I thought it'd be a good time to put this article forward for FAC. This article is about the history and regulations of Irish citizenship. Given the manner in which independence was achieved, it's interesting to observe how closely tied Ireland and Britain remained after independence and how that is reflected in nationality law. I completely rewrote the article last summer and recently took it through a GA nomination successfully (thank you Morogris). Looking forward to feedback, Horserice (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Support by Ceoil

edit

Very much Support here. The writing is crisp, clear and easy to follow: no small feat given the danger of slipping into dry and complex legalese. I also like the skillful way the evolution of the laws are intertwined with the country's ever changing relationship with the UK, giving full historical context. Only two quibble are

  • Can you explain the modern difference between Irish citizenship and nationality in the lead. - many readers will be using the article for basic advice.
  • Hmm since there isn't a practical difference, would that not be more confusing to readers? Irish law doesn't actually define the two terms separately and so I'd also struggle to think of a relevant bit to place in the lead.
  • Lead again: Although most of Ireland gained independence in 1922 - "most" is vague, maybe 26 of the 32 counties.
  • Done.

To note, the sources are all first class. The page is really well done and clearly explains the complex legal history in language clear to laymen. Ceoil (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John M Wolfson

edit

I'll get to this in the next couple days. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consider condensing or removing the third-level headers.
  • Reduced some of these headers and moved a few of them to higher levels.
  • Any particular rights of citizenship, other than abode and suffrage/officeholding?
  • Nothing exclusive to Irish citizens actually comes to mind. I could mention eligibility for the Defence Forces or welfare benefits, but those are open to all EEA citizens. It would be odd to mention things like eligibility for the House of Lords in an Irish article, but even that is open to all Commonwealth citizens and not exclusive to British/Irish citizens. Visa-free travel to other countries has nothing to do with Irish law and would not fall in scope for this article (but I will add a link in See Also). Is there anything in particular you think should be highlighted?
  • Done.

That's all from me for now. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for going through it, Horserice (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good to me; while I'm still doing some lookthroughs all I'd insist on changing at this point are the prose parentheses, either to commas or linking where appropriate. For example, change "entitled to (but not automatically granted)" to "entitled to, but not automatically granted,", "a wider British nationality (British subject status)" to "a wider British nationality" unless you think that would be an MOS:EASTEREGG and that particular wording is important, etc. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed parentheses where appropriate. I did leave the current phrasing for "a wider British nationality (British subject status)" as it is though because there's a lot of commas otherwise. Horserice (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Airship

edit

First-class article. Can find literally nothing to have a flap about; personally, I would turn the list in the honorary citizenship section into prose, but honestly either is fine. Great job. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit

Spotchecks not done

  • Formatting of FN65 doesn't match other similar sources
  • Location tag included to mark info as coming from the British Home Office. Would have included that for the Forrester source but location was already in the publisher name (US DoJ). All other similar references to Irish government sites omit this since I thought it'd be unnecessary because the default assumption should be that relevant info cited to a government source in this article indeed comes from the Irish government. Website tag included because it had an article and so it seemed appropriate to wikilink to.
  • FN88 is missing author
  • Fixed.
  • Check alphabetization of Publications
  • Fixed.
@Nikkimaria: - is this a passed source review? Hog Farm Talk 17:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments

edit
  • "Taoiseach Seán Lemass intended to award United States president John F. Kennedy with honorary citizenship". That's not grammatical. You could have 'Taoiseach Seán Lemass intended to honour United States president John F. Kennedy with honorary citizenship', or 'Taoiseach Seán Lemass intended to award United States president John F. Kennedy honorary citizenship'. I think the second option, or a variation thereof, is to be preferred.
  • Whoops, fixed.
  • Why is "Historical background information on nationality" not in title case? Similarly "The captive dominion: imperial realities behind Irish diplomacy, 1922—49"?
No, Gog is not wrong here. WP:LOWERCASE refers (only) to the titles of Wikipedia articles. The titles of works are covered by MOS:TITLECAPS. If Horserice wishes to argue that they are not works, then all such titles should be in sentence case for consistency. And a case made that they are not "works". How the originals are presented is not relevant. (Or many citations to newspaper articles would be in ALL CAPS.} Gog the Mild (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the Lowry article to title case. Since the MoS doesn't define what it considers to be a "work", I'll point to APA, which I believe distinguishes between when to use sentence case or title case by whether something is a published composition. The Home Office article says it's published for staff, and so I'd say it should not be considered a "work". Horserice (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • " Its regulations apply to the entire island of Ireland, including the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, a constituent part of the United Kingdom." This is tendentious and misleading. The Republic does not have the power to apply its regulations in NI.
  • Under the Good Friday Agreement, the British government acknowledges the right of Northern Irish residents to hold Irish citizenship. This was given effect by the 19th and 27th amendments to the Irish Constitution, and rules governing that acquisition and loss are provided for by the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1956. Since the British government has given its consent for this, I would say that the sentence as written is accurate.
  • There are rules concerning Irish citizenship acquisition that apply to Northern Ireland. How else would you describe it?
  • I would delete it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and any statement that the law of one country applies in another country would require specific acknowledgment by the country accepting that a foreign law applies in its territory. Britain is one of the many countries whick allow dual citizenship, so accepting the right of Northern Irish residents to hold Irish citizenship is just stating that a general principle applies in NI, and if an NI citizen applies for Irish citizenship he or she is subject to Irish law in that regard, just as any foreign national applying for British citizenship would be subject to British law in that regard. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me point to para 1(vi) in the Good Friday Agreement under Constitutional Issues on page 2. That clause states that people from Northern Ireland hold an entitlement to both British and Irish citizenship, regardless if either country holds sovereignty over that territory. The addition of the specific phrase "would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland" shows that both countries intended to extend the application of their nationality laws to that territory indefinitely. If NI were part of a united Ireland, British nationality law would continue to apply there as agreed upon in this treaty. Without that specific phrase, then I would be agreeing with you that Britain would have just been acknowledging a general principle of dual citizenship. Horserice (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that NI residents have a right to the nationality of both countries regardless of which has sovereignty is important and worth stating, but it is a treaty which mutually binds both countries to follow agreed rules on citizenship, not one which makes Irish law apply in NI. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the immediate period following Irish independence in 1922, Irish citizenship was a domestic status that existed as a subcategory within a wider British nationality (British subject status) applicable to all citizens of the British Empire and Commonwealth of Nations.[9] Despite Irish attempts to assert a separate nationality in the 1930s,[10] this separation was not acknowledged by Britain until 1949." I find this confusing. The first sentence commented on above seems to treat Irish law as applying in both countries, the second passage to treat British claims as applying in both. I may be misinterpreting, but these passages need clarification.
  • The British government considered all Irish citizens to be British subjects before 1949. Ireland gained independence as a Dominion in 1922, and despite attempts to break ties to the Crown during the 1930s and 1940s, this break was not definitive until 1949. I think the other areas of the article where this is already covered should be sufficient clarification, while going into full detail about that in the Terminology section will detract from the explanation of the terms citizenship and nationality.
  • You seem to be saying that Ireland was not fully independent until 1949. My understanding is that it was fully independent, but that independence was not acknowledged by Britain until 1949, which is different. This needs clarification. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ireland's membership in the Commonwealth that meant that Britain and other Dominions treated Irish citizens as British subjects. When Ireland became a republic and left the Commonwealth in 1949, Irish citizens were no longer British subjects/Commonwealth citizens. What I was referring to when I mentioned Ireland trying to break ties to the Crown is the ambiguity with its head of state from 1936 to 1949. Britain didn't acknowledge a separate Irish nationality before 1949 not because Ireland wasn't independent, but that so long as the king remained head of state in Ireland, Irish citizens were technically still British subjects under the common system of nationality as it existed during this time.
  • As it's not the focus of that part of the article, I removed that passage.
  • "Legislation clarifying citizenship acquisition was delayed due to the government's desire to negotiate an exception". You should clarify that this applies to Ireland, especially as the previous paragraph was about the whole dominions.
  • Done.
  • "This discrepancy between "Irish national" and "Irish citizen" was not resolved until legislative reform in 1956." The previous text states that the discrepancy was between nationals as defined in different Acts rather than between national and citizen.
  • Rephrased to say that the 1956 removed those separate definitions.
  • "The 1935 Irish legislation stated that marriage between an Irish citizen and foreign spouse did not affect the national status of either spouse, eroding imperial legal uniformity in this regard. New Zealand and Australia also amended their laws in 1935 and 1936 to allow women denaturalised by marriage to retain their rights as British subjects." This is ambiguous. You say that women kept their nationality under Irish law whereas (you say "also?) in NZ and Australia women were denaturalised but kept their rights. I am not sure that NZ and Aus are relevant, but if you refer to them you need to clarify what denaturalised but keeping their rights means.
  • Since a preceding sentence mentions women's rights groups lobbying across the Empire, NZ/Aus seemed relevant to include here. The effect of their regulations was to technically remove British subject status from applicable women who married foreigners, but not to strip them of any rights they otherwise would hold if not for their marriage. They remained eligible to vote, live indefinitely within NZ/Aus, could apply for passports, etc.
  • "each Commonwealth country would enact legislation to create its own nationality". It should be "nationality law".
  • Why do you think this addition is needed? Every Commonwealth country other than Canada and Ireland would have been empowered in 1949 to enact legislation to create a substantive nationality for the first time.
  • "Ireland formally declared itself a republic and removed the British monarch's remaining official functions in the Irish state in 1948, consequently ceasing to be a member of the Commonwealth after passage of the Ireland Act 1949 in the British Parliament." You say "consequently", but republics can be members of the Commonwealth now. Presumably the rules have changed and this should be clarified.
  • Added clarification.
  • "The citizenship by investment programme was operated under this authority and was not publicly advertised." How could it have aimed to lower unemployment if it was not advertised?
  • Added more context to the programme.
  • "Negotiations for the Northern Ireland peace process began between the British and Irish governments in 1991". Not in the source cited. Surely negotiations must have included the IRA?
  • I removed mention of the year and parties, and changed the source as well since the link was dead. The IRA was part of the negotiations through Sinn Fein but never officially a part of the process, and was not party to the agreement itself. In any case, they don't seem the most relevant to bring up here since their involvement does not have a direct impact on birthright citizenship.
  • "About 10,600 people were able to claim Irish residence through their Irish-born children." This is vague. Over what period and does it include people married to Irish citizens?
  • Cited different source, specified that this was under the Irish Born Child Scheme, and updated number to 17,000 per figure in later source.
  • Added a 2006 source that provides an exact number of approved applicants which is not materially different from the 2012 source ("about 17,000" is still accurate). Also added clarification that the number approved was during the application period in 2005. Horserice (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rephrased that.
@Dudley Miles: Got to these as well. Hope this pass does it. Thanks, Horserice (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Irish_nationality_law/archive1&oldid=1155616500"