Talk:Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ireland Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ireland on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the priority scale.
An image is requested for this article as its inclusion will substantially increase the significance of the article. Please remove the image-needed parameter once the image is added.

Contents

[edit] Non Aligned Movement

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)

[edit] Border with Northern Ireland

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)

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)

[edit] Present government more pro-US?

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)

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

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)
I found a better citation and put it in yesterday. Robert Brockway 21:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
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)

[edit] Proposal to move article

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. Redking7 (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


THE ARGUMENTS CONCERNING THE MOVE

The following is an excerpt from the discussion concerning the above move taking place at: at Wikipedia talk:Irish Wikipedians' notice board. The discussion also covers two other similarly proposed moves (re the civil service of the Republic of Ireland and public service of the Republic of Ireland). The following extract sets out arguments against the moves and my counter arguments:

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 these three article moves. Redking7 (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I support this article move (Foreign relations of RoI to Foreign Relations of I). I oppose the move of "Civil Service of the RoI" to CS of I since there are two civil services in Ireland. I oppose the move of Public Service in the RoI" to PS in I: I believe that there should be one article "Public Service in Ireland" article which is all-island.
[Incidentally, the "can't move because there is another article at that location" argument is invalid since, where there are two or more topics of the same name and of equal importance, we have disambiguation articles. We ought to have Ireland (island) and Ireland (state) but for some strange reason the rule that applies everywhere else in wikipedia is opposed implacably in this case). --Red King (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Very unrealistic situation

With respect guys as you know theirs a move discussion and straw poll at this page and section. In any case this section details the correct manner in which a move should be proposed. Djegan (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Its also a bit "bizarre" that one editor has decided to monopolise the discussion of the arguments for and against as such a long section is more likely to turn off all but the most serious and hardline editors on each side and therefore return a small and 50/50 type vote such as previously will almost guarantee a "no concensus". Lets be honest in this busy world if its not quick and snappy most people will ignore it - mark my words on this folks because at over 1,500 words most editors will just pass it up if it cannot be summarised in one paragraph! Djegan (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - it seems RedKing 7 recognises that the combined and already extant [[straw poll that he's aware of and involved in will end as no consensus - so is already starting off the next poll. Not on. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 00:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
With respect, my namesake is at least trying with an essay of reasonable length the case for change. However, like you, I don't see any prospect of change and to be honest I think changing the name of one minor article is no more than tokenism. I've given one of his three proposals my support, not because I think it has any chance of success, but because he has argued the case well and deserves a "seconded!". --Red King (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
But my point is that an "essay" is totally inappropriate - mind you your right it is "tokenism". I don't see any prospect of change either, not because the oppose move camp have been totally monopolised out of the discussion and represented by the (support) proposer, but because a 1,500 word "essay" would turn anyone off but the most die-hard. Djegan (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)